Mr. Colly, point well made. As numerous people have stated, no one in the
Opposition wins when our leaders lash out at each other. I hope Mr. Halifa
Sallah will take your explanation in good faith. I was tempted on Friday to
point out to him that your main focus as far as the Meeting was concerned,
was to unmask the APRC stalwarts. But I thought it would be better if the
two of you settle whatever differences you might have on your own. Secondly,
I had already made a private decision to stop commenting on Party Politics
and the inter-party squabbles certain people are fond of engaging in on G_L.
I had decided to instead focus on Yaya and his gang rather than dwelling on
whether Ousainou Darboe, Halifa Sallah or Hamat Bah is a better leader. To
me it does not matter who among those three leads us after October 2001. I
know you feel the same too.

I would still have gone ahead and refrained from commenting on our
Opposition leaders after reading your piece, because I feel that you
adequately explained your position to Mr. Sallah. You were merely narrating
what you SAW and HEARD. You did NOT try to make up anything. But the reason
I decided to comment is to appeal to you publicly to resume your invaluable
narratives about the July 22, 1994 'coup'. Mr. Colly, the casual G_L reader
might not know, but certain people know the efforts put in by many
(including your humble self) for months to try and get the ball rolling on
your narratives. It is very important that the average Gambian knows what
happened to put us in the predicament we are in today. It is important that
the average Gambian knows the true colors of the thugs holding our country
to ransom. There is simply no one with the wherewithal or the commitment to
put the record straight as you do. As you know, efforts were made in the
past and continue to be made to get other soldiers to come out and tell
their stories like you are doing. Some have decided to embark on other
useful projects for the struggle; which is fine. You volunteered among other
things to come to G_L and unmask the Devils that stole our country.

As attested by (local Gambian) public reaction to your revelations, what you
are saying is very important. People are eager to read 'Ebou Colly's next
piece'. I mean decent people. Of course the vermin and people with skeletons
in their closets do not want to read your revelations. We have to continue
with the tunnel vision of getting rid of Yaya. Along the way, there will be
numerous detractors with various agendas. Our task is to attribute to those
distractions the contempt they deserve. I am not advocating for you to
ignore attacks you think are unjustified. What I am trying to say is that
those 'attacks' should not make you lose sight of the big prize. I find
disturbing your willingness to suspend your exposes and instead 'engage' Mr.
Sallah. Engage Mr. Sallah if you have to, but please do NOT deprive the
Gambian public 'Ebou Colly's next installment'. Again, I hope everyone
realize that Yaya and his cohorts are the enemy. They are the ones that are
currently slaughtering innocent and defenseless Gambians. They are the ones
illegally incarcerating innocent Gambians. They are the ones that are
currently looting our government coffers. They are the ones that are
currently disgracing the Gambians in the international community.

It pains me when I see clowns and self-promoters come on G_L and fantasize
about FUTURE atrocities UDP MIGHT inflict on non-Mandinkas if and when UDP
wins an election in the country. But Mr. Colly, instead of anger, I feel
pity for these misguided elements and I also feel sorry for our people on
the ground that are suffering the brunt of Yaya's atrocities. Everyday I
read G_L and other publications and talk to certain Gambians, it becomes
clearer to me that our salvation lies away from the ballot box. All the more
reason why you should continue on your program.

I hope that Gambians will be reading 'Ebou Colly's COUP IN GAMBIA SEVEN'
next Weekend. Thanks again for your invaluable contributions.
KB



>From: ebou colly <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Halifa_Sallah's_Reply_To_Ebou_Colley_-_Coup_In_The_Gambia_
>          Six
>Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:58:55 -0700
>
>MR. SALLAH
>To be frank with you Mr. Sallah, I hate hurting
>people's feelings for no good reason. Therefore for a
>while after reading your piece on me, highlighted by
>angry remarks from what you said was my distortion of
>the fact you presented in the Bronx a couple of weeks
>ago, I thought I should have simply written back few
>statements apologizing for what I thought was mere
>misunderstanding.  Anyway after a second review of
>your article I came to realize that I had nothing to
>apologize for after all.
>In the first place, Mr. Sallah, I still don't know how
>you missed it but my article was not in anyway written
>to report the cause or effect of the symposium held in
>the Bronx. I don't think there is a need for me to say
>it but I will still go ahead and state it anyway; that
>the central theme of my piece was the sixth part of
>the narrative I have been writing about on the 1994
>coup in The Gambia.
>My presence at that meeting was of minimal
>significance to what you have come to present about
>your party's doctrine in the USA. Anyway I'm glad that
>you mentioned Manding Darbo. He was one person who was
>aware of my presence at the meeting and could
>therefore bear me witness that I arrived there after
>10:00 p.m. and left barely an hour later. As a result
>given the fact that that was the only session of yours
>I attended since your arrival, I could not have been
>in that position of authority in anyway to criticize
>your party's efforts to be better understood here.
>When I walked into that hall that day, I found Mr.
>Darbo on his feet addressing the audience
>From what I understood you had, by then, already given
>your keynote address. Perhaps that was the time when
>you presented that comprehensive breakdown of your
>party's economic strategies with regards to the
>damnable economic mismanagement that has rendered The
>Gambia chronically indebted and the solution you
>theoretically had for it. I only read about most of
>that in your piece written from an ill-conceived
>judgement. Without doubt when the coalition topic was
>raised you gave a protracted analysis of the important
>factors to be considered against the background of
>what you called a tactical instrument which was
>paramount in Senegal's last presidential election.
>Politically, in your discussion you certainly talked
>about the coalition format of the P.S., Gibo Kah's
>party and that of Niasse's all to, of course, to rub
>in your point that a coalition was better ventured
>into in the second and not first round of presidential
>election. Economically I also heard you talking about
>the disadvantage of capitalism when "11% of the labor
>force in The Gambia is employed by the formal sector
>comprising of the public, 'parastatals' and private
>sector". To buttress your public-run enterprises you
>briefly explained how a PDOI government would exploit
>the fishing industry by buying fishing trawlers and
>building fish-processing plants and hiring Gambians to
>work there. That was all I could account for in what
>you, Mr. Sallah, had said about the coalition agenda.
>I will come to that later.
>Anyway in that Bronx hall, after Mr. Darbo's speech,
>which he delivered in English and Mandinka, it was
>followed by the introduction of the executive members
>of the NY movement who made the meeting possible. And
>then came the question and answer time from the
>audience.
>  If I am not mistaken it was after one or two persons
>spoke that Mr. Saul Mbenga came up with the question
>of the controversial coalition. Roughly twenty minutes
>later I was on my way home especially after realizing
>to my great disappointment that the prospect of
>opposition-party coalition for The Gambia's
>presidential election, something I strongly desired,
>had little chance of materializing, thanks to PDOIS'
>intransigence.
>So you see Mr. Sallah, you could notice that I was not
>necessarily in tune with all the economic theories you
>highlighted apart from the ones you mentioned in that
>short period between when the coalition question was
>asked and when I left the hall for home. As I said
>earlier I did not hear all those grandiose economic
>theories you said you discussed or argued about from
>Washington to New York.
>Here I would again remind you that my article was far
>from a report of the Bronx meeting but the sixth part
>of my series on the coup in the Gambia with the
>limited mention of my experience in that hall that
>day. Evidently my focal subject was the APRC loyalist
>often disguised in our midst as typified by those two
>elements I surely resented so much.
>Anyway it certainly went beyond that when I also
>decided to discuss for mainly the consumption of the
>Lers what I understood to be a serious obstacle in
>this issue of opposition coalition that had been a
>critical subject of interest to most of them. From
>what I understand, it was the dream of most of us that
>the opposition parties in The Gambia will, come
>October, put all their differences apart, political,
>economic or philosophical and form a unified front to
>get rid of Yaya Jammeh. Just like you put it in your
>closing statements about the wrongs committed by Yaya
>to the Gambian nation, he is definitely the worst
>thing that has ever happened to our country and the
>need to wipe him out should be prioritized over any
>individual party's hopes or aspirations. It was
>therefore our belief in the Diaspora that the
>opposition parties coming together NOW would
>tremendously help in this effort. Anything otherwise,
>I personally feared would put the country in that
>hopeless situation where we might end up with Yaya
>defiantly persecuting one group of opposing forces to
>the other while some others frantically search for
>nonexistent answers in the prostituted constitution or
>in the useless office of the chief justice. I hope you
>could relate to what I am driving at.
>So Mr. Sallah, I hope you now got it clear that I was
>not trying to reduce all that you had said "to a
>defense of a state-controlled economic system. Nor was
>I showing my little respect for fact and objectivity.
>By referring to those two elements against the
>background of your statement that seemed to anger you
>so much might be inappropriate on my side, but
>certainly it did not mean that I had "little taste for
>facts and much taste for fiction". I think you were
>unnecessarily hard on me my friend.
>It is pitiful that your party spent over D20, 000.00
>for the long travel to the USA just for you to go back
>with only $500.00. And too bad still that some
>Washingtonians robbed you of more money by taking your
>party's paraphernalia without giving you a dime. If
>they really knew that the items were for your party's
>fund raising but chose to ignore that, then I think
>you have the right to call it a foul. But if they were
>not informed by anyone then the blame should be
>redirected to a different target. Anyway I don't know
>why me. By the way, was it that those who invited you
>to come gave you the impression that substantial
>amount of money was awaiting  you to receive after all
>that huge expense to come to the US? I could have
>never known.
>Anyhow Mr. Sallah let's move on. When I read your
>piece on me, I was surprised by the degree of
>sincerity you said guided your line of argument on the
>subject.  "I spoke with sincerity and fairness", you
>emphatically stated.  Then down the line after you
>said you argued about the critical issues surrounding
>the possibility of a coalition in the first round of
>voting you wrote: "I did not want the discussion to
>degenerate into argument. I therefore posed the
>question as to what formulae Darbo had in mind for the
>selection of the presidential candidate". Did that
>really mean that you were not necessarily interested
>in that question or its answer but only made to divert
>the trend of discussion to avoid argument, as you put
>it? If so then the level of our honest appreciation of
>the situation must have been ludicrous.
>Then you further wrote: "At that point any competent
>observer would be able to read from Darbo's words that
>when he was talking about an "electable" candidate he
>did not have any formulae in mind for the coalition to
>select its candidate".
>I may be an incompetent observer but as far as I could
>observe, Mr. Darbo's reaction showed me that the
>selection of a presidential candidate should not be
>the main obstacle to the coalition and could be worked
>out after an agreement was struck in principle. After
>all I don't think Mr. Saul Mbenga who asked the
>original question or any of those who were listening
>for answers expected you or Mr. Darbo to be fully
>prepared for all the answers especially on that very
>sensitive question.
>Anyway up to the time I left the hall neither you nor
>Mr. Darbo presented any formula for selecting the
>candidate. I was however surprised to read what you
>wrote here: "For example, PDOIS's presidential
>candidate would easily accept being a president for
>one year to restore all the constitutional provisions
>that are reasonable and justifiable in a democratic
>society.  Strengthening the IEC, open up the media and
>then call for another presidential election after
>creating the constitutional machinery for that to take
>place in a year after assuming office. In that case
>the people would have made an undiluted choice. Such
>formulae are bases for coalition. We can go on and on.
>Other parties may also come up with their own
>formulae."
>Now Mr. Sallah, it seemed that you were really talking
>here. Although your statement tend to refer to what a
>PDOIS presidential candidate would do after
>immediately assuming office, my instincts, after
>evaluating your last sentences here made me conclude
>that this is exactly the fundamental terms and
>conditions your party would want to settle for in a
>coalition bid.
>I did not however stay at the Bronx hall to the end of
>the meeting but since you thought Mr. Darbo was
>unprepared for a coalition formula while you were, I
>hope by all that sincerity and honesty you had
>claimed, you did present your conditions as you had
>done in your article. If not, why? After all that
>might have triggered Mr. Darbo into airing out his
>views too. But to categorically think that Mr. Darbo
>had had no formula in mind that day for the coalition
>to select a candidate is absolutely baffling. Anyway
>looking at the reason you said was the purpose of
>asking for formulae for a coalition, the real issue
>was not honestly being discussed. You said you were
>merely trying to avoid things degenerating into an
>argument. I did not know that the seemingly good
>rapport between the two of you was that tense.
>Pure capitalism and pure socialism! This is another
>issue you seemed to have blown out of proportion Mr.
>Sallah making it sound as if I did not know what I was
>talking about. When I used the word pure here I meant
>it to only emphasize my point, like you did when you
>talked about undiluted choices. Anyway I know that
>socialism or capitalism could not be pure or impure
>equally as choices could not be diluted or undiluted.
>However when in the middle of the coalition discussion
>you mentioned that your party believed in socialism
>while the other parties did not and even branded Mr.
>Hamat Bah as a self-proclaimed capitalist with Mr.
>Darbo also standing firm in the economic policy of his
>party, I felt the ultimate crash in my hopes for a
>coalition. My mention of the incompartibility of the
>two rival systems was a derivative from what the
>originators of socialist philosophy had taught mankind
>about it since at the beginning. Marx, Angel, Lenin,
>Mao, Kim IL Sung, Kwame Nkrumah, from the founding
>fathers to the active propagators of the obsolete
>philosophy, these men for ages had confidently
>promoted the belief that man as a social and economic
>being was in the process of evolving for the
>ultimately great economic system. It was stated in
>Dialectical Materialism that man's first settlement
>after the roaming clan, naturally adopted the economic
>system of communalism. And after a while, that system
>evolved into feudalism which eventually gave way to
>capitalism. And capitalism by their standards was
>defined as the last stage of the old developmental
>pattern, which would come to an end, not by evolution
>this time but by revolution. One of the most popular
>but highly erroneous concepts of the true believers
>was that capitalism was going be the master of its own
>destruction when its time to disintegrate had arrived.
>It was said that as a result of its economic growth
>pattern, the rich would continue to be richer while
>the poor got poorer until a revolution by the masses
>forced the few privileged ones at the top to come down
>and be replaced by the dictatorship of the
>proletariat. Of course the reality of the existence of
>a viable middle class as part of the capitalist class
>equation that would maintain the system at where it
>was estimated to collapse never occurred in the minds
>of those so-called great thinkers. However their
>utopian economic emancipation was defined as a
>wonderful society where everybody would be equal,
>everyone employed, each working according to his
>ability and earning according to his needs. Yet
>individual difference or ability was not given much
>weight.
>I believe that George Owel's satirical novel, Animal
>Farm showed us all the shortcomings, contradictions,
>and above all the imminent failure of such an
>unnatural system.
>  It was a system meant to function under a
>state-controlled economy with no tolerance for
>anything capitalistic. Certainly the system has been
>dying since the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1991,
>the first country to implement it after the Russian
>Revolution of 1917 and hopelessly tried to perfect it
>for decades. Nevertheless, there are still few
>die-hard believers who would not give it up, perhaps
>because of old chronic habits.
>Therefore when Mr. Sallah stated that his party was
>socialistic in principle which should be put under
>consideration in the coalition issue and further
>specified on Mr. Hamat Bah's capitalistic views, I did
>not know that he had in mind another socialism
>different from the originally prescribed order. That
>was why I said that with Mr. Dardo and Mr. Hamat Bah
>echoing similar sentiments in the economic system of
>capitalism, they would not be able to mix with PDOIS
>for those obvious reasons.
>Now to my surprise again, Mr. Sallah has come up to
>tell me that their socialism, which we are yet to
>experience its practicability, is something else. And
>he seemed to confidently think that it could solve
>Gambia's economic problems just like that. Did we not
>witness how nature or God interfered with the master
>plan of the North Koreans, one of the most organized
>socialist countries before.?
>So Mr. Sallah you could see that I was not bringing
>any new concepts when I mentioned pure socialism and
>pure capitalism not mixing, but I also did not know
>that the obsolete socialism once propagated by the
>Marxists could come in another form and still being
>called socialism. I would love to see that text of
>yours you talked about with Saja Taal. Perhaps that
>would enlighten me about the socialism you are talking
>about.
>Anyway how could you say that Mr. Darbo's economic
>program was in conflict with what he said the other
>day about subsidizing the female farmers in their
>gardening projects?  I don't think capitalism forbids
>state-funded projects especially when it comes to
>subsidizing the ordinary farmer's efforts.
>However regardless of all the denial in your spoken
>and written words, at the end of the day I seriously
>think that you are the very one who is anti-coalition
>but don't want to admit it up front.
>Listen to your self here again: "Reflecting on the
>NRP-UDP Kiang coalition…do we conclude that the APRC
>is popular or do we conclude that there is a need for
>a third force that would be able to earn the
>confidence of the people to up root the APRC"?
>As far as I am concerned, the Kiang scenario does not
>demand a third force as such to up root the APRC.
>Instead the Kiang situation was the learning
>experience for the opposition parties to be prepared
>to face the APRC with all the resources and ideas they
>could muster together to get rid of Yaya in the first
>round. Yaya should never be allowed to win the first
>round, come rain come storm.
>In conclusion Mr. Sallah read what you wrote here
>again: "Those who sincerely want change in The Gambia
>should encourage the party of your choice to do its
>best and not undermine others who are doing their
>best. This is the code of conduct that all those who
>want change should adopt".
>I don't know how you equated our ability to read and
>comprehend written words but Mr. Sallah, it is glaring
>that coalition is the last thing you want to go for if
>ever you would want to.
>But please can you do me one favor? Can you please add
>limitation of term of office for the presidency in
>your host of formulae for the top seat? If I have the
>opportunity to communicate to Mr. Darbo and Mr. Bah I
>will ask for the same favor. It is my conviction that
>transparency and accountability is still the key to
>good governance; and this could only be obtained when
>presidents understand in their heads that they will be
>going at a known time the very day they assumed
>office, preferably in a period of two terms of five
>years only. Let's say ten years maximum!
>If the president is genuinely accountable to the
>people who elected him, everything about checks and
>balances will automatically fall in its proper place.
>I am not going to say bye, because I know your
>endurance to go toe to toe for the final knockout; but
>hey, I think I can suspend my weekly series on the
>coup and engage you all the way to the last round.
>So hope to hear from you soon, body.
>Greetings!
>
>Ebou Colly.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------