Hi Kebba! Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posting. Before going further, I need to register the fact that out of respect not only for myself, the members of the L and you, I shall ignore the context in which you used some words. I shall also for the benefit of carrying out a healthy debate refuse to debate in a manner that would negatively impact on the serious and important topic that we are dealing with. Those things aside, please allow me to respond to some of the issues you raised. You wrote: "Buharry, are you really serious when you ask us to come to Gambia_L and tell the whole world how we are going to overthrow Yaya?" Where did I ask you to go into the mechanics of how you are going to remove Yaya? What I asked was whether you had anything apart from empty rhetoric to convince people to rally behind you. A simple yes would have sufficed because I am not in any position to check the veracity of your statements. You can tell me that you have 100 million Dollars stashed somewhere, piles of arms and ammunition piled somewhere and whatever you want or you can tell me that you have absolutely nothing. I would only have to take your word for it because I am not in any position to verify what you say. Like I wrote earlier, the beauty of the cyber identity is that one can be anyone or possess whatever one wants. I would not expect you to detail how you are going to overthrow Yaya on this very L where all kinds of government agencies are subscribed. That would not be too bright of me now. Would it? You also wrote: "Childish challenges will not also prompt us to go to Gambia unprepared. So, save yourself. We have nothing to prove to you or your likes." Like I stated in the beginning, I shall not respond to this in a way that would derail the debate or in a way that would display disrespect on my part. You have nothing to prove to my likes or me? Have I become different just because I posted something that once differs from your point of view? Just a few weeks ago you wrote: "Buharry,Thank you very much for your contributions". So now I have become "those people"? If you have nothing to prove to my likes and me why did you come to Gambia-L to propagate your cause? There are hundreds of my likes listed here. Why have you time and again solicited contributions from members to draw a program for your cause? Why did you get irate when the hundreds of my likes refused to contribute because of our conviction that violence isn't the only way to bring about change, that there are other methods that should be explored to the fullest but have not as yet been? You wrote: "What kind of pressure on Yaya are you talking about?" There are endless varieties of pressures that can be brought to bear. In "Peace through Sanctions?" Recommendations for German UN Policy, Manford Kulsessa and Dorethee Starck list the following types of sanctions most of which can in my opinion be effectively applied to The Gambia. The types of sanctions are: - Diplomacy where there is closure or a reduction of diplomatic missions, ban on entry of officials or exclusion from international organizations. - Transport where there is a ban on air, sea and suspension of rail and road traffic. - Communications where post and telecommunications are suspended. - Development co-operation where post and telecommunications are suspended. - Military where military co-operation is terminated and an arms embargo is instituted. - Finance where there is a ban on foreign assets and a ban on financial transfers. - Trade where embargos and boycotts are instituted. - Criminal justice where criminal proceedings are instituted against individuals in international tribunals. David Cortright and George A. Lopez point out in Carrots, Sticks and Co-operation: Economic Tools of Statescraft how the US maintained an "outer wall" of sanctions by among other things blocking Belgrade's membership in international organizations. In Nigeria under Abacha, the US banned all arms sales to the country and expanded its ban on US visas for the junta and its supporters. The EU imposed an arms embargo; travel restrictions and a sports boycott while the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group suspended it from membership. In the same book, the authors discussed how an Institute for International Economics study shows that of all the types of sanctions available, financial sanctions were the most effective. Measures such as "the freezing of foreign assets, the cancellation of debt rescheduling, the withholding of credits and loans, and restrictions on travel, commerce and communications" were shown to be very effective in bringing a regime to its knees especially when that state is weak. So you see Mr. Dampha, there are various types of pressure that can be brought to bear. You also wrote: "What would you do if he rigs the next elections?" The art of applying and maintaining pressure is to be both proactive and reactive. Proactive in that one has to have a hands-on approach and thoroughly analyse the situation and predict what the opponent is going to do. That way one can put measures into place to discourage him/her from doing it. Reactive in that one needs to quickly react when the feared situation arises preferably with contingency measures that were already designed. Pressure can therefore be brought against Yaya before the elections to ensure that the elections are fair and regulated and pressure can be brought if he rigs the elections. Remember the short travel advice of the British and the impact it had on the tourism sector? You further wrote: "Well we would rather not put the Gambians in that position in the first place." Wow! Thanks for your concern. However, I believe that the alternative you are proposing has the potential to put them in a far worse position than what you are rejecting. You also wrote: "So am being led to the conclusion that some of you people have been blinded by your egos. You perhaps had previously gone on record saying that you would never support violence. So because of that, things that should be glaring before your eyes would read something else to you. Get off your high horses and join the struggle." Excuse me, Sir! Egos? High horses? C'mon, man. Whose ego is getting the best of whom here? Can you understand that some of us truly believe in a non-violent solution to Gambia's problems? Is it strange to you? Are you demanding that we see things exactly as you do? Isn't that a bit too dictatorial on your part sir? I reverse your contention that I get off my high horses back to you. I think you should come down to the ground and join the rest of us who know that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. That is the basis of democracy, the democracy you are planning to institute in The Gambia. Who told you that I am not in the struggle? Just because I do not propagate violence does not mean that I am not in the struggle. The struggle is a multi-faceted enterprise. Do you truly believe that I would stick to a position just for the sake of being afraid of changing it because people would see me in a different light? C'mon sir. I flatteringly like to think of myself as a dynamic, humble and willing-to-learn person. I have many a time even on this L changed my position because someone put in better arguments. Accepting the superiority of other ideas when they are is the essence of learning and I am a learner. You also wrote: "You should know about the struggles of ANC. Did Nelson Mandela, Oliver Thambo and the senior Mbeki just sit down and wait for nonexistent election victories or put all their faith in the hands of the international community? No. They bombed the South African government. " I know not only about the struggles of the ANC but that of South Africa. You see I like to consider myself to be a Pan-Africanist. I considered the ANC a sell out during my college days because of their approach. I was more impressed by the PAC's "one settler, one bullet" approach. I read so many books about the South African struggle. One of my best friends in college was the son of Malinga, one of the founders of the PAC who died in prison. I was very much against Mandela's concessionary stance when he became president but after analysing the situation, I was converted. I realised that Mandela's stance was more practical and was better for South Africa because another approach would have meant bloodshed and unwanton destruction. For you to truly believe that South Africa got rid of Apartheid ONLY because the ANC was bombing targets within South Africa is truly amazing. Do you underestimate the impact that sanctions had? External sanctions coupled with the civil resistance campaign of the UDF helped to bring about sweeping political transformation. You wrote: "Oliver Thambo was in exile running the ANC machinery.Did South Africans say that they were not going to listen to his calls for self-defense because he did not live in South Africa? Did they say that they were only going to listen to people like Desmond Tutu or sell-outs like Buthelezi? So my friend, it is not about where you live, it is about what you bring to the table." The ANC machinery was already in place before he went into exile. I believe that one can make a positive impact wherever one is. One can also make devastating prescriptions knowing fully well that one is sheltered from the repercussions. If you truly believe that you can make a positive contribution from wherever you are without jeopardising our country, power to you. You also wrote: "Not with our lives as you might have preferred. We tried diplomatic and constitutional means and they did not work." Mr. Dampha, let me state here that I am NOT your enemy. I would not want you to lose your life. You are a Gambian like all other Gambians and it is because of my concern for Gambians that I am concerned about the repercussions of the approach you preach. I do not want violence in my country because violence would lead to loss of lives and that is the last thing I want. Could you please furnish us with the diplomatic and constitutional means you tried so that they can be established to be unworkable? You wrote: "I contribute more than you do in trying to make sure that the culprits of the massacres face justice." Power to you, my brother. Who said that I contribute more than you do? This is not a competition. I am sincerely glad to learn that "you are doing a lot to make sure that the culprits of the massacres face justice." That is what I also want and to see that you have contributed to this cause truly makes me happy. You further wrote: "What we have a problem with is people that limit our options or give priority to options that are clearly unworkable." So you have a problem with people having a different approach to a problem? You call Yaya a dictator. Why? Isn't it because he too has a problem with people who have different approaches? You wrote: "Like I said yesterday (keep repeating myself. But I will gladly do so until it sinks into your heads)" Please, please do. Some of us, especially me, are not that clever. So you might definitely have to keep hammering home your point before it sinks. I was not blessed to be as clever as you. You wrote: "Why don't you want to believe that if a bloodless coup can be pulled in 1994 another one can be pulled in 2000?" Let's make a deal here. I believe that a bloodless coup can be pulled off. Do you believe that one or more factors can interfere with your "bloodless coup" and turn it into a disaster? Things can always go wrong even in the most planned of events. You wrote: "If you were attacked by a wild animal today and you have a loaded gun in your hand, would you opt to extend your hand to it in the name of diplomacy or would you blow its brains out?" That depends. If it happens in a vacuum, that is, I am alone with the animal; I would gladly blow its brains out. However, as I said earlier, events you are prescribing won't happen in vacuum and there are a lot of people who might get hurt in the process. The situation by the way is not as acute as to leave the options you painted in your scenario. There are still some options that can be explored. You further wrote: "If your principles of non-violence are so dear to your heart that you do not want to join us, fine with us. But please do not demoralize our people back home by telling them that the ballot box is the only means Yaya can be removed from office." Why can't you believe that I also want the best thing to happen to The Gambia? We might have different prescriptions for solving our country's problems but that does not make us enemies. The solution to The Gambia's problems as mentioned earlier is multi-pronged and all on the various fences should not consider each other enemies. Where did I say that the ballot box is the only way of removing Yaya? You further wrote: ". people like me have recently called upon the UDP supporters to arm themselves and not let their guard down during the coming campaign season. We are not calling upon you to leave your cozy existence in Europe to go fight in The Gambia neither are we calling upon your unarmed civilian brothers to go and confront Yaya." I ask you where those people are going to get the arms. I further ask you where they are going to get licences for those arms because you surely wouldn't want them to face heavily armed security personnel with stones, sticks etc.? The civilian UDP supporters you are calling upon to be armed and confrontational are my fellow Gambians and brothers and sisters. For your information, I am not living a cosy existence. I am hustling man, like most Gambians abroad. You also wrote: "What do you want us to tell the UDP? To lie down and let BaaBaa Jobe walk all over them? Or like some of your heroes, pretend that nothing undeserving happened to the UDP entourage? Or like others, pretend that this was not orchestrated by Yaya and his bunch of bandits? We would continue to advocate the removal of Yaya through violent means until pacifists like you come up with better means of removing him. If you are waiting for your heroes on the ground to advocate the removal of Yaya through violent means, then you will never see that and therefore you will never be a convert." No. No. No. Who is pretending that nothing happened to the UDP? Who is talking about letting Baba Jobe walk over the UDP? The very presence of the American and UK ambassadors in the area where the UDP entourage was held played a significant part in their release. Pressure, man, pressure. If pressure is strategically courted and applied, the results might amaze you. BTW, who are my heroes on the ground? You also wrote: "The way you help the situation, is to do like Colly, Saul , Matarr and others and expose Baabaa Jobe and Yaya for the cowards they are and urge UDP to be more vigilant." That is not the only way to help the situation. That is one of various ways to help and I say thanks to those mentioned for providing the information because it is really revealing. I am not saying that the UDP should not be vigilant. What I am saying is that the UDP should not send 10 hens to fight 100 lions. You finally wrote: ".send a silly petition to the international community." Thanks for sharing your views on how you see our petition. However, that petition, the demonstrations around the world, the action of people on the ground played an important part in bringing the events of April to the attention of the international community. There you see, pressure sir. Thanks and sorry for such a long posting. Buharry. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------