Dampha, thanks for your post.  I was not directing my statements to anyone in particular, but the general tone that ensued after the February conference, in D.C.  Also, I did not compare PDOIS to the UDP on the issue of the UK meeting.  Not that you said I did, but I just want to mention that for the record.  My post is strictly on the issue of a united opposition in relation to UDP and PDOIS.  In February, PDOIS stated they will consider a coalition after the first round of voting and most who want a united opposition at that conference and beyond, gave them their thoughts.  How then, can we buy this excuse from the UDP on such an important meeting to discuss that very issue.  We wanted to hear all of them, on the same platform, tell us  their position on the idea of a united opposition, not in piecemeal.  They cannot in good conscience tell us that not even a single officer of that party could come.  The fact is, UDP does not seem to want to discuss this issue with the other parties, on the same platform.  Also, the fact that the APRC sent a delegation should be all the more reason for the UDP to send in a rep.  Think about it.  PDOIS and NRP are going to be represented and at the same time they have their people on the ground monitoring the voter registration.  The UDP should do the same.  The UDP should not take us in the diaspora for granted.  If telling the truth as I see it is akin to being a "Doubting Thomas" or disrespecting UDP, then I think that is a good label.  I hate to be taken for a ride and that is the message I am extending to the UDP.  We are in this together, but that does not mean I accept an assault on my intelligence.  The burden of proof is not me, but on UDP. 

Jasseh-Conteh, thanks for your offer, however, we want a delegate from the UDP hierarchy to come and tell us their official position, which will be binding.  Their official pronouncement will once and for all put to rest this issue of a united opposition.  We have heard people on this forum pose legitimate questions regarding the fund raising effort and how they would want to know the positions of the various parties on the issue of a united opposition before they donate.  This is the chance all were waiting for and the UDP need to deliver.  I do not expect none to agree with me on this issue, but nonetheless, it's my opinion.  I therefore, I suggest that the UDP reconsider their position on this issue for it is very important to some of us.  We only ask for an official rep., not the whole party heirachy.  I rest my case.

Chi Jaama

Joe Sambou 

>From: Dampha Kebba <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: UDP delegation postpones US trip
>Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:45:59 -0400
>
>Sanusi, thank you for clarifying the situation vis-a-vis PDOIS'
>non-attendance at the London Briefing and the way it is being
>compared with
>UDP's announced intention not to attend the ALD symposium. I can
>safely say
>that I was one of the most vocal critics of PDOIS and Joseph Joof
>for their
>utterances and views about the London Briefing. Yesterday, when I
>saw UDP's
>decision, I did not harshly criticize them. Instead, what I tried to
>do was
>offer suggestions for them to try and send a representation other
>than the
>party leadership and I also inquired whether their decision to
>withdraw from
>the meeting does not mean that they were postponing talks about a
>United
>Opposition; since everyone understood that one of the major items
>during
>this trip would be to discuss forming a coalition.
>
>Bearing that in mind, I could have easily taken ownership of some of
>the
>comments on G_L insinuating that people are applying double
>standards,
>treating PDOIS one way and UDP another way. But on second thought, I
>just
>decided to ignore those comments, because like you, I know that the
>people
>that were making those comparisons were comparing apples and
>oranges. I will
>get to why I think they were comparing apples and oranges. But let
>me take
>this opportunity to make an observation here.
>
>If some people think that the way to build a coalition is to tear it
>down,
>then I am sorry to inform them that they are heading the wrong way.
>Criticism has to be constructive. It does not help the Opposition in
>anyway
>for some to claim to be members of the Opposition then turn around
>and
>ignore APRC atrocities (vices) and just focus on pointing out
>Opposition
>weaknesses without providing solutions for those weaknesses. That
>does not
>make sense. You even have people that go to the extent of endorsing
>APRC
>outfits like the IEC we all know should not be trusted. We have some
>pitting
>UDP againt PDOIS. These so-called Opposition members are always
>eager to
>point out where the Opposition is getting in wrong. Nothing is wrong
>with
>that. But be honest with your criticism and your affiliations. If
>one is
>only interested in nit-picking Opposition wrongs and highlighting
>those
>wrongs, then one is better off calling oneself an APRC supporter. If
>one
>desperately wants to call oneself an Opposition member, I suggest
>that
>person criticize the Opposition in good faith by also suggesting
>some
>solutions to the wrongs that were detected. Otherwise, people will
>have
>doubts about their claims of being genuine Opposition members.
>
>Going back to PDOIS and the London Briefing. I frankly hoped no one
>even
>brought that up again. The matter had been laid to rest by the
>parties
>involved. There is a better understanding now between the people
>that were
>involved in the matter. Sanusi, like you rightly said, most of us
>were not
>criticizing PDOIS because of their non-attendance alone. I was among
>the
>first subscribers (if not the first) to say that we should wait to
>hear
>PDOIS' reason for not attending before we jump to conclusion. What
>most of
>us were complaining about, was PDOIS' views about the importance of
>the
>meeting. PDOIS critics were on the other hand saying that the
>meeting was
>very important and should not be downplayed. Is that the situation
>here? Are
>people that are criticizing UDP now saying that UDP is downplaying
>the
>importance of the ALD symposium? All I see here is people saying
>that
>although the registration exercise is very important, UDP can
>delegate
>responsibility by sending people other than Ousainou Darboe. No one
>is
>saying that UDP is belittling the ALD, because that will be a
>blatant lie.
>
>Let us treat our leaders fairly and with respect. People that are
>jumping to
>conclusions about the United Opposition because of UDP's expected
>absence at
>the ALD, must know something I do not know. Did those people bother
>to ask
>the Movement in London that is actively working to form the
>coalition
>whether UDP wants to join the coalition or not? Did those people all
>of a
>sudden forget that UDP and NRP campaigned together in Kiang on the
>same
>platform; a de facto coalition? Let us be fair with people. Before
>we
>criticize them and make certain conclusions, let us base it on
>facts. Ask
>people to explain their positions to you before you go around
>accusing them
>of certain things.
>
>Now if we tear our leaders down, come October who is going to help
>get rid
>of Yaya? I think some people also do not understand the mechanics of
>voter
>registration. The most crucial thing here is to be present at the
>registration locations and gather evidence of illegality by ensuring
>that
>your people are not denied the right to register and also making
>sure that
>ineligible people are not registered. Once the rolls are published,
>political parties have a little window of opportunity to 'challenge'
>the
>registration of ineligible persons and to fight for the registration
>of
>their eligible supporters that were unlawfully denied the chance to
>register. Have some critics stopped to think about Ousainou Darboe's
>profession? He is going to participate actively in any court
>proceedings to
>regularize the registration process. Is it unreasonable for a
>particular
>leader (forget Darboe) to feel that if he/she is not present during
>this
>whole exercise his/her constituents will think that he/she does not
>care
>enough about them? I said 'reasonable'. Meaning people can differ in
>their
>conclusions. Do you then take that difference and make assumptions
>about
>that man's views about forming a coalition and winning votes?
>
>Did the current UDP critics know that one of the lies that APRC
>spread after
>the London Briefing was that the Opposition just went there for the
>per-diem? Those people that are now criticizing UDP, did we hear you
>defend
>our leaders against those vicious and untrue attacks? What will stop
>APRC
>and some so-called Opposition members from criticizing UDP leaders
>again by
>saying that they abandoned their people at this critical juncture in
>Gambia
>to come to the States for per-diem? Do some of us have the moral
>authority
>to castigate these people for taking a decision they think will win
>them
>more votes come October 2001 and January 2002?
>
>This is a classic example of why we were saying months ago that the
>Opposition should unite NOW. Had there been a united opposition
>months ago,
>the parties will coordinate such that when one candidate (from say
>PDOIS) is
>at a particular registration location, a UDP person would not be
>there. In
>other words, by now we should have been clear about who should be
>running.
>Doubters will have no opportunity to pit one party against the
>other. As I
>said months ago, elections are not won or loss on election day.
>Coalitions
>are not only necessary during second rounds of voting. Coalitions
>need to be
>set up in today's Gambia to ensure that there is some semblance of a
>level
>playing field long before the elections. If we do not form a
>coalition now,
>we might not even have a second round of voting. Let us think about
>some of
>the missed opportunities here. Do our leaders back home have the
>pooled
>resources to match the APRC machinery during the registration
>process?
>Whereas APRC can use government vehicles and Commissioners' offices
>(not to
>mention the new money printed by the Central Bank) to ferry their
>people to
>go and register, is the Opposition in a position to match this? Had
>there
>been a coalition in place would people not be more willing to
>contribute to
>the Opposition war chest? Had there been a coalition would the
>Opposition
>not be in a better position to manage the human resources on the
>ground
>while sending a United Opposition to the Diaspora to raise more
>funds? We
>are wasting valuable time.
>
>The situation is salvageable. But in order to solve the conundrum we
>must
>try to work with what we have at the moment. It is too late in the
>day to
>tear our people down and not help to put them back up. If we are
>just
>interested in criticizing and not offering solutions, the APRC is a
>better
>target. The morons are doing wrong and illegal things everyday. What
>is the
>point in ignoring those things and zooming onto our leaders just to
>show how
>good we are at tearing people down. We should at least have the
>decency to
>dissociate ourselves from the Opposition if the only thing we are
>after is
>to bring Opposition leaders down.
>
>Finally, let me save some of the doubting thomases in our midst
>about my
>party affiliations. I belong to no political party. I am a staunch
>proponent
>for a United Opposition. I frankly do not care whether Hamat Bah or
>Halifa
>Sallah or Ousainou Darboe is going to be our next president after
>the
>October elections. I will support anyone of them that a United
>Opposition
>chooses to run against Yaya in October. In the meantime, I will try
>and
>defend any one of them (like I would defend any real Opposition
>member) that
>I think is being attacked unjustifiably. I care less whether my
>defense of
>the UDP recently is perceived as evidence of my biased support
>towards the
>party. I know no one can honestly stand here and say that I have
>attacked
>any of our leaders unjustifiably. I have had differences in opinion
>with
>some of them and I made my views known. I respectfully listened to
>their
>side as well and buried the hatchet after the exchanges. If Hamat
>Bah is not
>embroiled in controversy, naturally I will not defend him. UDP is
>the
>current topic of discussion. So we have to talk about UDP and not
>NRP. That
>does not mean that we like UDP more than NRP or PDOIS. If anything,
>people
>should be saying that I favor NRP more because I do not ever
>remember saying
>a bad thing about them. But of course, when people want to be
>negative and
>spread lies, the last thing they do is look at things objectively
>and
>rationalize. It is in no ones interest in the Opposition to pit one
>party
>against the other. Like I said yesterday, I will not criticize any
>party for
>not attending the ALD symposium if they put forth a genuine and
>logical
>reason. Likewise, I will not criticize any party for attending the
>symposium. Both positions are consistent with having a victory in
>October.
>According to reports I saw so far, UDP is not belittling the ALD
>symposium
>or shunning the Diaspora. If I recall from Karamba's message, they
>merely
>'postponed' the visit. They will come in due course. On a final
>final note,
>I just hope that the UDP revisit Hamjatta's suggestion the other day
>about
>'Press Releases'. With all due respect to Karamba (whose efforts are
>no
>doubt very commendable; I wished I could contribute as much as he
>does in
>this fight) UDP could have done a better job explaining their
>absence. They
>could have told us what we learnt from Ebrima's Sources. In short,
>they
>should have gone further to explain to us the 'pressing local
>concern' that
>prevented them from attending. To me, their reason is very genuine
>and
>understandable, but the delivery of such was lacking. Again, I do
>not know
>what transpired between the party and the ALD organizers but I would
>have
>thought that since the party saw it fit to announce to G_L that they
>were
>coming, they should also inform G_L the reasons behind their
>withdrawal in
>the eleventh hour. It is still not late to liaise with the ALD
>organizers
>and put together a statement clarifying UDP's position vis-a-vis the
>symposium and the formation of a United Opposition.
>
>Sanusi, thanks again for your contributions. I have a slightly
>different
>take on the way forward for a government formed in the aftermath of
>a United
>Opposition victory in October. I will find time and respond to your
>post
>later today or tomorrow. Suffice for me to say that you raised some
>very
>pertinent issues that the parties need to think about as they
>negotiate for
>a United Opposition. They have to at least reach a consensus on some
>of your
>issues if they are to form the coalition.
>KB
>
>
>
>>From: Sanusi Owens <[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
>><[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: UDP delegation postpones US trip
>>Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:05:49 +0100
>>
>>Mr Ndow
>>
>>Lets not jump into conclusion. UDP initially agreed to
>>attend the Washington Forum. Unfortunately, we are now
>>told that owing to circumstances beyond their control,
>>it had to be cancelled.
>>Although it is allege that UDP postponed the trip due
>>to the on-going voter registration, people fail to
>>realise that Ousainou Darboe is currently on bail for
>>a bogus murder charge.Moreover, the case is still
>>pending in the Court of Appeal and a ruling is due
>>soon as to whether the High Court were right to grant
>>him bail. Who knows whether the state have granted him
>>clearance to travel or have refused it at the last
>>minute.
>>
>>I find it difficult to equate UDP's last minute
>>cancellation of their trip to that of PDIOS'S failure
>>to attend the London Meeting. PDIOS never regarded the
>>London Meeting as significant and even question the
>>notion of travelling to London just to brief British
>>MPS on Gambia's human rights situation. For background
>>reference please go through the Archives and read what
>>PDOIS's position on the London Meeting.
>>
>>With regards to your comments on a united opposition,
>>sorry to say but you seem to get it wrong. The UDP
>>Leader and some members of the National Executive
>>Committee have supported the idea of having a united
>>opposition.
>>
>>Mr Ndow
>>
>>If you appear to be a PDOIS sympathiser, then surely
>>please ask Halifa Sallah and Co whether they support
>>the idea of a united opposition. Up to last month,
>>PDOIS were against the idea of a united opposition
>>which in my view is quite understandable.
>>
>>On that note I would urge all those disappointed with
>>the UDP's absence to be considerate and understand the
>>situation.
>>
>>Have a wonderful day
>>
>>Sanusi
>>--- Ousman Jallow Bojang <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Mr.
>>Ndow,
>> > I am not surprised that the UDP pulled out just in
>> > less than a week to the
>> > Washington forum. I certainly cannot understand what
>> > could this be. I want to
>> > think that a political party does not have to have
>> > its leader in the country
>> > to be able to monitor the registration process.
>> > Anyway, it is very true that our country and
>> > democracy is at stake here. Our
>> > nation I understand is filled with so many
>> > foreigners, and being surrounded
>> > by Senegal, registration of voters is probably the
>> > most important thing right
>> > now. I just do not know how come the UDP did not
>> > knew about this before
>> > making any commitments. And if the other parties can
>> > send in their leader or
>> > a delegation, why not the UDP?
>> > There must be more to this than just the
>> > registration. That is my take of it,
>> > but hey, who am I to make that 'assumption'?
>> > When PDOIS failed to attend the London meetings, the
>> > noise was above the
>> > roof, but now that it is the UDP, it is a different
>> > refereeing. I have made
>> > my conclusion since that the UDP does not want a
>> > United Opposition, and I can
>> > assure you that they will not call for such. Knowing
>> > how and when the UDP was
>> > formed, I can make this conclusion very strongly.
>> >
>> > Ousman Jallow Bojang.
>> >
>> >
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>Do You Yahoo!?
>>Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
>>or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>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.
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------