Are you still Lamin Konobaa Cham
???Baba
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: [>-<] Kony is only one part of Uganda Crisis
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:42:26 +0000
Baba I share the views and agree with everything in this article.The article is well up to the point. Museveni is power hungry, greedy and selfish. He is the biggest problem in East Africa now. He formed and launched the Present regime in Rwanda and invaded DR Congo. When he came to power the world embraced him because at least he provided durable stability and security which had been lacking Under Obote"s two presidential tenures not to talk about Idi Amin's reign of Terror. He was seen to be intelligent and progressive. But alas, once he tasted power, Museveni changed and infact put in place a system of one party state ironically called a model democracy withn in his NRM and only reluctantly agreed to multi- party democracy. Joseph Kony is bad but it is people like Museveni who forced this kind of people to take up arms. You see here is bit of history of President Museveni to know where he came from . He was an intelligent officer at State house during Obote's first regime and fled with him to Tanzania when Amin, through the help of the British kicked out obote in 1971. He was helped by Obote, who had always admire him to reorganise his life and even picked up a job in Tanzania and was a key member of a group of exile Ugandan soldiers Obote organized , who later coupled with Tanzanian troops to topple Amin in 1979. But Museveni himself had always nurse presidential ambitions and so he turned against his master and mentor , Apollo Milton Obote and took up arms following his defeat by the latter in the December 1980 elections which alleged was rigged in Obote's favour
He was lucky Obote's best military leader Oyit Ojok died and the remaining army leaders toppled him for the second time in 1985. By that time Museveni has given up the fight and ran to Sweden.Only the lack of cordination and cohesion in the army following Obote's depature help Museveni to tactfully exploit the situation and cruised to kampala in on January 26, 1986. Today , is became the longest serving President of East Africa and Uganda in particular and Africa in general.He was accepted by the West yes because he pretended he was anti- communist when in fact he was well indoctrinated with Obote's anti imperialist doctrine in the 60s.
You see Baba this is the second person Obote used to admire and groomed who later turned out to be a disaster. Idi Amin was the first one. Only that he did not have the brains that make Museveni a survivor.
Cham
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: [>-<] Kony is only one part of Uganda Crisis
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:18:01 -0700
The writer is an assistant professor of African history at Creighton University. He is formerly a journalist from The Gambia, West Africa.
There is a growing, almost global movement to capture and try Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony for crimes against humanity.
Indicted by the International Criminal Court in October 2005, Kony has so far evaded capture and continues to terrorize civilians, especially children, in war-ravaged northern Uganda.
Yes, Kony needs to be stopped. But Kony's capture will not end Uganda's political crisis, because Kony is just one side of the Ugandan problem. The other, more insidious side is President Yoweri Museveni.
In power since January 1986, Museveni is Africa's "darling" of the West. He had scored major successes against HIV/AIDS and brought some economic stability to Uganda. His government was touted as one of the most democratic in Africa, even though there were no rival parties to challenge his rule and no limits to how many times he could seek re-election. As long as Museveni kept the Communists out, Uganda was a model of democracy.
It was in appreciation of his sterling democratic credentials that Museveni was welcomed into the Ronald Reagan White House in October 1987. He has since been a regular visitor to the White House. He met with George H.W. Bush in October 1990, with Bill Clinton in June 1994 and with George W. Bush in June 2003, June 2004 and September 2008.
America considers Museveni a paragon of democracy in Africa in spite of his very poor human rights record — well documented in U.S. State Department reports. Periodic multi-party elections in Uganda since 1996 are cited in Western capitals as evidence of Museveni's dedication to democracy.
So why, you may ask, do Ugandans keep re-electing Museveni if they did not like him? Well, here's part of the answer: African presidents win elections not necessarily because people like them but because, among other reasons, Africa's political culture remains largely unchanged from the precolonial days.
Most Africans consider presidents the way their ancestors considered kings and chiefs — as God-ordained and therefore perpetually legitimate rulers. In many African societies, opposition to the president is considered opposition to the divine will.
Indeed, political opposition is believed to have originated in Satan's opposition to God in the Bible and Koran. Because there is no word for "president" in African languages, African presidents are termed kings or chiefs, a misnomer they visibly encourage.
Of course, there's always the tired argument about Africa being different from the West and the dangers of imposing Western democracy on African societies. I contend that democracy does not belong to any particular region of the world.
The rights associated with democratic governance — respect for human rights and the rule of law, the right to frequent and orderly changes of leadership, the right to freedom of expression and association, the right to hold one's government accountable — are human rights, not Western rights. Unless Africans are considered subhuman, they should enjoy all political rights enjoyed by Westerners.
Truth, justice and fair play do not belong solely to the West. The terms of the social contract between rulers and the ruled should be observed in any nation-state — even when, as in Africa, most people are not aware that this social contract exists and that they are the true repositories of political power.
Western republics should be asking the following:
What discontent caused the revolt against the Museveni government by Kony's Lord's Resistance Army?
Why should Museveni repeatedly contest and win elections in Uganda to the exclusion of political opponents as well as members of his own ruling party?
Is Museveni the only person capable of leading Uganda?
Does Uganda qualify as a democracy when it has been ruled by one man for the past 26 years?
Would a regime like Museveni's be called democratic if it existed in the West?
The efforts to end Kony's atrocities are certainly worthwhile, but getting Kony will merely cure the symptoms of a disease whose causes lie in Museveni's one-man rule.
That, too, needs to end.
He was lucky Obote's best military leader Oyit Ojok died and the remaining army leaders toppled him for the second time in 1985. By that time Museveni has given up the fight and ran to Sweden.Only the lack of cordination and cohesion in the army following Obote's depature help Museveni to tactfully exploit the situation and cruised to kampala in on January 26, 1986. Today , is became the longest serving President of East Africa and Uganda in particular and Africa in general.He was accepted by the West yes because he pretended he was anti- communist when in fact he was well indoctrinated with Obote's anti imperialist doctrine in the 60s.
You see Baba this is the second person Obote used to admire and groomed who later turned out to be a disaster. Idi Amin was the first one. Only that he did not have the brains that make Museveni a survivor.
Cham
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: [>-<] Kony is only one part of Uganda Crisis
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:18:01 -0700
http://www.omaha.com/article/20120322/NEWS0802/703229981
The writer is an assistant professor of African history at Creighton University. He is formerly a journalist from The Gambia, West Africa.
There is a growing, almost global movement to capture and try Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony for crimes against humanity.
Indicted by the International Criminal Court in October 2005, Kony has so far evaded capture and continues to terrorize civilians, especially children, in war-ravaged northern Uganda.
Yes, Kony needs to be stopped. But Kony's capture will not end Uganda's political crisis, because Kony is just one side of the Ugandan problem. The other, more insidious side is President Yoweri Museveni.
In power since January 1986, Museveni is Africa's "darling" of the West. He had scored major successes against HIV/AIDS and brought some economic stability to Uganda. His government was touted as one of the most democratic in Africa, even though there were no rival parties to challenge his rule and no limits to how many times he could seek re-election. As long as Museveni kept the Communists out, Uganda was a model of democracy.
It was in appreciation of his sterling democratic credentials that Museveni was welcomed into the Ronald Reagan White House in October 1987. He has since been a regular visitor to the White House. He met with George H.W. Bush in October 1990, with Bill Clinton in June 1994 and with George W. Bush in June 2003, June 2004 and September 2008.
America considers Museveni a paragon of democracy in Africa in spite of his very poor human rights record — well documented in U.S. State Department reports. Periodic multi-party elections in Uganda since 1996 are cited in Western capitals as evidence of Museveni's dedication to democracy.
So why, you may ask, do Ugandans keep re-electing Museveni if they did not like him? Well, here's part of the answer: African presidents win elections not necessarily because people like them but because, among other reasons, Africa's political culture remains largely unchanged from the precolonial days.
Most Africans consider presidents the way their ancestors considered kings and chiefs — as God-ordained and therefore perpetually legitimate rulers. In many African societies, opposition to the president is considered opposition to the divine will.
Indeed, political opposition is believed to have originated in Satan's opposition to God in the Bible and Koran. Because there is no word for "president" in African languages, African presidents are termed kings or chiefs, a misnomer they visibly encourage.
Of course, there's always the tired argument about Africa being different from the West and the dangers of imposing Western democracy on African societies. I contend that democracy does not belong to any particular region of the world.
The rights associated with democratic governance — respect for human rights and the rule of law, the right to frequent and orderly changes of leadership, the right to freedom of expression and association, the right to hold one's government accountable — are human rights, not Western rights. Unless Africans are considered subhuman, they should enjoy all political rights enjoyed by Westerners.
Truth, justice and fair play do not belong solely to the West. The terms of the social contract between rulers and the ruled should be observed in any nation-state — even when, as in Africa, most people are not aware that this social contract exists and that they are the true repositories of political power.
Western republics should be asking the following:
What discontent caused the revolt against the Museveni government by Kony's Lord's Resistance Army?
Why should Museveni repeatedly contest and win elections in Uganda to the exclusion of political opponents as well as members of his own ruling party?
Is Museveni the only person capable of leading Uganda?
Does Uganda qualify as a democracy when it has been ruled by one man for the past 26 years?
Would a regime like Museveni's be called democratic if it existed in the West?
The efforts to end Kony's atrocities are certainly worthwhile, but getting Kony will merely cure the symptoms of a disease whose causes lie in Museveni's one-man rule.
That, too, needs to end.