"People will not readily bear pain unless there is hope." — Michael Edwardes
How fast time flies! So, it is already almost a year ago now that the whole world was in a euphoric mood to usher in the 44th president of the world's pre-eminent power, the United States of America: Barack Hussein Obama.
Not since the election of the highly charismatic John F. Kennedy has the world been so enraptured by an American politico.
JFK brought dynamism, beauty, youthful energy, and new paradigms to the governance of his nation. He was well-educated, urbane, sophisticated with movie-star winning looks. And that he was stupendously rich didn't hurt at all. Even though the man suffered from the life-threatening Addison's disease, JFK's handlers (spin doctors in today's parlance) did their best to sell their candidate as the epitome of youthful fitness and vigour. They even went as far as accusing his opponent for the Democratic Party nomination, Lyndon Johnson, as not been healthy enough. JFK won the election.
In JFK, Americans elected a man who brought fresh ideas into traditional American politicking. His election represented the passing of the baton from old tired horses to a new generation of vital leaders with lots of youthful exuberance.
JFK was a leader that any sane society would love to have as its own. He inspired Americans like few other leaders before him. A very brilliant man, he had immense confidence in himself and in his abilities to lead his compatriots to conquer any and all obstacles to reach for the highest heights. When the Soviets blasted their Sputnik into space, thereby bruising America's ego in the race to space, JFK challenged his people to reach for nothing but the ehm, eh, moon.
American scientists and engineers were given a marching order by their president to land a man on the moon and bring him back within a decade. The inspired American engineers beat the deadline in a feat engrossingly captured by Norman Mailer in his Of a Fire on the Moon, which remains one of the best books I've ever read. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
Accepting his party's nomination, JFK said, inter alia, "We stand today on the edge of a New Frontier... the choice our nation must make... [is]... between the public interest and private comfort -- between national greatness and national decline..."
JFK brought new dynamism into the American Presidency. He came with an agenda: to make his country better.
A nation's foreign policy is a reflection of its domestic policy. JFK's vigorous and very populist domestic agenda (he termed this the "New Frontier," which is meant to use the federal might to address the social and economic challenges his country faced) was matched by a robust foreign policy.
Of course, he doggedly pursued the imperial national interests of his country, but he didn't forget that America, however powerful, was not an isolated island in the spinning globe we all call home. As he pledged in his inaugural address: "To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required -- not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."
Poor people all over the world remember with fondness the faces of young Americans, members of the Peace Corps, bringing some solace into deprived lives. Although many members of the Peace Corps were thrown out of many countries on charges of espionage, the Peace Corps remains one of the most enduring and endearing legacies of US foreign policy.
The world was not naïve to believe that imperial America had changed its way with the election of JFK and his Peace Corps, but it showed that something good could indeed come out of a nation that has wronged so many neighbors and inflicted so much pain on the rest of the non-white world. If ever there was a time when non-Americans genuinely loved the leader of the imperialist world, it must have been during the JFK interregnum.
And even though Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, and for us in Africa, the planning of sabotage against nascent African nations just emerging from colonial rule, represent the low points of the JFK administration, his domestic and foreign (and space!) policies accomplishments permanently engraved his name in the annals of the world's greatest leaders.
Sadly America, nay the world, lost a great leader when an assassin's bullets cut short the life of the youthful president who had given the world so much hope.
It is difficult to believe that the same country that gave the world a leader like John Kennedy also foisted on us a certified moron like Mr. George Bush Jr.
If the JFK presidency represents the finest period of Pan-Americana, Bush Jr.'s tenure represents the ugliest manifestation of America The Ugly.
The Bush Jr.'s regime was hardly with any redeeming feature. Although he traversed the African continent and made the same time-worn promises to help, it is difficult to have anything good to say about Mr. Bush Jr.
In President Bush Jr. we had a seemingly tongue-tied, intellectually-challenged man apparently high on some brain-enhancing drug. To call Bush an illiterate is inadequate; the man has problem speaking his own [English] language! And what about those jerky walks; those fogged expression like that of a drugged and demented moron. How about those finger waggings like a Biblical patriarch whose children have disobeyed Jehovah!
readmore.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Mo Ibrahim Africa Leadership Award
The dearth of quality leadership on the African political terrain was recently brought into sharp focus when the prestigious Mo Ibrahim Leadership Award committee said that it could not find a suitable candidate to nominate for this year's award!
No one can accuse Mr. Mo Ibrahim of not trying to do his finest for his fatherland, Africa. In October 2006, the Sudanese mobile communications magnate launched the Mo Ibrahim Foundation. The major remit of the Foundation was to promote excellence in leadership in Africa.
Recognizing that lack of quality leadership has robbed his continent of good governance over the years, Mr. Ibrahim endeavors to do his best by trying to improve the quality of leadership on the continent.
With her vast resources -- human and mineral -- patriotic Africans keep on looking in shame and bewilderment as their beloved continent continues to be the world's laughing stock. A graphic example of how an insanely corrupt elite, in cahoots with their Western partners, continue to rob the continent dry, literally as well as figuratively, can be found in the November 2009 edition of the London-based New African magazine.
As people in other regions continue to reveal nature's darkest secrets, pictures of starving Africans continue to adorn the pamphlets of aid organizations. Ethiopian and Eritrean leaders can mobilize their people to fight useless wars over dry patches of land, yet they lack the vision and the wisdom to construct dams and build irrigation systems. Kenyan leaders managed to promote avarice to scientific levels, yet they lack the capacity to plan to stem the drought ravaging their country. Led by their comatose president, the otiose elite misruling Nigeria cannot provide even the most basic of services to their people. Warlords in West Africa were able to chop off their compatriots' limbs, but no one there is clued to find solutions to the perennial problems afflicting the region.
Mr. Ibrahim surveyed these sickening scenes and thought he could do something about it. He set up the Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership to reward African leaders who are deemed to have given quality leadership to their people. The prize is to be awarded to elected presidents and prime ministers who have left office within the last three years, to encourage African leaders to emulate the way Dr. Nelson Mandela, former president of South Africa, left office. The prize, the largest individual annual award in the world, consists of $5 million to be paid to the recipient over a period of ten years, and $200,000 yearly for life thereafter. Another sum of $200,000 yearly is also applicable for good causes initiated by the winner, as may be granted by the Foundation during the first 10 years.
The mission of the African Leadership Prize, as stated by the Foundation, is "to stimulate debate on good governance across sub-Saharan Africa and the world, provide objective criteria by which citizens can hold their governments accountable, recognize achievements in African leadership and provide a practical way in which African leaders can build positive legacies."
Mr. Ibrahim laudably set up the award to promote good leadership in a continent where quality leadership is as scarce as chickens' teeth. Former Mozambican president Joaquim Chissano won the maiden prize in 2007 "for his role in leading Mozambique from conflict to peace and democracy." He was deemed a worthy winner. Festus Gontebanyes Mogae, former president of Botswana, won the 2008 edition to loud applause. Botswana has, over the years, consistently topped Africa developmental indices, and it remains one of the few African countries where official corruption has not been promoted to national ethos. No one quarreled when Nelson Mandela was made an Honorary Laureate in 2007 for his extraordinary leadership qualities and iconic achievements.
But in what is considered a damning indictment on the quality of leadership in Africa, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation decided not to award the 2009 leadership prize. Because of the confidential nature of the committee works, we will never know the reasons why the decision was made not to award this year's prize.
Former president of Botswana Ketumile Masire, speaking for the selection committee, merely said, "The prize committee could not select a winner."
Although Africans held their breath for the announcement of the 2009 winner, there was little surprise when the committee announced that there would be no winner for the year!
Whatever spin one might put on it, this is a very serious indictment on the continent's political class. It speaks volumes that none of the leaders who left the scene in the past three years was deemed qualified for this award. This, however, will not surprise any serious Africa watcher.
Since the euphoria of the 1960s when African nationalists wrested political control of their land from European colonialists, Africa has sorely lacked visionary and patriotic leaders. In the 1960s, Africa could boast of political and intellectual giants like Ghana's Kwame Nkrumah, Tanzania's Julius Nyerere, Zambia's Kenneth Kaunda, Senegal's Leopold Senghor, etc. Those were leaders with clear-cut ideas about how to move their nations forward. They were giants among men who were able to totally mobilize their people to greater heights. The results of their efforts are still there for all to see.
Kenneth Kaunda and Julius Nyerere were humanists of the highest order; their humanistic philosophy informed all the actions they took as leaders. Senghor was believed to be the best French grammarian of his time and nothing but the best in French was good enough for him. Kwame Nkrumah still remains the most outstanding leader Ghana (nay, Africa) ever produced. He was among the post-independence African leaders in great hurry to make their nation catch up with the rest of the world.
readmore.
No one can accuse Mr. Mo Ibrahim of not trying to do his finest for his fatherland, Africa. In October 2006, the Sudanese mobile communications magnate launched the Mo Ibrahim Foundation. The major remit of the Foundation was to promote excellence in leadership in Africa.
Recognizing that lack of quality leadership has robbed his continent of good governance over the years, Mr. Ibrahim endeavors to do his best by trying to improve the quality of leadership on the continent.
With her vast resources -- human and mineral -- patriotic Africans keep on looking in shame and bewilderment as their beloved continent continues to be the world's laughing stock. A graphic example of how an insanely corrupt elite, in cahoots with their Western partners, continue to rob the continent dry, literally as well as figuratively, can be found in the November 2009 edition of the London-based New African magazine.
As people in other regions continue to reveal nature's darkest secrets, pictures of starving Africans continue to adorn the pamphlets of aid organizations. Ethiopian and Eritrean leaders can mobilize their people to fight useless wars over dry patches of land, yet they lack the vision and the wisdom to construct dams and build irrigation systems. Kenyan leaders managed to promote avarice to scientific levels, yet they lack the capacity to plan to stem the drought ravaging their country. Led by their comatose president, the otiose elite misruling Nigeria cannot provide even the most basic of services to their people. Warlords in West Africa were able to chop off their compatriots' limbs, but no one there is clued to find solutions to the perennial problems afflicting the region.
Mr. Ibrahim surveyed these sickening scenes and thought he could do something about it. He set up the Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership to reward African leaders who are deemed to have given quality leadership to their people. The prize is to be awarded to elected presidents and prime ministers who have left office within the last three years, to encourage African leaders to emulate the way Dr. Nelson Mandela, former president of South Africa, left office. The prize, the largest individual annual award in the world, consists of $5 million to be paid to the recipient over a period of ten years, and $200,000 yearly for life thereafter. Another sum of $200,000 yearly is also applicable for good causes initiated by the winner, as may be granted by the Foundation during the first 10 years.
The mission of the African Leadership Prize, as stated by the Foundation, is "to stimulate debate on good governance across sub-Saharan Africa and the world, provide objective criteria by which citizens can hold their governments accountable, recognize achievements in African leadership and provide a practical way in which African leaders can build positive legacies."
Mr. Ibrahim laudably set up the award to promote good leadership in a continent where quality leadership is as scarce as chickens' teeth. Former Mozambican president Joaquim Chissano won the maiden prize in 2007 "for his role in leading Mozambique from conflict to peace and democracy." He was deemed a worthy winner. Festus Gontebanyes Mogae, former president of Botswana, won the 2008 edition to loud applause. Botswana has, over the years, consistently topped Africa developmental indices, and it remains one of the few African countries where official corruption has not been promoted to national ethos. No one quarreled when Nelson Mandela was made an Honorary Laureate in 2007 for his extraordinary leadership qualities and iconic achievements.
But in what is considered a damning indictment on the quality of leadership in Africa, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation decided not to award the 2009 leadership prize. Because of the confidential nature of the committee works, we will never know the reasons why the decision was made not to award this year's prize.
Former president of Botswana Ketumile Masire, speaking for the selection committee, merely said, "The prize committee could not select a winner."
Although Africans held their breath for the announcement of the 2009 winner, there was little surprise when the committee announced that there would be no winner for the year!
Whatever spin one might put on it, this is a very serious indictment on the continent's political class. It speaks volumes that none of the leaders who left the scene in the past three years was deemed qualified for this award. This, however, will not surprise any serious Africa watcher.
Since the euphoria of the 1960s when African nationalists wrested political control of their land from European colonialists, Africa has sorely lacked visionary and patriotic leaders. In the 1960s, Africa could boast of political and intellectual giants like Ghana's Kwame Nkrumah, Tanzania's Julius Nyerere, Zambia's Kenneth Kaunda, Senegal's Leopold Senghor, etc. Those were leaders with clear-cut ideas about how to move their nations forward. They were giants among men who were able to totally mobilize their people to greater heights. The results of their efforts are still there for all to see.
Kenneth Kaunda and Julius Nyerere were humanists of the highest order; their humanistic philosophy informed all the actions they took as leaders. Senghor was believed to be the best French grammarian of his time and nothing but the best in French was good enough for him. Kwame Nkrumah still remains the most outstanding leader Ghana (nay, Africa) ever produced. He was among the post-independence African leaders in great hurry to make their nation catch up with the rest of the world.
readmore.
Ghana's Ministers In Trotro
During the first week of October 2009 in Ghana the news waves were saturated with reports that some ministers of government had decided to have a taste of what hoi polloi go through every day in the transportation department.
The ministers abandoned their brand new air-conditioned, four-wheel-drive jeeps -- bought, fueled and maintained at the taxpayers' expense -- and hopped into the contraptions we called Trotro around here, which is the only mode of transport available to the majority of Ghanaians. To those not in the know, Trotro are giant metal cages on wheels, and they are a common sight on many an African road. They are simply utility vehicles meant to transport you from point A to point B, period. Looking for comfort, then forget the Trotro. You should simply count yourself lucky if you emerge from a Trotro without your fabric torn by metal that protrudes from every part of the contraption that forms the major part of African transport system.
Some of the ministers later came on air mouthing such baloney like that they were doing it in solidarity with the common man/woman. Some of them said that it would enable them to get a feel of what the ordinary masses go through every day.
Whatever the reason, the sight was so unbecoming that journalists left their normal beats and rushed to capture it for entranced citizens. The news so captured the imagination of the people that analysts browbeat it to death.
It shows serious disconnect between the governors and the governed when news of governors sharing public transport becomes a big-time news item. In other normal societies, it is normal -- very normal -- for rulers to share in the anguish of their people. But in our part of the world where the rulers continue to behave like colonial overlords, the spectacle of them partaking in what their people go through every day is considered newsworthy.
Several times in these pages, I have provided instances of Dutch politicians, including the prime ministers, riding their own cars or taking public transport. It is considered so normal in the Netherlands that it is not newsworthy when an MP takes a train. High Dutch officials, the Queen included, joyfully ride bicycles. So enamored are the Dutch with their bicycles that they have special lanes for them.
A few years ago, it was reported that the wife of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair had been fined for riding in a train without a ticket. Her excuse that she was in a hurry to get to her office was not bought by the (gasp!) black train conductor who slapped her with the fine.
In our part of the world, the wife of a District chief executive (equivalent of the head of a County) would not be caught dead in any of our public transport. And god helped the "stupid" policeman foolish enough to harass the wife of an African minister.
Also in my columns, I have railed against the inability (or is it unwillingness?) of the African political class to share in the burden of anguish they imposed on their citizens. It is this capacity of African leaders to set themselves far above their people that, I believe is responsible for much of the worrisome poverty that keeps defacing the face of this beautiful continent. It is this inability of African rulers to have solidarity with their own that informed their exchanging their folks for gin, trinkets, guns, and the other goodies that the slavers used to dazzle them. We see the same pattern today where African leaders accept bribes from Western multinationals and allow the imperialists to loot our resources.
As soon as they get into position of authority, African leaders, whatever their political coloration, easily eased themselves into the Orwellian land of all animals are simply not equal. All over Africa, we have big, opulent presidential palaces constructed in sharp contrast to gigantic slums.
Kenya is a classical case of where the so-called opposition has joined the so-called "government" in high living. Members of the Kenyan parliament, no matter to which political party they belong, eagerly and very enthusiastically voted for pay rises and car allowances. Kenyan ministers of every political persuasion are reluctant, very reluctant to trade their big Mercedes Benzes for smaller cars to save money for the Kenyan treasury. Nigeria's otiose political elites are a class unto themselves; they have transformed the business of looting public treasury into a fine art. So totally shameless are Nigerian politicians that stories of high corruption no longer bother them.
readmore.
The ministers abandoned their brand new air-conditioned, four-wheel-drive jeeps -- bought, fueled and maintained at the taxpayers' expense -- and hopped into the contraptions we called Trotro around here, which is the only mode of transport available to the majority of Ghanaians. To those not in the know, Trotro are giant metal cages on wheels, and they are a common sight on many an African road. They are simply utility vehicles meant to transport you from point A to point B, period. Looking for comfort, then forget the Trotro. You should simply count yourself lucky if you emerge from a Trotro without your fabric torn by metal that protrudes from every part of the contraption that forms the major part of African transport system.
Some of the ministers later came on air mouthing such baloney like that they were doing it in solidarity with the common man/woman. Some of them said that it would enable them to get a feel of what the ordinary masses go through every day.
Whatever the reason, the sight was so unbecoming that journalists left their normal beats and rushed to capture it for entranced citizens. The news so captured the imagination of the people that analysts browbeat it to death.
It shows serious disconnect between the governors and the governed when news of governors sharing public transport becomes a big-time news item. In other normal societies, it is normal -- very normal -- for rulers to share in the anguish of their people. But in our part of the world where the rulers continue to behave like colonial overlords, the spectacle of them partaking in what their people go through every day is considered newsworthy.
Several times in these pages, I have provided instances of Dutch politicians, including the prime ministers, riding their own cars or taking public transport. It is considered so normal in the Netherlands that it is not newsworthy when an MP takes a train. High Dutch officials, the Queen included, joyfully ride bicycles. So enamored are the Dutch with their bicycles that they have special lanes for them.
A few years ago, it was reported that the wife of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair had been fined for riding in a train without a ticket. Her excuse that she was in a hurry to get to her office was not bought by the (gasp!) black train conductor who slapped her with the fine.
In our part of the world, the wife of a District chief executive (equivalent of the head of a County) would not be caught dead in any of our public transport. And god helped the "stupid" policeman foolish enough to harass the wife of an African minister.
Also in my columns, I have railed against the inability (or is it unwillingness?) of the African political class to share in the burden of anguish they imposed on their citizens. It is this capacity of African leaders to set themselves far above their people that, I believe is responsible for much of the worrisome poverty that keeps defacing the face of this beautiful continent. It is this inability of African rulers to have solidarity with their own that informed their exchanging their folks for gin, trinkets, guns, and the other goodies that the slavers used to dazzle them. We see the same pattern today where African leaders accept bribes from Western multinationals and allow the imperialists to loot our resources.
As soon as they get into position of authority, African leaders, whatever their political coloration, easily eased themselves into the Orwellian land of all animals are simply not equal. All over Africa, we have big, opulent presidential palaces constructed in sharp contrast to gigantic slums.
Kenya is a classical case of where the so-called opposition has joined the so-called "government" in high living. Members of the Kenyan parliament, no matter to which political party they belong, eagerly and very enthusiastically voted for pay rises and car allowances. Kenyan ministers of every political persuasion are reluctant, very reluctant to trade their big Mercedes Benzes for smaller cars to save money for the Kenyan treasury. Nigeria's otiose political elites are a class unto themselves; they have transformed the business of looting public treasury into a fine art. So totally shameless are Nigerian politicians that stories of high corruption no longer bother them.
readmore.
Hypocrisy As Way Of Life!
We refuse to be, what you want us to be
We are what we are, that is the way it is going to be, you don't know
You cannot educate I, for there's no equal opportunity
Talking about my freedom, people freedom and liberty
Yeah, we have been trodden on your wine press much too long, rebel, rebel, (2x)
Babylon system is the vampire,
Sucking the children day by day, yeah
Me say the Babylon system is the vampire
Sucking the blood of the sufferer
Building church and university, oh, yeah
Deceiving the people continually
Me say dem graduating thieves and murderers
Look out now
They sucking the blood of the sufferer
Tell the children the truth (2x)
—Bob Marley, from the album SURVIVAL.
One of the definitions of hypocrisy is "feigned high principles: the false claim to or pretense of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings."
Churchill, whom the English sometime ago voted the greatest Englishman ever, once said: "[The English] are not a young people with an innocent record and a scanty inheritance. We have engrossed to ourselves... an altogether disproportionate share of the wealth and traffic of the world. We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left in the unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us."
The effrontery of Westerners to assume the high moral ground is always baffling, at least to yours truly. Take any happening anywhere in the world and you see Western political leaders, intellectuals -- supported by their sycophantic corporate media, spewing absolute nonsense. They are fast, very fast to condemn a so-called repression in China, so-called human rights violations in Iran, and the supposed shortcomings of the rulers of Sudan. Yet, they never see the shortcomings in their own societies.
Just take a look at them: every Western nation is, literally, armed to the teeth. Their leader, Uncle Sam, spends about half its budget on its Pentagon, and it's bristling with every form of weaponry known and unknown to man. Every form of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons is to be found in the arsenals of these Western nations.
Yet, let any non-white nation attempt to invest in some weapon system, and we see Westerners hollering "danger," "danger." They, of course, would deny that their action stinks of rank racism. Maybe they should tell us why the nuclear weapons built by the white rulers of South Africa were withdrawn when power was to be handed over to the black rulers.
It is said that the guillotiner does not like the sight of a machete wielder; how apropos! To the diseased minds of Western leaders/scholars, the rest of the world is waiting for the opportunity to pay the Western man back in his own bad coin. It never occurred to them that all we, in the non-Western world, want is simply to be left alone to manage our own affairs as we deem fit, without interference or molestation from any nosy imperialist.
We have to question what exactly is wrong with the imperialist wolves in the West that made them believe that they have every right to defend themselves, whilst denying others the right to do the same thing. Why do leaders of Britain (I see nothing Great there except duplicitous chicaneries) think that they are entitled to have a so-called independent (major components are supplied by Uncle Sam) nuclear deterrent, whilst the Iranians are to be denied the same? What manner of thinking informed the president of the United States of America to deny the North Koreans the right to nuclear weapons whilst US forces are parading vast quantities of the same weapons?
These are legitimate questions that should excite the mind of any fair-minded person who believes in the equitable application of international law and justice. It certainly will be very heart warming if someone can help out with some answers -- not that I am holding my breath!
Why should I, in my little patch of Africa, be afraid of Iran or North Korea? For crying out loud, Koreans have never colonized my land, they have never aggressed any part of my beloved Africa, and they have never enslaved Africans. Iran has never toppled a government in Africa and installed a puppet to guarantee the continual rape of African resources whilst despoiling the African environment in the process. Neither Iran nor North Korean is sending modern-day missionaries to my land to peddle the gospel of crass materialism, sexual aberrancy, pedophilia, and pederasty. Yet, the heirs of slave-masters and colonialists are telling me that Iran and North Korea present a clear and present danger and they expect me to take them seriously. It is difficult to imagine what the imperialists take us for, really. Do they still believe that we did not read up on our history and know all about the atrocities they have committed (and continue to commit) in our land in the name of "civilisation," "democracy," "human rights," etcetera, etcetera?
The imperialist West remains the only place today where people still arrogate to themselves the right to go around the world raping, killing and destroying human lives. The Chinese are not doing it; neither are the Russians nor the Indians. I shall be grateful if someone can educate me on the last time Iran or North Korea invaded another country. No one else except the champions of human rights in the West goes around the world sending drones to kill innocent people or bombing whole villages to kingdom come. No one else but the sanctimonious West is killing vast numbers of HUMAN BEINGS in the name of an ill-defined, utterly mindless War on Terror.
In any dispute they have with the rest of us, Westerners always arrogate to themselves the right to be the accuser, the prosecutor, the judge, and the enforcer. They accused their former stooge, Saddam Hussein, of every crime known to man. They slapped sanctions that reduced Iraq to pure rubbish. Yet, they were not satisfied until they finally invaded the country, deposed their former quisling, and had their new stooges hang him. Yet, it never occurred to these imperialists with their Ivy League universities, their oxymoronic intelligence outfits, and their numerous think tanks why Iranians are not rolling over to be thrashed and raped like their neighbors in Iraq.
readmore.
We are what we are, that is the way it is going to be, you don't know
You cannot educate I, for there's no equal opportunity
Talking about my freedom, people freedom and liberty
Yeah, we have been trodden on your wine press much too long, rebel, rebel, (2x)
Babylon system is the vampire,
Sucking the children day by day, yeah
Me say the Babylon system is the vampire
Sucking the blood of the sufferer
Building church and university, oh, yeah
Deceiving the people continually
Me say dem graduating thieves and murderers
Look out now
They sucking the blood of the sufferer
Tell the children the truth (2x)
—Bob Marley, from the album SURVIVAL.
One of the definitions of hypocrisy is "feigned high principles: the false claim to or pretense of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings."
Churchill, whom the English sometime ago voted the greatest Englishman ever, once said: "[The English] are not a young people with an innocent record and a scanty inheritance. We have engrossed to ourselves... an altogether disproportionate share of the wealth and traffic of the world. We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left in the unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us."
The effrontery of Westerners to assume the high moral ground is always baffling, at least to yours truly. Take any happening anywhere in the world and you see Western political leaders, intellectuals -- supported by their sycophantic corporate media, spewing absolute nonsense. They are fast, very fast to condemn a so-called repression in China, so-called human rights violations in Iran, and the supposed shortcomings of the rulers of Sudan. Yet, they never see the shortcomings in their own societies.
Just take a look at them: every Western nation is, literally, armed to the teeth. Their leader, Uncle Sam, spends about half its budget on its Pentagon, and it's bristling with every form of weaponry known and unknown to man. Every form of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons is to be found in the arsenals of these Western nations.
Yet, let any non-white nation attempt to invest in some weapon system, and we see Westerners hollering "danger," "danger." They, of course, would deny that their action stinks of rank racism. Maybe they should tell us why the nuclear weapons built by the white rulers of South Africa were withdrawn when power was to be handed over to the black rulers.
It is said that the guillotiner does not like the sight of a machete wielder; how apropos! To the diseased minds of Western leaders/scholars, the rest of the world is waiting for the opportunity to pay the Western man back in his own bad coin. It never occurred to them that all we, in the non-Western world, want is simply to be left alone to manage our own affairs as we deem fit, without interference or molestation from any nosy imperialist.
We have to question what exactly is wrong with the imperialist wolves in the West that made them believe that they have every right to defend themselves, whilst denying others the right to do the same thing. Why do leaders of Britain (I see nothing Great there except duplicitous chicaneries) think that they are entitled to have a so-called independent (major components are supplied by Uncle Sam) nuclear deterrent, whilst the Iranians are to be denied the same? What manner of thinking informed the president of the United States of America to deny the North Koreans the right to nuclear weapons whilst US forces are parading vast quantities of the same weapons?
These are legitimate questions that should excite the mind of any fair-minded person who believes in the equitable application of international law and justice. It certainly will be very heart warming if someone can help out with some answers -- not that I am holding my breath!
Why should I, in my little patch of Africa, be afraid of Iran or North Korea? For crying out loud, Koreans have never colonized my land, they have never aggressed any part of my beloved Africa, and they have never enslaved Africans. Iran has never toppled a government in Africa and installed a puppet to guarantee the continual rape of African resources whilst despoiling the African environment in the process. Neither Iran nor North Korean is sending modern-day missionaries to my land to peddle the gospel of crass materialism, sexual aberrancy, pedophilia, and pederasty. Yet, the heirs of slave-masters and colonialists are telling me that Iran and North Korea present a clear and present danger and they expect me to take them seriously. It is difficult to imagine what the imperialists take us for, really. Do they still believe that we did not read up on our history and know all about the atrocities they have committed (and continue to commit) in our land in the name of "civilisation," "democracy," "human rights," etcetera, etcetera?
The imperialist West remains the only place today where people still arrogate to themselves the right to go around the world raping, killing and destroying human lives. The Chinese are not doing it; neither are the Russians nor the Indians. I shall be grateful if someone can educate me on the last time Iran or North Korea invaded another country. No one else except the champions of human rights in the West goes around the world sending drones to kill innocent people or bombing whole villages to kingdom come. No one else but the sanctimonious West is killing vast numbers of HUMAN BEINGS in the name of an ill-defined, utterly mindless War on Terror.
In any dispute they have with the rest of us, Westerners always arrogate to themselves the right to be the accuser, the prosecutor, the judge, and the enforcer. They accused their former stooge, Saddam Hussein, of every crime known to man. They slapped sanctions that reduced Iraq to pure rubbish. Yet, they were not satisfied until they finally invaded the country, deposed their former quisling, and had their new stooges hang him. Yet, it never occurred to these imperialists with their Ivy League universities, their oxymoronic intelligence outfits, and their numerous think tanks why Iranians are not rolling over to be thrashed and raped like their neighbors in Iraq.
readmore.
Understanding Amerikkka
What exactly is agitating you guys? Why are you so worked up over the president? The man has spent just nine months in power and he inherited a very big mess and to those of us outside, he's doing a terrific job trying to fix the problems. Why are you guys so against him?
That's the problem with all you lily-livered Bolshevik bastards out there. This is the U S of A. This is America and we do things properly here.
Like calling for the head of your head of state?
Like whatever. Our hallowed Constitution, the best in the world, guaranteed us the right to speak our minds on any subject under the sun and beyond. I guess it is the kind of luxury you Leninist bloc-heads out there are not used to.
We are not exactly Leninists in this part of the world. The high technicalities of Mr. Lenin's and Mr. Marx's propositions are way, way too sophisticated for our peasant minds. We just cannot understand why you people are so furious because your president wants to extend health insurance coverage to the less priviledge in your country. Didn't the Christian Holy Book say that you should help the weak if you're strong? Why should extending help to impecunious citizens be considered high treason?
Because you don't live here, mister. This is the U S of A! Americans do not want government in their lives and certainly not inside their houses. Goddamn it! This is a very simple thing to understand except to hardcore Marxists and Islamo-fascists. The business of health coverage is for each individual to decide. Don't forget this is the greatest country in the world, and our way of life is second to none. That's why we are the envy of the world.
I wonder how you came to that conclusion. I won't agree that the rest of the world finds your particular system that attractive. Let's leave that aside, though. The rest of us out here who believed your president's election slogan of "Change we can believe in" now think that he has sold out to the corporate interests that rule America; but here you are telling us that he is a cross between Malcolm X and Karl Marx. How do you square that?
We do not need to square off anything, mister. We Americans are rugged individuals. Our hallmark is our individualistic spirit to venture and build our own prosperity according to our native abilities. We take exception to an all-knowing president telling us how to organise mundane things like organising insurance and stuff. We are no fools and we are no simpletons. That's what we are trying to tell the world and the usurper at our White House.
What about those who cannot get insurance for themselves simply because they cannot afford it? Should they be allowed to die?
Everyone born into this world shall surely die. You are bound to die whether or not you have health insurance coverage. What I strongly object to is for a president to think that he has the right to use my tax dollars to give insurance to some undocumented aliens.
Aliens as in extraterrestrial?
No, aliens as in non-citizens. Why should I pay to give insurance to some Mexican who lives here illegally?
But the president says that his plan will not cover illegal immigrants.
Since when do you believe what politicians tell you?
So you have no faith in your government?
I have faith in my government as long as no one gives oneself the right to spend my tax dollars without my consent.
But what we outside the USA simply cannot fathom is that your government spent trillions of dollars to bail out insolvent banks without your consent and without much protestation from you. The money was given to rich corporations and individuals who simply went ahead and awarded themselves fantastic bonuses. How come you find it so irksome that the spending of a few billion dollars to give insurance coverage to your poor citizens constitutes an affront to your constitutional rights?
readmore.
That's the problem with all you lily-livered Bolshevik bastards out there. This is the U S of A. This is America and we do things properly here.
Like calling for the head of your head of state?
Like whatever. Our hallowed Constitution, the best in the world, guaranteed us the right to speak our minds on any subject under the sun and beyond. I guess it is the kind of luxury you Leninist bloc-heads out there are not used to.
We are not exactly Leninists in this part of the world. The high technicalities of Mr. Lenin's and Mr. Marx's propositions are way, way too sophisticated for our peasant minds. We just cannot understand why you people are so furious because your president wants to extend health insurance coverage to the less priviledge in your country. Didn't the Christian Holy Book say that you should help the weak if you're strong? Why should extending help to impecunious citizens be considered high treason?
Because you don't live here, mister. This is the U S of A! Americans do not want government in their lives and certainly not inside their houses. Goddamn it! This is a very simple thing to understand except to hardcore Marxists and Islamo-fascists. The business of health coverage is for each individual to decide. Don't forget this is the greatest country in the world, and our way of life is second to none. That's why we are the envy of the world.
I wonder how you came to that conclusion. I won't agree that the rest of the world finds your particular system that attractive. Let's leave that aside, though. The rest of us out here who believed your president's election slogan of "Change we can believe in" now think that he has sold out to the corporate interests that rule America; but here you are telling us that he is a cross between Malcolm X and Karl Marx. How do you square that?
We do not need to square off anything, mister. We Americans are rugged individuals. Our hallmark is our individualistic spirit to venture and build our own prosperity according to our native abilities. We take exception to an all-knowing president telling us how to organise mundane things like organising insurance and stuff. We are no fools and we are no simpletons. That's what we are trying to tell the world and the usurper at our White House.
What about those who cannot get insurance for themselves simply because they cannot afford it? Should they be allowed to die?
Everyone born into this world shall surely die. You are bound to die whether or not you have health insurance coverage. What I strongly object to is for a president to think that he has the right to use my tax dollars to give insurance to some undocumented aliens.
Aliens as in extraterrestrial?
No, aliens as in non-citizens. Why should I pay to give insurance to some Mexican who lives here illegally?
But the president says that his plan will not cover illegal immigrants.
Since when do you believe what politicians tell you?
So you have no faith in your government?
I have faith in my government as long as no one gives oneself the right to spend my tax dollars without my consent.
But what we outside the USA simply cannot fathom is that your government spent trillions of dollars to bail out insolvent banks without your consent and without much protestation from you. The money was given to rich corporations and individuals who simply went ahead and awarded themselves fantastic bonuses. How come you find it so irksome that the spending of a few billion dollars to give insurance coverage to your poor citizens constitutes an affront to your constitutional rights?
readmore.
Yar'adua Fiddles While Nigeria Burns
"Nero fiddles while Rome burns," is a popular saying in the English language. Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus was the fifth emperor of the Roman Empire. Believed insane, he had some of his wives and mistresses killed at his whim. His mother (instrumental in making him emperor) suffered the same fate; she was executed for her criticism of his mistress. In the year 67, while Nero was fiddling away in Antium, two-thirds of the city of Rome got burnt.
Nigeria's president Musa Yar'adua is a modern day Nero. On the same day that another Islamic sect launched another assault of the Nigeria state Yar'adua embarked on a state visit to Brazil.
Apologists might say that there's nothing wrong with the chief of state going on scheduled journeys, but they will be missing some very important points, some of which are obvious to watchers of that unfortunate nation and had been pontificated in this very column.
Nigeria is an abnormal state where the machinery of government is dysfunctional at best. Yet Nigerian government officials continue to bury their heads in the sand pretending that all is well. They continue to confuse their personal well being with the state of their nation. That makes eminent sense when we consider the fact that they cannot distinguish between the state's treasury and their personal checking accounts.
The Nigerian minister of information continues to trot the globe trumpeting how sound things are in her utterly stupid "rebranding project." Good people, Great nation. That is the message the minister is carrying around the world. It is difficult to know whom the honorable minister is trying to fool. Okay, okay, large is one of the dictionary meanings of great. But if we choose to use ordinary meanings like powerful, influential or important, no one, apart from the bunch of deadly and insane looters in Abuja, will believe the lie that Nigeria is a GREAT country.
In all honesty, there's absolutely nothing great about a country that ranks seventh on the OPEC list yet cannot supply enough fuel to its citizens. There is nothing great about a country of one hundred and forty (140) million people that cannot generate enough electricity for its domestic and industrial use.
And in all honesty, the presidency of Yar'adua has been an absolute disaster. It is true that Nigeria has never had the good luck to be governed by a ruler with vision, but in sheer ineptness Yar'adua beats the former rulers, with the possible exception of Shehu Shagari, by a long stretch. It is true that Yar'adua's beginning was very inauspicious, but his two and half years in the presidency have revealed a man totally out of his depth.
With considerable fanfare Yar'adua told Nigerians that he was going to pursue a 7-point agenda with speed and vigor. Top among these is the vow to declare a state of emergency in the power sector. The generation and supply of electricity has become a major production in Nigeria with no one clued on how to resolve it. The last government of President Obasanjo claimed to have invested about US$16 billion in the sector in eight years, but like most allocations in the country, it has simply vanished into "money heaven" -- apologies to Mr. Madoff. Almost every Nigerian home now runs its own power-generating plant through generators. The attendant pollution is better left to the imagination. Many Nigerians go through life without tasting pipe-borne water. And corruption is so pervasive that it has simply become a way of life.
The presidency of any nation is supposed to be the moral compass of that nation. It is not an institution to joke about or trivialize. Yet Yar'adua has so utterly bastardised the hallowed institution that no Nigerian believes in the words of the president. Yar'adua has reduced the Nigerian presidency to a total joke that no one takes seriously anymore. Nowadays Nigerians yawn when their president comes to address them. This is sad for any nation, most especially for a country like Nigeria that calls for a firm, dedicated hand to guide it through its turbulent and very complex polity.
Amidst all the squalor all over the country, Nigerian elite, totally removed from reality, continue to beat their chests and give themselves kudos for a job well done. They continue to live and behave like they are in some cuckoo land where people exist in dreamlands. And the president is the leading act in this grotesque spectacle of chest-beating and self-congratulation. Yar'adua continues to operate like a hopeless leader without any idea what it takes to govern a nation, much less a complex one like Nigeria. And he continues to talk less and less sense.
In an interview last year with the prestigious Guardian newspaper of Nigeria, the president gave Nigerians his word that the country will be generating at least 6,000 megawatts before the end of this year. He did not equivocate; he did not qualify his assertion. In any normal country, when the president makes a declaration like that, it's taken as a gospel truth. That is so because the presidency is such an important institution that people believe that its decisions are announced only after the most careful deliberations. This is not the case in Nigeria. Since that declaration, the power generation and supply has grown increasingly worse. A few days ago, the minister in charge of the power sector came to out to inform Nigerians that the target given by the president could not be met. The questions beggared by the minister's announcement are (i) Is the president not serious at all, or (ii) does he not take Nigerians seriously to begin with, or (iii) what informed the president's confident pledge, or (iv) did the president do any homework or did he just conjure up some figures from thin air? No one is clued on how to answer these questions.
readmore.
Nigeria's president Musa Yar'adua is a modern day Nero. On the same day that another Islamic sect launched another assault of the Nigeria state Yar'adua embarked on a state visit to Brazil.
Apologists might say that there's nothing wrong with the chief of state going on scheduled journeys, but they will be missing some very important points, some of which are obvious to watchers of that unfortunate nation and had been pontificated in this very column.
Nigeria is an abnormal state where the machinery of government is dysfunctional at best. Yet Nigerian government officials continue to bury their heads in the sand pretending that all is well. They continue to confuse their personal well being with the state of their nation. That makes eminent sense when we consider the fact that they cannot distinguish between the state's treasury and their personal checking accounts.
The Nigerian minister of information continues to trot the globe trumpeting how sound things are in her utterly stupid "rebranding project." Good people, Great nation. That is the message the minister is carrying around the world. It is difficult to know whom the honorable minister is trying to fool. Okay, okay, large is one of the dictionary meanings of great. But if we choose to use ordinary meanings like powerful, influential or important, no one, apart from the bunch of deadly and insane looters in Abuja, will believe the lie that Nigeria is a GREAT country.
In all honesty, there's absolutely nothing great about a country that ranks seventh on the OPEC list yet cannot supply enough fuel to its citizens. There is nothing great about a country of one hundred and forty (140) million people that cannot generate enough electricity for its domestic and industrial use.
And in all honesty, the presidency of Yar'adua has been an absolute disaster. It is true that Nigeria has never had the good luck to be governed by a ruler with vision, but in sheer ineptness Yar'adua beats the former rulers, with the possible exception of Shehu Shagari, by a long stretch. It is true that Yar'adua's beginning was very inauspicious, but his two and half years in the presidency have revealed a man totally out of his depth.
With considerable fanfare Yar'adua told Nigerians that he was going to pursue a 7-point agenda with speed and vigor. Top among these is the vow to declare a state of emergency in the power sector. The generation and supply of electricity has become a major production in Nigeria with no one clued on how to resolve it. The last government of President Obasanjo claimed to have invested about US$16 billion in the sector in eight years, but like most allocations in the country, it has simply vanished into "money heaven" -- apologies to Mr. Madoff. Almost every Nigerian home now runs its own power-generating plant through generators. The attendant pollution is better left to the imagination. Many Nigerians go through life without tasting pipe-borne water. And corruption is so pervasive that it has simply become a way of life.
The presidency of any nation is supposed to be the moral compass of that nation. It is not an institution to joke about or trivialize. Yet Yar'adua has so utterly bastardised the hallowed institution that no Nigerian believes in the words of the president. Yar'adua has reduced the Nigerian presidency to a total joke that no one takes seriously anymore. Nowadays Nigerians yawn when their president comes to address them. This is sad for any nation, most especially for a country like Nigeria that calls for a firm, dedicated hand to guide it through its turbulent and very complex polity.
Amidst all the squalor all over the country, Nigerian elite, totally removed from reality, continue to beat their chests and give themselves kudos for a job well done. They continue to live and behave like they are in some cuckoo land where people exist in dreamlands. And the president is the leading act in this grotesque spectacle of chest-beating and self-congratulation. Yar'adua continues to operate like a hopeless leader without any idea what it takes to govern a nation, much less a complex one like Nigeria. And he continues to talk less and less sense.
In an interview last year with the prestigious Guardian newspaper of Nigeria, the president gave Nigerians his word that the country will be generating at least 6,000 megawatts before the end of this year. He did not equivocate; he did not qualify his assertion. In any normal country, when the president makes a declaration like that, it's taken as a gospel truth. That is so because the presidency is such an important institution that people believe that its decisions are announced only after the most careful deliberations. This is not the case in Nigeria. Since that declaration, the power generation and supply has grown increasingly worse. A few days ago, the minister in charge of the power sector came to out to inform Nigerians that the target given by the president could not be met. The questions beggared by the minister's announcement are (i) Is the president not serious at all, or (ii) does he not take Nigerians seriously to begin with, or (iii) what informed the president's confident pledge, or (iv) did the president do any homework or did he just conjure up some figures from thin air? No one is clued on how to answer these questions.
readmore.
Africa And The International Criminal Court Of [In]justice
"Until the philosophy that holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, there will always be war."
—Emperor Haile Sellassie
"The ICC is not a court set up to bring to book prime ministers of the United Kingdom or presidents of the United States."
—Robin Cook, former British Minister.
Angered by the callous disrespect shown it by the UN Security Council (UNSC), the African Union (AU) at its last summit in Sitre, Libya, (July 1-3, 2009) decided to withdraw cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC).
What seems to have made the AU angry was the decision by the ICC to indict Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir and issue an arrest warrant against him. The AU had asked the UNSC to suspend the indictment against al-Bashir for a year because it [AU] was involved in very delicate negotiations over the Darfur case, which the AU believed could be derailed by any indictment.
The AU had established a High Level Panel on Darfur chaired by former South African president Thabo Mbeki. The panel is tasked to look comprehensively into the Darfur crisis and make a holistic recommendation on how it could be resolved, taking into recognition the AU position that there is a complementary relationship between peace and justice, and that neither should be pursued at the expense of the other.
The UNSC decided to ignore the pleas of the African leaders. And as though to rub salt to the collective wounds of the African leaders, the ICC decided to issue its warrant a few days before they (African leaders) gathered for their annual summit; hence their fury.
It must have meant a great deal for these leaders to take that significant decision. It looks like this time the ire of Africans has been provoked beyond the threshold of tolerance. Except for NGOs and their local supporters (who know where their bread is buttered), Africans across the length and breadth of the continent are hopping mad. They are angry, very angry. They are indignant.
Having been taken for granted for so long by the West, they are protesting the latest insult from the hypocritical countries. They are angry at the West's latest assault on their collective psyches. They are fuming over the sickening double-standards of the West in dealing with black people. Their anger is well justified when we look closely at the issue at stake.
On March 4, 2009, the ICC issued an arrest warrant against the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir. The ICC was created on July 1, 2002, by virtue of the Treaty of Rome to try four categories of crimes: war crimes, crimes of genocide, crimes of aggression, and crimes against humanity. One hundred eight of the world's 192 countries are members of the court. The U.S., Russia, India, and China are among the countries that have refused to join. Sudan is also not a member!
As usual, the USA is busy playing the hypocrite. The most-influential country in the world, which refused to recognize the ICC, has suddenly become its most vociferous heavyweight champion. The U.S. is widely believed to have arm-twisted several African countries into signing the Treaty of Rome.
Under heavy pressure from the U.S. and its sidekick, Britain, the Security Council of the UN (minus China) voted to refer charges of indictment against president al-Bashir to the ICC, unlike in previous cases whereby countries have done the referring. This was necessary because Sudan, like the U.S., has not ratified the Rome Statute that founded the ICC. However, Sudan is, like most countries, bound by decisions of the UNSC.
The ICC charges against al-Bashir list five counts of "individual criminal responsibility" for crimes against humanity -- murder, extermination, forcibly transfer, torture, and rape. There are also two additional counts for war crimes. One of the twists in the Sudan drama and the engulfing crises was that in January 2005, Judge Antoni Cassese, the first president of International Criminal Tribunal, headed the United Nations International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur. The commission dismissed genocide charges against the Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir. Four years later, the UN (albeit its Security Council) yielded to heavy pressure to issue an indictment against a man who had been cleared by a commission of the same UN!
The London-based New African magazine is currently airing views on the ICC-Sudan saga and it is evident that many Africans are clearly angry by the decision to indict. And this should also be understandable when we look closely at the [apparent] racial bias of the ICC.
As Courtenay Griffiths, the lead counsel for former Liberian leader Charles Taylor, pointed out on a Ghana's Joy FM interview: "[...] By October 2007, the ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo had received 2,889 communications about alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in at least 139 countries, and yet by March 2009, the prosecutor had opened investigations into just four cases: Uganda, DRCongo, the Central African Republic, and Sudan Darfur. All of them in Africa! Thirteen public warrants of arrest have been issued, all against Africans."
From here, Griffiths, a Jamaican-born British Queen's Counsel (QC) went thermo-nuclear: "The spectacle of an African president being led in chains to Europe makes my blood boil with rage!" He thundered. "It is slavery time, all again." He went on to lament the seeming apathy of the African Union and Africans generally to this humiliation. He queried why the AU has not deemed it fit to sort itself out so that Africa can start to solve its own problems. "Why did this trial not take place in Africa? Why has the African Union not established its own court to deal with issues that affect Africans in Africa? If a corporal in the American Army cannot be tried in the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity, how come an African president can?"
Among the things that leave Africans fuming about the ICC is the inherent racism involved. To them the international law (as advocated by the West) is just another Western ploy to maintain its hegemony over their lives. Both Tony Blair and George Bush, Jr. committed more heinous crimes than either Taylor or al-Bashir; their non-prosecution by the "international community" smacks of rank racism. To many Africans the so-called international justice is being exercised on racial basis. Both Bush and Blair are clearly indictable under several articles of the Rome Statute. By any definition both men are war criminals (even if unindicted). Their crimes include but are not limited to murder, torture, and forcible transfer of prisoners (rendition). But since both the U.S. and the U.K. enjoy veto power at the UNSC, no one realistically expect either Bush or Blair to be referred anytime soon to the ICC for criminal prosecution. This is what's getting the Africans goat and no amount of rationalization can wish these feelings away.
Another reason has to do with Africans' definition of justice. In the West justice is equated with punishment; this is not so in Africa. The traditional African system always emphasizes harmony over retribution. Africans generally do not confuse justice with vengeance as Westerners do. That explains why former colonialists who had behaved like predatory beasts were allowed to go away scot-free. That was also the only reason why the Bothas and the Ian Smiths of Africa were allowed to keep their heads. We also witness how Rwanda was able to heal the traumas of the recent genocide by employing purely traditional system of justice.
Africans also believe that there can be no peace wherever justice is lacking. We can glean some of the Africans attitude towards the notion of justice by some of the proverbs they use. My Yoruba people say:
i. Omo ale ni iri inu ti ki nbi; omo ale la si nbe ti ko ki ngba. It is only a bastard who does not get angry when provoked; it is equally a bastard who refuses to be appeased.
ii. Ti a ko ba gbagbe oro ana, a ko ni ri eni ba sere. If we do not forget yesterday's quarrel, we will have no one to play with.
We can contrast this with the Western notion of heavily punishing the slightest transgression even as they preach forgiveness when the criminals happen to be white -- like the colonialists in Africa. The duplicitous nature of the West is best revealed in their sending missionaries all over the world to teach the rest of us a so-called Lord's Prayer which says, inter alia: "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those that trespass against us."
Where in the wide, wide world have Westerners forgiven those that trespassed against them? Where it has been impossible to hunt down and kill foes -- real or imaginary -- the West has slapped punitive sanctions on those that transgressed against them? Cuba, pre-invasion Iraq, Iran, Zimbabawe, and North Korea are some of the countries that are under one form of sanction or the other for offending the all-powerful West.
readmore.
—Emperor Haile Sellassie
"The ICC is not a court set up to bring to book prime ministers of the United Kingdom or presidents of the United States."
—Robin Cook, former British Minister.
Angered by the callous disrespect shown it by the UN Security Council (UNSC), the African Union (AU) at its last summit in Sitre, Libya, (July 1-3, 2009) decided to withdraw cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC).
What seems to have made the AU angry was the decision by the ICC to indict Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir and issue an arrest warrant against him. The AU had asked the UNSC to suspend the indictment against al-Bashir for a year because it [AU] was involved in very delicate negotiations over the Darfur case, which the AU believed could be derailed by any indictment.
The AU had established a High Level Panel on Darfur chaired by former South African president Thabo Mbeki. The panel is tasked to look comprehensively into the Darfur crisis and make a holistic recommendation on how it could be resolved, taking into recognition the AU position that there is a complementary relationship between peace and justice, and that neither should be pursued at the expense of the other.
The UNSC decided to ignore the pleas of the African leaders. And as though to rub salt to the collective wounds of the African leaders, the ICC decided to issue its warrant a few days before they (African leaders) gathered for their annual summit; hence their fury.
It must have meant a great deal for these leaders to take that significant decision. It looks like this time the ire of Africans has been provoked beyond the threshold of tolerance. Except for NGOs and their local supporters (who know where their bread is buttered), Africans across the length and breadth of the continent are hopping mad. They are angry, very angry. They are indignant.
Having been taken for granted for so long by the West, they are protesting the latest insult from the hypocritical countries. They are angry at the West's latest assault on their collective psyches. They are fuming over the sickening double-standards of the West in dealing with black people. Their anger is well justified when we look closely at the issue at stake.
On March 4, 2009, the ICC issued an arrest warrant against the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir. The ICC was created on July 1, 2002, by virtue of the Treaty of Rome to try four categories of crimes: war crimes, crimes of genocide, crimes of aggression, and crimes against humanity. One hundred eight of the world's 192 countries are members of the court. The U.S., Russia, India, and China are among the countries that have refused to join. Sudan is also not a member!
As usual, the USA is busy playing the hypocrite. The most-influential country in the world, which refused to recognize the ICC, has suddenly become its most vociferous heavyweight champion. The U.S. is widely believed to have arm-twisted several African countries into signing the Treaty of Rome.
Under heavy pressure from the U.S. and its sidekick, Britain, the Security Council of the UN (minus China) voted to refer charges of indictment against president al-Bashir to the ICC, unlike in previous cases whereby countries have done the referring. This was necessary because Sudan, like the U.S., has not ratified the Rome Statute that founded the ICC. However, Sudan is, like most countries, bound by decisions of the UNSC.
The ICC charges against al-Bashir list five counts of "individual criminal responsibility" for crimes against humanity -- murder, extermination, forcibly transfer, torture, and rape. There are also two additional counts for war crimes. One of the twists in the Sudan drama and the engulfing crises was that in January 2005, Judge Antoni Cassese, the first president of International Criminal Tribunal, headed the United Nations International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur. The commission dismissed genocide charges against the Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir. Four years later, the UN (albeit its Security Council) yielded to heavy pressure to issue an indictment against a man who had been cleared by a commission of the same UN!
The London-based New African magazine is currently airing views on the ICC-Sudan saga and it is evident that many Africans are clearly angry by the decision to indict. And this should also be understandable when we look closely at the [apparent] racial bias of the ICC.
As Courtenay Griffiths, the lead counsel for former Liberian leader Charles Taylor, pointed out on a Ghana's Joy FM interview: "[...] By October 2007, the ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo had received 2,889 communications about alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in at least 139 countries, and yet by March 2009, the prosecutor had opened investigations into just four cases: Uganda, DRCongo, the Central African Republic, and Sudan Darfur. All of them in Africa! Thirteen public warrants of arrest have been issued, all against Africans."
From here, Griffiths, a Jamaican-born British Queen's Counsel (QC) went thermo-nuclear: "The spectacle of an African president being led in chains to Europe makes my blood boil with rage!" He thundered. "It is slavery time, all again." He went on to lament the seeming apathy of the African Union and Africans generally to this humiliation. He queried why the AU has not deemed it fit to sort itself out so that Africa can start to solve its own problems. "Why did this trial not take place in Africa? Why has the African Union not established its own court to deal with issues that affect Africans in Africa? If a corporal in the American Army cannot be tried in the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity, how come an African president can?"
Among the things that leave Africans fuming about the ICC is the inherent racism involved. To them the international law (as advocated by the West) is just another Western ploy to maintain its hegemony over their lives. Both Tony Blair and George Bush, Jr. committed more heinous crimes than either Taylor or al-Bashir; their non-prosecution by the "international community" smacks of rank racism. To many Africans the so-called international justice is being exercised on racial basis. Both Bush and Blair are clearly indictable under several articles of the Rome Statute. By any definition both men are war criminals (even if unindicted). Their crimes include but are not limited to murder, torture, and forcible transfer of prisoners (rendition). But since both the U.S. and the U.K. enjoy veto power at the UNSC, no one realistically expect either Bush or Blair to be referred anytime soon to the ICC for criminal prosecution. This is what's getting the Africans goat and no amount of rationalization can wish these feelings away.
Another reason has to do with Africans' definition of justice. In the West justice is equated with punishment; this is not so in Africa. The traditional African system always emphasizes harmony over retribution. Africans generally do not confuse justice with vengeance as Westerners do. That explains why former colonialists who had behaved like predatory beasts were allowed to go away scot-free. That was also the only reason why the Bothas and the Ian Smiths of Africa were allowed to keep their heads. We also witness how Rwanda was able to heal the traumas of the recent genocide by employing purely traditional system of justice.
Africans also believe that there can be no peace wherever justice is lacking. We can glean some of the Africans attitude towards the notion of justice by some of the proverbs they use. My Yoruba people say:
i. Omo ale ni iri inu ti ki nbi; omo ale la si nbe ti ko ki ngba. It is only a bastard who does not get angry when provoked; it is equally a bastard who refuses to be appeased.
ii. Ti a ko ba gbagbe oro ana, a ko ni ri eni ba sere. If we do not forget yesterday's quarrel, we will have no one to play with.
We can contrast this with the Western notion of heavily punishing the slightest transgression even as they preach forgiveness when the criminals happen to be white -- like the colonialists in Africa. The duplicitous nature of the West is best revealed in their sending missionaries all over the world to teach the rest of us a so-called Lord's Prayer which says, inter alia: "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those that trespass against us."
Where in the wide, wide world have Westerners forgiven those that trespassed against them? Where it has been impossible to hunt down and kill foes -- real or imaginary -- the West has slapped punitive sanctions on those that transgressed against them? Cuba, pre-invasion Iraq, Iran, Zimbabawe, and North Korea are some of the countries that are under one form of sanction or the other for offending the all-powerful West.
readmore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)