Donors warn EC over vote rigging

March 12th, 2010 No comments

People:

The problem is not so much the EC as the donors want the world to believe. Rather what will determine the election is what happens in political parties especially the opposition. Let us wait and see how the UPC election will turn out and hopefully Ms Nyar will update us throughout the exercise. If they botch, it, the game will be called right away.

The donors should be putting just as much pressure on Uganda’s hapless opposition parties to respect their party constitutions and get the process right. I hear the donors talk about the process, great, but should cut out the double standards.

Actually the donors remind me of the former FIFA referee Mr. Dick Nsubuga when it came to matches involving his KKC club. When never KCC played the giants then, Express, Simba or Nsambya, Mr. Nsubuga would be very harsh towards KCC players in the first half and would blow his whistle and summon them for tips. Apparently instead of cautioning them he used to tell them “wesule nkuuwe pennetti” /fall down in the penalty box so I award you a penalty.

But you would never know in the first half because Mr. Nsubuga would be busy cautioning the likes of Mr. Kateregga, Mr. Mugambe, and Mr. Mugisha etc to calm the nerves of Express or Nsambya fans. If Express was leading as it used to do, then in the last 5 minutes of the game, the KCC players would begin to throw themselves in the penalty box and to the chagrin of the opposing fans, Mr. Nsubuga almost always awarded KCC penalty in the last minutes of the game to help KKC either tie or win the game

That is what the donors are doing: hoodwinking Uganda’s hapless opposition, yes they are doing just that that they are tough on the EC or NRM/YKM but wapi.

At the end of the day, it will be the same donors-opposition parties take note for eating their money-who will call, scarp that, order the opposition to accept the elections results and avoid a ‘Kenya like situation’. It will be the same donors-he who pays plays the piper-who will urge, again, scratch that force the opposition leaders to use the legal process to challenge any electoral malpractices.

So you folks in the opposition who are busy eating British, Dutch, American or Nordic money be aware. The donors will do a Dick Nsubuga on the opposition. Just watch.

You would be foolish to think that they are cultivating you through invitations to their palatial homes for just food and wine. It will be in the same premises where they will order-repeat order- you to get in line for the sake of the country.

WBK

Rehema,

Why cant Kigundu resign?

In a civilized society, when you see that the people you are supposed to serve don’t believe in you, it is honorable that you resign.

Unless when Kiggundu has another agenda known only to him and to the one who appointed him. He is an engineer and I believe he can not fail to get a job.

Jude

Jude m

Categories: Middle East, Uncategorized Tags:

Thousands of displaced civilians in DRC trapped by conflict, wounded unable to reach hospitals in Hauts Plateaux, South Kivu

March 12th, 2010 No comments

Thousands of displaced civilians in DRC trapped by conflict, wounded unable to reach hospitals in Hauts Plateaux, South Kivu 11 Mar 2010 12:16:00 GMT Source: Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) – International MSF International Website: http://www.msf.org *Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author’s alone. * [image: MSFIntl logo] MSF calls on all armed groups to respect the safety of civilians and allow them access to healthcare

� *MSF and podcasts * – The medical humanitarian organization M�decins Sans Fronti�res (MSF) is deeply concerned by the rapidly worsening situation in the isolated area of Hauts Plateaux in the region of Uvira, South Kivu, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

Thousands of civilians are trapped by conflict that has been raging in the area since the beginning of February, 2010, between the Congolese army (FARDC), FDLR rebels and various armed groups. Violence against civilians is frequent, but the constant threat to civilians prevents wounded people from reaching the local hospital where an MSF surgical team is working. Currently MSF is the only medical organisation providing direct medical care in the region. �

“We heard from people who have reached our medical structure that there are many civilians who are afraid to come to the hospital; they are in constant fear of being attacked by the armed groups. There is no safe place for them to hide,” said Philippe Havet, MSF’s Head of Mission in DRC. “Hauts Plateaux is a very isolated area with mountains that reach up to 3,000 metres high and no roads at all. Clashes between combatants are very fierce and civilians are the direct victims. We fear that many people could die, because they cannot reach the hospital and receive the lifesaving medical assistance they need.”

Since the beginning of February, 2010, the intense fighting in Hauts Plateaux has forced more than 10,000 people to flee their villages (Kitoga, Mugutu, Birunga and Kangova) and they have sought refuge in the area of Mukumba. On February 10, an MSF medical team started providing emergency medical assistance in Hauts Plateaux to the displaced families. Since then, MSF has provided medical care in the village of Kihuha to more than 750 patients suffering mostly from acute diarrhoea and respiratory tract infections.

The team has also received dozens of wounded people, including children, in need of emergency surgical care. A second MSF team, specializing in emergency surgery, arrived a few days later at the hospital in the nearby village of Katanga that is equipped with an operating theatre, to provide surgical care to those civilians wounded in the violent clashes. However, the team has been able to conduct very few surgeries because civilians are extremely frightened to travel to the hospital and seek help.

Currently MSF is the only international humanitarian organisation providing direct medical care in Hauts Plateaux. MSF teams face huge challenges in their effort to provide medical care to the displaced families.

“It takes five to six hours on foot to reach our medical base in Kihuha and another two hours from there to reach the hospital in Katanga, where our surgical team is based,” said Steve Avoci, MSF surgeon in Katanga. “It is very isolated here and conditions are very difficult. A few days ago, a patient arrived needing urgent surgical attention. It was a complicated surgery and it was impossible to refer him to another appropriate structure, so an MSF surgeon, based in Bukavu, helped me over the telephone to operate on the wounded patient.” �

As the situation in Hauts Plateaux is steadily deteriorating, MSF is gravely concerned over the fate of the thousands of internally displaced people trapped by the conflict. MSF calls on all armed groups to respect international humanitarian law and the safety of civilians and allow immediate access to emergency medical care for those wounded during clashes.

“Wounded civilians are in desperate need of protection and emergency medical assistance. They deserve the right to have unobstructed access to our medical teams,” said Philippe Havet.

MSF is currently working in Kalonge and Kitutu in South Kivu supporting health centres and operating mobile clinics for the provision of primary healthcare and emergency assistance to displaced people and host families. MSF is also supporting health centres, Baraka Hospital and a Cholera Treatment Centre in Fizi targeting the main causes of death and disease (namely malaria, malnutrition, tuberculosis and cholera) with an emphasis on reproductive health. In North Kivu, despite ongoing insecurity and violence, MSF runs medical programmes in Rutshuru, Nyanzale, Masisi, Mweso, and Kitchanga. 76 international staff are working alongside 1144 Congolese colleagues in MSF projects in North and South Kivu. � Only selected MSF documents are posted on Alertnet. For a complete selection of MSF news, please visit the MSF International website

Categories: Middle East, Uncategorized Tags:

Friday Morning Reznews

March 12th, 2010 No comments

Friday Morning Reznews March 12, 2010 Posted by: Larry Kibby – l.kibby@frontier.com

Tribal, Government & Political News

Act on ’shocking’ US maternal death rate, Obama urged OneWorld.net Minorities, those living in poverty, Native American and immigrant women and those who speak little or no English are particularly affected….

Tom Campbell’s Troubling Ties FrontPage Magazine … co-founder of the radical Students for a Democratic Society; Leonard Peltier, an American Indian rights activist who murdered two FBI agents in 1975……

Some Duluth Projects Expected to Survive Pawlenty Veto Northland’s NewsCenter The American Indian Learning Resource center because that was not in the governor’s original bill,” she said. Pawlenty has not announced how deeply he’ll ….

Education, Culture & Religious News

Colleges face dilemma in attempting to honor Indians Abilene Reporter-News “The Quest” is a symposium being put on my McMurry to explore how academic institutions can honor Native American people and culture. Colleges and…

Archaeology, History & Preservation News

Getting back on course Joliet Herald News In March of 1993, a state-mandated archaeology study made a grisly … An investigation suggested they were the remains of American Indian from the Miami….

General & Important Informational News

Cambridge Publishing Recognizes Joyce Hewett Thompson for Contributions to the … 24-7PressRelease.com (press release) … is an active supporter of Children’s Hospital of The King’s Daughters, the American Breast Cancer Foundation and various Native American foundations….

Indian Gaming & Reservation/AI Business News

Judge sides with Glendale in Indian casino case BusinessWeek Casino’s in Arizona can only be built on reservation land. Sports Management Learn Deal Making, Sponsorships, Sports Marketing and More, Online! American…

Tribal Gaming Groups Lobby Against Frank Online Gambling Bill Online Casino Advisory The powerful lobby of Indian gaming has remained largely under the radar, but statements this week to Indian Country Today make it clear that wealthy tribal….

Casino cash could boost Mich. scholarship programs BusinessWeek Michigan has more than 20 casinos run by American Indian tribes. The tribes have agreements with the state that typically provides 2 percent of certain….

Passamaquoddy tout gaming plan Bangor Daily News Bill Nicholas of the tribe’s Indian Township reservation. Earlier this winter, Maine-based Black Bear Entertainment LLC filed more than 100000 petition…

Reservation Crime & Tribal/Court News

Map quest: Court rejects reservation claim NewsOK.com A judicial decision last week confirms that although Oklahoma has a large American Indian population and a lot of Indian land, it has no Indian reservations….

Museum, Events & Pow-wow News

Register now for Pyramid Lake basketball tourney Reno Gazette-Journal Cost: $225 per team; proceeds go toward travel for Nixon-area children to the upcoming Native American Basketball Invitational in Phoenix…

Minneapolis Institute of the Arts showcases collection of Montana tribe’s … Great Falls Tribune “This is probably the first time a major art museum has held an exhibition devoted to a specific Native American tribe and curated by members of that same….

Trail of Tears group meets at Indian Springs Saturday Newnan Times-Herald You need not have Native American ancestry, just an interest and desire to learn more about this fascinating and tragic event known as the “Trail of Tears….

Exhibition of baskets will be at San Bernardino County Museum Fontana Herald-News Baskets made by native groups in inland southern California in the late 19th and early 20th century are generally identified as “Mission Indian Style…

Astronaut to speak in Gillette Billings Gazette GILLETTE – NASA’s first Native American astronaut, John B. Herrington, will speak in Gillette on March 19 at the Challenger Learning Center of Wyoming’s….

Pow wow marketing 101 Indian Country Today By Vincent Schilling, Today correspondent In American Indian culture, the pow wow has long … But just how does a tribe get more people to their pow wows….

Material appearing here is distributed without profit or monitory gain to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the material for research and educational purposes. This is in accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. section 107. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

Larry’s Reznews Radio Video’s – Updated News http://ubroadcast.com/channel/reznews

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

mr Semuwemba: QUESTIONS TO RWANDA’S LUSOKE AND ANDREW MWENDA OF THE INDEPENDENT

March 12th, 2010 No comments

So the man has decided to let his traditional practices prevail over his throne threatened with extinct? If i were him, I would, in defence of my throne, call this an exceptional circumstance which wouldn’t restrain me from marrying from outside my throne. The blame should squarely be put on the fore fathers who never thought of such cirmumstances which may conflict with the traditional practices on one hand, whilst,if, on the other hand not breached would mean the end of the throne.

” I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery”—-Jean Jaqueas Rousseau ” Apolitician thinks on the next election – a statesman of the next generation” James Freeman Clarke ” The State calls its own violence, law;but that of the individual crime” – Max Stirner “The Ego and His Own (1845)” “The people of Asia were slaves because they had not learned how to pronouce the word ‘no’ -Winston Churchill. “The more corrupt the state,the numerous the laws- Cornelius Tacitus “Annals”(c.116.A.D)” SR. Sveritanien.

CC: amwenda@independent.co.ug

Mr. Semuwemba:

Let me answer one question for you, King Kigeri is alive and now lives in New York. He is not allowed back in Rwanda unless he denounces his lineage. .

He had begged the RPF to let him return to Rwanda and marry because he cannot get married outside under their Tutsi traditions but RPF has refused. You know why: they want him to die without having married so that the line of succession is broken.

King Kigeri-is such a giant-did so much for Rwandese in Kenya. I will not name names because some are now engaged propaganda on behalf of RPF as was the case just last week. King Kigeri could go to any office in Nairobi and believe me he made sure that all Rwandese got proper documentation. In case of any problems, he went straight to Nyayo House-immigration offices-and even Nyatti House-then head office of Kenya Special branch. And if he got no answers he went to Haraambe House.

FYI, one of the top people in special branch at the time, Mr. Kivuvani-a kamba-was married to a Rwandese lady.

Today, most of the RPA people King Kigeri helped do not want to hear his name. How sad!

Let me also tell you that in Nairobi, King Kigeri had some Hutu members in his circles. I later found out that some of them served in his government, one was the PM. So King Kigeri is a progressive man than the chaps in Rwanda! That may also be one of the reasons they do not want him. And he was always a modest man who walked and mingled freely with his people and even Ugandans.

There is no question that President Kagame faces his biggest test yet. Moreover, he is weakened by the defections and certainly humbled by it. Today he cannot threaten to go to war with Uganda or even Congo. If he did that would be the end of his regime. He needs YKM badly because YKM can finish him if he were to defect. Ebibimba bikka.

Who would have imagined that the Rudasingwa brothers would be in exile? Who would have thought that General Kayumba would in exile? Many more will defect while on foreign trips. Just watch how that will create panic in Kigali.

The bubble has burst and Rwanda will never be the same again. You now have RPF throwing grenades in Kigali to create fear in the minds of their citizens. No spin will change anything: the genie is out of the bottle.

Byebyo. WBK

CC: amwenda@independent.co.ug

Guys, I would also like to chip in this debate and i will ask a few questions at the end if you don’t mind answering them.

1. I think Andrew Mwenda is right when he says:’Although the genocide was organised through the state, it was executed by masses of ordinary citizens….’ Yes, radio Collins was owned mainly Hutu government people and it played a major role in influencing the genocide.It was sympathetic to the government causes rather than RPF/RPA ones.Let us also remember that RPF/RPA had an 8 point plan which was almost similar to the NRM/NRA’s 10 point program. The 8 point plan was meant to keep the RPA forces on the leash such that RPF argued that the Tutsi who particpiated in the genocide were the new boys recruited when the war was already in its advanced stages.Those RPA who came from Uganda were already familiar with the displine in the army. This was RPF official position or defence when a UNHCR-commisioned report in September 1994 reported that RPA had killed thousands of Hutu civilians.

Let us also remember that after the Habyarimana realised that the Arusha accord was gonna make him a ‘figure head’ president, he created groups such as the interahamwe or Burgomasters, with a clear intention of dividing the opposition and protecting himself as president.It’s these groups that mainly carried out the genocide in places like Kigali after Habaryamina’s death.These groups went on a killing spree of those who supported the Arusha accords.They killed the Hutus too who had worked closely with RPF to make sure that the Arusha accord was implemented.

Nevertherless, those who argue that RPA killed more people in the Hutu occupied territories than the Interahamwe may be right.When RPF invaded Rwanda in 1990 it had 36 cells inside the country,with 9 in Kigali and others in Kigonyi,Butare,Gitarama and Byumba. In August 1993, the cells in Kigali alone had increased to 146 .All these were operating calendestinely. RPF also had about 600 soldiers in December 1993 based in Kigali, who had been sent there to protect the five RPF officials designated to serve in the transitional government. So how could these cells and the soldiers have looked on passively when the interahamwe were killing people in Kigali and surrounding areas! That’s why most people suspect that they killed and passed the blame on to the Hutus because these were government controlled areas.

2.Andrew Mwenda wrote ”…..Today, the most dominant influence in control of Rwanda is Tutsi. Put yourself in their shoes: what would be their major fears and temptations? Many would think that control of power is the only insurance against genocide…….’ I think Andrew is just acknowledging that there is now a mess in Rwanda. He is telling us that there is a lot of sectarianism in Rwanda under president Kagame. He is also telling us that Kagame is nolonger different from late president,Habyarimana. Remember, under Habyarimana, he imposed a system whereby access to education and state employment was allocated according to region and ethinicity.As many as 60 % of these political posts were allocated to the Hutus. This is a situation that forced most Tutsis to leave the country and later mobilise against him from abroad. It just goes on to show that African leaders never learn from history, a point i have made in several of my messages.

RPF started its government by appointing a Hutu president in Alexis Kanyarengwe,former minister of internal affairs in the Habyarimana government. But things have been appearing like ‘tusti now or nothing’ since 1995 when a Hutu prime minister was sacked. So Mr.Mwenda is only confirming indirectly what we already know. The so called Arusha cord is no more. It is all know Kagame or nothing.

Now here comes the big questions to both Lusoke and Andrew Mwenda as we try to put more fuel in this debate:

What happened to the imburamajo(the non monarchists) after Kagame took over power? What are the doing now? Are they also mobilising against Kahame from abroad? Is king Umwami Kigeri still alive? If alive, is he residing in Rwanda or abroad? Can the king play any role in uniting both the Hutus and Tutsis during this saga? If he can’t, who is best suited to bring the different warring factions together? How are the Tutsis in diaspora helping to build their country? Are majority of them pro-Kagame? Is Kagame encouraging the Hutus in diaspora to come back and rebuild their country instead of fighting him? What happened to Tito Rutaremwa,the former leader of RANU, and Morove Protazi,Sec General of RANU? What is president Museveni’s position on the Tutsis fighting or opposing Kagame at the moment? Is he sympathetic to their causes or he just uses and dumps them? Is the ‘INKOTANYI’ group still influential in RPF? Is it as influential as the NRM historicals like Otafiire and that General who wants CBS to remain closed,whose name i have forgottten? What do you think of historicals visa vi promoting democracy in both Rwanda and Uganda? Has Kagame got a presidential Guard Brigade like Museveni and late Habyarimana? If so, is it headed by Kagame’s son as well? What are the lessons to learn from the current fall out between Kagame and his old colleagues like Mr.Lusoke William?Byebyo ebyange

Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Lusoke Willy wrote:

(1) ) MWENDA ARGUES THAT:” So now come to Rwanda: in 1994, the Tutsi confronted the possibility of their mass extermination. Although the genocide was organised through the state, it was executed by masses of ordinary citizens. Stressed by battles, bullets and mortars, Tutsi soldiers advanced, many losing their colleagues. Every village they captured, they found their mothers, brothers, sisters, cousins, wives, sons and daughters – everyone – killed.” THE TRUTH IS:

With all dues respect, Mwenda is displaying absolute lack of knowledge of what happened in 1994 in Rwanda. For Mwenda’s information, by the time Habyarimana accepted to come to Arusha round table for ‘Peace Talks”, RPF had already captures almost 40% of Rwandan territory and Kigali risked falling to the then rebels, RPA. That the Tutsi were almost exterminated in the territory that was under Habayarimana government control is indisputable. But again, that RPA was also doing the same thing against the Hutu who were in the territory under their control is well documented. The Hutu in Byumba, Mutala, Kibungu were systematically killed en mass under Kagame’s direct orders. That is how we came to call the process “Mfanyiye”. This was Kagame’s Kiswahili word “fagiya” he used to order us to clear every thing that was Hutu!!!

For your information, if you revisit your TV images of the dead bodies of those Rwandans who were floating on L. Victoria, you will notice two things: 1. Most of them were tied the “Kandoya” style. This style of killing was only being used by RPA. It was borrowed from the NRA war in Luweero. No Habyarimana soldier or interahamwe knew this style of killing!! Secondly, most of those dead bodies did not look Tutsi at all. Anybody who is used to the physical look of an ordinary Tutsi would conclude that most of them dead bodies that floated on L. Victoria were actually of Hutu.

Mr. Mwenda, remember that save for the then Prime Minister of Rwanda Kambanda Jean, whose guilty plea consisted acceptance that he actually organized the genocide, the International Criminal Court for Rwanda ICTR has not convicted anybody of organizing the genocide. Yet they have tried almost all the former Hutu Military and political leaders. It would do you well to recall that after sentencing this Prime Minister (after his guilt plea), the Prime minister brought it to Court’s attention that ICTR prosecutor secured this plea fraudulently with promises to the former Prime Ministers which were not respected by prosecution. The Prime Minister informed Court that WASHINGTON and the ICTR prosecutors had promised to take his family to USA, to deposit specific amount of money into his account every month and, above all, to they had promised a lesser sentence for the former Prime Minister.

Mr. Mwenda, it is well documented that the UN special investigation team on the cause of the 1994 genocide concluded that the sudden death of Habyarimana in a plane clash was the trigger of the genocide. The Rwandan Hutu feared that the Tutsi who had killed their leader were going to exterminate them as the Burundian Tutsi had exterminated the Hutu after the Hutu president had been killed under similar circumstances. RPA and its high Command was sighted as the people that had killed Habyarimana. The ICTR then Prosecutor prepared arrest warrants for RPA officials. Bush 9 the then President of USA told this ICTR prosecutor that arresting and trying these RPA officials was a direct threat to USA strategic interests in the region. De Ponte insisted and Bush ordered her out of office. De Ponte has written a book about this and, today, she is in Washington telling Obama to investigate Bush’s behavior and role in the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

Mr. Mwenda, are you well informed of these facts? The 1994 Rwandan genocide is still a mystery both legally and politically. That is why most of the people who did the lobbying for the UN to accept it as genocide have ever since changed their position. One of them was the late Madam Des Forges who admitted that she made a fundamental mistake. He was cheated by RPA systematic lies. PRUNNIER is another one. He wrote a book last year in which he demonstrated that RPF too committed genocide and so they should be tried. France and Spanish Courts too, each acting independently, have issued arrest warrants for many RPA officials for similar crimes. WHAT IS MWENDA SAYING THEN?

(2) MWENDA ARGUES THAT: “It is one of the biggest miracles of the 20th century that there was no counter genocide in Rwanda in 1994. It is a statement of extraordinary organisational discipline, coherence and leadership that RPF contained the rage of its own members. On many occasions, the RPF military court martial had to order the public execution of Tutsi soldiers in front of Tutsi soldiers for killing innocent Hutu civilians” THE TRUTH IS: Mwenda’s assertion at this level is contrary to the contemporary research findings by independent, credible and competent bodies and individuals as I have demonstrated it in “argument 1” above . It is also contrary to a number of outstanding ICTR case law. It is true that some RPA executed some Tutsi solders but the reasons were far from what they tell you. Most of those people that were executed were from Burundi. Most of these Tutsi guys from Burundi had joined us after their High school or University. Most of our bosses in RPA had not been to school. They viewed these young men a possible threat to “take power from us”!!! Others who were being executed were those from Uganda who had come from “cities” as opposed to ‘the Bakonyine” – THOSE Tutsi who had been in refugee camps in Western Uganda especially Nakivale where Kagame and his core Tutsi extremists grew and came from. For your information, these killings within RPA started as early as November 1990 – shortly after RPA attacked Rwanda. We used to call it “agafuni”!!! It was malicious elimination of all those “independent thinkers” who were challenging the Tutsi extremists – the Kagame group!!! (3) MWENDA ARGUES THAT: I do recognize that individual RPF soldiers could have committed human rights violations and were not punished. But decisions at the level of a president have to be weighed against many other considerations. To ignore the extraordinary levels of restraint RPF exhibited is to undermine one of the most important things that can help Rwanda’s reconstruction and democratization. It is naïve to expect that such a war could have been fought faultlessly; war is not a tea party” THE TRUTH IS:

It is funny that Mr. Mwenda ignores not only the facts that implicate Kagame as a person but also the well established legal principles that hold the top command of any army accountable for what the field commanders do during war. Mwenda goes so far to “White Wash” his boss Kagame. Has Mwenda ever heard about principles like THE Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) and the defense called Superior order? Hs Mr. Mwenda ever come into contact with The Geneva Convention especially the Common Article (3)? Does he think that protecting civilians during war is mere favor, choice or a luxury?

(4) MWENDA ARGUES THAT: Today, the most dominant influence in control of Rwanda is Tutsi. Put yourself in their shoes: what would be their major fears and temptations? Many would think that control of power is the only insurance against genocide. Therefore, any opposition politician who is Hutu needs to recognize this fear and craft a message that seeks to reassure them that loss of power will not lead to mass extermination” THE TRUTH IS:

Mr. Mwenda clearly advocates for Tutsi domination and control simply because “they” fear!!! God, does Mwenda know the role of our Tutsi great grant fathers’ history? Does he know the well documented inhumane conduct of the pre Independence Tutsi leaders against the Hutu? Does Mwenda know the politics of exclusion and systematic dehumanization the Hutu endured under the Tutsi monarchy? Does Mwenda know that the Tutsi who now dominate and “control” the Hutu and Twa in Rwanda are hardly 15% of the entire population yet: a) 96% of the Ministers are Tutsi? b) 99.05% of the Senior officers in the army are Tutsi? c) 98% of Permanent Secretaries and Senior officers in the Public Service are Tutsi? c) 95% of the lower house of Parliament and the Senate are Tutsi? d) 96% of Rwandan Ambassadors are Tutsi? e) All presidents of Constitutional commissions are Tutsi? The entire leadership of the National Police and Prisons services is Tutsi?

Does Mwenda know that getting married to a Hutu in Kagame’s government is an offence that leads a Tutsi to loss of a job? Shame on you Mwenda!! How do you justify sh*t?

Mr. Mwenda, for your information, the opposition is not made of Hutu only. Anybody who disagrees with Kagame is a State enemy!!! I am Tutsi but I live in exile after working so hard to bring about sanity in Rwanda after the genocide!!! Is the King of Rwanda Kigeli a Hutu? Is he allowed to come to Rwanda? Is Mushayidi Deo who was kidnapped from Burundi just the other day and whose where about is unknown up to now a Hutu? Is Kayumba Nyamwasa, a general, who is not accused of grenades in Kigali a Hutu? Is Rudasingwa a Hutu?? Let me tell you one thing, most Tutsi in Rwanda and we in exile agree with Ingambire Vicotories’ analysis of the Rwandan problem. She believes there was what she calls ‘double genocide’ and so all the perpetrators should be brought to book. I agree with her 100%. She believes most Gacaca courts have been used to settle political differences than bringing about justice. I agree with her 100%. She believes Kagame has misused state resources for his family’s egoistic interests, I agree 100%. She does not believe Rwanda should have such diplomacy of aggression and revenge. I agree. Man, Mwenda, what are you talking about?

To ignore such a fear is absurd. If I were a Tutsi, I would interpret Ingabire’s statements as a veiled appeal to the Hutu for genocide. This would tempt me to cling to power at all costs; it is better for me and my kin to be exterminated defending ourselves than hand ourselves over for mass murder in the name of democracy.

(5) MWENDA ARGUES THAT: “Ingabire’s claims are even more ridiculous because there are hundreds of thousands of Hutu who actively participated in the genocide and have not been punished for it. They live happily in Rwanda; some sit in cabinet, others in parliament, government agencies – everywhere. The RPF realised long, long ago that punishment through criminal prosecution cannot solve Rwanda’s problems. Political reconciliation will; and that is what it has been doing.” THE TRUTH IS:

Mwenda must be undergoing some kind of temporary insanity if not permanent insanity!! Jesus!!! When Kagame releases a significant number of Hutu peasants from prison after 16 years without any trial on condition that they testify against the Hutu elite in Arusha and Rwanda cases for the sole purpose of eliminating the Hutu elite who would lead these poor peasants into a revolution against Kagame then you praise the Kagame? What is the purpose of releasing about 30,000 Hutu peasants from prisons and you imprison over 100,000 elite Hutu?

I personally investigated the role played by those few Hutu guys in Kagame’s government. I spoke to Kagame about it. Kagame told me that “a Hutu is good only when he serves the Tutsi cause!!! These guys are still good for us. They have international connections, they are in contact with their fellow Hutus who are fighting us, they can convince their fellow Hutu to accept us and above all, when we have a few Hutus in our government, and we have an argument for the international community that ours is not a Tutsi Junta”. For example, the infamous interahamwe leader Mr. Rucyagu, who killed the Tutsi in numbers, is now the one in charge of training Kagame’s militia called “Intore”!!!

(6) MWENDA ARGUES THAT: “Are there problems and weaknesses with this process including Gacaca courts? You bet! If they were not there, that would not be a human process. However, Rwanda needs to begin a conversation about the future, not a quarrel over the past. There are one million claims and counter claims Rwandans on either side of the political/ethnic divide make against each other: some true, some false; some legitimate, others out of context” THE TRUTH IS:

This one is an African young “intellectual” who claims to be independent yet Kagame’s dollars can blind fold him this far!! A system that allows for no basic freedoms of speech, association, etc and basically has no respect for people’s fundamental rights, Mwenda calls it “an ordinary human process”!!! Unfortunately, he is always on Museveni’s neck for the same. In Mwenda’s primitive logic, it is good if it is done by Kagame who pays him and it is bad if it is done by Museveni who did not give him ‘a fat office and pay”. God!!! How can Mwenda justify a court system that can throw some one in prison for life – in total exclusion from the outside world – and yet the accussed is not allowed any legal representation, no formal charge sheet against which one can present his/her defense? God, is Mwenda serious? Can he explain the fact that Gacaca courts, manned by people who have never attended a law class and in most case who have never been to school and most of the time the “judges” also being witnesses in the same case, have powers even to review cases that were decided by courts in which the accused was set free or given ‘lesser sentence? Mr. Mwenda, did you know that some Gacaca courts have “convicted’ Hutus for the 1994 genocide who died much earlier before 1994 simply because those courts want to find a pretext to confiscate these Hutus’ land? All that is “normal human process”?

UAH, Mwenda has his personal interests to defend Kagame and make sure Kagame lives another day in office. What I know is that Mwenda will be forced to bring our money back to Kigali after Kagame has gone. Of course, we shall have to bring back all our money Kagame has siphoned to USA, UK, South Africa, China and Finland. We know where he has put deposited and/or invested our money. Mwenda too will pay.

Categories: Middle East, Uncategorized Tags:

BUGANDA TODAY: MP TEMBO, KASANDA NORTH 100% CONGOLESE

March 12th, 2010 No comments

As Baganda, we have had to welcome and provide for the likes of Nyombi Thembo.  We welcome them with such wide open arms that we allow them to take on names and responsibilities within our traditional leadership and family structures. Obviously whenever they assume responsibilities beyond the levels permitted, such as Clan leadership, there is a mechanism for correcting the mistakes.  The 30 year limbo in which cultural institutions were cast brought about conflicts in succession and political manipulations brought the ‘Nsowoles’ – The undeserving into positions of leadership along the lineage hierarchy. Yet, political patronage  of such people has not stemmed the turn of the tide in restoring the rightful custodians to their thrones.Thats whats happening within Buganda, God forbid whats happening in other lesser organised Ugandan ethnic groupings.  Its undertandable when being Ugandan is such a turn on for them. Village Boy

Peace & Tranquility 2 the World

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

The Blue Print to control The Fringe

March 12th, 2010 No comments

The labyrinth world of double-think.

To know and not to know, to be conscious or complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them; to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy; to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again; and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the world “doublethink” involved the use of doublethink.

George Orwell 1984

Categories: Uncategorized, United States Tags:

Somalia: U.S. Should Accept Islamist Authority, Report Says

March 12th, 2010 4 comments

Wow,

Matek, are you telling me then that Obama’s administration hobnobbing with Mu7′d government at night is not working?

Oba

Somalia: U.S. Should Accept Islamist Authority, Report Says 11 March 2010

Email| Print| Comment

Share:

Washington, DC — The United States should accept an “Islamist authority” in Somalia as part of a “constructive disengagement” strategy for the war-torn country, according to a new report released here by the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on Wednesday.

The 39-page report urges the U.S. to recognise that “Islamist authority” even if it includes al-Shabaab, or “the youth” in Arabic, an Islamist insurgent group that has declared loyalty to al Qaeda.

While the report encourages an “inclusive posture” by the U.S. toward local fundamentalists, it suggests the U.S. should show “zero-tolerance’ toward transnational actors attempting to exploit Somalia’s conflict”, apparently referring to al Qaeda.It calls the current U.S. approach toward Somalia of propping up the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) “counterproductive”. Not only is it alienating large sections of the Somali population, but it is effectively polarising its diverse Muslim community into so-called “moderate” and “extremist” camps, the report says.

“The Shabaab is an alliance of convenience and its hold over territory is weaker than it appears. Somali fundamentalists – whose ambitions are mostly local – are likely to break ranks with al-Qaeda and other foreign operatives as the utility of cooperation diminishes,” says the report, authored by Bronwyn Bruton, a CFR international affairs fellow. “The United States and its allies must encourage these fissures to expand.”

However, David Shinn, a former U.S. ambassador to neighbouring Ethiopia in the 1990s, disagrees that the al-Shabaab leadership will be ready to join any future political arrangement in the country.

“I think al-Shabaab has become more radicalised and I don’t see any pragmatic leaders in al-Shabaab today. Many in the rank and file maybe pragmatic, the gun-carriers, but they are not the leaders,” said Shinn, who also served as U.S. ambassador to Burkina Faso in the late 1980s.

“I don’t see cracks in the leadership and I don’t see pragmatics in the leadership. A lot of the report is predicated on the idea that it is possible to negotiate with al-Shabaab and I think that’s wishful thinking,” he said.

The report also warns against continued support for the U.N.-backed TFG since it has proven “ineffective and costly”.

“The TFG is unable to improve security, deliver basic services, or move toward an agreement with Somalia’s clans and opposition groups that would provide a stronger basis for governance,” the report says.

The TFG was established in 2004 through U.N. mediation in Kenya in an effort to end the ongoing crisis in Somalia. The TFG moved to Somalia in 2005 but has been unable to make “any progress on state building tasks” due to internal divisions, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) said.

It was hoped that the installation of Sharif Ahmed, the former head of the Union of Islamic Courts, as president in January 2009 would attract a sufficient number of Islamist leaders to subdue or at least fragment al-Shabaab’s forces. But Shinn says the TFG has become “marginally stronger” in recent months.

“She [Bruton] seems to begin with the assumption that the TFG is doomed to fail. I am not convinced that it will fail,” said Shinn, who was a member of the Advisory Committee to the report. “The fact the TFG under President Ahmed has now existed for more than a year has already surprised many so-called Somali experts. It’s just wrong to make the assumption that it’s going to fail.”

Entitled “Somalia , A New Approach”, the report comes at a critical moment in the evolution of U.S. policy toward Somalia . Earlier this week, the New York Times reported that U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) are helping the Somali government, which has about 7,000 troops in the capital, plan an impending TFG military offensive aimed at dislodging al-Shabaab fighters from Mogadishu.

The report details two decades of strife in the Horn of Africa nation, the establishment of the TFG, and its ongoing ensuing power struggle with the al-Shabaab’s movement and its allies.

Bruton contends that the U.S. policy of providing indirect diplomatic and military support to the weak TFG has only “served to isolate the government, and…to propel cooperation among previously fractured and quarrelsome extremist groups.”

The report calls on the United States to make a final attempt to help the Somali government build public support by drawing in leaders of the other Islamist groups. But it urges the administration of President Barack Obama to consider major policy changes should the TFG fail or continue to be marginalised to the point of powerlessness.

The TGF, which is backed by some 5,000 African Union (AU) troops in a U.N.-authorised peacekeeping mission, controls only several blocks of Somalia’s sprawling capital of Mogadishu and the Aden Adde International Airport, while al-Shabaab controls vast swaths of land to the south, and parts of the capital as well.

Historically, Washington’s interest in the volatile East African nation has been limited to security issues, and most recently to denying sanctuary to al Qaeda or its affiliates on Somali territory. In recent years, the U.S. has carried out a number of attacks on targets in Somalia believed to be linked to al Qaeda.

However, some analysts believe that the U.S. help could easily lead to strengthening the insurgent movement in an already complicated set of circumstances.

“The administration has decided to move aggressively to support the TFG and is providing training, intelligence, military advice, and hardware to the TFG army in anticipation of a major TFG offensive against al-Shabaab,” said David R. Smock, vice president of the United States Institute of Peace’s Centre for Mediation and Conflict Resolution.

“This is a major American gamble which could backfire. The offensive could easily fail, which might lead the U.S. to get even more heavily engaged. We have been burned badly in Somalia before, and we could be burned again,” he added.

In late 1992, the administration of former President George H. W. Bush sent troops to Somalia as part of a U.N.-authorised operation to protect the delivery of humanitarian and food relief to starving communities there. But, in an aborted “nation-building” enterprise, U.S. military forces became increasingly engaged in the ongoing warfare between and among clans that followed the ouster in 1991 of the Siad Barre regime.

Then-President Bill Clinton began withdrawing U.S. troops after 18 SOF soldiers were killed during a botched helicopter raid against one clan leader in Mogadishu in October, 2003 and completed the withdrawal early in 2004.

Relevant Links

East Africa Somalia NGO U.S., Canada and Africa The CFR report also recommends a decentralised development strategy in collaboration with “the informal and traditional authorities” on the ground. It calls for restraining Ethiopia, which has been involved in Somalia’s conflicts for years.

Bruton suggests that the U.S. should not “own the Somali crisis” and needs to launch a diplomatic campaign to involve European and Middle Eastern countries to support Somalia’s stabilisation and address its humanitarian and developments needs.

A U.N. report on Wednesday alleged that up to half of the food aid delivered by the World Food Programme (WFP) to Somalia is being diverted to corrupt contractors, local U.N. workers and Islamist militants in the country. The WFP has rejected the allegations, calling them “unsubstantiated”.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

USA Africa Dialogue Series – Can we Afford this Democracy?

March 12th, 2010 No comments

Indeed!

Oba

An excellent write-up!

A very much RECOMMENDED READING!!!

On Thu 03/11/10 8:54 AM , Moses Ebe Ochonu meochonu@gmail.com sent:

Can We Afford this Democracy?

By Moses Ochonu

I have sensed a disturbing complacency in our politicians and intellectuals as they try to enunciate democracy for the rest of us. They assume erroneously that democracy is its own justification — that simply being baptized with the moniker of democracy is sufficient. And that Nigerians, dispossessed they may be, will be satisfied with a political concept that, as currently practiced in Nigeria, stands empty of its substantive content.

This tragic misunderstanding troubles me personally because the assumption is that even as Nigerians groan under the weight of multiple deprivations, we can take solace in the knowledge that we have democracy and that democracy will soothe our pain. How wrong! The proper retort should be a classic Nigerian putdown: na democracy we go chop? But let’s not trivialize an important issue.

My good friend, Ikhide Ikheloa, a literary critic and Next columnist, has been on a personal mission. His aim: to orchestrate the demise of our current “democracy.” He is so convinced that democracy is a mortal danger to Nigerians that he equates its dissolution to an epic struggle for political liberation; liberation from predation and legalized, “democratic” oppression.

For Ikhide, democracy has, far from doing Nigeria good, set the country back decades and provided a perfect alibi for the political class to bankrupt and bury the country once and for all. Tough words, but those who know Ikhide know that he can be unapologetically melodramatic and passionate in expressing his opinions.

Melodrama aside, what Ikhide is saying is the stuff of dinner table discussions and long-distance telephone and email conversations among Nigerians at home and abroad. Stripped of all provocative linguistic devices, what Ikhide is advancing is pretty basic: the democracy practiced by Abuja is fractured beyond recognition; it is not what Nigerians signed up for in 1999; if we do not act urgently, it will consume us all.

Let me break it down through a process of crude itemization.

A. The material promise of democracy, that is, the supposed correlation between democracy and improved standards of living, has yet to materialize for Nigerians in almost eleven unbroken years of “democracy.”

B. Even advertized abstract benefits like press freedom, human rights, the right to free political choice, and the right to make deliberative input in governance have all been denied Nigerians under this democracy. While we saw flickers of these benefits in the wake of military disengagement in 1999, today’s “democratic” environment resembles the regimented, freedom-less days of military rule.

C. “Democracy” has provided the perfect cover for corruption—massive corruption. “Democracy” has—forgive the redundancy—democratized corruption. Under the military, corruption was a quasi-monopoly; it was tightly controlled by a small cohort. Under our “democracy,” the need to cultivate political support and immunity means that the loot has to circulate. Democracy has also made corruption legitimate. In the days of the military, the zones of legal and illegal monetary appropriation were clearly demarcated, so we could tell easily when an act of corrupt self-enrichment had occurred. Not any more. Under our current “democratic” practice public officials steal legally. They only have to underwrite what they steal as a licit item in the budget bill. This can be done in a few choreographed, taxpayer-funded committee sittings and a hurried process of debate-less approval. Political office holders can even steal in anticipation, carefully documenting future thefts and including them as budgetary earmarks or exculpatory footnotes in legislations. And it’s all legal—and perfectly within the procedural norms of our “democracy.” Where the law did not exist to legitimize the theft, our legislators have enacted or been goaded by executive carrots and sticks into enacting one-off bills to authorize acts of pillage deemed in the pecuniary interest of legislators and their executive partners. Democracy has licensed and unleashed novel evils on our country. Consider this: the Borno State House of Assembly recently passed a bill awarding stupendous severance perks worth tens of millions of naira annually to the governor and his deputy—for life! And it’s all legal and within the rules of our “democracy.”

D. The bill for this destructive “democracy” is now being paid in the life and limbs of Nigerians. I’ll explain. A recent report confirmed what many Nigerians have suspected all along: Nigerian public office holders at all levels are the highest paid in the world. Together with their string of assistants and advisers (who also have their own paid advisers), our public officers gobble up at least half of our revenue and budgetary appropriations in legitimate rewards. And we have not accounted for the unbridled stealing that is now a legitimized staple of our patrimonial politics. Add that to the math and we may be talking of seventy percent of our revenue being spent on the maintenance of our “democratic” personnel—on running our “democracy.” This prohibitive overhead has left us with a smaller pool of funds than ever to invest in the things that matter to Nigerians: roads, healthcare, school, water, electricity, and food. This odd financial state of low return on “democratic” investment is unsustainable. Something has to give.

E. This “democracy” has intensified our ethno-regional bickering while bequeathing an unfolding legacy of costly national political gridlocks. The quagmire occasioned by Yar’Adua’s health crisis is a perfect illustration. Try quantifying the financial and political cost of this long-running farce and you’ll see how expensive “democracy” really is. A few weeks ago, the country teetered precariously because the ritualistic niceties of democracy stood in the way of pragmatic, decisive, patriotic action. This preference for process over productive outcomes is one reason why democracy is losing its appeal with many Nigerians. Most of our gridlocks are resolved quicker than the current one and at less political cost, but that is not much comfort either. For when routine political disagreements are settled, they often involve Ghana-must-go political solutions that are just as costly to Nigerians as prolonged impasses. F. Elected officials often do not play by the rules that brought them to power; they seek instead to subvert laws and constitutions to secure longer tenures. Think Obasanjo, but also think Mamadou Tandja, Yahyah Jammeh, Yoweri Museveni, and many other African leaders whose fickle commitment to democracy has led them into tenure-extending adventures that have thrown their countries into costly political crises. The irritant for many Nigerians is that “democracy” has been reduced in practice to—and accepted as being constituted by—only one of its many elements: the ritualistic conduct of periodic, incumbent-rigged elections. Every other hyped benefit of democracy has eluded Nigerians. G. In this “democracy” every government action is conceived through the lens of politics, not of patriotism. Instead of asking if a policy or initiative is good for the Nigerian people elected officials ask if it would look good politically. Instead of asking how a policy might help Nigerians, officials ask how it would win them the next elections—how it would enrich campaign donors and party godfathers and how much it would generate for the election war chest. This permanent campaign culture is a costly drawback of democracy and has reached a head in the United States, the prototypical practitioner of the presidential system of government. The difference is that America ’s robust economy can absorb the cost; Nigeria ’s cannot.

Democratic Disappointment With such a low dividend on democracy, and with “democracy” being so costly and toxic to the body politic, it is no surprise that many Nigerians have begun to question their loyalty to the received wisdom that democracy is superior to its alternatives. For many Nigerians and Africans democracy has failed. It has failed to live up to its publicized benefits—tangible and intangible. So glaring is this failure and so painful are the betrayals of Africa’s “democrats” that ten thousand Nigeriens recently poured into the streets of Niamey to rally in support of the new military regime there. Westerners may be scrambling to comprehend this dramatic reversal of public opinion from a craving for a democratic overthrow of a military dictatorship eleven years ago to an enthusiastic embrace of a military overthrow of a “democratic” regime today. But this is something that people in neighboring Nigeria can explain and understand. The exuberant Nigeriens at the rally were not expressing a preference for military autocracy. They were voicing their disillusionment with a failed democracy. Nigeria’s democratic setbacks may not yet entitle us to reject democracy altogether or to be receptive to military rule. But we are at a crossroads, and if we continue with this charade, a Niger-like scenario of democratic disillusionment may be in the horizon. We cannot continue along this path: abusing democracy, invoking it to legitimize all that is abhorrent but neglecting to fulfill its utilitarian promises to Nigerians. America and the rest of the West have the luxury of evaluating democracy from a purely idealistic standpoint. They can afford the long wait necessary for democracy to register—the gestation period needed for democracy’s more visible benefits to trickle down and permeate society. They can comfortably absorb the overhead cost of democracy and the financial and political burdens of partisan gridlock. Their economy is big enough to soak up the imperfections and dysfunctions of democracy—which are many. Their political system is decentralized enough to withstand partisan and procedural impasse at the center. Not Nigeria and Nigerians. Our perception of democracy is a purely utilitarian one. Americans obsess intellectually about what democracy means; Nigerians ask what it can deliver to them. Nigerians evaluate democratic practice not in abstract or futuristic terms but in terms of its immediate benefits to their lives. Democracy will only be as popular as the results it delivers for Nigerians. Nigerians want democracy to deliver quantifiable gratifications, and they cannot wait too long for these. Eleven years is long enough. It is not the fault of Nigerians either. The rhetoric of democratic advocacy in the military era made glib, enticing connections between Nigerians’ economic plight and the lack of democracy in their country. The suggestion was clear: democracy brings development and improved living. Nigerians’ expectation of democracy rests on this promise. It is time they began to see some of the promised returns. If they don’t they have a right to question the assumed connection between democracy and development and to become disillusioned. It is unrealistic to expect that in a developmentally-challenged country where poverty is an inescapable companion, citizens would perceive democratic governance from a non-materialist perspective. Their needs are starkly material, so are their expectations from democracy. Nigerians should not be expected to muster the idealism and patience required for a long-drawn process of democratic maturity when their bellies are empty.

Where do we go From Here? There is no innate or sacred loyalty to democracy in Nigerians—or, for that matter, in any other people. The degree of Nigerians’ attachment to the concept corresponds to the benefits that they see it delivering or the damage it is doing to their lives. This is why democracy is suffering setbacks across Africa. So what’s the alternative to a broken, dangerous democracy? It’s not so simple. Dambisa Moyo, the Oxford-educated Zambian author of Dead Aid, offers one of the most eloquent critiques of democratic practice in Africa. Democracy—multiparty democracy—prevents timely action that may be the difference between a life-saving economic initiative and life-taking inaction, gridlock, or disaster. Democracy fosters costly ethno-partisan impasses that stifle development and productive economic change. She climaxes her critique by prescribing “benevolent dictatorships” as the practical model for Africa. At least dictatorships get things done—if they want to, and are capable of pushing needed reforms through without the costly and time-consuming observance of democratic rules and processes. The procedural red tape of democracy is an enemy of development, she argues. It’s hard to disagree with Moyo’s critique of democracy in Africa. But it’s hard to sympathize with her prescription because benevolence and dictatorships rarely co-exist in Africa, or anywhere, and it takes a naïve mind to assume that they could. Nonetheless, she deserves commendation for going against the grain of universal democratic orthodoxy—the unquestioned dogma that democracy can simply be transplanted to Africa in its Western form with its stifling multiparty squabbles, expensive electoral rituals, and costly, divisive deliberative quagmires. Here is the bottom line: this democracy is fatally broken. We are headed for an implosion if we fail to do something. Ikheloa may be hyperbolic in his characterization, but the disenchantment with democracy and its many failures is real. We ignore this reality at our collective peril. Events in the last few weeks have underlined the anxieties that underpin this reflection on democracy. Yar’Adua’s sneaky reentry into the country and the gale of confusion and scramble that it unleashed exposed the fragility and shallowness of our democracy.

The debate over the succession crisis devolved quickly and predictably into familiar North-South brickbats. The nation truly screeched to a frightening halt; a tepid shove would have taken us over the cliff.

So, again, much as we are inclined to defer the discussion and to tow the politically correct line of advancing democracy as its own cure, we are frequently being confronted with political crises that threaten the very foundation of the union. The question is: what is democracy’s worth if the way we practice it imperils our country and its people and widens the crevices that divide us? Would we rather preserve a pretentious democracy and lose the nation?

What then are the choices before Nigeria?

Earlier, I introduced Dambisa Moyo’s prescription of “benevolent dictatorship.” It’s not a new idea. It’s been around since the 1960s. It used to be called developmental dictatorship. The poster country of that model today is China. But China is China and Nigeria is Nigeria.

Because of Nigeria’s history of military rule and because of the strong elite unanimity in opposing non-representative political templates, this model would only heighten our crisis of governance and stifle development. In other words, it would be a dictatorship but it would be anything but developmental. Even if the contraption where possible in practice, its deficits would wipe out its benefits.

How about military rule?

I have found that most Nigerians do not share the irreconcilable hostility of the schooled elite to military rule. Much of this hostility is founded on abstract, theoretical objections, not on crude or even enlightened interests. Most Nigerians are more pragmatic. They would prefer an effective military regime that consciously improves their lives to a “democratic” regime that is preoccupied with a systematic violation of their lives and rights.

Nigerians are not the only ones who entertain episodic fantasies about the virtues of decisive autocracies during moments of democratic disappointments and stalemates. Even the Americans occasionally bemoan the problems of democracy and its elevation of bickering above action. Frustrated that some of his agendas were stuck in the traffic of congressional partisanship, former President George W. Bush famously remarked that “a dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier.” He was joking, of course. But he was also expressing a genuine frustration at the slow pace of democracy—at the roadblocks that democratic rules and procedures place in the way of policy, initiative, and problem-solving. The frustrations of democracy are more intense, more burdensome, and more consequential in Nigeria than they are in America.

Nigeria’s intellectual and political elites are fond of saying that the worst democratic regime is better than the best military regime. This is at best elitist, out-of-touch rhetoric, a talking point of pro-democracy advocacy. Most Nigerians would reject this proposition outright. The poor, anguished farmer in my village who desires the positive physical presence of government in his life and community would disagree with it. So would the slum-dwelling day laborer in Kurmin Gwari, Kaduna. He would gladly accept a performing government of any stripe.

This is, of course, a false choice scenario. Most Nigerians would prefer the ideal: a democratic government that is also an effective governing machine, a prudent, fair, and humane allocator of resources. In the absence of the ideal however they would settle for a regime—any regime—that gives them the roads, schools, water, healthcare, electricity, and food security they crave.

A critique of democracy is not an endorsement of military rule. It need not be. The enlightened segments of Nigerian society are firm in their agreement that democracy is inherently better than military rule. Since these segments, not the brutalized and desperate masses, are the drivers of political paradigm shifts we can take the military rule option off the table.

But that does not mean that we have to engage in the fatalism of accepting the invidious, “democratic” status quo. It means that we have to craft something in its place.

For starters, why can’t we modify this unwieldy American presidential system that is undermining our people and our country? Even the Americans, with all their wealth and strong institutions, are complaining about the financial cost (transaction cost, to use a chic political science jargon) of their democracy and its divisive, do-nothing hyper-partisan gridlocks. Our gridlocks are more costly because they are not just partisan; they are complicated by our ethno-religious and regional fissures.

Why do we need to have two legislative, money-guzzling legislative chambers instead of one lean, inexpensive one? Why, in the name of all that is good, do we have three senators from each state when we could have just one and spend a fraction of what we do now to maintain them and get them to actually work and earn their pay? The Americans that we ape have two senators representing each state, not three.

Many African cultures are authoritarian in nature. The figure of the big man who sits atop the political food chain with magisterial command, taking care of his subjects’ needs but demanding total subservience from them, is very seductive. When the American executive power system and this preexisting cultural reality converge you end up with the kind of vulgar abuses of power we are seeing from our executive office holders across the country. We don’t need a system that intensifies our authoritarian cultural disposition. We need a system that attenuates it. Such as a parliamentary system or any other arrangement that approximates its virtues.

These are just a few examples of how we can reform and customize our democratic practice to fit our peculiar needs, problems, and pocket. The choice is not between military rule and the unsustainable status quo.

Abuja will understandably oppose reforms that will reduce executive power and its abuse, shrink the stealing field, and expand the pool of resources available for developing the lives of Nigerians. Already, its answer to the problem of dwindling developmental revenue (caused by excessive democracy expenses and corruption) is to inflict more taxes and levies on Nigeria’s economically beleaguered middle and lower classes.

This is a welcome blunder. It should backfire with a positive outcome. With taxation comes the clamor for accountability, hostility to government recklessness, and demands for effective representation. With taxation comes citizen vigilance.

Maybe the failures of this democracy and Abuja’s frantic reaction to them will fertilize the ground for corrective action and for the installation of a true, concrete democracy.

The time to overhaul this democracy is now.

The author can be reached at: meochonu@gmail.com

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Africa’s Forever Wars

March 12th, 2010 No comments

– –

– – – – –

– MARCH 12, 2010 -

FEATURE PRINT | TEXT SIZE | EMAIL | SINGLE PAGE Africa’s Forever WarsWhy the continent’s conflicts never end.BY JEFFREY GETTLEMAN | MARCH/APRIL 2010

There is a very simple reason why some of Africa’s bloodiest, most brutal wars never seem to end: They are not really wars. Not in the traditional sense, at least. The combatants don’t have much of an ideology; they don’t have clear goals. They couldn’t care less about taking over capitals or major cities — in fact, they prefer the deep bush, where it is far easier to commit crimes. Today’s rebels seem especially uninterested in winning converts, content instead to steal other people’s children, stick Kalashnikovs or axes in their hands, and make them do the killing. Look closely at some of the continent’s most intractable conflicts, from the rebel-laden creeks of the Niger Delta to the inferno in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and this is what you will find.

What we are seeing is the decline of the classic African liberation movement and the proliferation of something else — something wilder, messier, more violent, and harder to wrap our heads around. If you’d like to call this war, fine. But what is spreading across Africa like a viral pandemic is actually just opportunistic, heavily armed banditry. My job as the *New York Times*’ East Africa bureau chief is to cover news and feature stories in 12 countries. But most of my time is spent immersed in these un-wars.

I’ve witnessed up close — often way too close — how combat has morphed from soldier vs. soldier (now a rarity in Africa) to soldier vs. civilian. Most of today’s African fighters are not rebels with a cause; they’re predators. That’s why we see stunning atrocities like eastern Congo’s rape epidemic, where armed groups in recent years have sexually assaulted hundreds of thousands of women, often so sadistically that the victims are left incontinent for life. What is the military or political objective of ramming an assault rifle inside a woman and pulling the trigger? Terror has become an end, not just a means.

This is the story across much of Africa, where nearly half of the continent’s 53 countries are home to an active conflict or a recently ended one. Quiet places such as Tanzania are the lonely exceptions; even user-friendly, tourist-filled Kenya blew up in 2008. Add together the casualties in just the dozen countries that I cover, and you have a death toll of tens of thousands of civilians each year. More than 5 million have died in Congo alone since 1998, the International Rescue Committee has estimated.

Of course, many of the last generation’s independence struggles were bloody, too. South Sudan’s decades-long rebellion is thought to have cost more than 2 million lives. But this is not about numbers. This is about methods and objectives, and the leaders driving them. Uganda’s top guerrilla of the 1980s, Yoweri Museveni, used to fire up his rebels by telling them they were on the ground floor of a national people’s army.* *Museveni became president in 1986, and he’s still in office (another problem, another story). But his words seem downright noble compared with the best-known rebel leader from his country today, Joseph Kony, who just gives orders to burn.

Even if you could coax these men out of their jungle lairs and get them to the negotiating table, there is very little to offer them. They don’t want ministries or tracts of land to govern. Their armies are often traumatized children, with experience and skills (if you can call them that) totally unsuited for civilian life. All they want is cash, guns, and a license to rampage. And they’ve already got all three. How do you negotiate with that?

The short answer is you don’t. The only way to stop today’s rebels for real is to capture or kill their leaders. Many are uniquely devious characters whose organizations would likely disappear as soon as they do. That’s what happened in Angola when the diamond-smuggling rebel leader Jonas Savimbi was shot, bringing a sudden end to one of the Cold War’s most intense conflicts. In Liberia, the moment that warlord-turned-president Charles Taylor was arrested in 2006 was the same moment that the curtain dropped on the gruesome circus of 10-year-old killers wearing Halloween masks. Countless dollars, hours, and lives have been wasted on fruitless rounds of talks that will never culminate in such clear-cut results. The same could be said of indictments of rebel leaders for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court. With the prospect of prosecution looming, those fighting are sure never to give up.

How did we get here? Maybe it’s pure nostalgia, but it seems that yesteryear’s African rebels had a bit more class. They were fighting against colonialism, tyranny, or apartheid. The winning insurgencies often came with a charming, intelligent leader wielding persuasive rhetoric. These were men like John Garang, who led the rebellion in southern Sudan with his Sudan People’s Liberation Army. He pulled off what few guerrilla leaders anywhere have done: winning his people their own country. Thanks in part to his tenacity, South Sudan will hold a referendum next year to secede from the North. Garang died in a 2005 helicopter crash, but people still talk about him like a god. Unfortunately, the region without him looks pretty godforsaken. I traveled to southern Sudan in November to report on how ethnic militias, formed in the new power vacuum, have taken to mowing down civilians by the thousands.

Even Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s dictator, was once a guerrilla with a plan. After transforming minority white-run Rhodesia into majority black-run Zimbabwe, he turned his country into one of the fastest-growing and most diversified economies south of the Sahara — for the first decade and a half of his rule. His status as a true war hero, and the aid he lent other African liberation movements in the 1980s, account for many African leaders’ reluctance to criticize him today, even as he has led Zimbabwe down a path straight to hell.

These men are living relics of a past that has been essentially obliterated. Put the well-educated Garang and the old Mugabe in a room with today’s visionless rebel leaders, and they would have just about nothing in common. What changed in one generation was in part the world itself. The Cold War’s end bred state collapse and chaos. Where meddling great powers once found dominoes that needed to be kept from falling, they suddenly saw no national interest at all. (The exceptions, of course, were natural resources, which could be bought just as easily — and often at a nice discount — from various armed groups.) Suddenly, all you needed to be powerful was a gun, and as it turned out, there were plenty to go around. AK-47s and cheap ammunition bled out of the collapsed Eastern Bloc and into the farthest corners of Africa. It was the perfect opportunity for the charismatic and morally challenged.

In Congo, there have been dozens of such men since 1996, when rebels rose up against the leopard skin-capped dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, probably the most corrupt man in the history of this most corrupt continent. After Mobutu’s state collapsed, no one really rebuilt it. In the anarchy that flourished, rebel leaders carved out fiefdoms ludicrously rich in gold, diamonds, copper, tin, and other minerals. Among them were Laurent Nkunda, Bosco Ntaganda, Thomas Lubanga, a toxic hodgepodge of Mai Mai commanders, Rwandan genocidaires, and the madman leaders of a flamboyantly cruel group called the Rastas.

I met Nkunda in his mountain hideout in late 2008 after slogging hours up a muddy road lined with baby-faced soldiers. The chopstick-thin general waxed eloquent about the oppression of the minority Tutsi people he claimed to represent, but he bristled when I asked him about the warlord-like taxes he was imposing and all the women his soldiers have raped. The questions didn’t seem to trouble him too much, though, and he cheered up soon. His farmhouse had plenty of space for guests, so why didn’t I spend the night?

Nkunda is not totally wrong about Congo’s mess. Ethnic tensions are a real piece of the conflict, together with disputes over land, refugees, and meddling neighbor countries. But what I’ve come to understand is how quickly legitimate grievances in these failed or failing African states deteriorate into rapacious, profit-oriented bloodshed. Congo today is home to a resource rebellion in which vague anti-government feelings become an excuse to steal public property. Congo’s embarrassment of riches belongs to the 70 million Congolese, but in the past 10 to 15 years, that treasure has been hijacked by a couple dozen rebel commanders who use it to buy even more guns and wreak more havoc.

Probably the most disturbing example of an African un-war comes from the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), begun as a rebel movement in northern Uganda during the lawless 1980s. Like the gangs in the oil-polluted Niger Delta, the LRA at first had some legitimate grievances — namely, the poverty and marginalization of the country’s ethnic Acholi areas. The movement’s leader, Joseph Kony, was a young, wig-wearing, gibberish-speaking, so-called prophet who espoused the Ten Commandments. Soon, he broke every one. He used his supposed magic powers (and drugs) to whip his followers into a frenzy and unleashed them on the very Acholi people he was supposed to be protecting.

The LRA literally carved their way across the region, leaving a trail of hacked-off limbs and sawed-off ears. They don’t talk about the Ten Commandments anymore, and some of those left in their wake can barely talk at all. I’ll never forget visiting northern Uganda a few years ago and meeting a whole group of women whose lips were sheared off by Kony’s maniacs. Their mouths were always open, and you could always see their teeth.* *When Uganda finally got its act together in the late 1990s and cracked down, Kony and his men simply marched on. Today, their scourge has spread to one of the world’s most lawless regions: the borderland where Sudan, Congo, and the Central African Republic meet.

Child soldiers are an inextricable part of these movements. The LRA, for example, never seized territory; it seized children. Its ranks are filled with brainwashed boys and girls who ransack villages and pound newborn babies to death in wooden mortars. In Congo, as many as one-third of all combatants are under 18. Since the new predatory style of African warfare is motivated and financed by crime, popular support is irrelevant to these rebels. The downside to not caring about winning hearts and minds, though, is that you don’t win many recruits. So abducting and manipulating children becomes the only way to sustain the organized banditry. And children have turned out to be ideal weapons: easily brainwashed, intensely loyal, fearless, and, most importantly, in endless supply.

In this new age of forever wars, even Somalia looks different. That country certainly evokes the image of Africa’s most chaotic state — exceptional even in its neighborhood for unending conflict. But what if Somalia is less of an outlier than a terrifying forecast of what war in Africa is moving toward? On the surface, Somalia seems wracked by a religiously themed civil conflict between the internationally backed but feckless transitional government and the Islamist militia al-Shabab. Yet the fighting is being nourished by the same old Somali problem that has dogged this desperately poor country since 1991: warlordism. Many of the men who command or fund militias in Somalia today are the same ones who tore the place apart over the past 20 years in a scramble for the few resources left — the port, airport, telephone poles, and grazing pastures.

Somalis are getting sick of the Shabab and its draconian rules — no music, no gold teeth, even no bras. But what has kept locals in Somalia from rising up against foreign terrorists is Somalia’s deeply ingrained culture of war profiteering. The world has let Somalia fester too long without a permanent government. Now, many powerful Somalis have a vested interest in the status quo chaos. One olive oil exporter in Mogadishu told me that he and some trader friends bought a crate of missiles to shoot at government soldiers because “taxes are annoying .”

Most frightening is how many sick states like Congo are now showing Somalia-like symptoms. Whenever a potential leader emerges to reimpose order in Mogadishu, criminal networks rise up to finance his opponent, no matter who that may be. The longer these areas are stateless, the harder it is to go back to the necessary evil of government.

All this might seem a gross simplification, and indeed, not all of Africa’s conflicts fit this new paradigm. The old steady — the military coup — is still a common form of political upheaval, as Guinea found out in 2008 and Madagascar not too long thereafter. I have also come across a few non-hoodlum rebels who seem legitimately motivated, like some of the Darfurian commanders in Sudan. But though their political grievances are well defined, the organizations they “lead” are not. Old-style African rebels spent years in the bush honing their leadership skills, polishing their ideology, and learning to deliver services before they ever met a Western diplomat or sat for a television interview. Now rebels are hoisted out of obscurity after they have little more than a website and a “press office” (read: a satellite telephone). When I went to a Darfur peace conference in Sirte, Libya, in 2007, I quickly realized that the main draw for many of these rebel “leaders” was not the negotiating sessions, but the all-you-can-eat buffet.

For the rest, there are the un-wars, these ceaseless conflicts I spend my days cataloging as they grind on, mincing lives and spitting out bodies. Recently, I was in southern Sudan working on a piece about the Ugandan Army’s hunt for Kony, and I met a young woman named Flo. She had been a slave in the LRA for 15 years and had recently escaped. She had scarred shins and stony eyes, and often there were long pauses after my questions, when Flo would stare at the horizon. “I am just thinking of the road home,” she said. It was never clear to her why the LRA was fighting. To her, it seemed like they had been aimlessly tramping through the jungle, marching in circles.

This is what many conflicts in Africa have become — circles of violence in the bush, with no end in sight. Save over 50% when you *subscribe* to FP.

Lynsey Addario/VII

*Jeffrey Gettleman is East Africa bureau chief for the *New York Times*.*

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Good move – the sooner ACORN is gone completely the better

March 12th, 2010 No comments

Mar 11, 4:14 PM EST

ACORN gives up Ohio business license, won’t return

By JULIE CARR SMYTH AP Statehouse Correspondent

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The community organizing group ACORN has agreed to give up its Ohio business license and not return under another name, as it has in other states, under a settlement struck with a libertarian center that sued it.

U.S. District Judge Herman Weber, in Cincinnati, signed off on the deal, which settles claims brought by the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law against ACORN’s voter registration practices. Other terms of the deal are confidential.

The center alleged in a lawsuit filed in 2008 that ACORN’s voter registration drives amounted to organized crime because the group turned in a pattern of fraudulent forms.

Center attorney Maurice Thompson said restricting ACORN’s ability to support or enable other groups to “do what they do” was crucial to the deal, especially in a state he characterized as “ground zero” to their voter advocacy efforts.

“It carries a great deal of significance because, in the absence of that term, ACORN could simply have shut down but reopened the next day as WALNUT or CHESTNUT or whatever and done the exact same thing,” Thompson said. “So our goal was to affect permanent change.”

In other states, including New York and California, ACORN chapters have disbanded and resumed operations under new names.

The California ACORN chapter split from the national organization in January, forming a new nonprofit called the Alliance of Californians for Community Employment, or ACCE.

In New York, where three ACORN employees were caught on video apparently advising a couple posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend to lie about her profession and launder her earnings, ACORN’s local offices disbanded and resumed operations as New York Communities for Change. Prosecutors said they found no criminal wrongdoing by the employees.

That video and a series of others filmed at ACORN offices around the country last year sparked a national scandal and helped drive the organization to near ruin.

ACORN spokesman Kevin Whelan said Thursday the group agreed to surrender its Ohio business license by June 1 and already has closed up shop in the state.

“For reasons unrelated to the lawsuit, ACORN was winding up its staff operations in Ohio anyway,” he said. “So there was no practical reason for us to spend time and money litigating this suit further, even though it was baseless and intended to harass us.”

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, describes itself as an advocate for low-income and minority home buyers and residents. It denied any wrongdoing in Ohio.

Whelan said offshoot groups that have formed as new nonprofits may have help from former ACORN activists but are independent entities. He said no such effort has taken place in Ohio.

“They’re new corporations, incorporated with different boards that include some people that used to be involved with ACORN but also prominent community members from labor and public life,” Whelan said. “So those really are new and different things, although a number of people who played a big role in them played a role in ACORN for a long time.”

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy .

[Get Copyright Permissions]Click here for copyright permissions! Copyright 2008 Associated Press

* *

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: