I am no Christian or Jew, but have always respected and observed the Biblical teachings contained in Ephesians 4:29 which states: “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.”
This is why my conscience cannot allow me to ignore some of the foul mouthed insults being hurled at Fatoumata Jahumpa-Ceesay, former speaker of the Gambian National Assembly in the Dr Njomborr corner of the Freedom Newspaper.
Last Saturday immediately after The Gambian Echo ran a newsflash that they will be running an interview they had with Mrs. Jahumpa-Ceesay which was conducted while she was out shopping at the popular Right Choice Supermarket on Kairaba Avenue, Dr Njombor for whatever reasons went bananas calling her a ‘whore’.
Again this Sunday, while reading the online news at my brother’s residence in Telford, Dr Njombor in his attack at the former speaker stated: “Fatou Jahumpa Ceesay, do you remember when you tried to lure a former Daily Observer reporter into a sxxx at your Kanifing house? What? Your naked axxx was waiting for that d.... What? You are nothing but a whore!!! What? Fxxx you all and your mxxxx fxxx king mxxxxs! See you in court. I am no coward! I rather die to be a coward. You get that!!! Author the unknown!”
My eyes couldn’t believe what I was reading and I had to read it three times to believe that such foul mouthed language is actually published in a Gambian owned online newspaper which is read by even school children.
And what really surprised me is the decision of the publisher and managing editor of the Freedom Newspaper, who recently acquired a degree in Mass Communication from the reputable Arizona University, Phoenix, to allow such foul mouthed language to slip through.
I am not trying to lecture anyone about ethics of the profession as I haven't got a degree in communication like Mr. Mbye, but my long work experience with the media have always thought me that it is not professional for journalists to insult or hurt people in the name of freedom of expression.
Let me be quick to point out that I am not defending Mrs. Jahumpa-Ceesay, but I am compel to speak out because I totally believe that Dr Njombor went far beyond the line. I would not have raised a voice if the rude language used by Dr Njombor were contained in a Hollywood film script for Samuel L. Jackson rated PG 16.
As journalists and online contributors, it is normal that we disagree with each other in our day-to-day work on many issues. But as Baba Galleh Jallow, one of my editors at The Independent told me in an interview last year, "no one should claim infallibility or consider himself or herself to be above criticism. After all, we are trying to build a democratic political culture in the Gambia whose cardinal principle would be tolerance and respect for contrary opinions."
Using foul languages does not show any sign of bravery or make one look better. It also does not show any sign of cleverness either.
Writing under the caption What Purpose hath foul Language? in February 2007, renown US blogger, Harrison Beckmann, stated: “It is uncreative. People who use it [foul language] as expressions of whatever they are feeling at the moment forsake far more creative ways to say it. People who use it are limiting themselves to a very small, undesirable portion of all language. People who use it show that they are ignorant enough not to know to use something better. It is rude.
I know that some people will disagree with me and may jump to launch personal attack on me. I don't care because I am a sinner and is not perfect. But before you do, please take a moment and put yourself in Mrs. Jahumpa-Ceesay’s position. How would you feel if your mother, wife, sister, aunty, step-mum, or whatever relative is being so publicly insulted in an online newspaper?
I will hate to see anyone whisper an insult at my parents and am sure you too will hate that. Mrs. Jahumpa-Ceesay no matter what she may have done or no matter what her political belief is is a mother, a wife, aunty, sister, cousin, and niece etc to many Gambians who must have been really hurt. We may not share the same political ideologies or beliefs, but I will always respect her constitutionally given rights like every Gambian to belong to any political party of our choice.
Peace.
For comments, write to papak196@yahoo.com or pk@jarju.com
Monday, 14 December 2009
Saturday, 12 December 2009
Senegal imams use prayers to condemn giant statue
By Caspar Leighton
BBC News West Africa correspondent
Imams in Senegal have begun a concerted campaign against a giant statue being built in Dakar.
They are using Friday prayers to denounce it as idolatrous and a waste of money.
The Monument to the African Renaissance is a pet project of Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade and will be bigger than the Statue of Liberty when complete.
The main controversy has been the cost - at $27m (£16.6m) it is a big outlay for a poor country.
It is also on questionable aesthetic ground.
The imams are tapping into a strong vein of discontent with the giant statue.
'War of words'
Depicting a muscular man holding aloft a child and sweeping a woman along behind him, it is pure socialist realism - and not very African.
It is being built by North Korea.
Imams agreed a text for Friday sermons quoting the Koran and the Hadith (Islamic sayings), which forms a denunciation of the idolatrous nature of the giant structure.
The protests do come a bit late though, for the statue is almost finished.
The new campaign is an escalation in a long war of words between imams and President Wade.
One imam put it pithily, saying it was not on that the first thing air travellers see of Senegal when their plane descends is a near-naked man and woman.
What sticks in the throats of many Senegalese though is President Wade's plan to charge visitors and pocket a share of the takings himself.
The president says he helped design the statue, so he should share some of the revenue.
Friday, 11 December 2009
On-the-run killer found dead in Gambia
A convicted murderer on the run from a Scottish open prison has been found dead in a West African holiday resort.
John Brown, convicted of murder in 1976, absconded from Castle Huntly prison, near Dundee, after he was let out on home leave in May.
The 57-year-old's body was discovered in The Gambia on 29 November. It is understood he was found hanged.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: "We can confirm the death of a British national in The Gambia."
He added: "Next of kin have been informed and we are providing consular assistance."
Brown previously lived and worked in both Glasgow and Edinburgh.
His disappearance was described by the authorities as being "completely out of character".
Home leave
At the time, Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill was put under pressure to resign as the escape followed that of armed robber Brian Martin, known as The Hawk, who also went on the run from Castle Huntly.
Brown had been transferred to the open prison on the advice of the Parole Board in February this year.
He was being considered for release in July, Scotland's Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said at the time of his disappearance.
He said the prisoner had "no history" of absconding, and had completed a "successful" period of home leave a month before he vanished.
Scottish Conservative justice spokesman Bill Aitken has demanded an investigation into how Brown managed to leave the country.
He said: "There are clearly questions which have to be asked, the most obvious one being how did this man get a passport when he had been in prison for many years?
"Secondly, how was he able to fund this trip to The Gambia? I am also intrigued as to why he should have gone there of all places."
First Minister Alex Salmond said the Scottish government would discuss whether to demand powers to withhold prisoners' passports.
He said: "In terms of John Brown leaving the country, you'll be aware that the Passport Agency is not under the control of this government.
"We don't actually have the power to withdraw anyone's passport, in terms of the ability of the Scottish Prison Service or any other agency of government."
The Home Office said Brown could not have been stopped from travelling abroad as no warrant was in place for his arrest.
BBC
Thursday, 10 December 2009
Climate change puts us all in the same boat. One hole will sink us all
By Kofi Annan
Global warming does not respect borders. A mindset shift is required if world leaders are to save us from ourselves
The UN climate change conference in Copenhagen offers the prospect of a robust political deal, endorsed by the world's leaders and witnessed by the world's people, that sets out clear targets and a timeline for translating it into law. To be a truly historic achievement, such a deal must do two things.
First, it must lay the basis for a global regime and subsequent agreements that limit global temperature rise in accordance with the scientific evidence. Second, it must provide clarity on the mobilisation and volume of financial resources to support developing countries to adapt to climate change.
The stakes are enormous. Economic growth has been achieved at great environmental and social cost, aggravating inequality and human vulnerability. The irreparable damage that is being inflicted on ecosystems, agricultural productivity, forests and water systems is accelerating. Threats to health, life and livelihoods are growing. Disasters are also increasing in scale and frequency.
But despite the mounting evidence of negative impacts, reaching a deal will not be easy. It will require extraordinary political courage – both to cut the deal and to communicate its necessity to the public.
A mindset shift is required. Distrust and competition persist between regions and nations, manifest in a "no, you must show your cards first" attitude that has dogged the negotiations leading up to Copenhagen. This has to be overcome.
A deal that is not based on the best scientific evidence will be nothing better than a line in the sand as the tide comes in. But short-term considerations, including from special interest groups and electoral demands, are working against long-term solutions.
Success in reaching a deal will require leaders to think for future generations, and for citizens other than their own. It will require them to think about inclusive and comprehensive arrangements, not just a patched up compilation of national or regional interests.
A deal that stops at rhetoric and does not actually meet the needs of the poorest and most climate vulnerable countries simply will not work. The climate cannot be "fixed" in one continent and not another. Climate change does not respect national borders. We are all in the same boat; a hole at one end will sink us all.
For it to work, climate justice must be at the heart of the agreement. An unfair deal will come unstuck. Industrialised countries such as the United States must naturally take the lead in reducing emissions and supporting others to follow suit, but developing countries like India or China also have an increasing responsibility to do so as their economies continue to grow.
Tragically, it is the poorest and least responsible who are having to bear the brunt of the climate challenge as rising temperatures exacerbate poverty, hunger and vulnerability to disease for billions of people. They need both immediate help to strengthen their climate resilience as well as long-term support to enable them to adapt to changing weather patterns, reduce deforestation, and pursue low-emissions, clean energy growth strategies.
The deal must include a package of commitments in line with the science and the imperative of reducing global emissions by 50-85% relative to 2000 levels by 2050.
This requires a schedule for richer countries to move to 25-40% emission cuts by 2020 from 1990 baselines; clear measures for emerging economies to cut emissions intensity; and clarity about both immediate and longer term finance and technical support for developing countries, notably the poorest and most vulnerable among them.
Will we get there? The targets that have been proposed for emission reductions by many industrialised countries such as the EU, Japan and Norway are encouraging, as are those being made by the big emerging economies including Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and South Korea.
Recent announcements by the US on emission targets represent a significant shift and provide a basis for scaling up commitments in the coming years. So does the recognition by emerging economies that they also have a role in supporting the most vulnerable countries.
Welcome too are the proposals for financial support to LDCs and small island states made at the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad, as well as proposals by the Netherlands, France, and the UK, among others.
But much greater specificity on finance is needed. Existing official development assistance (ODA) commitments to help the poorest countries meet the Millennium Development Goals need to be met. And significant additional finance that is separate from and additional to ODA needs to be mobilised to support them meet the incremental costs generated by climate change.
A deal that is not clear on the finance will be both unacceptable to developing countries, and unworkable. Finding the additional resources and communicating its necessity will not be easy, particularly in the current economic climate, but it must be done.
A successful deal could incentivise not only good stewardship of forests and more sustainable land use, but also massive investment into low-carbon growth and a healthier planet, including in sectors such as energy generation, construction and transportation.
And it could usher in an era of qualitatively new international co-operation based on common but differentiated responsibilities – not just for managing climate change, but for human development, social justice and global security.
Ultimately, at stake is whether our leaders can work to help us save ourselves from … well, from ourselves. The legacy of today's politicians will be determined in the weeks to come.
• Kofi Annan was UN secretary-general from 1997 to 2006. He now chairs the Kofi Annan Foundation and the Africa Progress Panel and is president of the Global Humanitarian Forum
Global warming does not respect borders. A mindset shift is required if world leaders are to save us from ourselves
The UN climate change conference in Copenhagen offers the prospect of a robust political deal, endorsed by the world's leaders and witnessed by the world's people, that sets out clear targets and a timeline for translating it into law. To be a truly historic achievement, such a deal must do two things.
First, it must lay the basis for a global regime and subsequent agreements that limit global temperature rise in accordance with the scientific evidence. Second, it must provide clarity on the mobilisation and volume of financial resources to support developing countries to adapt to climate change.
The stakes are enormous. Economic growth has been achieved at great environmental and social cost, aggravating inequality and human vulnerability. The irreparable damage that is being inflicted on ecosystems, agricultural productivity, forests and water systems is accelerating. Threats to health, life and livelihoods are growing. Disasters are also increasing in scale and frequency.
But despite the mounting evidence of negative impacts, reaching a deal will not be easy. It will require extraordinary political courage – both to cut the deal and to communicate its necessity to the public.
A mindset shift is required. Distrust and competition persist between regions and nations, manifest in a "no, you must show your cards first" attitude that has dogged the negotiations leading up to Copenhagen. This has to be overcome.
A deal that is not based on the best scientific evidence will be nothing better than a line in the sand as the tide comes in. But short-term considerations, including from special interest groups and electoral demands, are working against long-term solutions.
Success in reaching a deal will require leaders to think for future generations, and for citizens other than their own. It will require them to think about inclusive and comprehensive arrangements, not just a patched up compilation of national or regional interests.
A deal that stops at rhetoric and does not actually meet the needs of the poorest and most climate vulnerable countries simply will not work. The climate cannot be "fixed" in one continent and not another. Climate change does not respect national borders. We are all in the same boat; a hole at one end will sink us all.
For it to work, climate justice must be at the heart of the agreement. An unfair deal will come unstuck. Industrialised countries such as the United States must naturally take the lead in reducing emissions and supporting others to follow suit, but developing countries like India or China also have an increasing responsibility to do so as their economies continue to grow.
Tragically, it is the poorest and least responsible who are having to bear the brunt of the climate challenge as rising temperatures exacerbate poverty, hunger and vulnerability to disease for billions of people. They need both immediate help to strengthen their climate resilience as well as long-term support to enable them to adapt to changing weather patterns, reduce deforestation, and pursue low-emissions, clean energy growth strategies.
The deal must include a package of commitments in line with the science and the imperative of reducing global emissions by 50-85% relative to 2000 levels by 2050.
This requires a schedule for richer countries to move to 25-40% emission cuts by 2020 from 1990 baselines; clear measures for emerging economies to cut emissions intensity; and clarity about both immediate and longer term finance and technical support for developing countries, notably the poorest and most vulnerable among them.
Will we get there? The targets that have been proposed for emission reductions by many industrialised countries such as the EU, Japan and Norway are encouraging, as are those being made by the big emerging economies including Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and South Korea.
Recent announcements by the US on emission targets represent a significant shift and provide a basis for scaling up commitments in the coming years. So does the recognition by emerging economies that they also have a role in supporting the most vulnerable countries.
Welcome too are the proposals for financial support to LDCs and small island states made at the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad, as well as proposals by the Netherlands, France, and the UK, among others.
But much greater specificity on finance is needed. Existing official development assistance (ODA) commitments to help the poorest countries meet the Millennium Development Goals need to be met. And significant additional finance that is separate from and additional to ODA needs to be mobilised to support them meet the incremental costs generated by climate change.
A deal that is not clear on the finance will be both unacceptable to developing countries, and unworkable. Finding the additional resources and communicating its necessity will not be easy, particularly in the current economic climate, but it must be done.
A successful deal could incentivise not only good stewardship of forests and more sustainable land use, but also massive investment into low-carbon growth and a healthier planet, including in sectors such as energy generation, construction and transportation.
And it could usher in an era of qualitatively new international co-operation based on common but differentiated responsibilities – not just for managing climate change, but for human development, social justice and global security.
Ultimately, at stake is whether our leaders can work to help us save ourselves from … well, from ourselves. The legacy of today's politicians will be determined in the weeks to come.
• Kofi Annan was UN secretary-general from 1997 to 2006. He now chairs the Kofi Annan Foundation and the Africa Progress Panel and is president of the Global Humanitarian Forum
The Oppressor and the Oppressed
By Baba Galleh Jallow
Clearly, one of the most intractable problems facing Africa today is the problem of oppression. The continent is littered with an ugly coterie of oppressive political regimes as well as a critical mass of people trying to resist this oppression, getting stigmatized, jailed, maimed, exiled, and killed in the process. One of the means at the disposal of this critical mass of oppressed “freedom fighters” is the acquisition of knowledge and a greater understanding of the nature of the oppressor in relation to themselves, the oppressed. For it is not enough that we know the oppressor; we also need to know ourselves as people trying to bring about an end to oppression. This short essay is meant as a modest contribution to that self-knowledge and knowledge of the nature of oppression.
The oppressor, whatever his motivations, seeks to distort the humanity of the oppressed. He seeks to retard the growth of the people, chops off any emerging buds of popular progress, plucks out any spots of light and sight, seals tight any outlets of enlightenment, and menacingly hovers over the heads of the oppressed in order to instill maximum terror and compliance through a regime of actual or potential violence, physical and psychological. Oppression manifests itself as a form of violence because it constitutes a denial of full humanity to the oppressed; because it denies people the possibility of self-affirmation, the pursuit of one’s right to self-fulfillment as a full human being. Oppression is violence because the oppressor appropriates to himself all rights of being, of self-fulfillment, of the enjoyment of unrestricted freedoms, of a certain state of exception in which he stands outside the law, while engaging the law to impose an unquestionable regime of hegemony on the people. As the Brazilian writer Paulo Freire puts it, “The oppressor consciousness tends to transform everything surrounding it into an object of its domination. The earth, property, production, the creation of people, people themselves, time – everything is reduced to the status of objects at its disposal.” Everything within its territory, in effect, is considered the personal property of the oppressor and everything within its territory that refuses to be owned, domesticated, and controlled must either be eliminated or neutralized. Any individual or institution within this space that refuses to be turned into a dehumanized, passive, and unquestioning object is regarded as a subversive entity.
We do not need to look far to see the manifestation of this oppressive reality. We do not need to look far to see oppressors turning on the oppressed and calling them evil beings, subversive liars, unpatriotic and envious demons, enemies of progress and other negative imaginaries because they refuse to be turned into lifeless objects and possessions of the oppressor to be exploited and discarded at will. The oppressor does not see that he is the source of the resistance he is confronted with, that the oppressed are merely reacting to his untenable claims to their ownership and the ownership of the collective property that is the nation-state, that they are simply following the natural and healthy course of reaffirming and pursuing their inalienable right to remain fully human, to refuse to be dehumanized, objectified and relegated to the status of nonentities who must live the rest of their lives in a state of tortured nothingness.
Faced with the prospect of being rendered null and void as human beings even as they live the one and only single life they have, it is the natural vocation of a conscious people to resist oppression, to refuse to be terrorized and dehumanized through engagement in an uncompromising regime of self-humanization, self-expression, and the total rejection of the unjust oppressive order bolstered by a regime of violence and intimidation. While the goal of the oppressed must never be the counter-oppression of the oppressor, the message to the oppressor must be couched in no uncertain terms. It must be made loud and clear to the oppressor that the oppressed refuses to be dehumanized and objectified and that the oppressed insists on the enjoyment of their right to full humanity – all those rights that come with the reality of being fully human. But while the possibility of becoming human and ending oppression must always be made implicit in the message to the oppressor, the person who seeks to end oppression must never fall to the temptation of trying to pacify the oppressor because this, as Freire tells us again, makes the person who seeks justice a dispenser of false generosity, an adherent to a regime of circular self-truths who grows strangely agitated whenever any of those self-truths are challenged or questioned.
History is replete with examples of “freedom fighters” who become oppressors as soon as they assume positions of power. This is because at the critical moment of their fight against oppression, they had conceived a fear of freedom itself. They had wavered between their initial principled positions of uncompromising opponents of oppression and a newly assumed position of a fake perception of pacification as a more viable alternative and line of defense against oppression. They tend to edge closer to the oppressor, granting him a certain veiled acceptance through a lame regime of rationalizations and apologetics, through a lame appeal to reason and fairness, and by citing lame pointers to the reality of an unalterable imperfection of being, of life, the necessity of compromise in the service of the exigencies of daily life. They are caught between the desire for freedom and a cold, belly-numbing fear of freedom or its possibility. They swing and waver with dizzying uncertainty and tend, to quote Freire again, “to prefer the security of conformity . . . to the creative communion produced by freedom and even the pursuit of freedom.” They experience this dilemma because from the very beginning, what they really “fought” for was not the full liberation and full humanization of society, but the privilege, perhaps subconscious, of identifying with the oppressor, of enjoying the privileges enjoyed by the oppressor, of the opportunity to rise to the level of the oppressor and share in the glittering trappings of the oppressor’s perceived high station. This freedom-fighter-turned-oppressor started out really focusing on the pursuit of individual or class interests rather than the interests of the social collectivity. Such a pursuit inevitably distorts and corrupts his mission so that he becomes an oppressor as soon as he becomes powerful enough. It is an absolute prerequisite for one who desires to resist oppressive dehumanization that he must lose sight of individual and class interests and set his sights upon the interests of the popular collectivity. One cannot be free from the “oppressor consciousness” so long as one is obsessed with the protection or preservation of individual or class interests. While seeking to preserve individual or class interests might appear the sensible thing to do in an environment of oppression, it is in reality a dangerous path to perdition. The ancient African aphorism that you cannot dance and dig at the same time exemplifies the folly of trying to rationalize oppression even as we pose as enemies of oppression and injustice.
The person who desires freedom from oppression must therefore assume a principled and uncompromising posture of rejection of oppression. Short of engaging in physical violence, the person who seeks liberation must relentlessly shove bitter doses of truth medicine down the throat of the oppressor. And equally important, such a person must see the current oppressive situation not as a hopeless permanent situation, or a situation that has to be endured at all costs, but as a situation that, like all others, is located within the ever-rotating wheel of life and must therefore one day pass from actuality to potentiality or non-being. The person who seeks liberation must therefore engage in a regime of resistance perpetually inspired by an unshakeable conviction that oppression is to be rejected without qualification, and that what comes next must be carefully and constantly contemplated and visualized every step of the way.
A discussion of oppression and the oppressed must inevitably lead us to the issue of who leads the struggle for liberation from oppression. In most cases, such a role is assumed by people who are academically and economically better off than the average oppressed person; these people step forward to assume the mantle of leadership against oppression, to act as champions of the oppressed, and as voices of those they consider the voiceless. They form political organizations and create manifestos and slogans proclaiming their aims and objectives, and set about condemning the oppressors while at the same time courting the support of the oppressed by offering themselves up as better alternatives to the oppressors. The interesting thing is that in at least 8 out of 10 cases, these champions of the oppressed fail in their endeavors; or in the rare situations in which they succeed, find themselves proving unequal to their self-assigned task of ending oppression, becoming instead as bad as, or even worse than, the oppressors they dislodge.
While there are undoubtedly many reasons for this failure of leadership, a failure to truly identify with the oppressed masses must rank among the top causes. Coming mostly from middle-class backgrounds, most leaders of anti-oppression movements fail to truly identify with the oppressed people. Rather than view and treat the people as partners to be creatively engaged and dialogued with in the course of the struggle against oppression, such leaders specialize in the ephemeral politics of propaganda, slinging mud at their opponents on all sides of the political divide and preaching endlessly to the people on how morally superior they are and what glittering goodies they would deliver should they assume positions of power and authority. They engage in such empty politicking with the erroneous presupposition that all the people want to hear is how their current lot will be improved once the oppressor is removed from power. Sadly, in most cases, these messages, because they sound so commonplace and monotonous, fail to register with the people and these leaders are dismissed as just another bunch of power-hungry politicians.
During Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde’s struggle for liberation from Portuguese colonialism, Amilcar Cabral repeatedly taught that those intellectuals who wanted to be true and effective leaders of the people must commit what he called class suicide. They must be able to purge themselves of all pretences to superior knowledge, wisdom or leadership skills, and identify totally with the oppressed if they wanted to be authentic leaders of the people. He argued that a leadership that seeks to lead from whatever kind of high pedestal is doomed to failure. Once they totally identify with the people and the people with them, those who assume leadership of the oppressed will find, when they assume positions of political power, that they are either unable or unwilling to become oppressors because of their internalized and assimilated affinities with the people.
The necessity of class suicide aside, it has also been observed that some oppressed people tend to be more hostile towards each other than towards their oppressors. Many oppressed people tend to assume a fatalistic attitude vis-à-vis their oppression, blaming their unhappy conditions on divine providence and therefore failing to see any connection between their sufferings and their oppressors. And the oppressor, through a malicious combination of vicious cunning and open brutality, dedicates all his energies at keeping things just this way by making the people believe that the best way to keep out of unnecessary trouble is through a slavish regime of total, unquestioning submission. This often leads to a situation in which all the repressed humiliation and rage of the oppressed are horizontally unleashed at their fellow oppressed at the slightest semblance of provocation. Frantz Fanon observed this curious phenomenon among the oppressed Algerian peasants in The Wretched of the Earth. “While the settler or the policeman has the right the livelong day to strike the native, to insult him, and to make him crawl to them,” he writes, “you will see the native reaching for his knife at the slightest hostile or aggressive glance cast on him by another native.”
But while a certain degree of fear may be excused at the level of the peasant – the oppressed person who does not entirely blame his wretched plight on the oppressor – the issue becomes tricky when we note that this horizontal hostility towards fellow oppressed is also found among the ranks of those who pose as champions of the oppressed. Indeed, the mutual hostility and unhealthy rivalry within and between the leadership of opposition and alternative political parties and organizations in Africa is far more acrimonious than that expressed towards the oppressive regimes they are out to replace. The oppressor regime can dish out any number of demeaning slurs and even outright insults on the heads of opposition leaders with little or no comparable reaction or response. But one mild word of criticism or disagreement from one opposition leader to the other often has the effect of eliciting a disproportionate barrage of invectives against the daring culprit. Some scholars like Paulo Freire and Albert Memmi attribute this strange phenomenon partly to a certain inferiority complex on the part of the opposition leaders and partly to an unconscious desire to be seen as high and mighty as the oppressor and therefore way above being the object of such petty criticisms from their fellow equal opposition leaders.
But this tendency of the oppressed to be hostile to their fellow victims of oppression is not limited to the peasant and the leaders alone. It is also observed among the ranks of oppressed people located between the masses on one hand and the leaders on the other. This middle section of “freedom fighters” are often observed engaging in a kind of horizontal hostility with their supposed comrades in the anti-oppression struggle to the extent that they lose sight of their original objective. Thus in discussion groups, Diasporan communities, and internet mailing lists, one observes a troubling level of horizontal hostility and acrimonious debate between people supposed to be fighting for an end to oppression. One observes a troubling trend towards the creation of acute hostility and enmity within the ranks of people who are supposed to be fighting the same monster of oppression and for a certain level of tolerance and mutual respect for one another. What should happen in such forums is not endless bickering, the assumption of rigid, unchanging positions, or the presumption of infallibility, but the observance of maximum civility on all sides – a desire to teach and a readiness to learn; a desire to convince and a readiness to be convinced; a desire to prove that one’s position is right, and a readiness to be proven wrong; a habit of always keeping in mind that all human beings are fallible, that people have a right to their opinions, however contrary to one’s own; that in building a democratic culture, we must start from within our own selves. Intolerance of dissenting opinion, it should be remembered, is one of the chief defining characteristics of oppression.
Clearly, one of the most intractable problems facing Africa today is the problem of oppression. The continent is littered with an ugly coterie of oppressive political regimes as well as a critical mass of people trying to resist this oppression, getting stigmatized, jailed, maimed, exiled, and killed in the process. One of the means at the disposal of this critical mass of oppressed “freedom fighters” is the acquisition of knowledge and a greater understanding of the nature of the oppressor in relation to themselves, the oppressed. For it is not enough that we know the oppressor; we also need to know ourselves as people trying to bring about an end to oppression. This short essay is meant as a modest contribution to that self-knowledge and knowledge of the nature of oppression.
The oppressor, whatever his motivations, seeks to distort the humanity of the oppressed. He seeks to retard the growth of the people, chops off any emerging buds of popular progress, plucks out any spots of light and sight, seals tight any outlets of enlightenment, and menacingly hovers over the heads of the oppressed in order to instill maximum terror and compliance through a regime of actual or potential violence, physical and psychological. Oppression manifests itself as a form of violence because it constitutes a denial of full humanity to the oppressed; because it denies people the possibility of self-affirmation, the pursuit of one’s right to self-fulfillment as a full human being. Oppression is violence because the oppressor appropriates to himself all rights of being, of self-fulfillment, of the enjoyment of unrestricted freedoms, of a certain state of exception in which he stands outside the law, while engaging the law to impose an unquestionable regime of hegemony on the people. As the Brazilian writer Paulo Freire puts it, “The oppressor consciousness tends to transform everything surrounding it into an object of its domination. The earth, property, production, the creation of people, people themselves, time – everything is reduced to the status of objects at its disposal.” Everything within its territory, in effect, is considered the personal property of the oppressor and everything within its territory that refuses to be owned, domesticated, and controlled must either be eliminated or neutralized. Any individual or institution within this space that refuses to be turned into a dehumanized, passive, and unquestioning object is regarded as a subversive entity.
We do not need to look far to see the manifestation of this oppressive reality. We do not need to look far to see oppressors turning on the oppressed and calling them evil beings, subversive liars, unpatriotic and envious demons, enemies of progress and other negative imaginaries because they refuse to be turned into lifeless objects and possessions of the oppressor to be exploited and discarded at will. The oppressor does not see that he is the source of the resistance he is confronted with, that the oppressed are merely reacting to his untenable claims to their ownership and the ownership of the collective property that is the nation-state, that they are simply following the natural and healthy course of reaffirming and pursuing their inalienable right to remain fully human, to refuse to be dehumanized, objectified and relegated to the status of nonentities who must live the rest of their lives in a state of tortured nothingness.
Faced with the prospect of being rendered null and void as human beings even as they live the one and only single life they have, it is the natural vocation of a conscious people to resist oppression, to refuse to be terrorized and dehumanized through engagement in an uncompromising regime of self-humanization, self-expression, and the total rejection of the unjust oppressive order bolstered by a regime of violence and intimidation. While the goal of the oppressed must never be the counter-oppression of the oppressor, the message to the oppressor must be couched in no uncertain terms. It must be made loud and clear to the oppressor that the oppressed refuses to be dehumanized and objectified and that the oppressed insists on the enjoyment of their right to full humanity – all those rights that come with the reality of being fully human. But while the possibility of becoming human and ending oppression must always be made implicit in the message to the oppressor, the person who seeks to end oppression must never fall to the temptation of trying to pacify the oppressor because this, as Freire tells us again, makes the person who seeks justice a dispenser of false generosity, an adherent to a regime of circular self-truths who grows strangely agitated whenever any of those self-truths are challenged or questioned.
History is replete with examples of “freedom fighters” who become oppressors as soon as they assume positions of power. This is because at the critical moment of their fight against oppression, they had conceived a fear of freedom itself. They had wavered between their initial principled positions of uncompromising opponents of oppression and a newly assumed position of a fake perception of pacification as a more viable alternative and line of defense against oppression. They tend to edge closer to the oppressor, granting him a certain veiled acceptance through a lame regime of rationalizations and apologetics, through a lame appeal to reason and fairness, and by citing lame pointers to the reality of an unalterable imperfection of being, of life, the necessity of compromise in the service of the exigencies of daily life. They are caught between the desire for freedom and a cold, belly-numbing fear of freedom or its possibility. They swing and waver with dizzying uncertainty and tend, to quote Freire again, “to prefer the security of conformity . . . to the creative communion produced by freedom and even the pursuit of freedom.” They experience this dilemma because from the very beginning, what they really “fought” for was not the full liberation and full humanization of society, but the privilege, perhaps subconscious, of identifying with the oppressor, of enjoying the privileges enjoyed by the oppressor, of the opportunity to rise to the level of the oppressor and share in the glittering trappings of the oppressor’s perceived high station. This freedom-fighter-turned-oppressor started out really focusing on the pursuit of individual or class interests rather than the interests of the social collectivity. Such a pursuit inevitably distorts and corrupts his mission so that he becomes an oppressor as soon as he becomes powerful enough. It is an absolute prerequisite for one who desires to resist oppressive dehumanization that he must lose sight of individual and class interests and set his sights upon the interests of the popular collectivity. One cannot be free from the “oppressor consciousness” so long as one is obsessed with the protection or preservation of individual or class interests. While seeking to preserve individual or class interests might appear the sensible thing to do in an environment of oppression, it is in reality a dangerous path to perdition. The ancient African aphorism that you cannot dance and dig at the same time exemplifies the folly of trying to rationalize oppression even as we pose as enemies of oppression and injustice.
The person who desires freedom from oppression must therefore assume a principled and uncompromising posture of rejection of oppression. Short of engaging in physical violence, the person who seeks liberation must relentlessly shove bitter doses of truth medicine down the throat of the oppressor. And equally important, such a person must see the current oppressive situation not as a hopeless permanent situation, or a situation that has to be endured at all costs, but as a situation that, like all others, is located within the ever-rotating wheel of life and must therefore one day pass from actuality to potentiality or non-being. The person who seeks liberation must therefore engage in a regime of resistance perpetually inspired by an unshakeable conviction that oppression is to be rejected without qualification, and that what comes next must be carefully and constantly contemplated and visualized every step of the way.
A discussion of oppression and the oppressed must inevitably lead us to the issue of who leads the struggle for liberation from oppression. In most cases, such a role is assumed by people who are academically and economically better off than the average oppressed person; these people step forward to assume the mantle of leadership against oppression, to act as champions of the oppressed, and as voices of those they consider the voiceless. They form political organizations and create manifestos and slogans proclaiming their aims and objectives, and set about condemning the oppressors while at the same time courting the support of the oppressed by offering themselves up as better alternatives to the oppressors. The interesting thing is that in at least 8 out of 10 cases, these champions of the oppressed fail in their endeavors; or in the rare situations in which they succeed, find themselves proving unequal to their self-assigned task of ending oppression, becoming instead as bad as, or even worse than, the oppressors they dislodge.
While there are undoubtedly many reasons for this failure of leadership, a failure to truly identify with the oppressed masses must rank among the top causes. Coming mostly from middle-class backgrounds, most leaders of anti-oppression movements fail to truly identify with the oppressed people. Rather than view and treat the people as partners to be creatively engaged and dialogued with in the course of the struggle against oppression, such leaders specialize in the ephemeral politics of propaganda, slinging mud at their opponents on all sides of the political divide and preaching endlessly to the people on how morally superior they are and what glittering goodies they would deliver should they assume positions of power and authority. They engage in such empty politicking with the erroneous presupposition that all the people want to hear is how their current lot will be improved once the oppressor is removed from power. Sadly, in most cases, these messages, because they sound so commonplace and monotonous, fail to register with the people and these leaders are dismissed as just another bunch of power-hungry politicians.
During Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde’s struggle for liberation from Portuguese colonialism, Amilcar Cabral repeatedly taught that those intellectuals who wanted to be true and effective leaders of the people must commit what he called class suicide. They must be able to purge themselves of all pretences to superior knowledge, wisdom or leadership skills, and identify totally with the oppressed if they wanted to be authentic leaders of the people. He argued that a leadership that seeks to lead from whatever kind of high pedestal is doomed to failure. Once they totally identify with the people and the people with them, those who assume leadership of the oppressed will find, when they assume positions of political power, that they are either unable or unwilling to become oppressors because of their internalized and assimilated affinities with the people.
The necessity of class suicide aside, it has also been observed that some oppressed people tend to be more hostile towards each other than towards their oppressors. Many oppressed people tend to assume a fatalistic attitude vis-à-vis their oppression, blaming their unhappy conditions on divine providence and therefore failing to see any connection between their sufferings and their oppressors. And the oppressor, through a malicious combination of vicious cunning and open brutality, dedicates all his energies at keeping things just this way by making the people believe that the best way to keep out of unnecessary trouble is through a slavish regime of total, unquestioning submission. This often leads to a situation in which all the repressed humiliation and rage of the oppressed are horizontally unleashed at their fellow oppressed at the slightest semblance of provocation. Frantz Fanon observed this curious phenomenon among the oppressed Algerian peasants in The Wretched of the Earth. “While the settler or the policeman has the right the livelong day to strike the native, to insult him, and to make him crawl to them,” he writes, “you will see the native reaching for his knife at the slightest hostile or aggressive glance cast on him by another native.”
But while a certain degree of fear may be excused at the level of the peasant – the oppressed person who does not entirely blame his wretched plight on the oppressor – the issue becomes tricky when we note that this horizontal hostility towards fellow oppressed is also found among the ranks of those who pose as champions of the oppressed. Indeed, the mutual hostility and unhealthy rivalry within and between the leadership of opposition and alternative political parties and organizations in Africa is far more acrimonious than that expressed towards the oppressive regimes they are out to replace. The oppressor regime can dish out any number of demeaning slurs and even outright insults on the heads of opposition leaders with little or no comparable reaction or response. But one mild word of criticism or disagreement from one opposition leader to the other often has the effect of eliciting a disproportionate barrage of invectives against the daring culprit. Some scholars like Paulo Freire and Albert Memmi attribute this strange phenomenon partly to a certain inferiority complex on the part of the opposition leaders and partly to an unconscious desire to be seen as high and mighty as the oppressor and therefore way above being the object of such petty criticisms from their fellow equal opposition leaders.
But this tendency of the oppressed to be hostile to their fellow victims of oppression is not limited to the peasant and the leaders alone. It is also observed among the ranks of oppressed people located between the masses on one hand and the leaders on the other. This middle section of “freedom fighters” are often observed engaging in a kind of horizontal hostility with their supposed comrades in the anti-oppression struggle to the extent that they lose sight of their original objective. Thus in discussion groups, Diasporan communities, and internet mailing lists, one observes a troubling level of horizontal hostility and acrimonious debate between people supposed to be fighting for an end to oppression. One observes a troubling trend towards the creation of acute hostility and enmity within the ranks of people who are supposed to be fighting the same monster of oppression and for a certain level of tolerance and mutual respect for one another. What should happen in such forums is not endless bickering, the assumption of rigid, unchanging positions, or the presumption of infallibility, but the observance of maximum civility on all sides – a desire to teach and a readiness to learn; a desire to convince and a readiness to be convinced; a desire to prove that one’s position is right, and a readiness to be proven wrong; a habit of always keeping in mind that all human beings are fallible, that people have a right to their opinions, however contrary to one’s own; that in building a democratic culture, we must start from within our own selves. Intolerance of dissenting opinion, it should be remembered, is one of the chief defining characteristics of oppression.
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
CPJ’s annual prison census 2009:
In Sub-Saharan Africa , 9 out of 10 detained without charge
New York, December 8, 2009—On December 1, a total of 25 journalists were imprisoned in Sub-Saharan Africa in retaliation for their journalism, and nearly 90 percent of these journalists were detained without charges in secret detention facilities, according to an annual census of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). Countries as wide ranging as Eritrea , Iran , and the United States were on the list of nations who had imprisoned journalists without charge.
With at least 19 journalists behind bars, Eritrea by far leads the list of shame of African nations that imprison journalists. Eritrea holds this dubious distinction since 2001when the authorities abruptly closed the private press by arresting at least ten editors without charge or trial. The Eritrean government has refused to confirm if the detainees are still alive, even when unconfirmed online reports suggest that three journalists have died in detention. CPJ continues to list these journalists on its 2009 census as a means of holding the government responsible for their fates. In early 2009, the government arrested at least six more journalists from state media suspected of having provided information to news Web sites based outside the country.
Eritrea’s neighbor, Ethiopia ranked second among African nations with journalists in jail. Four journalists were held in Ethiopian prisons, including two Eritrean journalists who are detained in secret locations without any formal charges or legal proceedings since late 2006. The Gambia , with its incommunicado detention of reporter Ebrima Chief Manneh since July 2006, and Cameroon , which has imprisoned the editor of a newspaper since September 2008, completes the list of imprisoned journalists for Sub-Saharan Africa.
Worldwide, a total of 136 reporters, editors, and photojournalists were behind bars, an increase of 11 from the 2008 tally. The survey also found that freelancers now make up nearly 45 percent of all journalists jailed across the globe.
China continued to be the world’s worst jailer of journalists, a dishonor it has held for 11 consecutive years. Iran , Cuba , Eritrea , and Burma round out the top five jailers from among the 26 nations that imprison journalists. Each nation has persistently placed among the world’s worst in detaining journalists.
At least 60 freelance journalists are behind bars worldwide, nearly double the number from just three years ago. CPJ research shows the number of jailed freelancers has grown along with two trends: The Internet has enabled individual journalists to publish on their own, and some news organizations, watchful of costs, rely increasingly on freelancers rather than staffers for international coverage. Freelance journalists are especially vulnerable to imprisonment because they often do not have the legal and monetary support that news organizations can provide to staffers.
“The days when journalists went off on dangerous assignments knowing they had the full institutional weight of their media organizations behind them are receding into history,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon . “Today, journalists on the front lines are increasingly working independently. The rise of online journalism has opened the door to a new generation of reporters, but it also means they are vulnerable.”
The number of online journalists in prison continued a decade-long rise, CPJ’s census found. At least 68 bloggers, Web-based reporters, and online editors are imprisoned, constituting half of all journalists now in jail. Print reporters, editors, and photographers make up the next largest professional category, with 51 cases in 2009. Television and radio journalists and documentary filmmakers constitute the rest.
The number of journalists imprisoned in China has dropped over the past several years, but with 24 still behind bars the nation remains the world’s worst jailer of the press. Of those in jail in China , 22 are freelancers. The imprisoned include Dhondup Wangchen, a documentary filmmaker who was detained in 2008 after recording footage in Tibet and sending it to colleagues overseas. A 25-minute film titled “Jigdrel” (Leaving Fear Behind), produced from the footage, features ordinary Tibetans talking about their lives under Chinese rule. Officials in Xining , Qinghai province, charged the filmmaker with inciting separatism.
Most of those imprisoned in Iran , the world’s second-worst jailer, were swept up in the government’s post-election crackdown on dissent and the news media. Of those, about half are online journalists. They include Fariba Pajooh, a freelance reporter for online, newspaper, and radio outlets. Radio France International reported that she was charged with “propagating against the regime” and pressured to make a false confession.
“Not long ago, Iran boasted a vigorous and vital press community,” CPJ’s Simon added. “When the government cracked down on the print media, journalists migrated online and fueled the rise of the Farsi blogosphere. Today, many of Iran ’s best journalists are in jail or in exile, and the public debate has been squelched alongside the pro-democracy movement.”
Cuba , the third-worst jailer, is holding 22 writers and editors in prison, all but two of whom were rounded up in Fidel Castro’s massive 2003 crackdown on the independent press. Many have seen their health deteriorate in inhumane and unsanitary prisons. The detainees include Normando Hernández González, who suffers from cardiovascular ailments and knee problems so severe that even standing is difficult. Hernández González was moved to a prison hospital in late October.
With Eritrea as the world’s fourth-worst jailer, Burma is the fifth with nine journalists behind bars. Those in custody include the video-journalist known publicly as “T,” who reported news for the Oslo-based media organization Democratic Voice of Burma and who helped film an award-winning international documentary, “Orphans of the Burmese Cyclone.” Journalism is so dangerous in Burma , one of the world’s most censored countries, that undercover reporters such as “T” are a crucial conduit to the world.
The Eurasian nations of Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan placed sixth and seventh on CPJ’s dishonor roll. Uzbekistan is holding seven journalists, among them Dilmurod Saiid, a freelancer who exposed government agricultural abuses. Azerbaijan is jailing six reporters and editors, including investigative journalist Eynulla Fatullayev, a 2009 CPJ International Press Freedom Awardee. A seventh Azerbaijani journalist, Novruzali Mamedov died in state custody in August, after authorities denied him adequate medical care.
Here are other trends and details that emerged in CPJ's analysis:
· About 47 percent of journalists in the census are jailed under antistate charges such as sedition, divulging state secrets, and acting against national interests, CPJ found. Many of them are being held by the Chinese, Iranian, and Cuban governments.
· In about 12 percent of cases, governments have used a variety of charges unrelated to journalism to retaliate against critical writers, editors, and photojournalists. Such charges range from regulatory violations to drug possession. In the cases included in this census, CPJ has determined that the charges were most likely lodged in reprisal for the journalist's work.
· Violations of censorship rules, the next most common charge, are applied in about 5 percent of cases. Charges of criminal defamation, reporting “false” news, and engaging in ethnic or religious “insult” constitute the other charges filed against journalists in the census.
· Internet and print journalists make up the bulk of the census. Radio journalists compose the next largest professional category, accounting for 7 percent of cases. Television journalists and documentary filmmakers each account for 3 percent.
· The worldwide tally of 136 reflects a 9 percent increase over 2008 and represents the third-highest number recorded by CPJ in the past decade. (The decade high came in 2002, when CPJ recorded 139 journalists in jail.)
· The United States , which is holding freelance photographer Ibrahim Jassam without charge in Iraq , made CPJ’s list of countries jailing journalists for the sixth consecutive year. During this period, U.S. military authorities have jailed numerous journalists in Iraq —some for days, others for months at a time—without charge or due process. U.S. authorities appear to be using this tactic less frequently over the past two years.
CPJ believes that journalists should not be imprisoned for doing their jobs. The organization has sent letters expressing its serious concerns to each country that has imprisoned a journalist. Over the past year, CPJ advocacy helped lead to the release of at least 45 imprisoned journalists.
CPJ's list is a snapshot of those incarcerated at midnight on December 1, 2009. It does not include the many journalists imprisoned and released throughout the year; accounts of those cases can be found at www.cpj.org. Journalists remain on CPJ's list until the organization determines with reasonable certainty that they have been released or have died in custody.
Journalists who either disappear or are abducted by nonstate entities, including criminal gangs, rebels, or militant groups, are not included on the imprisoned list. Their cases are classified as “missing” or “abducted.”
Monday, 9 November 2009
Mickey the Mike Mouse
By Baba Galleh Jallow
Mickey the mike mouse was certain he had discovered a new song, a song that would not only raise his standards, but would also assure him an elevated place over and above the musical giants of our little town. And so walking gingerly to his mike at every single moment, Mickey the mike mouse would loudly sing and gingerly rock away to the melodious tunes of his newfound song. And did the birds all fly away!!
Mickey the mike mouse was certain that he had the best voice in our little town, that he knew the best songs, and that he knew best how to sing the best songs and get the best ratings in our very own best of all possible little towns. So each morning he sprang up from his hole in the ground and peered outside to see if it was still dark. If it was, Mickey the mike mouse would sadly withdraw his little head and snuggle back up inside, eyes wide awake, waiting for the slightest glimmer of light so that he could majestically issue forth and sing a song or say something that would the sleeping world’s attention strongly catch.
Mickey the mike mouse had no doubts that his voice was the very best there was in our little town. For him, such so-called famous musicians like Bopa the head and Wahal the talk, or even the wildly popular Daa the mouth or Nopa the hear were nothing but noise boxes who did not think before they sang and pretended to be wise and endowed with so-called wisdom which they purported to share with our less endowed common townsfolk. He, Mickey the mike mouse, was the real thing. He was the giant of mountainous proportions and his singing was the envy of the sailing clouds and the very lullabies that sent the night owl to sleep. He, unlike Bopa, Wahal, Daa and Nopa, did not sing of ordinary things that lay bare before the eyes of men, but of those sublime messages that dazzled the mind’s eye and left an awakening feeling in the hearts and souls of our common townsfolk who could be heard to loudly say hail, Mickey the mike mouse has done it again!!
Sometimes, Mickey the mike mouse did not even need to sing in his real voice. He was too much of a great and beloved bard to worry about his songs not been liked whether he sang in his real voice or not. He was certain beyond doubt that our common townsfolk would still squeal with delight, vigorously nod their heads and tap their happy little feet at the very sound of his voice – real or not. And so often times, he would scurry to his mike and merely squeak and squeak, making a point of squeaking so loud that the leaves in the nearby trees danced with joy and the tiny ants on the ground hurried to and fro, helter-skelter, straining their tiny little ears to catch every single bit of squeak that escaped the enlightened bowels of our singing mouse. Some of our common townsfolk would squat and loudly wail, and let the tears freely flow down their happy cheeks, while the cynical ones would simply stick some sponge in their ears and say wow, what a song Mickey the mouse is singing in his other voice again!! Thus feeling supremely encouraged, Mickey the mike mouse would raise the tempo of his other voice and squeak so loud that the clouds shifted and the waters of the distant oceans shook a little. Some of our common townsfolk would shut their doors and loudly cry while others would say no, I will not miss a line of this mighty squeak, and stay right there to let the squeak hit them with its mighty force and sink through every pore in their hairy skins.
Thus having sang in his other voice, Mickey the mike mouse would return to his normal voice and strike another tune. He would sometimes sing of the tomato who thought he was a peanut and tried to break his shell, or the famous chicken who thought he was a lion and spent the whole day crowing, thinking that he was roaring. At some other times, Mickey the mike mouse would gallantly sing of the ancient rock that, insisting that he was a fish, jumped right into the lake and promptly drowned, never to be seen again. He would sing of the mosquito who thought he was a giant and challenged the elephant to a wrestling contest, with the unfortunate result that he lost his waist and had to forever crawl on the ground and live on moisture.
When he was particularly in the mood, Mickey the mouse mike would bring out his ancient drum, and wearing his rock solid gloves, would loudly bang away and sing the well known song of the arrogant river who decided to flow upwards rather than down, and who found himself splashing rudely back to earth and losing his waters. Such was the spectacular talent of our famous Mickey the mike mouse who sang so hard that he started losing some of his whiskers to his windpipes. As a fitting tribute to his excellent service to their beloved musical tendencies, some of our common townsfolk started calling Mickey the mike mouse Mochat, a name that made him sing even louder and lose even more of his whiskers. But what cares? He was Mickey the mike mouse of loud squeak fame!
Mickey the mike mouse was certain he had discovered a new song, a song that would not only raise his standards, but would also assure him an elevated place over and above the musical giants of our little town. And so walking gingerly to his mike at every single moment, Mickey the mike mouse would loudly sing and gingerly rock away to the melodious tunes of his newfound song. And did the birds all fly away!!
Mickey the mike mouse was certain that he had the best voice in our little town, that he knew the best songs, and that he knew best how to sing the best songs and get the best ratings in our very own best of all possible little towns. So each morning he sprang up from his hole in the ground and peered outside to see if it was still dark. If it was, Mickey the mike mouse would sadly withdraw his little head and snuggle back up inside, eyes wide awake, waiting for the slightest glimmer of light so that he could majestically issue forth and sing a song or say something that would the sleeping world’s attention strongly catch.
Mickey the mike mouse had no doubts that his voice was the very best there was in our little town. For him, such so-called famous musicians like Bopa the head and Wahal the talk, or even the wildly popular Daa the mouth or Nopa the hear were nothing but noise boxes who did not think before they sang and pretended to be wise and endowed with so-called wisdom which they purported to share with our less endowed common townsfolk. He, Mickey the mike mouse, was the real thing. He was the giant of mountainous proportions and his singing was the envy of the sailing clouds and the very lullabies that sent the night owl to sleep. He, unlike Bopa, Wahal, Daa and Nopa, did not sing of ordinary things that lay bare before the eyes of men, but of those sublime messages that dazzled the mind’s eye and left an awakening feeling in the hearts and souls of our common townsfolk who could be heard to loudly say hail, Mickey the mike mouse has done it again!!
Sometimes, Mickey the mike mouse did not even need to sing in his real voice. He was too much of a great and beloved bard to worry about his songs not been liked whether he sang in his real voice or not. He was certain beyond doubt that our common townsfolk would still squeal with delight, vigorously nod their heads and tap their happy little feet at the very sound of his voice – real or not. And so often times, he would scurry to his mike and merely squeak and squeak, making a point of squeaking so loud that the leaves in the nearby trees danced with joy and the tiny ants on the ground hurried to and fro, helter-skelter, straining their tiny little ears to catch every single bit of squeak that escaped the enlightened bowels of our singing mouse. Some of our common townsfolk would squat and loudly wail, and let the tears freely flow down their happy cheeks, while the cynical ones would simply stick some sponge in their ears and say wow, what a song Mickey the mouse is singing in his other voice again!! Thus feeling supremely encouraged, Mickey the mike mouse would raise the tempo of his other voice and squeak so loud that the clouds shifted and the waters of the distant oceans shook a little. Some of our common townsfolk would shut their doors and loudly cry while others would say no, I will not miss a line of this mighty squeak, and stay right there to let the squeak hit them with its mighty force and sink through every pore in their hairy skins.
Thus having sang in his other voice, Mickey the mike mouse would return to his normal voice and strike another tune. He would sometimes sing of the tomato who thought he was a peanut and tried to break his shell, or the famous chicken who thought he was a lion and spent the whole day crowing, thinking that he was roaring. At some other times, Mickey the mike mouse would gallantly sing of the ancient rock that, insisting that he was a fish, jumped right into the lake and promptly drowned, never to be seen again. He would sing of the mosquito who thought he was a giant and challenged the elephant to a wrestling contest, with the unfortunate result that he lost his waist and had to forever crawl on the ground and live on moisture.
When he was particularly in the mood, Mickey the mouse mike would bring out his ancient drum, and wearing his rock solid gloves, would loudly bang away and sing the well known song of the arrogant river who decided to flow upwards rather than down, and who found himself splashing rudely back to earth and losing his waters. Such was the spectacular talent of our famous Mickey the mike mouse who sang so hard that he started losing some of his whiskers to his windpipes. As a fitting tribute to his excellent service to their beloved musical tendencies, some of our common townsfolk started calling Mickey the mike mouse Mochat, a name that made him sing even louder and lose even more of his whiskers. But what cares? He was Mickey the mike mouse of loud squeak fame!
GPU-USA Elects New Executive
The Gambia Press Union, United States Branch (GPU-USA) has elected a new executive committee to steer the affairs of the Union for the next two years. The term of the current executive expires on December 31st, 2009.
Former PRO and Gainako editor Demba Baldeh was elected Secretary General to replace Baba Galleh Jallow; Bubacar Ceesay of AllGambian replaces Fatou Jaw Manneh as Deputy Secretary General; Cherno Baba Jallow replaces Demba Baldeh as Public Relations Officer; Lamin Jatta replaces Joe Sambou as Treasurer; Pa Samba Jow replaces Lamin Jatta as Auditor; and Modou Nyang replaces Emuran Saidy as Social Affairs Secretary. Haruna Darbo and Christine Sukuna who showed up to offer their moral support, were nominated and accepted honorary membership of the new executive. Both Mr. Darbo and Ms Sukuna had earlier been invited and graciously accepted associate membership of the GPU-USA. Outgoing secretary general Baba Galleh Jallow was also nominated an honorary member of the new executive. The elections were held at a well-attended conference call meeting on Sunday, November 8, 2009.
Prior to the elections both new and old members expressed sentiments regarding the nature and work of the GPU-USA. Outgoing secretary general Baba Galleh Jallow said he was not seeking re-election in order to aid the fight against the myth of the indispensability of leaders. “Everyone can be replaced,” he said, adding that he was absolutely certain that the GPU-USA has members perfectly capable of running the affairs of the Union. He thanked outgoing members of the executive and assured the new executive that they all would continue offering their support and participating actively in the affairs of GPU-USA.
The new executive will formally take over the affairs of the Union with effect from January 1, 2010.
Signed on behalf of the GPU-USA,
Demba Baldeh, Outgoing PRO
Baba Galleh Jallow, Outgoing Secretary General
Former PRO and Gainako editor Demba Baldeh was elected Secretary General to replace Baba Galleh Jallow; Bubacar Ceesay of AllGambian replaces Fatou Jaw Manneh as Deputy Secretary General; Cherno Baba Jallow replaces Demba Baldeh as Public Relations Officer; Lamin Jatta replaces Joe Sambou as Treasurer; Pa Samba Jow replaces Lamin Jatta as Auditor; and Modou Nyang replaces Emuran Saidy as Social Affairs Secretary. Haruna Darbo and Christine Sukuna who showed up to offer their moral support, were nominated and accepted honorary membership of the new executive. Both Mr. Darbo and Ms Sukuna had earlier been invited and graciously accepted associate membership of the GPU-USA. Outgoing secretary general Baba Galleh Jallow was also nominated an honorary member of the new executive. The elections were held at a well-attended conference call meeting on Sunday, November 8, 2009.
Prior to the elections both new and old members expressed sentiments regarding the nature and work of the GPU-USA. Outgoing secretary general Baba Galleh Jallow said he was not seeking re-election in order to aid the fight against the myth of the indispensability of leaders. “Everyone can be replaced,” he said, adding that he was absolutely certain that the GPU-USA has members perfectly capable of running the affairs of the Union. He thanked outgoing members of the executive and assured the new executive that they all would continue offering their support and participating actively in the affairs of GPU-USA.
The new executive will formally take over the affairs of the Union with effect from January 1, 2010.
Signed on behalf of the GPU-USA,
Demba Baldeh, Outgoing PRO
Baba Galleh Jallow, Outgoing Secretary General
Gambian still faces heavy debt burden
An International Monetary Fund (IMF) mission led by Mr. David Dunn visited Banjul October 23–November 5 to assess performance at end-September for the sixth and final review of The Gambia’s three-year program under the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF). The mission met with the Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs, Abdou Kolley, and the Governor of the Central Bank of The Gambia, Momodou Bamba Saho, as well other senior members of government and representatives of the National Assembly, private sector, development partners, and civil society.
At the conclusion of the visit, the mission issued the following statement:
“The Gambian economy has performed better in 2009 than was previously projected, mainly because of a second consecutive year of strong growth in agriculture. Tourism, however, has been hard hit by the global economic crisis and a sharp drop-off in remittances from the Gambian diaspora has weakened residential construction.
The IMF mission expects real gross domestic product (GDP) growth to be about 4 ½-5 percent in 2009, up from its previous projection of about 3 ½ percent. Looking ahead, real GDP growth is projected to rise slightly in 2010, based on a partial recovery in tourism and remittances. Given the uncertainty of weather conditions for agriculture and prevailing weakness in some countries with economic linkages to The Gambia, there are still downside risks to the outlook for 2010. Inflation, which has already fallen considerably in 2009, is expected to remain low.
“Performance under the PRGF-supported program has been generally positive. All end-September quantitative performance criteria were met, except for the fiscal target, which was missed due to large spending overruns in the second quarter of the year. Targets on official international reserves and the central bank’s net domestic assets were achieved with comfortable margins. Implementation of structural benchmarks was good, although there were modest delays.
“The Gambian government still faces a heavy debt burden. Interest on government debt is expected to consume nearly 20 percent of government revenues in 2009, mostly in interest on domestic debt. In contrast to a slight reduction in domestic debt that was planned for in the 2009 budget, the spending overruns led to more debt and increased pressure on interest rates.
“The mission welcomes the Gambian authorities’ intention to take corrective actions for the missed end-September performance criterion, notably by preparing a budget for 2010 that will lower government’s domestic debt slightly, ease pressure on treasury bill yields, and generate savings from lower interest payments. On this basis, the IMF’s Executive Board could consider the sixth review of the PRGF in early 2010.”
At the conclusion of the visit, the mission issued the following statement:
“The Gambian economy has performed better in 2009 than was previously projected, mainly because of a second consecutive year of strong growth in agriculture. Tourism, however, has been hard hit by the global economic crisis and a sharp drop-off in remittances from the Gambian diaspora has weakened residential construction.
The IMF mission expects real gross domestic product (GDP) growth to be about 4 ½-5 percent in 2009, up from its previous projection of about 3 ½ percent. Looking ahead, real GDP growth is projected to rise slightly in 2010, based on a partial recovery in tourism and remittances. Given the uncertainty of weather conditions for agriculture and prevailing weakness in some countries with economic linkages to The Gambia, there are still downside risks to the outlook for 2010. Inflation, which has already fallen considerably in 2009, is expected to remain low.
“Performance under the PRGF-supported program has been generally positive. All end-September quantitative performance criteria were met, except for the fiscal target, which was missed due to large spending overruns in the second quarter of the year. Targets on official international reserves and the central bank’s net domestic assets were achieved with comfortable margins. Implementation of structural benchmarks was good, although there were modest delays.
“The Gambian government still faces a heavy debt burden. Interest on government debt is expected to consume nearly 20 percent of government revenues in 2009, mostly in interest on domestic debt. In contrast to a slight reduction in domestic debt that was planned for in the 2009 budget, the spending overruns led to more debt and increased pressure on interest rates.
“The mission welcomes the Gambian authorities’ intention to take corrective actions for the missed end-September performance criterion, notably by preparing a budget for 2010 that will lower government’s domestic debt slightly, ease pressure on treasury bill yields, and generate savings from lower interest payments. On this basis, the IMF’s Executive Board could consider the sixth review of the PRGF in early 2010.”
Friday, 25 September 2009
Outrage at Jammeh's death threat
An online petition has been launched in protest at the Gambian president's threat to kill human rights workers.
President Yahya Jammeh told state TV earlier this week he would kill anybody who wanted to "destabilise" The Gambia.
"If you are affiliated with any human rights group, be rest assure that your security is not guaranteed... we are ready to kill saboteurs," he said.
The campaign by a coalition of pressure groups wants the African Union's human rights commission HQ moved from Gambia.
Chidi Anselm Odinkalu from the the Open Society Institute, one of the bodies behind the petition, said Mr Jammeh's comments were "beyond the pale".
"The people of Gambia have been under siege for the past year or two. We've got an obligation to speak up," he told the BBC's Focus on Africa programme.
The headquarters of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights is in the Gambian capital, Banjul.
The Open Society, along with the African Court Coalition, is now campaigning to have the offices moved to a different country.
Their aim is to secure as many signatures as possible from non-governmental organisations involved in the work of the AU's human rights commission before 28 September, when the petition will be forwarded to the African Union.
Their petition quotes Mr Jammeh's speech, which was made before he went to the UN General Assembly in New York.
"I will kill anyone who wants to destabilise this country," he said.
"If you think that you can collaborate with so-called human rights defenders, and get away with it, you must be living in a dream world. I will kill you, and nothing will come out of it."
The petition says Mr Jammeh's declaration "leads us to fear for the safety, security, and lives of ourselves and our colleagues".
Mr Jammeh came to power in a coup in 1994 and has won three multi-party elections since then.
But amid claims of plots to oust him, journalists have been harassed and dozens of people have been arrested and unlawfully detained, human rights groups say.
Gambia's pitiful political class
By Umaru Fofana
BBC Focus on Africa magazine
Welcome to The Gambia, the land of "His Excellency President Professor Alhaji Dr AJJ Jammeh", a sign at airport tells visitors to the West African nation.
It is a country where the ubiquitous display of a photograph of one man relegates the North Korean leader to the backburner.
Children sing his praises; women dance to his name; men adore him - mostly willy-nilly. I would guess, of every three billboards in the capital Banjul, at least two have President Yahya Jammeh's photograph on them.
His name has to be in the newspapers lest an editor is tagged "anti-Jammeh".
His image is almost always on the state-owned Gambia Radio and Television Services (GRTS) for much of the news bulletin.
One day it shows the country's armed forces working on his farm as he gazes on benignly. The day before it was civil servants doing the same thing. The next it will be some group or other - there as an act of loyalty. And on and on and on, GRTS reports.
Petty squabbles
All this publicity prompted one opposition spokesman to tell me wryly that the president is the "most popular" person in the country.
"It poses a lot of problems for us," he said.
That is an understatement. Like elsewhere on the continent, opposition parties in The Gambia are beset with problems besides that of being out of power.
The fact that the country has known only two regimes - some would say hegemonies - since becoming independent from the UK in 1965 seems to have blinded the opposition to the fact that their own "democratic credentials are as tattered and torn as the current military strongman-turned-civilian president", according to one Gambian journalist, who did not wish to be named.
The problem is that with the president's authoritarian presence lauding over a nation mired in poverty, you would think the opposition would overcome any petty squabbles to focus on a common enemy.
In fact, many of the leaders of the five opposition political parties in the country can barely stand to hear each other's names.
Crucially, many Gambians say these parties are guilty of the very thing they often accuse the governing Alliance for Patriotic Reorientation and Construction (APRC) of being: Undemocratic and lacking transparency.
Oxygen starved
Many do not even have headquarters, and where they do the structure is barely standing upright.
Granted, though, they are operating in less-than-ideal circumstances.
The government is stifling criticism by trying to cut off the oxygen for some of these parties. The United Democratic Party (UDP), for example, is banned from holding public rallies.
But that is no consolation for many ordinary citizens.
"My greatest concern is what happens after President Jammeh leaves or is removed from office," said a school teacher, who did not want to give his name.
He lashed out at the president calling him "a despot".
But said there was no alternative to Mr Jammeh's rule as opposition parties are not offering anything viable and lack the democratic torch to brighten his country's future.
This is a common view. One civil servant asked: "When was the last time any political party held any credible and transparent national delegates' conference to subject themselves to the democratic will of their members?"
The UDP came second in 2006 polls, and is thus the official opposition, but last held a conference in 2000. Some critics even dispute that date, saying the meeting was anything but a convention. The UDP say that they are not even sure when they will hold the next one.
Most glaringly perhaps, the party has had only one leader since it was founded in 1996.
Its spokesman and campaign manager since its birth, Femi Peters, said Oussainou Darboe has been at the helm for so long because he is "the fittest person" and shows no compunction in saying so, adding: "If we find somebody credible enough to replace him, we shall replace him."
Without a delegates' conference in the near future, this will not happen anytime soon.
Mr Darboe himself was out of the country on vacation during my visit and refused to comment via email.
Reacting to all this, a journalist I met who is not a supporter of President Jammeh simply shook his head.
It seems The Gambia does not follow the precedent of its near-neighbour.
In Sierra Leone the tendency is that anyone who leads a party to a defeat at the polls immediately ceases to be its leader. In contrast, in The Gambia there seems to be no such limit imposed either by a party's internal constitution or its electoral fate.
Halifa Sallah, once the most vocal and courageous critic of the current regime, is sadly another case in point.
He is probably as right as he is complicit when he says Gambians have lost hope in all their politicians.
Mr Sallah has been secretary-general of the opposition People's Democratic Organisation for Independence and Socialism (PDOIS) since its establishment in 1987.
When asked about internal democracy - or the lack of it - within his party, he deviates into a history lesson, and then gets all philosophical.
Unconvincing
Defending his long stay at the top echelon of the PDOIS, the former presidential candidate told me that his party was "in transition" from 1987 to 1994 when the military coup happened which banned all political parties.
Timeline
Once the ban was lifted in 1996, he said his PDOIS functioned up to 2001 when they formed an alliance with four other political parties under the National Alliance for Democracy and Development (NADD) - but this was an alliance that collapsed pretty much before it started.
But Mr Sallah is still the PDOIS secretary-general 22 years on. He concedes the point but is quick to add that his party "operates on [the system of] collective leadership. Individuals who are in authority do not have individual powers… [because] there is no individual-centred leadership in the party," he said, sounding as unconvinced as he looks embarrassed.
With a governing party respected only by its die-hard supporters, Gambians and most diplomats in the country believe that opposition parties should show a greater level of democracy within to send a strong message to those in power.
But perhaps Gambians are all-too-familiar with a statement by their first leader, Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara, who after nearly 30 years in power, announced he was stepping down.
This did not stop him returning to the fray shortly thereafter saying that his People's Progressive Party had been prevailed upon by the people to let him stay.
Not long afterwards he was overthrown in Mr Jammeh's bloodless and initially popular coup.
Yet it seems Sir Dawda's words are those many Gambian politicians are still espousing.
BBC Focus on Africa magazine
Welcome to The Gambia, the land of "His Excellency President Professor Alhaji Dr AJJ Jammeh", a sign at airport tells visitors to the West African nation.
It is a country where the ubiquitous display of a photograph of one man relegates the North Korean leader to the backburner.
Children sing his praises; women dance to his name; men adore him - mostly willy-nilly. I would guess, of every three billboards in the capital Banjul, at least two have President Yahya Jammeh's photograph on them.
His name has to be in the newspapers lest an editor is tagged "anti-Jammeh".
His image is almost always on the state-owned Gambia Radio and Television Services (GRTS) for much of the news bulletin.
One day it shows the country's armed forces working on his farm as he gazes on benignly. The day before it was civil servants doing the same thing. The next it will be some group or other - there as an act of loyalty. And on and on and on, GRTS reports.
Petty squabbles
All this publicity prompted one opposition spokesman to tell me wryly that the president is the "most popular" person in the country.
"It poses a lot of problems for us," he said.
That is an understatement. Like elsewhere on the continent, opposition parties in The Gambia are beset with problems besides that of being out of power.
The fact that the country has known only two regimes - some would say hegemonies - since becoming independent from the UK in 1965 seems to have blinded the opposition to the fact that their own "democratic credentials are as tattered and torn as the current military strongman-turned-civilian president", according to one Gambian journalist, who did not wish to be named.
The problem is that with the president's authoritarian presence lauding over a nation mired in poverty, you would think the opposition would overcome any petty squabbles to focus on a common enemy.
In fact, many of the leaders of the five opposition political parties in the country can barely stand to hear each other's names.
Crucially, many Gambians say these parties are guilty of the very thing they often accuse the governing Alliance for Patriotic Reorientation and Construction (APRC) of being: Undemocratic and lacking transparency.
Oxygen starved
Many do not even have headquarters, and where they do the structure is barely standing upright.
Granted, though, they are operating in less-than-ideal circumstances.
The government is stifling criticism by trying to cut off the oxygen for some of these parties. The United Democratic Party (UDP), for example, is banned from holding public rallies.
But that is no consolation for many ordinary citizens.
"My greatest concern is what happens after President Jammeh leaves or is removed from office," said a school teacher, who did not want to give his name.
He lashed out at the president calling him "a despot".
But said there was no alternative to Mr Jammeh's rule as opposition parties are not offering anything viable and lack the democratic torch to brighten his country's future.
This is a common view. One civil servant asked: "When was the last time any political party held any credible and transparent national delegates' conference to subject themselves to the democratic will of their members?"
The UDP came second in 2006 polls, and is thus the official opposition, but last held a conference in 2000. Some critics even dispute that date, saying the meeting was anything but a convention. The UDP say that they are not even sure when they will hold the next one.
Most glaringly perhaps, the party has had only one leader since it was founded in 1996.
Its spokesman and campaign manager since its birth, Femi Peters, said Oussainou Darboe has been at the helm for so long because he is "the fittest person" and shows no compunction in saying so, adding: "If we find somebody credible enough to replace him, we shall replace him."
Without a delegates' conference in the near future, this will not happen anytime soon.
Mr Darboe himself was out of the country on vacation during my visit and refused to comment via email.
Reacting to all this, a journalist I met who is not a supporter of President Jammeh simply shook his head.
It seems The Gambia does not follow the precedent of its near-neighbour.
In Sierra Leone the tendency is that anyone who leads a party to a defeat at the polls immediately ceases to be its leader. In contrast, in The Gambia there seems to be no such limit imposed either by a party's internal constitution or its electoral fate.
Halifa Sallah, once the most vocal and courageous critic of the current regime, is sadly another case in point.
He is probably as right as he is complicit when he says Gambians have lost hope in all their politicians.
Mr Sallah has been secretary-general of the opposition People's Democratic Organisation for Independence and Socialism (PDOIS) since its establishment in 1987.
When asked about internal democracy - or the lack of it - within his party, he deviates into a history lesson, and then gets all philosophical.
Unconvincing
Defending his long stay at the top echelon of the PDOIS, the former presidential candidate told me that his party was "in transition" from 1987 to 1994 when the military coup happened which banned all political parties.
Timeline
Once the ban was lifted in 1996, he said his PDOIS functioned up to 2001 when they formed an alliance with four other political parties under the National Alliance for Democracy and Development (NADD) - but this was an alliance that collapsed pretty much before it started.
But Mr Sallah is still the PDOIS secretary-general 22 years on. He concedes the point but is quick to add that his party "operates on [the system of] collective leadership. Individuals who are in authority do not have individual powers… [because] there is no individual-centred leadership in the party," he said, sounding as unconvinced as he looks embarrassed.
With a governing party respected only by its die-hard supporters, Gambians and most diplomats in the country believe that opposition parties should show a greater level of democracy within to send a strong message to those in power.
But perhaps Gambians are all-too-familiar with a statement by their first leader, Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara, who after nearly 30 years in power, announced he was stepping down.
This did not stop him returning to the fray shortly thereafter saying that his People's Progressive Party had been prevailed upon by the people to let him stay.
Not long afterwards he was overthrown in Mr Jammeh's bloodless and initially popular coup.
Yet it seems Sir Dawda's words are those many Gambian politicians are still espousing.
Jammeh's address to the UN Assembly
I would like first of all to thank Almighty Allah for granting us yet another opportunity of the gathering of world leaders. My delegation would want to thank President Obama and the Government and people of the United States of America, and the leadership of the United Nations for the warm welcome and the facilities placed at our disposal since our arrival.
Mr. President,
Permit me to felicitate H.E. Father Miguel D’Escoto Brockman for his inspiring leadership and for
conducting well the affairs of the 63rd Session. By the same token, I extend warm felicitations to Dr. Ali Treki, on his election to lead this important 64th Session. He has the full support of my delegation. Our special thanks go to H.E Ban Ki Moon the UN Secretary-General for his stewardship, and the commitment he has manifested to the welfare of humanity, particularly of Africa.
Mr. President,
The theme “Effective responses to global crises: strengthening multilaterialism and dialogue among civilizations for international peace, security and development” adopted for this year’s Session, is indeed apt and relevant and demands that all nations big or small must adopt multilateralism and dialogue in fostering international partnership, and on all matters of common concern to global peace and development.
Mr. President,
The complexities of today’s world are such that no nation can successfully confront alone. Some issues cannot even be resolved by regional groupings acting independently. Much can be achieved only when we all collaborate and work together within the framework of multilateralism, based on mutual understanding and respect but above all sincerity, strong commitment, universal justice under the same rule of law and equity.
Mr. President,
Our global body, the United Nations, has indeed adopted countless resolutions, which if implemented to the letter would have made this world a better place for all mankind and indeed other creatures of our planet.
Unfortunately, there are some member states of the United Nations who block well meaning resolutions necessary for the maintenance of world peace and even question or disregard resolutions passed by this august body with impunity. As long as this continues to be the order of the day, the United Nations will remain united by name only; unable to achieve, in full, the fundamental objectives for which it was established. Urgent reforms are therefore needed in the modus operandi of the United Nations to ensure that this impunity is abolished and the principle of equality among nation states irrespective of their geopolitical size, location, or economic circumstances, race or religion are safeguarded. Double standards have no place in the United Nations.
Mr. President,
There cannot be peace and security in the absence of justice for all. There cannot be justice in the face of abject poverty characterized by hunger and starvation, disease, and lack of basic social services as a result of exploitation. There cannot be justice if there is merciless exploitation, suppression and criminal invasions of sovereign states. There cannot be peace if there is no development as a result of marginalization, injustice and racism.
Mr. President,
Unfortunately, injustice, racism, merciless exploitation and marginalization of especially the Developing nations by the Developed nations are the order of the Day. Africa and Africans are the poorest of the poor despite the fact that the African continent is the richest in terms of Mineral and other Natural resources! This is the sad fact that despite the African continent being the source of 90% of the precious Minerals, gemstones and strategic raw materials for the industrialized north we the Africans are the poorest of the poor!
Mr. President, it is no fault of ours if we the Africans are poor today. This situation is brought about by the perennial locust invasion and their permanent presence in Africa. They devour 90% of our useful African resources ranging from Agricultural to Mineral, Flora and Fauna resources.
These locusts are present in all African resource rich countries today. This devastating permanent locust invasion is exacerbated by another destructive phenomenon, permanent drought which is affecting all African countries without exception.
Mr. President,
We cannot do anything about these two deadly scourges in the African Continent because in the case of the locusts, they are protected by a one-sided international treaty that has been imposed on all the third World countries and not only Africa. For the drought, it is even worse as no irrigation system in Africa can eradicate it.
Mr. President,
The locusts I am talking about are the Western Multi National companies that exploit our Natural
resources as well as agricultural produce taking 95% of their financial value and leave us the owners of these resources with only 5% or less at most. Is it not interesting that with regards to mining of African mineral resources only four African countries receive more than 3% royalty from these Multi National Mining Companies? The rest receive only 3% royalty or even less. In the case of petroleum exploitation, few countries receive above 15% royalty etc.
There is nothing African Countries can do about this because these locusts have absolute monopoly of the Technologies being used in these extractive industries. The treaty that makes it impossible for us to do anything about it is called GLOBALISATION which means the EXPLOITATION of poor third world countries’ resources by the Rich First World Countries. With regards to the drought which is the debt burden, very few rich countries have cancelled the debt owed to them by third world countries.
This excruciating debt burden consumes 80% of the 5-3% left by the Multi-national Companies.
Our Agricultural produce like tea, coffee, cocoa etc are bought at prices fixed by the buyers in most cases at an average price of not more than one US Dollar per kilo whilst the same produce are being sold at
more than fifteen US Dollars per kilo when processed. So for every kilogram of our agricultural produce worth fifteen Dollars at the international western market we get only one Dollar! How can Africa develop and emerge out of this abject poverty. African resources have been continuously looted from the 11th century to date. Everything in Africa that the locusts could set eyes on are looted uptil today. Even dead bodies have not been spared by the locusts. Graves were and are being desecrated and human bodies called mummies have been stolen from Africa.
In such a situation where even Africans in their graves are not spared by these locusts on the rampage, who in his correct state of mind expects us to be rich and developed in Africa. In Africa, RIP on a tombstone which normally means Rest In Peace has never been respected. RIP – means Respected If Poor, that is the body in the tomb was not buried with any precious jewelry.
The UN must come to the rescue of Africa otherwise we Africans stand ready to liberate ourselves from this eternal bondage at any cost. As from now the AU would work towards ensuring that African Nations and our Farmers get their rightful share of our God- given natural and agricultural resources. We will no longer accept less than 65% royalty for our natural resources.
We the Africans have been suffering for too long at the hands of the Westerners and we will put an end to this. It is African sweat, blood, tears and natural resources that have built the North throughout almost five centuries of merciless and racist exploitation uptil today.
Enough is enough. Instead of being respected, we are being called all sorts of names and given all sorts of titles, Dictators, Corrupt Leaders, Failed States and even Rogue States. We the new Generation of African Leaders would put an end to these humiliating, degrading and racist
treatment by any means necessary. The world will not live in peace and security as long as this
dehumanizing and racist status quo continue to prevail with regards to the continent of Africa and
Africans. We have been forced to endure this for far too long and now we are going to put an end to it as we have ended Apartheid in South Africa; by force if need be. We will defend our humanity, our dignity, our resources, our interests and our culture as from now.
Mr. President,
HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis are killer diseases. While I would like to reiterate my delegation’s support for the work of the Global Fund to fighting these diseases, I wish to call for concerted efforts at resource mobilisation to support international research on traditional medicine and alternative diseases treatment programmes. These traditional systems are in most instances more cost-effective, yet abandoned for the sorts of criticisms that come from multinationals who feel threatened that certain traditional breakthroughs would be detrimental to their corporate existence and interests.
These multinationals value their monetary gains more than human life. They should not be allowed to hold humanity to ransom. Their insatiable appetite for massive wealth at any cost has pushed them to the point of blindness and insensitivity to human suffering and loss of human life in the developing world especially in Africa.
On international peace and security, my delegation again calls for more honest and stronger international cooperation and dialogue in addressing conflict prevention, peaceful resolution and respect of others cultural values, norms and ways of life. We must respect the fact that humanity is created to be diverse as planet Earth has different regions, each having diverse climatic and ecosystems. Therefore there is bound to be diversity in the colours of our skin diversity in the way we live and differences in our beliefs.
Diverse as we may, we are part and parcel of the one human Family created by the one and only GOD Allah. If we accept this principle that we are all human beings equal before the Only God that created us, and, that differences in religion and skin colour do not make one less human than others then we will all live in perfect peace and harmony in this global village called the World.
The problem is that some play God and believe that by virtue of the colour of their skin, they are better than the rest of humanity and therefore should dictate to them how they should live and how they should worship God. They impose their value systems on the rest of humanity. This unacceptable dictatorship is the source of all the world’s major conflicts and a contributing factor to the persistent threat to world peace.
Racism is on the rise, extreme hate mongers are increasing in numbers and ranks and, instead of
condemning them as criminals and terrorists, they are called the far right, neo Nazis or supremacists and tolerated and even encouraged by the same powers who would happily bomb them back to the stone age if they were Muslim, black African or Asian.
As long as this status quo does not change, peace and security would continue to be an elusive dream as people; rich or poor, Muslim or non Muslim, black or Asian are bound to defend their human dignity at any price. My delegation therefore calls for a united front against this dictatorship of a few over the rest of humanity. And in the interest of our collective security, the United Nations should see to the total elimination of racism and hate in all its forms whatever it takes, so that we can bequeath to generations of humanity yet unborn, a very peaceful and prosperous world devoid of destitution, exploitation and marginalization.
Mr. President,
In this context, my delegation would like to see a speedy resolution of the plight of the Palestinians. We call on the state of Israel to accept and respect the two-state solution that the international community has so clearly articulated without preconditions. We also urge the UN Security Council to ensure that its resolutions are respected by all states and enforced to the letter and spirit of the UN and not allow certain states a choice of not only ignoring these resolutions but violating them with impunity, while other states face drastic and devastating military action if such resolutions are passed against them and they so much as ask for clarification. The State of Israel has ignored and violated all UN Resolutions and conventions with regards to the Israeli Palestinian conflict with not only impunity but with the support and protection of certain powers of the world whilst other countries have paid a very high price for merely not complying fully with a security council resolution. The UN Security Council should stop this unfortunate double standards. The UN must not be turned into an Animal Farm.
Mr. President,
Secondly, there is also the lingering issue of the Republic of China (Taiwan). My delegation holds the position that Taiwan should be invited to participate in all the meetings and activities of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) amongst others. Taiwan has a legitimate right to full membership of all UN Specialised agencies since even NGOs have either full membership or observer status to these UN
Agencies. Taiwan with 23 million people, a democratic state is still being denied this fundamental human right that the UN is supposed to uphold and protect in the first place. My delegation also hereby calls on the UN to urge the United States of America to immediately and unconditionally lift the embargo on Cuba in accordance with the wishes of more than 98% of the membership of this August Body. This trade
embargo continues to hurt Cuban Women and children. The Cuban children that are born into these extreme hardships have committed no crime. The punishment of women and children because of political difference is a very serious violation of children’s rights.
Thirdly, my delegation renews its full support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Kingdom of Morocco, and on the question of the Moroccan Sahara, we remain convinced that the proposal of the Moroccan Government to grant substantive autonomy to the Saharan Region on the basis of the negotiations initiated by the Security Council, and conducted and agreed by the Parties would lead to a lasting and peaceful resolution of the conflict. Mr. President,
Finally, my delegation has been following keenly but with deep dismay, the protracted negotiations and a seeming connivance to prevent the reform of the Security Council. Africa would like to see to this Reform undertaken and a balanced representation of the Continents in the Security Council. My delegation therefore urges the President of the General Assembly to exert more effort on the issue within the term of this 64th General Assembly, and ensure that the continent of Africa has at least two permanent seats at the Security Council with full veto powers or else any resolution passed by the Security Council will not be binding on Africa or any AU Member State by the end of 2010. Africa, a continent ten times the size of
Europe does not have a single permanent seat at the Security Council whilst Europe has more than one permanent seat.
Africa has been subjected to discrimination, marginalization, exploitation and humiliation for a very long time. We the Africans are no longer going to accept this status quo. We will put an end to this very soon.
I wish you all a successful 64th Session.
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Gambia admits to failed age tests
By Jenny Horrocks
BBC Sport
The Gambia won the African Under-17 Championship in Algeria
The president of the Gambia FA, Seedy Kinteh, has admitted some players who helped win the African Under-17 Championship have failed age tests.
A total of 51 Gambian youngsters underwent MRI scans in Senegal to help determine their ages ahead of the upcoming Under-17 World Cup in Nigeria.
"Very few of the players failed the test," Kinteh insisted.
When asked if any of those who had failed the test had played at the African Under-17 Championship in Algeria he replied: "Yes, I'd need to check, but it can't be more than two or three."
Following the tests a squad of 28 players was named for a training camp that begins in the UK on Friday.
Football's world governing body, Fifa, has advised teams to be prepared for random age-tests at the Under-17 World Cup.
Hosts Nigeria have also carried out the scans on their squad and the football association president Sani Lulu says they are using the scans to help guide them on the make-up of their squad for next month's tournament.
BBC Sport
The Gambia won the African Under-17 Championship in Algeria
The president of the Gambia FA, Seedy Kinteh, has admitted some players who helped win the African Under-17 Championship have failed age tests.
A total of 51 Gambian youngsters underwent MRI scans in Senegal to help determine their ages ahead of the upcoming Under-17 World Cup in Nigeria.
"Very few of the players failed the test," Kinteh insisted.
When asked if any of those who had failed the test had played at the African Under-17 Championship in Algeria he replied: "Yes, I'd need to check, but it can't be more than two or three."
Following the tests a squad of 28 players was named for a training camp that begins in the UK on Friday.
Football's world governing body, Fifa, has advised teams to be prepared for random age-tests at the Under-17 World Cup.
Hosts Nigeria have also carried out the scans on their squad and the football association president Sani Lulu says they are using the scans to help guide them on the make-up of their squad for next month's tournament.
Rantings of an Angry Despot – Part Two
By Baba Galleh Jallow
Some of you so-called journalists and critics think that you can open your mouths in my own personal country and try to criticize me. You think that you can come here and try to talk about so-called human right or so-called rule of law. What do you mean human right? What do you mean rule of law? Have you ever seen any so–called law trying to rule? You must be crazy if you think so and I will not let that happen in my country.
You think that you can open your big mouths and say Jumus does not respect human right or rule of so-called law. If you think so then you must be very stupid and you have your mouths in the wrong places. Because I am going to warn you – anybody that tries to talk about human right or try to bring disorder or tell people to question my power and authority – I tell you that I will kill you till you are dead. You say you are so-called human right. Well, if you are human right you should stuff your human right in your dirty pocket and keep your mouth shut. Because I will not tolerate anyone coming here and trying to be human right or so-called law of rule.
The other day I showed my compassion and forgave some criminals who were already found guilty of crime. Those criminals tried to tell me what to say or what not to say in my own personal country. For that reason they were found guilty of treason and sedition and sent to prison. And because some people fell on their knees and begged me, and because I was a man of compassion, I forgave them and they were free to go home. Then what did some of you big mouths do? You opened your big mouths and you said Jumus is afraid that’s why he released those people. If I was afraid how could I not deal with them because they were already in prison? How can I be afraid of a small bunch of criminals?
You think that you have a right to open your big mouths and say anything about me because you think I am afraid of those stupid so-called human right organizations or whatever they call themselves. If they think they are human right why don’t they come here and face me and try to tell me that nonsense? If they think they are human right who made them human right? They just get up one day and they say they are human right human right my foot. What human right? Haa? If they are human right they should stay in their own countries and make their stupid noises there. I do not need any so-called human right in my country. In fact, from now on – and I mean from this very moment – I will personally kill anyone found listening to those so-called human right organizations or even thinking of them. From now on all those so-called human right organizations are banned in this country. I forbid any of them to look at my country, talk about my country, or even think about my country, not to say write about my country. If they think they are human right they should go to their own countries and talk about their nonsense human right. And I want to warn all people in my country. Anyone caught even thinking about human right will be killed immediately. If you don’t like it you can all go to hell. And all of you so called human right activists or activities or whatever you call yourself can go to hell.
Sometimes I listen to the radio and I hear some of you so-called journalists or human right activists trying to tell me what I can or cannot do in my own personal country. You go to the West and hide behind the radio or so-called computer and think that you can cause disorder in my own personal country. You think that you can hide out there in the bush and try to tell my own personal people what they should think or what they should feel. If you think you are brave why not come here and face me and try to tell me your nonsense. Ballayy Ballayy Ballayy, if you do that you will know who I am. I will make sure that all of you are dead within one second. Even within one quarter of a second. So if you think you are brave come and face Jumus. You will then know who Jumus is. Ballayy Ballayy Ballayy.
Some of you so-called journalists and critics think that you can open your mouths in my own personal country and try to criticize me. You think that you can come here and try to talk about so-called human right or so-called rule of law. What do you mean human right? What do you mean rule of law? Have you ever seen any so–called law trying to rule? You must be crazy if you think so and I will not let that happen in my country.
You think that you can open your big mouths and say Jumus does not respect human right or rule of so-called law. If you think so then you must be very stupid and you have your mouths in the wrong places. Because I am going to warn you – anybody that tries to talk about human right or try to bring disorder or tell people to question my power and authority – I tell you that I will kill you till you are dead. You say you are so-called human right. Well, if you are human right you should stuff your human right in your dirty pocket and keep your mouth shut. Because I will not tolerate anyone coming here and trying to be human right or so-called law of rule.
The other day I showed my compassion and forgave some criminals who were already found guilty of crime. Those criminals tried to tell me what to say or what not to say in my own personal country. For that reason they were found guilty of treason and sedition and sent to prison. And because some people fell on their knees and begged me, and because I was a man of compassion, I forgave them and they were free to go home. Then what did some of you big mouths do? You opened your big mouths and you said Jumus is afraid that’s why he released those people. If I was afraid how could I not deal with them because they were already in prison? How can I be afraid of a small bunch of criminals?
You think that you have a right to open your big mouths and say anything about me because you think I am afraid of those stupid so-called human right organizations or whatever they call themselves. If they think they are human right why don’t they come here and face me and try to tell me that nonsense? If they think they are human right who made them human right? They just get up one day and they say they are human right human right my foot. What human right? Haa? If they are human right they should stay in their own countries and make their stupid noises there. I do not need any so-called human right in my country. In fact, from now on – and I mean from this very moment – I will personally kill anyone found listening to those so-called human right organizations or even thinking of them. From now on all those so-called human right organizations are banned in this country. I forbid any of them to look at my country, talk about my country, or even think about my country, not to say write about my country. If they think they are human right they should go to their own countries and talk about their nonsense human right. And I want to warn all people in my country. Anyone caught even thinking about human right will be killed immediately. If you don’t like it you can all go to hell. And all of you so called human right activists or activities or whatever you call yourself can go to hell.
Sometimes I listen to the radio and I hear some of you so-called journalists or human right activists trying to tell me what I can or cannot do in my own personal country. You go to the West and hide behind the radio or so-called computer and think that you can cause disorder in my own personal country. You think that you can hide out there in the bush and try to tell my own personal people what they should think or what they should feel. If you think you are brave why not come here and face me and try to tell me your nonsense. Ballayy Ballayy Ballayy, if you do that you will know who I am. I will make sure that all of you are dead within one second. Even within one quarter of a second. So if you think you are brave come and face Jumus. You will then know who Jumus is. Ballayy Ballayy Ballayy.
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
Jammeh threatens to kill troublemakers
Gambian President Yahya Jammeh on Monday warned that anyone who sought to "destabilise" the tiny west African nation would be killed.
"If you want to destabilise this country and bring trouble and suffering to my people, I will make sure that you are dead," Jammeh told state television.
He added that cooperating with human rights groups was no guarantee of protection.
"Those who want to collaborate and listen to those so-called human rights campaigners and think that they will be defended by them are fooling themselves," said the president, who has held power in Gambia for 15 years.
Jammeh also issued a direct warning to human rights groups, which have criticised the Gambian head of state's iron-fisted rule, not to interfere in the country's affairs.
"What I want to make very clear to everybody and those so-called human rights campaigners is that I will never allow anyone to destabilise this country," the president said.
"If you are a troublemaker, keep away from the country," he warned.
Jammeh, who has ruled since taking power in a bloodless coup in 1994, has been repeatedly attacked by human rights campaigners for his repressive attitude particularly towards the media.
He came under fire earlier this month from press watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which urged Jammeh to "loosen the vice" on the media after six journalists who criticised him were jailed.
The journalists -- one woman and five men -- spent just under a month in prison after publishing comments critical of Jammeh.
They were originally given two-year jail sentences but were freed two weeks ago after receiving a presidential pardon.
Despite freeing the journalists, Jammeh has kept up pressure on the media by warning journalists they could still be prosecuted for being "disrespectful".
RSF places Gambia 137th out of 173 countries in its press freedom ranking.
"If you want to destabilise this country and bring trouble and suffering to my people, I will make sure that you are dead," Jammeh told state television.
He added that cooperating with human rights groups was no guarantee of protection.
"Those who want to collaborate and listen to those so-called human rights campaigners and think that they will be defended by them are fooling themselves," said the president, who has held power in Gambia for 15 years.
Jammeh also issued a direct warning to human rights groups, which have criticised the Gambian head of state's iron-fisted rule, not to interfere in the country's affairs.
"What I want to make very clear to everybody and those so-called human rights campaigners is that I will never allow anyone to destabilise this country," the president said.
"If you are a troublemaker, keep away from the country," he warned.
Jammeh, who has ruled since taking power in a bloodless coup in 1994, has been repeatedly attacked by human rights campaigners for his repressive attitude particularly towards the media.
He came under fire earlier this month from press watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which urged Jammeh to "loosen the vice" on the media after six journalists who criticised him were jailed.
The journalists -- one woman and five men -- spent just under a month in prison after publishing comments critical of Jammeh.
They were originally given two-year jail sentences but were freed two weeks ago after receiving a presidential pardon.
Despite freeing the journalists, Jammeh has kept up pressure on the media by warning journalists they could still be prosecuted for being "disrespectful".
RSF places Gambia 137th out of 173 countries in its press freedom ranking.
Green Economy Coalition urges G20 to match rhetoric with action
Press Release
A new coalition of international business, trade unions, research and environmental organisations is calling on the G20 nations to follow through on their pledges to accelerate the transition to a green economy and secure a visionary global deal on climate change, in an open letter published today.
The Green Economy Coalition is hosted by the International Institute for Environment and Development. Its letter warns that G20 nations are failing to match their rhetoric with action, are delaying the transition to sustainable development and are promoting climate change through their subsidies for fossil fuel production and consumption.
It calls on G20 nations to honour aid commitments and provide new funds to enable developing nations to shift to sustainable development pathways.
The Green Economy Coalition will be focusing on the policy changes needed to transform the global economy into one that is clean, green and equitable. It will grow to include about 20 core members in addition to associate members that join specific activities.
In this case, the letter has been signed by heads of Consumers International, the Inspire Foundation for Business and Society, International Trade Union Confederation, WWF International, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Global Reporting Initiative, Ecologic Institute, Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD, Bellagio Forum for Sustainable Development, IISD-Europe, the Centre for Human Ecology and the UN Environment Programme’s Green Economy Initiative.
“The Green Economy Coalition promotes equitable and resilient economies which provide a better quality of life for all, within the ecological limits of one planet,” says Sally Jeanrenaud of IIED. “We have a unique opportunity today refocus the world economy by investing in green sectors for a fairer and more sustainable future.”
A new coalition of international business, trade unions, research and environmental organisations is calling on the G20 nations to follow through on their pledges to accelerate the transition to a green economy and secure a visionary global deal on climate change, in an open letter published today.
The Green Economy Coalition is hosted by the International Institute for Environment and Development. Its letter warns that G20 nations are failing to match their rhetoric with action, are delaying the transition to sustainable development and are promoting climate change through their subsidies for fossil fuel production and consumption.
It calls on G20 nations to honour aid commitments and provide new funds to enable developing nations to shift to sustainable development pathways.
The Green Economy Coalition will be focusing on the policy changes needed to transform the global economy into one that is clean, green and equitable. It will grow to include about 20 core members in addition to associate members that join specific activities.
In this case, the letter has been signed by heads of Consumers International, the Inspire Foundation for Business and Society, International Trade Union Confederation, WWF International, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Global Reporting Initiative, Ecologic Institute, Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD, Bellagio Forum for Sustainable Development, IISD-Europe, the Centre for Human Ecology and the UN Environment Programme’s Green Economy Initiative.
“The Green Economy Coalition promotes equitable and resilient economies which provide a better quality of life for all, within the ecological limits of one planet,” says Sally Jeanrenaud of IIED. “We have a unique opportunity today refocus the world economy by investing in green sectors for a fairer and more sustainable future.”
Dalasi & Butut:Dalasi Sends Mixed Signals
The Gambia’s local currency posted mixed signals on the interbank and depreciated against its major trade counterparts on the parallel market this week. On the interbank market, the Dalasi was unchanged at D26.65 against the Dollar but depreciated by 80 bututs against the Pound to close at D44.40.
Against the Euro, the local currency gained 25 bututs and was quoted at D37.75 but lost ground against the CFA Francs by D2.50 to close the week at D285. On the parallel market, the local currency depreciated by 2 bututs against the Dollar and lost 50 bututs to the Pound to close at D26.90 and D44.00 respectively.
The Dalasi was also re-rated downwards by 1 butut against the Euro to D39 and lost D3.50 to the CFA Francs to close this week at D280. The US Dollar appreciated against the Pound but depreciated against the Euro and the Japanese Yen on the international currency market this week.
The greenback was up by 0.04 per cent against the Pound to $1.63 but was down by
0.01 per cent against the Euro to close at $1.47. The Dollar also depreciated by 0.1 per cent against the Yen and exchanged hands with the Yen at $91.13.
Dalasi Interbank Mid Exchange Rates
$ 26.65
£ 44.40
€ 37.75
CFA 285.00
Parallel Mid Exchange Rates
$ 26.90
£ 44.00
€ 39.00
CFA 280.00
Money Market Updates
91-Day Bills Drop Points: Both the 91-Day Bill and its Sukuk Al-Salam counterpart lost points following the end of this week’s trading. While the 182-Day Bill and the 1-Year Note improved, the 91-Day Bill was down by 7 basis points
from its previous level of 10.14 per cent to 10.07 per cent following an undersubscription of 67 per cent.
The 91-Day Sukuk Al-Salam Bill also lost 14 basis points of its last week rate of 10.71 per cent and was quoted at 10.57 per cent this week, after being oversubscribed by 60 per cent.
The 182-Day Bill posted a gain of 29 basis points and was undersubscribed by 76 per cent. The Half-Year Bill which was quoted at 11.45 per cent last week closed this week at a higher rate of 11.74 per cent. The longer dated arm of the market also witnessed a 69 basis point appreciation in the level of the 1-Year Note after an
undersubscription of 46 per cent. The Note was quoted at 14.75 per cent this
week but was previously quoted at 14.06 per cent.
Against the Euro, the local currency gained 25 bututs and was quoted at D37.75 but lost ground against the CFA Francs by D2.50 to close the week at D285. On the parallel market, the local currency depreciated by 2 bututs against the Dollar and lost 50 bututs to the Pound to close at D26.90 and D44.00 respectively.
The Dalasi was also re-rated downwards by 1 butut against the Euro to D39 and lost D3.50 to the CFA Francs to close this week at D280. The US Dollar appreciated against the Pound but depreciated against the Euro and the Japanese Yen on the international currency market this week.
The greenback was up by 0.04 per cent against the Pound to $1.63 but was down by
0.01 per cent against the Euro to close at $1.47. The Dollar also depreciated by 0.1 per cent against the Yen and exchanged hands with the Yen at $91.13.
Dalasi Interbank Mid Exchange Rates
$ 26.65
£ 44.40
€ 37.75
CFA 285.00
Parallel Mid Exchange Rates
$ 26.90
£ 44.00
€ 39.00
CFA 280.00
Money Market Updates
91-Day Bills Drop Points: Both the 91-Day Bill and its Sukuk Al-Salam counterpart lost points following the end of this week’s trading. While the 182-Day Bill and the 1-Year Note improved, the 91-Day Bill was down by 7 basis points
from its previous level of 10.14 per cent to 10.07 per cent following an undersubscription of 67 per cent.
The 91-Day Sukuk Al-Salam Bill also lost 14 basis points of its last week rate of 10.71 per cent and was quoted at 10.57 per cent this week, after being oversubscribed by 60 per cent.
The 182-Day Bill posted a gain of 29 basis points and was undersubscribed by 76 per cent. The Half-Year Bill which was quoted at 11.45 per cent last week closed this week at a higher rate of 11.74 per cent. The longer dated arm of the market also witnessed a 69 basis point appreciation in the level of the 1-Year Note after an
undersubscription of 46 per cent. The Note was quoted at 14.75 per cent this
week but was previously quoted at 14.06 per cent.
Gambia Seeks Amendment of ECOWAS Court Powers
The ECOWAS Commission has called a meeting of Government Experts of the 15 Member States in Abuja, Nigeria from 28 September to 3 October 2009 to discuss proposals from the Gambia to amend the provisions concerning the jurisdiction of and access to ECOWAS Court of Justice under the Protocol creating the Court. The Gambia's request for an amendment is accompanied by a draft Supplementary Act (amending instrument) prepared by the Government of the Gambia.
The Gambia seeks an amendment of Articles 9(4) on jurisdiction of and 10(d) on access to the Court. In particular, they request five specific amendments:
(a) that with respect to human rights cases, the Court should only have jurisdiction in respect of international instruments ratified by the respondent country;
(b) also in human rights cases, the ECOWAS Court's jurisdiction should be made subject to the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
(c) cases should only be admissible if instituted not later than 12 months after the exhaustion of local remedies;
(d) cases should not be anonymous; and
(e) the court should not hear cases that are before other international mechanisms of settlement.
The Gambia seeks an amendment of Articles 9(4) on jurisdiction of and 10(d) on access to the Court. In particular, they request five specific amendments:
(a) that with respect to human rights cases, the Court should only have jurisdiction in respect of international instruments ratified by the respondent country;
(b) also in human rights cases, the ECOWAS Court's jurisdiction should be made subject to the exhaustion of domestic remedies;
(c) cases should only be admissible if instituted not later than 12 months after the exhaustion of local remedies;
(d) cases should not be anonymous; and
(e) the court should not hear cases that are before other international mechanisms of settlement.
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Leading scientists urge leaders to go further to tackle climate change
Press release
Forty of the world’s leading climate scientists have signed an open letter demanding global leaders take bolder action against climate change (see full list below)
The joint statement – initiated by WWF and endorsed by recognised climate luminaries such as Sir John Houghton, former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – calls for industrialised countries to make a commitment, at the UN Climate summit in Copenhagen , to cut carbon emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.
Saleemul Huq, one of the signatories, IPCC author and Senior Fellow in the Climate Change Group at the International Institute for Environment and Development, said: “The scientific evidence now indicates that even a rise in temperature of 2°C will entail considerable hardships for poor and vulnerable people around the world, especially those living on low-lying islands and coasts.
“So a 40% reduction in emissions is the very least required to provide a better chance of avoiding devastation for these countries and communities.”
WWF’s Head of Climate Change, Keith Allott, says: “As the UK government rallies the EU to step up to the mark ahead of Copenhagen, it’s time for Gordon Brown and other world leaders to turn words into action.”
Dr Dave Reay, another of the signatories, IPCC contributor and Senior Lecturer in Carbon Management, Edinburgh University , said: "The scientific evidence of climate change from around the world is providing a clear and urgent call for action.
“If we are to be successful in preventing the worst impacts of climate change then world leaders from the industrialised nations must commit to reducing emissions by at least 40 per cent by 2020. The meeting in Copenhagen later this year is hugely important in putting the world on a path that leads us away from dangerous climate change."
The WWF say key meetings that will shape the global climate deal take place in coming weeks, including the UN General Assembly in New York and the G20 Heads of State meeting in Pittsburgh .
Campaigners say it is vital that the politicians attending take note of such timely advice from the world’s scientific community.
The scientists’ statement on 40% emissions reduction target for developed countries follows…
Copenhagen climate targets must be more ambitious
At the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen this December, world leaders have the opportunity to agree a historic global climate deal. To avoid dangerous climate change, the deal must be based on the most up-to-date scientific understanding of the emissions reductions required, with obligations divided equitably between developed and developing countries. This means that developed countries must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.
Copenhagen represents our best chance to avert the worst impacts of climate change on people, species and ecosystems. More than 120 countries, including the members of the G8, the EU, and key emerging economies such as China , South Africa and Mexico , agree that the rise in global temperature must stay well below 2°C. Beyond this point climate impacts will be more severe, with the risk of crossing ‘tipping points’ with dangerous and irreversible effects.
To stand a good chance of achieving this goal, the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (2007) recommended that developed countries should reduce emissions by 25-40% on 1990 levels by 2020. Yet more recent evidence shows that only reductions at the top end of this range will be sufficient to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
Developed countries have so far committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by only 10-16% by 2020, a level dangerously inconsistent with their commitment to the 2°C target. The latest scientific evidence clearly shows that these countries must increase their ambition and reduce emissions by 40% by 2020 to maintain a credible ambition of avoiding dangerous climate change.
Forty of the world’s leading climate scientists have signed an open letter demanding global leaders take bolder action against climate change (see full list below)
The joint statement – initiated by WWF and endorsed by recognised climate luminaries such as Sir John Houghton, former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – calls for industrialised countries to make a commitment, at the UN Climate summit in Copenhagen , to cut carbon emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.
Saleemul Huq, one of the signatories, IPCC author and Senior Fellow in the Climate Change Group at the International Institute for Environment and Development, said: “The scientific evidence now indicates that even a rise in temperature of 2°C will entail considerable hardships for poor and vulnerable people around the world, especially those living on low-lying islands and coasts.
“So a 40% reduction in emissions is the very least required to provide a better chance of avoiding devastation for these countries and communities.”
WWF’s Head of Climate Change, Keith Allott, says: “As the UK government rallies the EU to step up to the mark ahead of Copenhagen, it’s time for Gordon Brown and other world leaders to turn words into action.”
Dr Dave Reay, another of the signatories, IPCC contributor and Senior Lecturer in Carbon Management, Edinburgh University , said: "The scientific evidence of climate change from around the world is providing a clear and urgent call for action.
“If we are to be successful in preventing the worst impacts of climate change then world leaders from the industrialised nations must commit to reducing emissions by at least 40 per cent by 2020. The meeting in Copenhagen later this year is hugely important in putting the world on a path that leads us away from dangerous climate change."
The WWF say key meetings that will shape the global climate deal take place in coming weeks, including the UN General Assembly in New York and the G20 Heads of State meeting in Pittsburgh .
Campaigners say it is vital that the politicians attending take note of such timely advice from the world’s scientific community.
The scientists’ statement on 40% emissions reduction target for developed countries follows…
Copenhagen climate targets must be more ambitious
At the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen this December, world leaders have the opportunity to agree a historic global climate deal. To avoid dangerous climate change, the deal must be based on the most up-to-date scientific understanding of the emissions reductions required, with obligations divided equitably between developed and developing countries. This means that developed countries must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.
Copenhagen represents our best chance to avert the worst impacts of climate change on people, species and ecosystems. More than 120 countries, including the members of the G8, the EU, and key emerging economies such as China , South Africa and Mexico , agree that the rise in global temperature must stay well below 2°C. Beyond this point climate impacts will be more severe, with the risk of crossing ‘tipping points’ with dangerous and irreversible effects.
To stand a good chance of achieving this goal, the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (2007) recommended that developed countries should reduce emissions by 25-40% on 1990 levels by 2020. Yet more recent evidence shows that only reductions at the top end of this range will be sufficient to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
Developed countries have so far committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by only 10-16% by 2020, a level dangerously inconsistent with their commitment to the 2°C target. The latest scientific evidence clearly shows that these countries must increase their ambition and reduce emissions by 40% by 2020 to maintain a credible ambition of avoiding dangerous climate change.
Rather too late
The release of my colleagues Pap Saine, Sam Sarr, Ebrima Sawaneh, Pa Modou Faal, Emil Touray and Sarata Jabbi-Dibba from the notorious Mile Two Prison is indeed good news. But it came rather too late and cannot be seriously seen as a Ramadan gesture.
Ramadan started ages ago and if the release of these journalists was indeed because of the spirit of Ramadan, then they should have been released ages ago. And if Jammeh is indeed serious in being merciful, he should extend it to the GPU president, Ndey Tapha Sosseh and other journalists currently languishing in foreign countries.
These journalists are currently away from their homes and loved ones not because they committed any capital offence, but simply because of their work as the eyes and mouth piece of the Gambian people.
Until then, I will always see the release of the journalists as another PR attempt by Jammeh to rebuild his battered and bruised image. From the arrest to the conviction of these journalists, the whole civilised world was outraged. Press organisations and governments around the world expressed their disgust at Justice Emmanuel Fagbenle's verdict which they see as a persecution rather than prosecution and another step by the government to keep the Gambian people in a perpetual state of darkness and passive subjugation.
The pressure was mounting everyday and it went to a point where it was nearly choking Jammeh and he could do nothing but to release the journalists.
Releasing the journalists is a welcome development but it cannot repair the damage their arrest and prosecution has done on the personal image of Jammeh and the Gambia. The image of the Gambia which was previously called a beacon of peace and hope is badly tainted. The Gambia is now seen as a country where fear rules.
Secondly, if Jammeh wants us to take him seriously, then he have to do more. For the past many years, Jammeh has shown to the Gambian people that he is a leader who cannot to be trusted. He keeps approbating and reprobating at the same time. And like the HULK, the slightest criticism makes him raise the ceiling. He gets so pumped up anger that the first orders he gives to the NIA or State Guards is arrest him, kill him, let him never see the sun again etc.
Therefore, the release of these journalists will be meaningless if they are going to be arrested, tortured, killed or charged for sedition tomorrow or the day after for publishing a story or article which upsets Jammeh.
The Gambian media does not need favours, cosmetic mercy, gifts or call it whatever from Jammeh or anyone. What we need from Jammeh is for him to use his influence and ask the National Assembly to repeal all those draconian legislations that are seriously inhibiting the work of local journalists. We also want him as president to repeal the various military decrees such as Decree 70/71 which he passed during the transition period.
Jammeh have to tell the NIA to stop focusing their work on the activities of journalists. We are not dissidents or a threat to the peace and tranquility of the Gambia. The NIA should instead see the media as allies in national development. The NIA have more to gain by working closely with the media.
Again if Jammeh wants us to take him seriously as a merciful and compassionate man, he have to order the immediate and unconditional release of Journalist Chief Ebrima Manneh, if he is indeed alive, and compensate him fully for the untold sufferings he is currently going through. Chief Manneh have not committed any crime. He is an innocent bloke who cannot even hurt a fly.
Chief Manneh's father is crying himself everyday to sleep… The last time he saw his son was in the morning of July 11, 2006 when he left for work. In this blessed and holy month of Ramadan, while parents rejoice and break their fast with their children, Chief Manneh's seventy something year-old father is left with a broken heart wondering whether his son is alive or death.
Further, if Jammeh wants us to believe that he is a merciful person, let him and his government do more to find the killers of Deyda Hydara. As a loving husband and father, Deyda's wife and kids are missing him everyday and would like to know who actually pulled the trigger on him and why.
If the Gambian security officers are indeed unable to find the killers of Deyda, then Jammeh should heed calls from the Gambia Press Union and other organisations for international investigators to help. We are sure that with the help of institutions like the Scotland Yard, and with the help of modern scientific equipment, Deyda's murderers will be behind bars very soon or at least the question we have been asking since 16 December, 2004 will be answered.
For comments, write to papak196@yahoo.co.uk
Ramadan started ages ago and if the release of these journalists was indeed because of the spirit of Ramadan, then they should have been released ages ago. And if Jammeh is indeed serious in being merciful, he should extend it to the GPU president, Ndey Tapha Sosseh and other journalists currently languishing in foreign countries.
These journalists are currently away from their homes and loved ones not because they committed any capital offence, but simply because of their work as the eyes and mouth piece of the Gambian people.
Until then, I will always see the release of the journalists as another PR attempt by Jammeh to rebuild his battered and bruised image. From the arrest to the conviction of these journalists, the whole civilised world was outraged. Press organisations and governments around the world expressed their disgust at Justice Emmanuel Fagbenle's verdict which they see as a persecution rather than prosecution and another step by the government to keep the Gambian people in a perpetual state of darkness and passive subjugation.
The pressure was mounting everyday and it went to a point where it was nearly choking Jammeh and he could do nothing but to release the journalists.
Releasing the journalists is a welcome development but it cannot repair the damage their arrest and prosecution has done on the personal image of Jammeh and the Gambia. The image of the Gambia which was previously called a beacon of peace and hope is badly tainted. The Gambia is now seen as a country where fear rules.
Secondly, if Jammeh wants us to take him seriously, then he have to do more. For the past many years, Jammeh has shown to the Gambian people that he is a leader who cannot to be trusted. He keeps approbating and reprobating at the same time. And like the HULK, the slightest criticism makes him raise the ceiling. He gets so pumped up anger that the first orders he gives to the NIA or State Guards is arrest him, kill him, let him never see the sun again etc.
Therefore, the release of these journalists will be meaningless if they are going to be arrested, tortured, killed or charged for sedition tomorrow or the day after for publishing a story or article which upsets Jammeh.
The Gambian media does not need favours, cosmetic mercy, gifts or call it whatever from Jammeh or anyone. What we need from Jammeh is for him to use his influence and ask the National Assembly to repeal all those draconian legislations that are seriously inhibiting the work of local journalists. We also want him as president to repeal the various military decrees such as Decree 70/71 which he passed during the transition period.
Jammeh have to tell the NIA to stop focusing their work on the activities of journalists. We are not dissidents or a threat to the peace and tranquility of the Gambia. The NIA should instead see the media as allies in national development. The NIA have more to gain by working closely with the media.
Again if Jammeh wants us to take him seriously as a merciful and compassionate man, he have to order the immediate and unconditional release of Journalist Chief Ebrima Manneh, if he is indeed alive, and compensate him fully for the untold sufferings he is currently going through. Chief Manneh have not committed any crime. He is an innocent bloke who cannot even hurt a fly.
Chief Manneh's father is crying himself everyday to sleep… The last time he saw his son was in the morning of July 11, 2006 when he left for work. In this blessed and holy month of Ramadan, while parents rejoice and break their fast with their children, Chief Manneh's seventy something year-old father is left with a broken heart wondering whether his son is alive or death.
Further, if Jammeh wants us to believe that he is a merciful person, let him and his government do more to find the killers of Deyda Hydara. As a loving husband and father, Deyda's wife and kids are missing him everyday and would like to know who actually pulled the trigger on him and why.
If the Gambian security officers are indeed unable to find the killers of Deyda, then Jammeh should heed calls from the Gambia Press Union and other organisations for international investigators to help. We are sure that with the help of institutions like the Scotland Yard, and with the help of modern scientific equipment, Deyda's murderers will be behind bars very soon or at least the question we have been asking since 16 December, 2004 will be answered.
For comments, write to papak196@yahoo.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)