African Union demands 'immediate' halt to Libya attacks
NOUAKCHOTT (AFP) – The African Union's panel on Libya Sunday called for an "immediate stop" to all attacks after the United States, France and Britain launched military action against Moamer Kadhafi's forces.
After a more than four-hour meeting in the Mauritanian capital, the body also asked Libyan authorities to ensure "humanitarian aid to those in need," as well as the "protection of foreigners, including African expatriates living in Libya."
It underscored the need for "necessary political reforms to eliminate the causes of the present crisis" but at the same time called for "restraint" from the international community to avoid "serious humanitarian consequences."
The panel also announced a meeting in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa on March 25, along with representatives from the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Conference, the European Union and the United Nations to "put in place a mechanism for consultation and concerted action" to resolve the Libyan crisis.
The AU committee on Libya is composed of five African heads of state. But the Nouakchott meeting was only attended by the presidents of Mauritania, Mali and Congo. South Africa and Uganda were represented by ministers.
The committee said it had been unable to get international permission to visit Tripoli on Sunday but did not elaborate.
Libyan generosity and Moamer Kadhafi's role in the creation of the African Union could explain the continental cautious stand, experts said.
The AU was born in the 1999 Sirte Declaration, named after a summit hosted by Kadhafi in his hometown on the Libyan coast.
The declaration said its authors felt inspired by Kadhafi's "vision for a strong and united Africa."
"The AU as an organisation has benefited significantly from Kadhafi's wealth," said Fred Golooba Mutebi of the Institute of Social Research at Kampala's Makerere University.
The pan-African body has taken a firmer stance on three west African crises: most recently Ivory Coast and previously Guinea and Niger.
Handouts aside, Libya has invested billions of dollars in sub-Saharan Africa.
It has interests in more than two dozen African countries, while its petroleum refining and distribution unit Oil Libya has interests in at least as many.
Libyan telecommunications unit LAP Green is present in five countries in the region and expanding rapidly.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the AU is a reformation of a preexisting organization by the name of OAU. That aside, since when does "western" imperialists listen to anybody that is not directly presided by themselves?
The fighter jet belongs to the Gaddafi forces; the opposition rebels are not that equipped.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically its NATO/EU, Zionist and anywhere with a puppet leader they control vs Rest of the world.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Despite what you can read and verify below, two hours after its release the NY Times was acting like it was a Qadhafi plane shot down by France instead of the fact it was a rebel plane breaking the no fly ruling.
= = =
Libyan rebels admit - it was our plane
From correspondents in Cairo From: AFP March 20, 2011 12:45AM
LIBYAN rebels acknowledged that a warplane which crashed in flames in their Benghazi stronghold early yesterday belonged to them and that it was shot down by Muammar Gaddafi's forces.
"Yes, it was one of the insurgents' planes. It was downed by Gaddafi's forces," a senior rebel official told AFP, reached by telephone.
"From what I hear the pilot is dead but I cannot confirm that," he said, adding that the plane was a French-built Mirage fighter.
"We have a few planes but they are old planes," he added.
= = =
To verify do a phrase search on the following
Libyan rebels admit - it was our plane
you will get back more than a page full of hits from various news sources worldwide. The insurrectionists almost effed up western propoganda that Qadhafi blewoff the ceasefire by owning up but 1st and 2nd world powers don't have to answer to any nations not powerful enough to hit them at home.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Fighter jet shot down over Benghazi
posted
Let's not fool ourselves. Western intervention is about oil.
The AU is powerless to do anything except giving some lip. The AU cannot converge a miltary flotilla to enforce their lip.
Qadhafi asked for international observers days ago but little if any of that is in the media and there is no response from the cowardly abstainers who if they had voted no there would be no no fly zone or UN approved naval bombardments against non-flying targets.
Notice, the UN made no restrictions on the insurgents, such as they must cease their pogroms against blacks excused by merely labelling all blacks mercenaries and so sheilded from accusations of attacking and killing peaceful unarmed civilians.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL, Wait I thought the Poor Unemployed Ali-Baba Liars did'nt have planes??? I thought It was all Gadaffi doing all the violence to the Peaceful Unemployed Protesters.
If they have Planes how do we know if Gadaffi was the one ordering Air Strikes?? The Rebels could have done it to smear Gaddafi...given the fact that they BROKE the No Fly Law, what else are they capable of.
People who beat, Lynch, and post beaten and mutalated Black Lybians on Youtube have no Honor.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Despite what you can read and verify below, two hours after its release the NY Times was acting like it was a Qadhafi plane shot down by France instead of the fact it was a rebel plane breaking the no fly ruling.
= = =
Libyan rebels admit - it was our plane
From correspondents in Cairo From: AFP March 20, 2011 12:45AM
LIBYAN rebels acknowledged that a warplane which crashed in flames in their Benghazi stronghold early yesterday belonged to them and that it was shot down by Muammar Gaddafi's forces.
"Yes, it was one of the insurgents' planes. It was downed by Gaddafi's forces," a senior rebel official told AFP, reached by telephone.
"From what I hear the pilot is dead but I cannot confirm that," he said, adding that the plane was a French-built Mirage fighter.
"We have a few planes but they are old planes," he added.
= = =
To verify do a phrase search on the following
Libyan rebels admit - it was our plane
you will get back more than a page full of hits from various news sources worldwide. The insurrectionists almost effed up the propoganda that Qadhafi blewoff the ceasefire by owning up but 1st and 2nd world powers don't have to answer to any nations not powerful enough to hit them at home.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Fighter jet shot down over Benghazi
By Maria Golovnina and Michael Georgy TRIPOLI | Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:16am EDT
(Reuters) - Western forces pounded Libya's air defences and patrolled its skies on Sunday, but their day-old intervention hit a serious diplomatic setback as the Arab League chief condemned the "bombardment of civilians."
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi vowed to defeat the Western powers' "terrorism" and sent his troops and tanks into the rebel-held coastal city of Misrata, residents said.
European and U.S. forces unleashed warplanes and cruise missiles against Gaddafi on Saturday in a United Nations-backed intervention to prevent the veteran leader from killing civilians as he fights an uprising against his 41-year rule.
But Arab League chief Amr Moussa said what was happening was not what Arabs had envisaged when they called for the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya.
"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," he said.
In comments carried by Egypt's official state news agency, Moussa also said he was calling for an emergency Arab League meeting.
Arab backing for a no-fly zone provided crucial underpinning for the passage of the U.N. Security Council resolution last week that paved the way for the Western intervention, the biggest against an Arab country since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Withdrawal of that support would make it much harder to pursue what some defense analysts say could in any case be a difficult, open-ended campaign with an uncertain outcome.
The U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said the no-fly zone was effectively in place. But he told CBS the endgame of military action was "very uncertain" and acknowledged it could end in a stalemate with Gaddafi.
Mullen said he had seen no reports of civilian casualties from the Western strikes. But Russia said there had been such casualties and called on Britain, France and the United States to halt the "non-selective use of force."
The aerial assault stopped in its tracks the advance by Gaddafi's troops into the eastern city of Benghazi, and left the burned and shattered remains of his tanks and troop carriers littering the main road outside the rebel stronghold.
The charred bodies of at least 14 government soldiers lay scattered in the desert.
"Gaddafi is like a chicken and the coalition is plucking his feathers so he can't fly. The revolutionaries will slit his neck," said Fathi Bin Saud, a 52-year-old rebel carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, surveying the wreckage.
Gaddafi said the raids amounted to terrorism and vowed to fight to the death. "We will not leave our land and we will liberate it," he said on state television. "We will remain alive and you will all die."
A Libyan government health official said the death toll from the Western air strikes had risen to 64 on Sunday after some of the wounded died. But it was impossible to independently verify the reports as government minders refused to take Western reporters in the capital Tripoli to the site of the bombings.
Residents said forces loyal to Gaddafi entered the center of the rebel-held city of Misrata on Sunday with tanks, and several people had been killed by gunfire. "Two people were killed so far today by snipers. They (snipers) are still on the rooftops. They are backed with four tanks, which have been patrolling the town. It's getting very difficult for people to come out," one resident, called Sami, told Reuters by telephone.
"There are also boats encircling the port and preventing aid from reaching the town."
Abdelbasset, a spokesman for the rebels in Misrata, told Reuters: "There is fighting between the rebels and Gaddafi's forces. Their tanks are in the center of Misrata ... There are so many casualties we cannot count them."
"ODYSSEY DAWN"
French planes fired the first shots of the intervention on Saturday, destroying tanks and armored vehicles near Benghazi. The eastern city is the cradle of the anti-Gaddafi revolt that started last month, inspired by Arab uprisings that toppled the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt.
France sent an aircraft carrier toward Libya and its planes were over the country again on Sunday, defense officials said. Britain said its planes had targeted Libya's air defences mainly around the capital Tripoli.
U.S. and British warships and submarines launched 110 Tomahawk missiles overnight against air defences around the capital Tripoli and Misrata, U.S. military officials said.
They said U.S. forces and planes were working with Britain, France, Canada and Italy in operation "Odyssey Dawn." Denmark said it had four fighter planes ready to join in on Sunday and was awaiting U.S. instructions.
Gaddafi said all Libyans had now been armed to defend the country and Western defeat was inevitable. Libya's state news agency said more than a million men and women would be armed.
China and Russia, which abstained in the U.N. Security Council vote last week endorsing intervention, expressed regret at the military action. China's Foreign Ministry said it hoped the conflict would not lead to a greater loss of civilian life.
Explosions and heavy anti-aircraft fire rattled Tripoli in the early hours of Sunday. Defiant cries of "Allahu Akbar" (God is Greatest) echoed around the city center.
Libyan state television showed footage from an unidentified hospital of what it called victims of the "colonial enemy." Ten bodies were wrapped up in white and blue bed sheets, and several people were wounded, one of them badly, the television said.
The mood in Tripoli turned markedly anti-Western, and crowds shouted defiant slogans and shot in the air.
APPREHENSION AND RELIEF
Tripoli residents said they had heard an explosion near the eastern Tajoura district, while in Misrata they said strikes had targeted an airbase used by Gaddafi's forces.
The Western intervention, after weeks of diplomatic wrangling, was welcomed in Benghazi with a mix of apprehension and relief.
"We salute France, Britain, the United States and the Arab countries for standing with Libya. But we think Gaddafi will take out his anger on civilians. So the West has to hit him hard," said civil servant Khalid al-Ghurfaly, 38.
Benghazi's main hospital was filled with men, women and children wounded in Saturday's assault on the city by Gaddafi's forces. There were 24 bodies, including eight government troops, visible in the morgue, and more were stored in refrigerators.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the allies had agreed to use "all necessary means, especially military" to enforce the Security Council resolution for an end to attacks on civilians.
Some analysts have questioned the strategy for the military intervention, fearing Western forces might be sucked into a long civil war despite a U.S. insistence, repeated on Saturday, that it has no plans to send ground troops into Libya.
(Reporting by Mohammed Abbas and Angus MacSwan in Benghazi, Maria Golovnina and Michael Georgy in Tripoli, Hamid Ould Ahmed and Christian Lowe in Algiers; Tom Perry in Cairo, John Irish and Elizabeth Pineau in Paris, Missy Ryan in Washington, Writing by Mark Trevelyan and Jon Hemming)
posted
Russia says Western strikes kill Libyan civilians
9:39am EDT MOSCOW
(Reuters) - Russia called on Britain, France and the United States Sunday to stop air strikes against what it said were non-military targets in Libya, saying the attacks had caused civilian casualties.
"In that respect we call on countries involved to stop the non-selective use of force," Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement.
Lukashevich said 48 civilians were reported to have been killed and 150 wounded in the air strikes, figures that matched those given early Sunday by Libyan state TV. He said strikes had destroyed a medical facility, roads and bridges.
The Western countries say they hit only military targets, including air defenses and tanks that were threatening the eastern city of Benghazi.
"We believe a mandate given by the U.N. Security Council resolution -- a controversial move in itself -- should not be used to achieve goals outside its provisions which only see measures necessary to protect civilian population," Lukashevich said.
Russia abstained during a U.N. Security Council vote which authorized a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians against leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces.
posted
Look at Sarkozy and what do you see. A little man wearing high heels, a frazzled face and a big nose. So he gotta do something to feel big. But he is a an ass because any French person is Libya will have their throats cut from now into the forseeable future. What and an ass with a libertine-mongering wife.
And Britain: what else do you expect from a degenerate Tory reptile--schooled in the arts of buggery from day one in those so-called public schools. Cameron is his name.
And the U.S.? That half-baked, half everything man is just that. Half and half in everything. What do you get when you halve anything? Just total mediocrity--as the word suggests.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And the African Union--Gaddafi's brain child? Just a bunch of feckless, sleepy set of Batustan boys--all genuflecting before white power--as if colonialism never ended. What a pitiful lot. Imagine that powerless bunch of Arab torturers and weekend rapists in Bahrain calling themselves the "Arab League" having more clout in Africa than the African Union. Shameful! As I said before those who call themselves Arabs in Africa--before anything else should be expelled back to their flimsy tents in Arabia. Where is Idi Amin when we need him?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is nothing interesting here and, frankly, this response of theirs is to be expected. Their present position is for public consumption in the Arab street. They obviously do not want to appear supporting the big bad, great Satan. They wait until the West has the situation nearly under control and then turn on them.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to arab news the rebels have no planes and no tanks at all since they lost the road to Ajdabiya district East of Biya.
French/American and allies have killed many civilans in the residental area of misurata.
According to saadun almaserati the revolution wing the american/french forces are killing rebels and innocent people.
Posts: 410 | From: Al-Ard | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AswaniAswad: According to arab news the rebels have no planes and no tanks at all since they lost the road to Ajdabiya district East of Biya.
French/American and allies have killed many civilans in the residental area of misurata.
According to saadun almaserati the revolution wing the american/french forces are killing rebels and innocent people.
Yes.... and what other propaganda do you have to offer us? Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
And let's do say that the western alliance is killing innocent people. It will probably be way less than than your hero Moammar will eventually do away with.
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"From what I hear the pilot is dead but I cannot confirm that," he said, adding that the plane was a French-built Mirage fighter.
From what I heard on the news today about 6 p.m. eastern U.S. time the pilot bailed out and is safe. It was also Khaddafi's aircraft. Who really knows. And at this point it doesn't matter at all. But if he bailed out there was no word on his capture. Spin machine at work I'm sure.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
IRAQ, Post Invasion Civilian Casualties, March 2003 to October 2010
98,170 — 107,152 civilian deaths as a result of the conflict.
150,726 civilian and combatant deaths
# The Project on Defense Alternatives estimated that in a 3-month period between October 7, 2001 and January 1, 2002, at least 1,000-1,300 civilians were directly killed by the U.S.-led aerial bombing campaign, and that by mid-January 2002, at least 3,200 more Afghans had died of "starvation, exposure, associated illnesses, or injury sustained while in flight from war zones", as a result of the U.S. war and airstrikes.
# The Los Angeles Times found that in a 5-month period from October 7, 2001 to February 28, 2002, there were between 1,067 and 1,201 civilian deaths from the bombing campaign reported in U.S., British, and Pakistani newspapers and international wire services.
# A 2002 analysis by The Guardian estimated that as many as 20,000 Afghans died in 2001 as an indirect result of the initial U.S. airstrikes and ground invasion
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
Libyan generosity and Moamer Kadhafi's role in the creation of the African Union could explain the continental cautious stand, experts said.
The AU was born in the 1999 Sirte Declaration, named after a summit hosted by Kadhafi in his hometown on the Libyan coast.
The declaration said its authors felt inspired by Kadhafi's "vision for a strong and united Africa."
"The AU as an organisation has benefited significantly from Kadhafi's wealth," said Fred Golooba Mutebi of the Institute of Social Research at Kampala's Makerere University.
The pan-African body has taken a firmer stance on three west African crises: most recently Ivory Coast and previously Guinea and Niger.
Handouts aside, Libya has invested billions of dollars in sub-Saharan Africa.
It has interests in more than two dozen African countries, while its petroleum refining and distribution unit Oil Libya has interests in at least as many.
Libyan telecommunications unit LAP Green is present in five countries in the region and expanding rapidly.
Again, we have "House Negros" supporting their Slave Master at any cost.
When will people learn that they can do better without a Benevolent, but Ruthless Dictator.
Freedom is more important than kitchen scraps!
Posts: 422 | From: Leave No Stone Unturned! | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Freedom has nothing to do with government or a leader. You Dont need a good leader or a leader at all to have freedom and peace. You dont need a country or nation to have freedom and peace.
Governments are setup just like corporations and u all have social security numbers which is the same as a EIN number for a DBA or Fictious name.
Governments are fake and cant deal with real living beings so they had to create fictious strawman in order to deal with US. When dealing with any government,country,nation,etc u are dealing in a state of "admiralty law" and "NOTHING ELSE" which means its all about the Benjamins BABY.
As long as i have been alive i have not seen One Revolution victory. Can any of u show me any peace and freedom gained by anyone on this entire earth and if they did gain it i BET they never Kept it.
Posts: 410 | From: Al-Ard | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
African Union wants it all to stop because Libya owns so much **** in africa.
OiLibya, also known as Libya Oil Kenya Limited, Libya Oil Holdings and previously known as Tamoil Africa. The Libyan state-owned company has over 3000 branches in 21 countries across Africa [Libya, Egypt, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Gabon, Kenya, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad, Eritrea, Uganda, Nigeria, Mauritius, Ile de Réunion, Morocco, Tunisia, Ethiopia, Sudan and Djibouti]. OiLibya is managed by the Libyan Investment Authority, a sovereign wealth fund that manages Libya’s assets in other countries.
Qaddafi owns Ugandan telecom and has 5 billion dollars in uganda as well as many other investments through out africa.
Posts: 410 | From: Al-Ard | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what's wrong with investing in Africa. That's what the crooks in Nigeria, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Angola and other oil nations should have done. Instead the morons put their money in Swiss banks.
Gaddafi made a number of mistakes but compared to all the other African heads of state he did much better on all fronts.
MG is the only African head of state to stress Pan Africanism since Nkrumah. As Nkrumah pointed out, there is no way that Africa can progress without Pan African institutions. But it all falls on deaf ears. Look at how the West has quickly united over Gaddafi. The move in unison and bomb and plunder as a group. All the mainstream white media support what the wicked trio of France, Britain and the U.S. have done.
And Nigeria and South Africa--Africa's heavyweights just rolled over like craven serfs before their white masters. Just pitiful!
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
South Africa is having a buyer's remorse. President Zuma made a speech today wherein he rejected the western boming of civilians, or infrastructure, or ground troops occupation.
Arab league has expressed doubts.
UAE backed off its proposed participation on the bombing raids.
Obama says he is pulling back the participation of American forces.
Germany condemns it.
Russia calls it a medieval crusade.
China is having serious moral qualms and has complained against the bombing.
All this may be hypocritical right now, at this hour, but it shows you the level of confidence those thieves have in the justice of their actions.
-------------------- Lionz Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lamin who said investing in africa was bad and who said it was good. Commerce is commerce but if your own leaders sell u out to international commerce than they need there heads chopped off period.
Intervention by Western allies on behave of the arab league is a complete protection of commerical assets.
Admiralty law is what is happening right now the protection of commerical assets which is the flow of commerce. The world didnt care until maritime commerce was halted by the scare of libyan warplanes and bombs for those doing commerce in the seas.
Posts: 410 | From: Al-Ard | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Intervention by Western allies on behave of the arab league is a complete protection of commerical assets.
The Arab league is made up of petty and big time crooks, weekend marry-rapists in Bahrain or Dubai, head choppers and just the worse kind of humans imaginable all hiding their decrepit corpses under layers clothing--so how can the Western imperialists intervene of behalf of such types? When the West intervenes to bomb and kill anywhere it is on its own behalf--or Israel's--not anyone else's.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to Agree with Lamin, what gets me is how the Lybian people all turned on Quadaffi considering that he made Lybia one of the most wealthist nations in Africa because he embarassed Pan Africanism after realizing that being Pan Arab is a waste of time for any African Leader.
Not that Gadaffi was perfect sure his family were notiorious for lavish lifestyles but how is it that the White and Jewish American Bankers who caused a Global recession have not been vilified for their lavish lifestyles or their silver spoon fed sons painted as criminals like Gaddafi's sons.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is Lybia even apart of the Arab league?? How is their opinion even important, more so than the African Union?? Not that I but into this who "Union" and "League" mess. I used to but now I know its just a front for the World Banks. But seriously Gadaffi seems more invested in Africa than in Arabia so why it it being portrayed by the Media that the "Arab League's" approval is a good thing??
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Intervention by Western allies on behave of the arab league is a complete protection of commerical assets.
The Arab league is made up of petty and big time crooks, weekend marry-rapists in Bahrain or Dubai, head choppers and just the worse kind of humans imaginable all hiding their decrepit corpses under layers clothing--so how can the Western imperialists intervene of behalf of such types? When the West intervenes to bomb and kill anywhere it is on its own behalf--or Israel's--not anyone else's.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^This is why over the years, I have constantly tried to call people my their correct names, and encouraged others to do the same.
There are NO Arabs or Africans here, just Turks! Foreigners ruling over an exploited people, made so by Arms, invaders, ignorance, and religion - the Turks have used Islam expertly as a tool of occupation and subjugation.
In Libya or elsewhere in the so-called "Arab" world, there are no "Good guys", just one set of foreigners, fighting another set of foreigners, for the spoils of a land that neither has a legitimate claim to.
To complete the NO "Good guys" circle, all of this is happening in front of native populations who are unwilling or unable to take control of their countries and govern themselves - making them deserving of their second class status.
Bahrain's ruler Hamad bin Isa al Khalifa
His Highness the Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar
posted
^As an interesting anecdote: for 900 years, the Turks used Islam as the legitimizing element in their rule over the disparate populations of Europe, Africa, Arabia, and the middle east.
After their Empire (the Ottoman) was broken-up after WWI, they proudly proclaimed themselves a secular (not overtly or specifically religious) country, legitimized by Democratic principles.
Meanwhile, their leftover elites, in their old territories, are still using Islam as the legitimizing element in their rule over the native populations. Doesn't anybody read history in those countries? Oh ya, maybe that's why they keep them illiterate!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think,calling south africa and nigeria having white masters is harsh,and of course they have no white masters but it's a wake up call for africa has awhole,so i agree to a point.
Nigeria and south africa did disagree with the west on africom AND THE REST OF AFRICA DID FOLLOWED thier lead,and that is one example,thier are others,so there is a record of them opposing the west on issues.
Libya does have a mixed record in africa however AND AFRICANS know this.I remember reading about Kadhafi saying nigeria should break up,and he did invaded chad and supported eritrea breaking up from ethiopia,so Kadhafi has stick is foot in it a number of times . The best bet africa has is regional unity first, and southern africa and west africa is closer to do it.
Kadhafi calls himself king of kings of africa so that's crazy,but while he did invest in africa and called for pan-africanism,i still do not trust him and most leaders in africa do not.
Kadhafi is for Kadhafi and i think most leaders of africa know this,and i think most do not plan to stick thier necks out for him that much or risk war to defend him .
Nigeria has send troops and have troops in other regions OF africa and the world and they work closely together WITH south africa on issues more then folks think,but South africa has concentration on southern africa first and it's own folks to still make things better for them,and i do not think it would be wise for nigeria or south africa to go to war just over Kadhafi.
Africa is still recovering from the 90's and 80's,AND doing well or better now and will get stronger and stronger and better has the years go by,so i think it's not wise to mess that up now.
Kadhafi is a interesting character, a movie should be made about him.
Just my thoughts.
The AU is still the best bet for pan africanism in the long run,so i will not throw it under the bus,and i do not believe they are down with the world bank.What we need to do is supports good ideas that comes out of the au and help make it stronger. They it has some really good ideas coming out like this one. We need to stay focus,this is really good for africa in the long run.
A pan african space program WILL CREATE more of sense of unity,like music and soccer is doing for africa. we can't ALLOW distractions.
Just my thoughts.
PEACE.
____________________________________________- Inaugurating the 10-man Technical Advisory Committee, the Minister of Science and Technology, Professor Mohammed K. Abubakar said that the Federal Government is irrevocably committed to its position in utilizing space technology to address some problems militating our growth and development as well as actualizing a better society and virile nation of our dream.
According to him, space science and technology is a catalyst for radical development and has formed the bedrock upon which most developed nations in the world hinged their development programmes.
Abuja — The African Union, has commenced a process that would lead to the setting up of a regional space agency.The agency, to be known as the African Space Agency, would focus on the development of common space policy for the continent . In a communique issured at the end of the third African Union conference of Ministers in charge of Communications and Information Technologies held in Abuja, the Federal Capital Teritory, member countries agreed to conduct a feasibility study on the establishment of the African Space Agency,
Africa considers a continent-wide space agency/Africa: AU's space agency
Africa could soon get its version of NASA Africa is a step closer to setting up its own space agency, with the approval of a planned feasibility study by the 53 member states of the African Union earlier this month.
The African Space Agency, as it would be known, would be intended to help ensure the continent becomes an important player in the global space programme. The agreement was made at the close of the third African Union Conference for Ministers in charge of Communications and Information Technologies meeting in Abuja last week (6 August).
A South Africa-based policy analyst Jonathan Mahlangu, has said that the plan by the African Union to commence a process that would lead to the establishment of a regional space agency in cooperation with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) aimed at focusing on the development of common space policy for the African continent was long overdue.
"Think of the contributions of NASA and ESA to the development of America and Europe," he said. "A well coordinated space agency for Africa will assist in solving most of the challenges before her."
According to Mahlangu, the critical mass of experts to kick-start the agency already exists. "All African Union needs to do is to put up a call to her citizens in NASA and Europe to come and contribute with their knowledge."
posted
kenndo - The reason Africa is recovering from colonialism, BTW - that includes the "So-called" Arab states too - is because long past leaders, as the modern ones stupidly do. Believed that whatever happened in another African country wouldn't effect them.
The cost of their stupidity was millions dead, almost a century of occupation, and the incalculable loss of natural resources.
Britain, France, Italy, and the others, couldn't care less about some Sand Niggers in Libya. Their concern is with the Nuclear disaster in Japan.
That disaster has brought home the simple truth that Nuclear energy is inherently unsafe, their populations have also noted this. In the near future, all the developed countries will slowly move AWAY from Nuclear energy.
The ONLY reasonable substitute for Nuclear is OIL!
Those idiots have given the Europeans cart Blanche to come into Africa under pretext, to steal their oil and whatever - and they surely will in time. This is history repeating itself, those ass-holes will be picked-off one at a time - and they will deserve it, for their ingrained stupidity.
BTW - The European country most hot to fight the war - France. Just also happens to be the European country MOST dependent on Nuclear Energy!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
AU MUST BE SUPPORTED and made to be stronger,so let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
The west is afraid of any african unity,even just regional.they need to have more regional unity first,and once this happens the west will have seconds thoughts of stealing anything and it will be much harder for them do so,and the same time they must and are building up their countries.
northern africa should not be consider in any african unity,has far has i am concern.in the long run they will be a pain.
black africans in northern africa must get control of libya,egypt etc.. and kick the outsiders out or most of them before they could join any pan african unity.
northern africa has far has i am concern is the most damaged part of africa,and i do not care about Gaddafi,he should get out africa too.
If he really cared about africa and unity he will let black libyans take over libya .
AFRICA needs a pan african media so those outside africa and inside could know what good things are happening.
regional unity is happening and it will be harder for the west to take over anything in africa and africans will fight back,like they always have,but unity on a region level is happening but slowly,but it must happen faster. __________________________________________-
Anyway you will have to sign up to read this. Why Museveni wont throw Gadhafi under the bus
posted
Kendo, Call a spade a spade: South Africa and Nigeria are controlled by their white masters.
South Africa is run by whites. Facts are facts. Mandela thrown in prison for 27 years courtesy the CIA. Before he was released he had to agree to a number things: you can get the presidency but white wealth and white power intact. The man just said yes. Maybe he was castrated in prison, who knows? This was clear case of a "no balls" behaviour.
So what do you expect from the clown Zuma--but to roll over and say yas sah bass? As I said if Brazil, India and Germany can abstain then why not do the same? Here was this silly man whose anti-Apartheid movement was aided by Libya while the U.S. was supporting the Apartheid system not having just basic commonsense to say "No"--or if you are too cowardly, well just abstain. Maybe he was just put off by the screams and hysteria of puffy-faced Susan Rice. Amazing how people like that can be so committed to a slave--they just moved them from the plantation to the ghetto reservations--nation like the U.S.
And Nigeria? When the Abacha military dictatorship fell the civilian governments that followed just adore the U.S. The U.S through Shell, BP and CIA intrigue have been much more destructive of Nigeria than anything Gaddafi ever did. Gaddafi's call for the breakup of Nigeria should be seen as pure sarcasm. The point being if the shamefully Christianised and Islamised people cannot just get along--always fighting and feuding over nonsense and other asinine, retrograde things like indigeneity, etc. then just split into 10,000 nations. The U.S. will laughing with joy.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
And what some of those jackasses who call themselves "African presidents" don't understand is that "African Unity" does not mean having a one president or one government. It means coordination among the different areas in terms of politics and economics. The Unity of Africa was Nkrumah's idea but the West copied it with the European Union-- a single European passport, a single currency, a single Central Bank, and a single military High Command(NATO).
If there was an African High Command(structured like NATO) then the evil trio of France, Britain and the U.S. would not have attacked. In fact, there is so little consideration for Africa's nations and the AU that the West consulted the Arab League first and never even bothered to even send a text message to the AU head.
Point is that even a madman(as many call Gaddafi) may sometimes have a handle on the truth.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another insult: details a bit unclear but a set of African presidents had arranged to travel to Libya to meet with Gaddafi to discuss the situation. But the U.N.[i.e. France, U.S. and Britain] just told them that they were not allowed to do that. Museveni was enraged at that.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I STILL Stand WHAT i said about the AU AND LIBYA.libya is really a arab problem,once blacks take over libya then far has i am concern it will be more of a AU PROBLEM.
lamin i never thought you thought this way,you sound different.
I do not want to turn into a south africa whites still control,thing,this topic was about libya.
i disagree with you about the south african thing.
in the end of the day the wealth of south africa is used to build south africa and taxes have to be paid and the plans and progress is going on, so in the long run i am not that concern,once wealth is fully transfered than folks will find something else to complain about,besides new wealth is being created and being controlled by the africans.
besides anybody who says south africa is run by whites have not visited south africa,same with nigeria.so I will entertain talk like that anymore,i just move on.
I agree with that their problems that nigeria has to deal like the like the fighting Christianised Islamised folks are doing there.
anyway i should not open this because i said to myself i will not open any thread on modern africa on this forum BECAUSE I HAD I FUNNY FEELING things will be brought like this e
history is just being repeated again and i guess no ones listens to me here when it comes to this so forget this.i stop here and leave this thread and i will send you some stuff that you may not be aware in you email,later.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
And what some of those jackasses who call themselves "African presidents" don't understand is that "African Unity" does not mean having a one president or one government. It means coordination among the different areas in terms of politics and economics. The Unity of Africa was Nkrumah's idea but the West copied it with the European Union-- a single European passport, a single currency, a single Central Bank, and a single military High Command(NATO).
If there was an African High Command(structured like NATO) then the evil trio of France, Britain and the U.S. would not have attacked. In fact, there is so little consideration for Africa's nations and the AU that the West consulted the Arab League first and never even bothered to even send a text message to the AU head.
Point is that even a madman(as many call Gaddafi) may sometimes have a handle on the truth.
Lamin
You are 100% correct on South Africa. They are white controlled and in fact, close allies with Israel who assist Israel in developing biological weapons that selectively kill only blacks and Arabs. The ANC and Mandela are sell-out jokes!
I meet black South Africans here in the U.S. in a few of the corporations I visit perdiotically such as IBM, or Dell. In every case they run and snitch to their supervisors (white) on their black (African-American) co-workers which has caused quite a few of them to receive African-American style ass whoppings. Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
south africa is not control by whites,for the 100th time.please stop the victimhood,because most blacks south africans do not feel this way. my last post here,because of the topic is being changed,and i do not like it. __________________________________________________
Why Museveni wont throw Gadhafi under the bus When Muammar Gaddafi came to power in 1969, I was a Third Year university student at Dar-es-Salaam. We welcomed him because he was in the tradition of Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, a nationalist and pan-Arabist.
Soon, however, Uganda and the rest of the Black Africa started to experience problems with Col. Gaddafi:
1. Idi Amin came to power with the support of Britain and Israel because they thought he was uneducated and easy to manipulate. Amin, however, turned against his sponsors when they refused to sell him guns to fight Tanzania. Unfortunately, Gaddafi, without getting enough information about Uganda, jumped in to support Idi Amin. This was because Amin was a ‘Moslem’ and Uganda was a ‘Moslem country’ where Moslems were being ‘oppressed’ by Christians. Amin killed a lot of people extra-judicially and Gaddafi was identified with these mistakes. In 1972 and 1979, Gaddafi sent Libyan troops to defend Idi Amin when we attacked him. I remember a Libyan Tupolev 22 bomber trying to bomb us in Mbarara in 1979. The bomb ended up in Nyarubanga because the pilots were so scared that they could not come close to bomb properly. We had already shot-down many Amin MIGs using surface-to-air missiles. The Tanzanian brothers and sisters were doing much of this fighting. Many Libyan militias were captured and repatriated to Libya by Tanzania. This was a big mistake by Gaddafi and a direct aggression against the people of Uganda and East Africa.
2. The second big mistake by Gaddafi was his position vis-à-vis the African Union (AU) Continental Government “now”. Since 1999, he has been pushing this position. Black people are always polite. They, normally, do not want to offend other people. This is called: obufura in Runyankore, mwolo in Luo – handling, especially strangers, with care and respect. It seems some of the non-African cultures do not have ‘obufura’. You can witness a person talking to a mature person as if he/she is talking to a kindergarten child. “You should do this; you should do that; etc.” We tried to politely point out to Col. Gaddafi that this was difficult in the short and medium term. We should, instead, aim at the Economic Community of Africa and, where possible, also aim at Regional Federations. Col. Gaddafi would not relent. He would not respect the rules of the AU. Something that has been covered by previous meetings would be resurrected by Gaddafi. He would ‘overrule’ a decision taken by all other African heads of state. Some of us were forced to come out and oppose his wrong position and, working with others, we repeatedly defeated his illogical position.
3. The third mistake has been the tendency by Col. Gaddafi to interfere in the internal affairs of many African countries, using the little money Libya has compared to those countries. One blatant example was his involvement with cultural leaders of Black Africa – kings, chiefs, etc. Since the political leaders of Africa had refused to back his project of an African Government, Gaddafi, incredibly, thought that he could by-pass them and work with these kings to implement his wishes. I warned Gaddafi in Addis Ababa that action would be taken against any Ugandan king that involved himself in politics because it was against our Constitution. I moved a motion in Addis Ababa to expunge from the records of the AU all references to kings (cultural leaders) who had made speeches in our forum because they had been invited there illegally by Col. Gaddafi.
4. The fourth big mistake was by most of the Arab leaders, including Gaddafi to some extent. This was in connection with the long suffering people of Southern Sudan. Many of the Arab leaders either supported or ignored the suffering of the Black people in that country. This unfairness always created tension and friction between us and the Arabs, including Gaddafi to some extent. However, I must salute Col Gaddafi and President Hosni Mubarak for travelling to Khartoum, just before the referendum in Sudan, and advised the Sudanese President to respect the results of that exercise.
5. Sometimes Gaddafi and other Middle Eastern radicals do not distance themselves sufficiently from terrorism even when they are fighting for a just cause. Terrorism is the use of indiscriminate violence – not distinguishing between military and non-military targets. The Middle East radicals, quite different from the revolutionaries of Black Africa, seem to say that any means is acceptable as long as you are fighting the enemy. That is why they hijack planes, use assassinations, plant bombs in bars, etc. Why bomb bars? People who go to bars are normally merry-makers, not politically minded people. We were together with the Arabs in the anti-colonial struggle. The Black African liberation movements, however, developed differently from the Arab ones. Where we used arms, we fought soldiers or sabotaged infrastructure but never targeted non-combatants. These indiscriminate methods tend to isolate the struggles of the Middle East and the Arab world. It would be good if the radicals in these areas could streamline their work methods in this area of using violence indiscriminately.
These five points are some of the negative ones in connection to Col. Gaddafi as far as Uganda’s patriots have been concerned over the years. These positions of Col. Gaddafi have been unfortunate and unnecessary.
Nevertheless, Gaddafi has also had many positive points objectively speaking. These have been in favour of Africa, Libya and the Third World. I will deal with them point by point:
1. Col. Gaddafi has been having an independent foreign policy and, of course, also independent internal policies. I am not able to understand the position of Western countries, which appear to resent independent-minded leaders and seem to prefer puppets. Puppets are not good for any country. Most of the countries that have transitioned from Third World to First World status since 1945 have had independent-minded leaders: South Korea (Park Chung-hee), Singapore (Lee Kuan Yew), China People’s Republic (Mao Tse Tung, Chou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, Marshal Yang Shangkun, Li Peng, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jing Tao, etc), Malaysia (Dr. Mahthir Mohamad), Brazil (Lula Da Silva), Iran (the Ayatollahs), etc.
Between the First World War and the Second World War, the Soviet Union transitioned into an Industrial country propelled by the dictatorial, but independent-minded Joseph Stalin. In Africa, we have benefited from a number of independent-minded leaders: Col. Nasser of Egypt, Mwalimu Nyerere of Tanzania, Samora Machel of Mozambique, etc. That is how Southern Africa was liberated. That is how we got rid of Idi Amin. The stopping of genocide in Rwanda and the overthrow of Mobutu, etc., were as a result of efforts of independent-minded African leaders. Gaddafi, whatever his faults, is a true nationalist. I prefer nationalists to puppets of foreign interests. Where have the puppets caused the transformation of countries? I need some assistance with information on this from those who are familiar with puppetry. Therefore, the independent-minded Gaddafi had some positive contribution to Libya, I believe, as well as Africa and the Third World. I will take one little example. At the time we were fighting the criminal dictatorships here in Uganda, we had a problem arising of a complication caused by our failure to capture enough guns at Kabamba on the February 6, 1981. Gaddafi gave us a small consignment of 96 rifles, 100 anti-tank mines, etc., that was very useful. He did not consult Washington or Moscow before he did this. This was good for Libya, for Africa and for the Middle East. We should also remember as part of that independent-mindedness he expelled British and American military bases from Libya, etc.
2. Before Gaddafi came to power in 1969, a barrel of oil was 40 American cents. He launched a campaign to withhold Arab oil unless the West paid more for it. I think the price went up to $20 per barrel. When the Arab-Israel war of 1973 broke out, the barrel of oil went to $40. I am, therefore, surprised to hear that many oil producers in the world, including the Gulf countries, do not appreciate the historical role played by Gaddafi on this issue. The huge wealth many of these oil producers are enjoying was, at least in part, due to Gaddafi’s efforts. The Western countries have continued to develop in spite of paying more for oil. It, therefore, means that the pre-Gaddafi oil situation was characterised by super exploitation in favour of the Western countries.
3. I have never taken time to deeply examine socio-economic conditions within Libya. When I was last there, I could see good roads even from the air. From TV pictures, you can see the rebels zooming up and down in pick-up vehicles on very good roads accompanied by Western journalists. Who built these good roads? Who built the oil refineries in Brega and those other places where the fighting has been taking place recently? Were these facilities built during the time of the king and his American as well as British allies or were they built by Gaddafi?
In Tunisia and Egypt, some youths immolated (burnt) themselves because they had failed to get jobs. Are the Libyans without jobs also? If so, why, then, are there hundreds of thousands of foreign workers? Is Libya’s policy of providing so many jobs to Third World workers bad? Are all the children going to school in Libya? Was that the case in the past – before Gaddafi? Is the conflict in Libya economic or purely political? Possibly, Libya could have transitioned more if they encouraged the private sector more. However, this is something the Libyans are better placed to judge. As it is, Libya is a middle income country with GDP standing at $89.03 billion. This is about the same as the GDP of South Africa at the time Mandela took over leadership in 1994 and is about 16 percent of the current size of GDP of Spain.
4. Gaddafi is one of the few secular leaders in the Arab world. He does not believe in Islamic fundamentalism that is why women have been able to go to school, to join the Army, etc. This is a positive point on Gaddafi’s side.
Coming to the present crisis, therefore, we need to point out some issues:
1. The first issue is to distinguish between demonstrations and insurrections. Peaceful demonstrations should not be fired on with live bullets. Of course, even peaceful demonstrations should coordinate with the police to ensure that they do not interfere with the rights of other citizens. When rioters are, however, attacking police stations and Army barracks with the aim of taking power, then, they are no longer demonstrators; they are insurrectionists. They will have to be treated as such. A responsible government would have to use reasonable force to neutralise them. Of course, the ideal responsible Government should also be an elected one by the people at periodic intervals. If there is a doubt about the legitimacy of a government and the people decide to launch an insurrection, that should be the decision of the internal forces. It should not be for external forces to arrogate themselves that role, often, they do not have enough knowledge to decide rightly. Excessive external involvement always brings terrible distortions. Why should external forces involve themselves? That is a vote of no confidence in the people themselves. A legitimate internal insurrection, if that is the strategy chosen by the leaders of that effort, can succeed. The Shah of Iran was defeated by an internal insurrection; the Russian Revolution in 1917 was an internal insurrection; the Revolution in Zanzibar in 1964 was an internal insurrection; the changes in Ukraine, Georgia, etc., all were internal insurrections. It should be for the leaders of the resistance in that country to decide their strategy, not for foreigners to sponsor insurrection groups in sovereign countries. I am totally allergic to foreign, political and military involvement in sovereign countries, especially the African countries. If foreign intervention is good, then, African countries should be the most prosperous countries in the world because we have had the greatest dosages of that: slave trade, colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism, etc. All those foreign imposed phenomena have, however, been disastrous. It is only recently that Africa is beginning to come up partly because of rejecting external meddling. External meddling and the acquiescence by Africans into that meddling have been responsible for the stagnation in Africa. The wrong definition of priorities in many of the African countries is, in many cases, imposed by external groups. Failure to prioritise infrastructure, for instance, especially energy, is, in part, due to some of these pressures. Instead, consumption is promoted. I have witnessed this wrong definition of priorities even here in Uganda. External interests linked up, for instance, with internal bogus groups to oppose energy projects for false reasons. How will an economy develop without energy? Quislings and their external backers do not care about all this.
2. If you promote foreign backed insurrections in small countries like Libya, what will you do with the big ones like China, which has got a different system from the Western systems? Are you going to impose a no-fly-zone over China in case of some internal insurrections as happened in Tiananmen Square, in Tibet or in Urumuqi?
3. The Western countries always use double standards. In Libya, they are very eager to impose a no-fly-zone. In Bahrain and other areas where there are pro-Western regimes, they turn a blind eye to the very same conditions or even worse conditions. We have been appealing to the UN to impose a no-fly-zone over Somalia so as to impede the free movement of terrorists, linked to al-Qaeda, that killed Americans on September 11, killed Ugandans last July and have caused so much damage to the Somalis, without success. Why? Are there no human beings in Somalia similar to the ones in Benghazi? Or is it because Somalia does not have oil which is not fully controlled by the Western oil companies on account of Gaddafi’s nationalist posture?
4. The Western countries are always very prompt in commenting on every problem in the Third World – Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc. Yet, some of these very countries were the ones impeding growth in the latter. There was a military coupd'état that slowly became a revolution in backward Egypt in 1952. The new leader, Nasser, had ambition to cause transformation in Egypt. He wanted to build a dam, not only to generate electricity, but also to help with the ancient irrigation system of Egypt. He was denied money by the West because they did not believe that Egyptians needed electricity. Nasser decided to raise that money by nationalising the Suez Canal. He was attacked by Israel, France and Britain. To be fair to the US, President Dwight Eisenhower opposed that aggression that time. Of course, there was also the firm stand of the Soviet Union at that time. How much electricity was this dam supposed to produce? Just 2000 megawatts for a country like Egypt!! What moral right, then, do such people have to comment on the affairs of these countries?
5. Another negative point is going to arise out of the by now habit of the Western countries over-using their superiority in technology to impose war on less developed societies without impeachable logic. This will be the igniting of an arms race in the world. The actions of the Western countries in Iraq and now Libya are emphasising that might is “right”. I am quite sure that many countries that are able will scale up their military research and in a few decades, we may have a more armed world. This weapons science is not magic. A small country like Israel is now a super power in terms of military technology. Yet 60 years ago, Israel had to buy second-hand fouga magister planes from France. There are many countries that can become small Israels if this trend of overusing military means by the Western countries continues.
6. All this notwithstanding, Col. Gaddafi should be ready to sit down with the opposition, through the mediation of the AU, with the opposition cluster of groups, which now include individuals well known to us – Ambassador Abdalla, Dr Zubeda, etc. I know Gaddafi has his system of elected committees that end up in a National People’s Conference. Actually, Gaddafi thinks this is superior to our multi-party systems. Of course, I have never had time to know how truly competitive this system is. Anyway, even if it is competitive, there is now, apparently, a significant number of Libyans that think that there is a problem in Libya in terms of governance. Since there has not been internationally observed elections in Libya, not even by the AU, we cannot know what is correct and what is wrong. Therefore, a dialogue is the correct way forward.
7. The AU mission could not get to Libya because the Western countries started bombing Libya the day before they were supposed to arrive. However, the mission will continue. My opinion is that, in addition, to what the AU mission is doing, it may be important to call an extra-ordinary Summit of the AU in Addis Ababa to discuss this grave situation.
8. Regarding the Libyan opposition, I would feel embarrassed to be backed by Western war planes because quislings of foreign interests have never helped Africa. We have had a copious supply of them in the last 50 years – Mobutu, Houphouet-Boigny, Kamuzu Banda, etc. The West made a lot of mistakes in Africa and in the Middle East in the past. Apart from the slave trade and colonialism, they participated in the killing of Patrice Lumumba, until recently, the only elected leader of Congo, the killing of Felix Moummie of Cameroon, Bartholomew Boganda of Central African Republic, the support for UNITA in Angola, the support for Idi Amin at the beginning of his regime, the counter-revolution in Iran in 1953, etc. Recently, there has been some improvement in the arrogant attitudes of some of these Western countries. Certainly, with Black Africa and, particularly, Uganda, the relations are good following their fair stand on the Black people of Southern Sudan. With the democratisation of South Africa and the freedom of the Black people in Southern Sudan, the difference between the patriots of Uganda and the Western governments had disappeared. Unfortunately, these rash actions on Libya are beginning to raise new problems. They should be resolved quickly.
Therefore, if the Libyan opposition groups are patriots, they should fight their war by themselves and conduct their affairs by themselves. After all, they easily captured so much equipment from the Libyan Army, why do they need foreign military support? I only had 27 rifles. To be puppets is not good.
9. The African members of the Security Council voted for this Resolution of the Security Council. This was contrary to what the Africa Peace and Security Council had decided in Addis Ababa recently. This is something that only the extra-ordinary summit can resolve.
10. It was good that certain big countries in the Security Council abstained on this Resolution. These were: Russia, China, Brazil, India, etc. This shows that there are balanced forces in the world that will, with more consultations, evolve more correct positions.
11. Being members of the UN, we are bound by the Resolution that was passed, however rash the process. Nevertheless, there is a mechanism for review. The Western countries, which are most active in these rash actions, should look at that route. It may be one way of extricating all of us from possible nasty complications. What if the Libyans loyal to Gaddafi decide to fight on? Using tanks and planes that are easily targeted by President Sarkozy’s planes is not the only way of fighting. Who will be responsible for such a protracted war? It is high time we did more careful thinking.
Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe with Zambian President Rupia Banda, during a trip by Mugabe to Zambia. The leaders are working to strengthen relations in the southern Africa region. Originally uploaded by Pan-African News Wire File Photos West feels threatened by African unity, stability
Courtesy of the Zimbabwe Herald A special summit of the Heads of State of the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region is due in Zambia’s capital, Lusaka, this week, with illegal mineral exploration top on the agenda.
It’s only fair to state that the regional organisation, which brings together at least 11 countries, has registered some progress since its inception in 2006. The body was set up against a backdrop of deadly atrocities in the region, including the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda.
On the surface, the ICGLR looks to have the backing of the "international community", if the proclamations by such diplomats as the UN Secretary General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, are anything to go by.
Of course, some Western nations have never hidden their suspicious geographical interests in ICGLR.
In May 2007, a Secretariat was set up in Bujumbura, Burundi to implement the Pact on Security, Stability and Development, of December 2006.
The Pact seeks to transform the region into a "space of sustainable peace and security for peoples of the region, political and social stability, shared growth and development, a space of cooperation based on convergent strategies and policies driven by a common destiny."
Yet, over the recent years, the interests of ICGLR members and those of the West have developed signs of divergence, with the member states’ anticipated progress largely viewed by the West as a potential threat.
While Europe and America attempted to create an impression that they were wholeheartedly behind the ICGLR idea, they appear to have started developing cold feet in the recent past, if not almost openly pursuing the very projects that undermine ICGLR’s agenda. And, by extension, the UN, for obvious reasons, too, seem to have lost interest.
While the commitment of member states to the grouping may be at different levels — partly due to varying reasons behind their membership — most of the members appear to be dedicated to broad-based strategies to change the socio-economic and political landscape of the region, while international development partners seem to be reserved, especially on real development initiatives.
Most, if not all, ICGLR member states appear committed to moving forward and healing the wounds inflicted on their peoples by past violence, but some Western partners are unsure whether a violence-free, stable and developed ICGLR would not turn to be a threat to their geopolitical interests.
The latter would rather continue to deal with individual countries on development issues, and not through the wider ICGLR platform.
Their interests would be best served dealing with individual weak African states, instead of a strong bloc of nations, whether through ICGLR or EAC, Sadc, Comesa, ECCAS, etc.
To the West, it even signals a more worrying trend when member states from these regional groupings start to pursue inter-bloc shared economic interests; it means each individual state’s dependence on the West will increasingly dwindle as African states start to rely more on each other.
Then, when the divide-and-rule tactic results into chaos, rush in, broker a peace deal, and reassert your indispensability in the survival of these poor and violent Africans!
These strategies define the motives behind certain indescribable actions and policies towards Africa.
The recent so-called UN Mapping report on the alleged human rights violations in the DR Congo, was compiled and released in the same context.
Several experts in international law as well as renowned international diplomats, including former EU special representative to the Great Lakes Region, Ambassador Aldo Ajello, thoroughly demonstrated, during a two-day conference in Kigali, last week, how the report and its architects did not only breach every fundamental principle of credible investigation, but also attempted to rewrite history.
On her part, ICGLR Executive Secretary, Ambassador Liberata Mulamula, questioned with great concern the motives behind the report and its timing, considering that it came out at a time when the region was experiencing unprecedented cordial diplomatic relations and economic development.
"The report was a great disservice to the region that is committed to peaceful coexistence, cooperation, improving relations, reconstruction and development," noted a seemingly troubled Mulamula.
"The report does not benefit anyone in this region." In fact, the real faces behind the mapping project must be disappointed that the report and its ill-intentioned leakage have not resulted into another cycle of atrocities.
Instead, the region has strongly condemned it. As the ICGLR Heads of State descend on Lusaka, this week, they must lay down concrete strategies to counter similar ill-intended projects that undermine the dreams of Africans. We must learn from experience and ensure that our destiny firmly lies in our hands.
The author is a training editor with The New Times and 1st VP of Rwanda Journalists Association. — Allafrica.com
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: I STILL Stand WHAT i said about the AU AND LIBYA.libya is really a arab problem,once blacks take over libya then far has i am concern it will be more of a AU PROBLEM.
lamin i never thought you thought this way,you sound different.
I do not want to turn into a south africa whites still control,thing,this topic was about libya.
i disagree with you about the south african thing.
in the end of the day the wealth of south africa is used to build south africa and taxes have to be paid and the plans and progress is going on, so in the long run i am not that concern,once wealth is fully transfered than folks will find something else to complain about,besides new wealth is being created and being controlled by the africans.
besides anybody who says south africa is run by whites have not visited south africa,same with nigeria.so I will entertain talk like that anymore,i just move on.
I agree with that their problems that nigeria has to deal like the like the fighting Christianised Islamised folks are doing there.
anyway i should not open this because i said to myself i will not open any thread on modern africa on this forum BECAUSE I HAD I FUNNY FEELING things will be brought like this .
history is just being repeated again and i guess no ones listens to me here when it comes to this so forget this.i WILL stop here and leave this thread and i will send you some stuff that you may not be aware in you email,later.
quote- It was reported in June 2007 that African countries were competing to host the headquarters because it would bring money for the recipient country. However, of all the African nations, only Liberia has publicly expressed a willingness to host AFRICOM's headquarters. The U.S. declared in February 2008 that Africa Command would be headquartered in Stuttgart for the "foreseeable future". In August 2007, Dr. Wafula Okumu, a research fellow at the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa, testified before congress about the growing resistance and hostility on the African continent. Nigeria announced it will not allow its country to host a base and opposed the creation of a base on the continent. South Africa and Libya also expressed reservations of the establishment of a headquarters in Africa.
this is my last post here in this thread. bye.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kendo, If Libya is 30% black[Gaddafi's claim] and there are approximate numbers in places like Egypt--though they are poor and live in the countryside--then why do you want to allow usurpers, settlers, squatters and others to take over. Libya is an African problem because it is in Africa. Simple! One should not fall for the hypocritical and racist claims of those North Africans who are settlers that they should be called Arabs and not Africans. Once you accept that then it is easy to say that North Africa belongs to the so-called Arab world and not Africa.
The same thing has happened with the blacks who were victims of the Catholic priest Bartolomo de las Casas's instigation in the horrific slave trade. Take the case of Haiti. Even though Haitians are naturally African--unlike North Africa which is not naturally Arab--Haiti is not as officially belonging to the African world. If the U.S. decides to do a "no fly zone" over Haiti tomorrow it will not consult the African Union. You get the point. The same thing applies to other majority black populations in the Americas.
On South Africa:
If whites did not control South Africa then 1) the land issue would have been solved. 2)blacks would now be on economic par with whites or even better off. After all blakcs must be compensated for the crimes and massive economic exploitation of Apartheid. 3)blacks from other parts of Africa would not have such a hard time entering South Africa. Even blacks in airport transit to other parts of Africa have to get a transit visa. Whites from all over the world just fly in--no visa needed. 4) most of the universities in South Africa are still run by whitess. Just look at tehir faculty rosters. And they are very, very reluctant to hire Africans from other places.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:11. Being members of the UN, we are bound by the Resolution that was passed, however rash the process. Nevertheless, there is a mechanism for review. The Western countries, which are most active in these rash actions, should look at that route. It may be one way of extricating all of us from possible nasty complications. What if the Libyans loyal to Gaddafi decide to fight on? Using tanks and planes that are easily targeted by President Sarkozy’s planes is not the only way of fighting. Who will be responsible for such a protracted war? It is high time we did more careful thinking.
Now this is naive thinking. It's just because Uganda is small insignificant nation that Museveni is saying that. Just get some more power and break those resolutions that you don't like.
After all, the U.S. and its partner Israel are not at all bound by any U.N. resolution. The U.S. and Israel enforce resolutions when it suits them and are not at all bound by any resolution which they don't like. And both remain very powerful members of that Western-created body. Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kendo, South Africa and Nigeria were brought up because they both very wrongly voted for the imperialist invasion and bombing of African territory.
Zuma is a silly clown man who doesn't seem to know that doing what that substitute white president of the U.S. orders you to do will not win you respect--neither from the white right nor the white left. Solution: just do the right African thing! Say no to white imperialism.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: AU MUST BE SUPPORTED and made to be stronger,so let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
The west is afraid of any african unity,even just regional.they need to have more regional unity first,and once this happens the west will have seconds thoughts of stealing anything and it will be much harder for them do so,and the same time they must and are building up their countries.
northern africa should not be consider in any african unity,has far has i am concern.in the long run they will be a pain.
black africans in northern africa must get control of libya,egypt etc.. and kick the outsiders out or most of them before they could join any pan african unity.
northern africa has far has i am concern is the most damaged part of africa,and i do not care about Gaddafi,he should get out africa too.
If he really cared about africa and unity he will let black libyans take over libya .
AFRICA needs a pan african media so those outside africa and inside could know what good things are happening.
regional unity is happening and it will be harder for the west to take over anything in africa and africans will fight back,like they always have,but unity on a region level is happening but slowly,but it must happen faster.
Im in an agreement with this 100 percent couldn't have put it better myself. EAC should include expanding into the horn and south sudan as a main prority. There needs to be a restructure in the EAC to form a coalition with high risk areas of the region. It comes back to the AU addressing the issues and being ran like an efficient corruption free union. Mean while african leaders who are anything but pro africa just went through a wake up call. Enriching accounts with LAS bribe money and along with becoming puppets for the west doesn't mean you are immune from anything. It's clear at the end of the hour those same corrupted officals could be disposed of or subjected to same fate of the people.
Posts: 95 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Peregrine: It's clear at the end of the hour those same corrupted officals could be disposed of or subjected to same fate of the people.
Posts: 1819 | From: odesco baba | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic