Hi Kebba!
                   Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posting.
Before going further, I need to register the fact that out of respect not
only for myself, the members of the L and you, I shall ignore the context in
which you used some words. I shall also for the benefit of carrying out a
healthy debate refuse to debate in a manner that would negatively impact on
the serious and important topic that we are dealing with. Those things
aside, please allow me to respond to some of the issues you raised. You
wrote:

"Buharry, are you really serious when you ask us to come to Gambia_L and
tell the whole world how we are going to overthrow Yaya?"

Where did I ask you to go into the mechanics of how you are going to remove
Yaya? What I asked was whether you had anything apart from empty rhetoric to
convince people to rally behind you. A simple yes would have sufficed
because I am not in any position to check the veracity of your statements.
You can tell me that you have 100 million Dollars stashed somewhere, piles
of arms and ammunition piled somewhere and whatever you want or you can tell
me that you have absolutely nothing. I would only have to take your word for
it because I am not in any position to verify what you say. Like I wrote
earlier, the beauty of the cyber identity is that one can be anyone or
possess whatever one wants. I would not expect you to detail how you are
going to overthrow Yaya on this very L where all kinds of government
agencies are subscribed. That would not be too bright of me now. Would it?

You also wrote:
"Childish challenges will not also prompt us to go to Gambia unprepared. So,
save yourself. We have nothing to prove to you or your likes."

Like I stated in the beginning, I shall not respond to this in a way that
would derail the debate or in a way that would display disrespect on my
part. You have nothing to prove to my likes or me? Have I become different
just because I posted something that once differs from your point of view?
Just a few weeks ago you wrote: "Buharry,Thank you very much for your
contributions". So now I have become "those people"? If you have nothing to
prove to my likes and me why did you come to Gambia-L to propagate your
cause? There are hundreds of my likes listed here. Why have you time and
again solicited contributions from members to draw a program for your cause?
Why did you get irate when the hundreds of my likes refused to contribute
because of our conviction that violence isn't the only way to bring about
change, that there are other methods that should be explored to the fullest
but have not as yet been?

You wrote:
"What kind of pressure on Yaya are you talking about?"

There are endless varieties of pressures that can be brought to bear. In
"Peace through Sanctions?" Recommendations for German UN Policy, Manford
Kulsessa and Dorethee Starck list the following types of sanctions most of
which can in my opinion be effectively applied to The Gambia. The types of
sanctions are:
- Diplomacy where there is closure or a reduction of diplomatic missions,
ban on entry of officials or exclusion from international organizations.
- Transport where there is a ban on air, sea and suspension of rail and road
traffic.
- Communications where post and telecommunications are suspended.
- Development co-operation where post and telecommunications are suspended.
- Military where military co-operation is terminated and an arms embargo is
instituted.
- Finance where there is a ban on foreign assets and a ban on financial
transfers.
- Trade where embargos and boycotts are instituted.
- Criminal justice where criminal proceedings are instituted against
individuals in international tribunals.

David Cortright and George A. Lopez point out in Carrots, Sticks and
Co-operation: Economic Tools of Statescraft how the US maintained an "outer
wall" of sanctions by among other things blocking Belgrade's membership in
international organizations. In Nigeria under Abacha, the US banned all arms
sales to the country and expanded its ban on US visas for the junta and its
supporters. The EU imposed an arms embargo; travel restrictions and a sports
boycott while the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group suspended it from
membership. In the same book, the authors discussed how an Institute for
International Economics study shows that of all the types of sanctions
available, financial sanctions were the most effective. Measures such as
"the freezing of foreign assets, the cancellation of debt rescheduling, the
withholding of credits and loans, and restrictions on travel, commerce and
communications" were shown to be very effective in bringing a regime to its
knees especially when that state is weak. So you see Mr. Dampha, there are
various types of pressure that can be brought to bear.

You also wrote:
"What would you do if he rigs the next elections?"
The art of applying and maintaining pressure is to be both proactive and
reactive. Proactive in that one has to have a hands-on approach and
thoroughly analyse the situation and predict what the opponent is going to
do. That way one can put measures into place to discourage him/her from
doing it. Reactive in that one needs to quickly react when the feared
situation arises preferably with contingency measures that were already
designed. Pressure can therefore be brought against Yaya before the
elections to ensure that the elections are fair and regulated and pressure
can be brought if he rigs the elections. Remember the short travel advice of
the British and the impact it had on the tourism sector?

You further wrote:
"Well we would rather not put the Gambians in that position in the first
place."
Wow! Thanks for your concern. However, I believe that the alternative you
are proposing has the potential to put them in a far worse position than
what you are rejecting.

You also wrote:
"So am being led to the conclusion that some of you people have been blinded
by your
egos. You perhaps had previously gone on record saying that you would never
support violence. So because of that, things that should be glaring before
your eyes would read something else to you. Get off your high horses and
join the struggle."

Excuse me, Sir! Egos? High horses? C'mon, man. Whose ego is getting the best
of whom here? Can you understand that some of us truly believe in a
non-violent solution to Gambia's problems? Is it strange to you? Are you
demanding that we see things exactly as you do? Isn't that a bit too
dictatorial on your part sir? I reverse your contention that I get off my
high horses back to you. I think you should come down to the ground and join
the rest of us who know that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.
That is the basis of democracy, the democracy you are planning to institute
in The Gambia. Who told you that I am not in the struggle? Just because I do
not propagate violence does not mean that I am not in the struggle. The
struggle is a multi-faceted enterprise. Do you truly believe that I would
stick to a position just for the sake of being afraid of changing it because
people would see me in a different light? C'mon sir. I flatteringly like to
think of myself as a dynamic, humble and willing-to-learn person. I have
many a time even on this L changed my position because someone put in better
arguments. Accepting the superiority of other ideas when they are is the
essence of learning and I am a learner.

You also wrote:
"You should know about the struggles of ANC. Did Nelson Mandela, Oliver
Thambo and the senior Mbeki just sit down and wait for nonexistent election
victories or put all their faith in the hands of the international
community? No. They bombed the South African government. "

I know not only about the struggles of the ANC but that of South Africa. You
see I like to consider myself to be a Pan-Africanist. I considered the ANC a
sell out during my college days because of their approach. I was more
impressed by the PAC's "one settler, one bullet" approach. I read so many
books about the South African struggle. One of my best friends in college
was the son of Malinga, one of the founders of the PAC who died in prison. I
was very much against Mandela's concessionary stance when he became
president but after analysing the situation, I was converted. I realised
that Mandela's stance was more practical and was better for South Africa
because another approach would have meant bloodshed and unwanton
destruction. For you to truly believe that South Africa got rid of Apartheid
ONLY because the ANC was bombing targets within South Africa is truly
amazing. Do you underestimate the impact that sanctions had? External
sanctions coupled with the civil resistance campaign of the UDF helped to
bring about sweeping political transformation.

You wrote:
"Oliver Thambo was in exile running the ANC machinery.Did South Africans say
that they were not going to listen to his calls for self-defense because he
did not live in South Africa? Did they say that they were only going to
listen to people like Desmond Tutu or sell-outs like Buthelezi? So my
friend, it is not about where you live, it is about what you bring to the
table."

The ANC machinery was already in place before he went into exile. I believe
that one can make a positive impact wherever one is. One can also make
devastating prescriptions knowing fully well that one is sheltered from the
repercussions. If you truly believe that you can make a positive
contribution from wherever you are without jeopardising our country, power
to you.

You also wrote:
"Not with our lives as you might have preferred. We tried diplomatic and
constitutional means and they did not work."

Mr. Dampha, let me state here that I am NOT your enemy. I would not want you
to lose your life. You are a Gambian like all other Gambians and it is
because of my concern for Gambians that I am concerned about the
repercussions of the approach you preach. I do not want violence in my
country because violence would lead to loss of lives and that is the last
thing I want. Could you please furnish us with the diplomatic and
constitutional means you tried so that they can be established to be
unworkable?

You wrote:
"I contribute more than you do in trying to make sure that the culprits of
the massacres face justice."

Power to you, my brother. Who said that I contribute more than you do? This
is not a competition. I am sincerely glad to learn that "you are doing a lot
to make sure that the culprits of the massacres face justice." That is what
I also want and to see that you have contributed to this cause truly makes
me happy.

You further wrote:
"What we have a problem with is people that limit our options or give
priority to options
that are clearly unworkable."

So you have a problem with people having a different approach to a problem?
You call Yaya a dictator. Why? Isn't it because he too has a problem with
people who have different approaches?

You wrote:
"Like I said yesterday (keep repeating myself. But I will gladly do so until
it sinks into your heads)"

Please, please do. Some of us, especially me, are not that clever. So you
might definitely have to keep hammering home your point before it sinks. I
was not blessed to be as clever as you.

You wrote:
"Why don't you want to believe that if a bloodless coup can be pulled in
1994 another one can be pulled in 2000?"

Let's make a deal here. I believe that a bloodless coup can be pulled off.
Do you believe that one or more factors can interfere with your "bloodless
coup" and turn it into a disaster? Things can always go wrong even in the
most planned of events.

You wrote:
"If you were attacked by a wild animal today and you have a loaded gun in
your hand, would you opt to extend your hand to it in the name of diplomacy
or would you blow its brains out?"

That depends. If it happens in a vacuum, that is, I am alone with the
animal; I would gladly blow its brains out. However, as I said earlier,
events you are prescribing won't happen in vacuum and there are a lot of
people who might get hurt in the process. The situation by the way is not as
acute as to leave the options you painted in your scenario. There are still
some options that can be explored.

You further wrote:
"If your principles of non-violence are so dear to your heart that you do
not want to join us, fine with us. But please do not demoralize our people
back home by telling them that the ballot box is the only means Yaya can be
removed from office."

Why can't you believe that I also want the best thing to happen to The
Gambia? We might have different prescriptions for solving our country's
problems but that does not make us enemies. The solution to The Gambia's
problems as mentioned earlier is multi-pronged and all on the various fences
should not consider each other enemies. Where did I say that the ballot box
is the only way of removing Yaya?

You further wrote:
". people like me have recently called upon the UDP supporters to arm
themselves and not let their guard down during the coming campaign season.
We are not calling upon you to leave your cozy existence in Europe to go
fight in The Gambia neither are we calling upon your unarmed civilian
brothers to go and confront Yaya."

I ask you where those people are going to get the arms. I further ask you
where they are going to get licences for those arms because you surely
wouldn't want them to face heavily armed security personnel with stones,
sticks etc.? The civilian UDP supporters you are calling upon to be armed
and confrontational are my fellow Gambians and brothers and sisters. For
your information, I am not living a cosy existence. I am hustling man, like
most Gambians abroad.

You also wrote:
"What do you want us to tell the UDP? To lie down and let BaaBaa Jobe walk
all over them? Or like some of your heroes, pretend that nothing undeserving
happened to the UDP entourage? Or like others, pretend that this was not
orchestrated by Yaya and his bunch of bandits? We would continue to advocate
the removal of Yaya through violent means until pacifists like you come up
with better means of removing him. If you are waiting for your heroes on the
ground to advocate the removal of Yaya through violent means, then you will
never see that and therefore you will never be a convert."

No. No. No. Who is pretending that nothing happened to the UDP? Who is
talking about letting Baba Jobe walk over the UDP? The very presence of the
American and UK ambassadors in the area where the UDP entourage was held
played a significant part in their release. Pressure, man, pressure. If
pressure is strategically courted and applied, the results might amaze you.
BTW, who are my heroes on the ground?

You also wrote:
"The way you help the situation, is to do like Colly, Saul , Matarr and
others and expose Baabaa Jobe and Yaya for the cowards they are and urge UDP
to be more vigilant."

That is not the only way to help the situation. That is one of various ways
to help and I say thanks to those mentioned for providing the information
because it is really revealing. I am not saying that the UDP should not be
vigilant. What I am saying is that the UDP should not send 10 hens to fight
100 lions.

You finally wrote:
".send a silly petition to the international community."

Thanks for sharing your views on how you see our petition. However, that
petition, the demonstrations around the world, the action of people on the
ground played an important part in bringing the events of April to the
attention of the international community. There you see, pressure sir.
Thanks and sorry for such a long posting.

Buharry.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------