It's amazing and disturbing sometimes to observe how quarelsome some of the
men on this forum can. I always thought that our society had ascribed
"hasteh" to the female realm. This confirms that attributes associated with
being female or male are socially framed and are learned through
socialisation i.e. the socialisation process determines and moulds our
personalities and character. Therefore being born male or female does not
necessarily determine how we act or react. What do you think?
mariama
>From: Lamin Ceesay <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: World Politics Lesson #1 for Hamjatta
>Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:34:48 +0000
>
> World politics-LESSON NO.2 For HAMJATTA AND THE FORTY SHIELDS.
>
>
> > PEACE YES --- MISSILES NO > > Charles Mercieca, Ph.D. > President >
> International Association of Educators for World Peace > NGO, United
> Nations (ECOSOC) UNDPI, UNICEF, UNCED & UNESCO > Professor Emeritus >
> Alabama A&M University > > An international peace conference was
> scheduled in Taiwan in summer 2001 >to explore ways of diminishing the
> threat of war in southeast Asia. A special >attention was placed on the
> existing political friction between China and >Taiwan. Both sides of
> the Taiwan Straight claim to have their own way on how >to interpret
> the events of history to seemingly get what they want >respectively. >
> >Two Sides of the Same Coin > > China claims that Taiwan is an integral
> part of its territory and that >the government of Taiwan consists of a
> bunch of rebels who seceded from the >mainland. On the other hand,
> Taiwan claims that it had been the legitimate >government of China
> which was overthrown by a bunch of rebels commonly known >as
> communists. As a result, this legitimate government took refuge in
> Taiwan, >while abandoning the mainland in the hands of the communists
> to avoid >unnecessary and needless bloodshed. Hence, both sides agreed
> in at least one >item. Both consist of Chinese people like two sides of
> the same coin. > > This contention was backed by the whole world for
> quite a few years >after this event took place, as revealed by the fact
> that the government of >Taiwan remained a part of the UN Social
> Security Council. Of course, as time >rolled on the world came to grips
> with reality and recognized the communist >government of Beijing as the
> legitimate government of China which had then >replaced the government
> of Taiwan in the UN Social Security Council. >
>
>
> Did Hongkong ever reach that stage MR.HAMJATTA? > For more than 50 years
>both China and Taiwan had different governments, >each of which dreamed
>that one day the other side becomes integrated with it >as one country.
>Since the governments of both these two acting nations were >both born,
>evolved and developed in a culture of war which had existed >already for a
>period of 6,000 years of recorded history, it was very natural >for both
>sides to arm themselves to the teeth in the hope that one day the >problem
>of unification will be solved through a devastating war. > > What is ironic
>is the fact, that the people of both acting nations never >seemed to have
>been consulted. A referendum in both China and Taiwan was >never passed to
>explore how the people of these two acting nations feel about >the
>relationship that should, from now on, exist between China and Taiwan. >
> >Unification or Partnership > > In China, a handful(mark you this is a
>handful ) of people in the government made it clear that they >have an
>agenda of unification to follow and that they will not listen to any
> >alternative, far less making any compromise. The very idea of seeing what
>the >people of Taiwan really want in the kind of relationship they would
>love to >see with China, does not exist, not even remotely. The voice of
>the 22 >million people living in Taiwan seems to have no significance at
>all. > > On the other hand, the government of Taiwan did proceed to build
>new >policies based on more realistic ground. This government has abandoned
>the >idea of retaking the mainland, (you see Hamza what your books ommitted
>to teach you is that Taiwan also one time in history wanted to retake
>mainland ) which it ones governed legitimately, by force. >It reformed its
>governmental structure as to create a genuine democratic >nation where
>people elect their representatives. Besides, they embarked on >the
>development of a strong civilian economy after the example of Japan and
> >Germany. In addition, Taiwan began to invest billions of dollars in China
>by >constructing new roads and building new bridges and by constructing new
> >factories as well as modern housing projects. > > After more than 50
>years
>of continuous tensions between China and >Taiwan, the time has arrived
>where both sides need to reassess the situation >relative to the kind of
>new relationship these two flourishing nations must >have between them.
>This assessment needs to be based not on what is >politically expedient
>but, rather, on what is in the best interest of the >people of the two
>nations and their respective civilian economy. The choice >for a
>constructive solution is there and it does offer numerous options and
> >flexibility is of paramount importance. > > In spite of this, China made
>it clear that it will not discuss any >option relative to its relationship
>with Taiwan. It continues to maintain >that Taiwan is a break-away province
>which is ruled by rebels. Its policy >toward Taiwan is one of
>strangulation. This is revealed in the fact that >China does not want any
>country on earth to recognize Taiwan as an >independent functioning nation,
>the way is has already proved itself to be >for more than 50 years. Not
>only so, but China demands of every nation on >earth not to deal with the
>government of Taiwan neither directly nor >indirectly. > > What is ironic
>is the fact that China itself conducts more business with >Taiwan than,
>perhaps, with any other country on earth. Via Hong Kong, the >Chinese
>people may visit Taiwan and the Taiwanese people may visit China with
> >virtual no restrictions whatsoever. In other words, a climate of
>friendship >between China and Taiwan does exist in some way or another even
>though in >theory things seem to be quite different. > >Peace Versus War >
> > In theory, China could get what it really wants peacefully, fast, and
> >smooth. But only if it were to shift its policies, which stem from a
> >traditional culture of war, to policies based purely on the newly
>evolving
> >and developing culture of peace. In this regard, Unesco, with its
>numerous
> >peace oriented non governmental organizations of the United Nations, may
> >provide some good and useful guideline to this end. China must keep in
>mind >that one catches flies more with honey than with threats of a
>devastating >war. > > We learn from a recorded history of 6,000 years of
>civilization that >when people are threatened, rather than giving up they
>become more determined >to resist to their last breath if necessary. Hence,
>this explains the slogan >adopted by the international peace conference
>which was scheduled in Taiwan >in summer 2001 which ran with the words:
>Peace Yes -- Missiles No. If China >decides to put missiles aimed at
>Taiwan, history has taught us that Taiwan >would do likewise. It would put
>its own missiles aimed at China. Here we need >to bring to our attention
>the words of Pope Pius XII who, on the eve of World >War II, told to both
>the Germans and the British: "Remember, in a war >everyone is a loser and
>no one is a winner." > > In 1945, Germany lost the war and its economy
>collapsed because it was >devastated. At the same time, Great Britain won
>the war and its economy >equally collapsed because it was devastated as
>well. Besides, as a result of >"winning" the war, the British Empire
>collapsed and Great Britain lost all of >its territories on every
>continent. The words of Pope Pius XII may as well be >directed to both
>China and Taiwan. Each must keep in mind, particularly >China, that in a
>war everyone is a loser and no one is a winner. > > Resorting to war for
>the solution of any problem reveals tremendous lack >of wisdom to say the
>most and a great foolishness to say the least. Besides, >the vast majority
>of the nations of the world would prefer not to conduct >business with any
>country that is at war with another nation. Again, everyone >would be a
>loser and no one a winner! > > One of the most curious elements which
>developed in history has been the >institution of the military. Its purpose
>has never been to promote peace, as >most governments contend, but merely
>to wage war. Ironically, every >government in history which waged war
>claimed to have done so for "defense >purposes!" In practice this so called
>"defense" has always proven to be the >"safeguard and justification of
>every atrocious and belligerent action that >was taken by the military,
>even without any justification whatsoever. > >Healthy and Constructive
>Dialogue > > All problems of the world could be solved through a healthy
>and >constructive dialogue without any exception whatsoever. This would
>always be >possible if we were to keep in mind the universal welfare of all
>people >involved without exception. Once we start taking into consideration
>the >advantages of one group of people to the exclusion of another group of
> >people, then such a dialogue would cease to be healthy and constructive.
> >
> > This explains why the United Nations, after more than 50 years of its
> >existence, has not succeeded to bring about a permanent peace into the
>world. >Most nations meet other nations with an agenda of their own which
>they want >to implement by all means possible. Even prior to their
>presentation of their >agenda, they have already closed their mind to
>listen to any possible >alternative that may perhaps lead to some kind of
>modification or compromise. >This approach is especially observed in the
>big powers or big nations whose >approach would be for all practical
>purposes: "Be reasonable, do it our own >way!" > > To make things worse,
>most nations seem to believe that the modification >of ideas, and anything
>which may lead to a compromise, is to be viewed as a >sign of weakness
>rather than as a sign of strength in the pursuit of peace. >The concept of
>virtue, which is so essential in the pursuit of peace, does >not seem to
>exist in the mind of most of our leading politicians. Considering >that
>peace, by its very nature, is spiritual and not material, we may begin >to
>realize the importance of the formulated slogan: Peace Yes -- Missiles No.
> > > Since peace evolves from the inside of the individual, we may fully
> >realize the importance to be humble, prudent, patient, generous, kind,
>but, >at the same time, determined and firm in pursuing goals which are in
>the best >interest of all people without exception. Hence, we may begin to
>understand >why a healthy and constructive dialogue would achieve much more
>in the best >interest and benefit of everyone concerned, than tons of
>weapons of >destruction that would make most certainly everyone involved a
>loser. > > Can China and Taiwan proceed to resolve their political
>differences >peacefully? The answer is definitely in the affirmative but
>only if the >culture of war that is being used to this end is replaced by
>the culture of >peace. China is misleading itself by thinking that when a
>country, such as >the United States, states that it recognizes Taiwan is a
>part of China, such >a statement would mean that China has a right to take
>over Taiwan by all >means conceivable. > >Taiwan and Tibet Contrasted > >
>In fact, the United States made it clear that it will "not" allow China >to
>use military means to annex the island with the mainland. China must keep
> >in mind that Taiwan is not Tibet. While Tibet was a totally disarmed
>nation, >Taiwan is fully armed to the teeth mostly by the United States.
>The >government of China could have Taiwan become an integral part of the
>mainland >if its culture of war policies were to be replaced by a culture
>of peace >diplomacy. > > As far as a possible future reunification is
>concerned between China and >Taiwan, it would be infinitely more beneficial
>for China to try to seek the >support and trust of the people in Taiwan
>themselves regardless of the >outside world, than the other way round, as
>revealed in the current China >foreign policy. At this stage of history,
>China is faced with a clear cut >alternative relative to its relations with
>Taiwan: > > 1. Continue toward Taiwan the present policy of isolation and
> >strangulation, while keeping on calling this island nation a break away
> >province ruled by rebels rather than legitimately elected government
> >officials, or ........ > 2. Develop a new diplomatic approach which would
>reveal great dignity >and respect for the Taiwanese people in a way that
>the natives of this island >nation would feel thoroughly at ease and no
>longer threatened by China. > > Since World War II was over, we have had
>quite a few nations which were >formed from a previously one undivided
>nation, like East and West Germany, >North and South Vietnam, North and
>South Yemen, as well as North and South >Korea. All of these countries had
>one basic thing in common. Each side >recognized the legitimacy of the
>other side in practice. As a result, a >healthy and constructive dialogue
>was developed and, with the exception of >the Korean case, all have been
>reunited as one nation. The cry of the world >for both China and Taiwan is
>clear: Peace Yes -- Missiles No. The fate of 22 >million Taiwanese cannot
>be decided without their input and full consent. >This is merely in
>accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of >Human Rights.
> > **************************************** > Distribution List > >Charles
>Mercieca, Ph.D. >President >International Association of Educators for
>World Peace (iAEWP) >NGO, UN (ECOSOC), UNDPI, UNICEF, UNCED & UNESCO
> >Professor of History and Philosophy >Alabama A&M University (AAMU) >P. O.
>Box 3282 - Mastin Lake Station >Huntsville, AL 35810-0282 USA >Phone:
>256-534-5501 >Fax: 256-536-1018 >[log in to unmask]
> >http://www.earthportals.com/Portal-Messenger/mercieca.htmI > >Dr. Larry
>T.
>Gell >Director-General >International Headquarters >International Agency
>for Economic Development (IAED) >United Nations Plaza >P. O. Box 2260-GCS
> >New York, NY 10163-2260 >212-687-1775 >Cel: 1-646-621-6161 >Fax:
>212-697-2363 >[log in to unmask] >[log in to unmask] >http://www.iaed.org
> >http://www.mnn.org > >Dr. Hong Tao Tze >Shih-Ho Seng >Zhang Men Ren of
>Tai
>Ji Men >President, Tai Ji Men Qigong Academy >Director, World Citizens
>Assembly (WCA) 2001 >Honorary Vice President, Association of World Citizens
>(AWC) UN/NGO >President, Association of World Citizens in Taiwan UN/NGO
> >President, Federation of World Peace and Love >No. 136, Keelung Rd. Sec.
>2
> >Taipei, Taiwan R.O.C. >Tel: 011-886-2-2736-5188 >Fax: 011-886-2-2736-8789
> >TEL: (626) 286-0989 U.S.A. >FAX: (626) 286-7008 U.S.A.
> >[log in to unmask] >http://www.wca2001.org.tw >http://www.taijimen.org
> >www.fowpal.org
> >********************************************************************** >*
>Takeshi Utsumi, Ph.D., P.E., Chairman, GLOSAS/USA * >* (GLObal Systems
>Analysis and Simulation Association in the U.S.A.) * >* Laureate of Lord
>Perry Award for Excellence in Distance Education * >* Founder of CAADE * >*
>(Consortium for Affordable and Accessible Distance Education) * >*
>President Emeritus and V.P. for Technology and Coordination of * >* Global
>University System (GUS) * >* 43-23 Colden Street, Flushing, NY 11355-3998,
>U.S.A. * >* Tel: 718-939-0928; Fax: 718-939-0656 (day time only--prefer
>email) * >* Email: [log in to unmask]; Tax Exempt ID: 11-2999676 * >*
>http://www.friends-partners.org/GLOSAS/ *
> >********************************************************************** >
> >_______________________________________________ >gu-l mailing list
> >[log in to unmask]
> >http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/gu-l
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>>From: Dampha Kebba <[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
>><[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Jawara --- Come-back Kid?
>>Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 12:28:01 -0400
>>
>>Gassama, you know you are lying when you said that Jawara said he wanted
>>to
>>come back to lead the Opposition. As far as your other comments about the
>>implications of the security of the former president are concerned, I
>>think
>>I will just ignore them. More substantive APRC stalwarts than yourself
>>have
>>already spoken on the issue. Sedat Jobe said the politically correct thing
>>to say and Yankuba Touray, being the ignorant vermin he is, said the exact
>>opposite of what Sedat Jobe said to the international community. So, I
>>would
>>rather deal with those comments than your irrational rattling. So Jawara
>>is
>>welcomed to come home and retire but NOT to say that Yaya should NOT lead
>>us? What kind of nonsense is this? You are just proving that Gambia is NOT
>>a
>>free country and Yaya’s utterances that Decree 89 is history, is mere lip
>>service.
>>
>>If you sincerely believe in your contention that Jawara will hamper the
>>Opposition (especially UDP), then why NOT encourage him to come home so
>>that
>>APRC can win the elections? I thought you wanted APRC to win. Finally, I
>>take it that your previous hypothesis about NCP and UDP and PPP and NRP
>>has
>>been discarded in the dustbin.
>>KB
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: Jungle Sunrise <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
>>><[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: Jawara --- Come-back Kid?
>>>Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:08:31 +0000
>>>
>>>Dampha,
>>>
>>>Ex-president Jawara's security in The Gambia will only become an issue if
>>>and when he is allowed to return home. His recent pronouncement that he
>>>is
>>>willing to come back home to lead the opposition, if they so desire,
>>>knowing
>>>full well that he is not elligible to stand for election, in order to
>>>help
>>>us get rid of "this dictatorship", will certainly not help his case to
>>>return home. To me, it would have made more sense if he instead engaged
>>>the
>>>government constructively, in order for him to come and spend the rest of
>>>his days in peaceful retirement. If that were the case, the onus would
>>>have
>>>been on the government to provide with all the security and protocol
>>>befitting a former head of state. If he expects to be given a red carpet
>>>welcome and inspect a guard of honour, then he is dreaming. Any right
>>>thinking man would realise that no amount of pressure or threats will
>>>prevail on this government to allow him to come back home unconditionally
>>>while the APRC is still in power.
>>>
>>>As for the impact of his association with the opposition, particluarly
>>>the
>>>UDP, my instincts tell me that it will be counter productive. His
>>>mis-rule,
>>>refusal to willingly relinquish power when he had the chance, coupled
>>>with
>>>the rampant corruption that he presided upon whilst in power is only too
>>>fresh in the minds of many Gambians. It will also give credense to the
>>>claim
>>>by some that the UDP is a party of disgruntled elements whose main agenda
>>>is
>>>for the restoration of the PPP olygarchy. This view can be further
>>>supported
>>>by the recent appointment to the PPP interim committee of Shyngle Nyassi
>>>while still retaining his leadership of the UDP Youthwing.
>>>
>>>These are my views on the "comeback kid".
>>>
>>>Have a good day, Gassa.
>>>
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>>You may also send subscription requests to
>>[log in to unmask]
>>if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write
>>your
>>full name and e-mail address.
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>You may also send subscription requests to
>[log in to unmask]
>if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your
>full name and e-mail address.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
