What a wonderful piece of work. It makes me feel like going out into the open shouting, hollo there can´t you people see what is going down. Thank you very much Mr Njie, keep them coming Modou >From: Amadu Kabir Njie <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list ><[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Fw: British hypocrisy at Commonwealth conference in Nigeria >Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 02:53:01 -0500 > >(NB! Mugabe did pull Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth yesterday, Sunday. The >article must have been written before that news reached the author). > >Regards, > >Kabiir. > > > >British hypocrisy at Commonwealth conference in Nigeria > >http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/nige-d08.shtml > >By Ann Talbot > >8 December 2003 > >At a state banquet opening the Commonwealth conference, Australian Prime >Minister John Howard commended President Olusegun Obasanjo for returning >Nigeria to democratic rule. Howard was handing over the chairmanship of >the 54-member Commonwealth, which is mainly made up of former British >colonies. Howard’s praise for Obasanjo was an eloquent expression of the >double-dealing that characterises the organisation. > >The very building that Howard stood in was evidence of the lack of >democracy in Nigeria. It cost an estimated N5 billion. A total of N21 >billion ($150 million) was spent on the entire conference. The bill >included renovating the International Conference Centre in Abuja, and the >guesthouse where Queen Elizabeth stayed, as well as buying 400 bulletproof >cars. This obscene expenditure took place in country where many citizens >earn less than a dollar a day. To speak of democracy when there is such a >vast disparity of wealth exists is grotesque. > >Further evidence of the political situation in Nigeria came with the >publication of a report by Human Rights Watch. The report itemised >evidence of “persistent violence, corruption and poverty.” The impression >that there had been an improvement in freedom of expression was >misleading, the report’s authors said: “In extreme cases, the government’s >reaction to dissent or protest has resulted in extrajudicial killings.” > >Elections earlier this year were characterised by politically motivated >violence in which several hundred people were killed, the report said. >Despite this, the report points out, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Jack >Straw hailed Obasanjo’s victory as, “a landmark in the advancement of >Nigeria’s democracy.” > >Since then opposition rallies and other public events have been suppressed >and their organisers arrested. A 10-day general strike against the 50 >percent rise in fuel prices was brutally suppressed in July. Up to 20 >people were killed when the police opened fire on peaceful fuel >protestors. In some documented cases the dead were passers-by. There is >evidence, according to Human Rights Watch, that the orders to shoot came >from the highest level. No police officers have been arrested or charged >in connection with the killings. This is despite a Nigerian Senate report >accusing the police of “a bloody reaction” to protests and “inhuman” >behaviour. Lawrence Alobi, Commissioner of Police for Operations, has >denied that anyone was killed. > >When President George Bush toured Africa in July the Concerned Youth >Alliance of Nigeria delivered a letter of protest to the US embassy. >Thirty of them were arrested and detained for two weeks. They have told >Human Rights Watch that they were tortured. > >While there is officially freedom of the press, Human Rights Watch reports >an unofficial form of censorship. Those journalists who refuse to toe the >line are subject to harassment. Their own union is often responsible for >suppressing journalists’ freedom of expression. Several journalists have >been expelled from the union for writing articles critical of government >corruption. > >The evidence against Nigeria is all the more striking because of the >campaign that Britain, Australia and Canada waged to maintain Zimbabwe’s >exclusion from the Commonwealth. Zimbabwe has been suspended since the UK >challenged the result of the 2002 elections. > >Despite opposition from some African countries, the Commonwealth upheld >the ban. Africa expert Richard Dowden told reporters, “A lot of African >countries have said in private they think this human rights stuff is just >a cover for British interests there and they want to resist it.” > >In the light of Nigeria’s human rights record it is difficult to disagree >that forwarding British interests rather than human rights is the main >consideration for Prime Minister Tony Blair. He said, “The whole point >about the situation in Zimbabwe is that it is not getting better. The key >thing is to maintain the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth >because I think that sends the right signal of disapproval.” > >Almost as he spoke the Nigerian military were reported to have opened fire >from a helicopter on a village in the Niger Delta region. Official figures >claim that four people were killed. But Daniel Ekpebide, a member of the >Federated Niger Delta Ijaw Communities, claims that at least 50 people >were killed. > > >Zimbabwe conflict > >The dispute over Zimbabwe led to tension at the Commonwealth conference. >Unusually, the post of secretary general was put to a vote when a rival >candidate challenged former New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister Don >McKinnon. Normally the post is agreed privately without the necessity of a >vote. > >President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa backed Lakshman Kadirgama, a former >foreign minister of Sri Lanka, for the post of secretary general. Mbeki >opposes the continued exclusion of Zimbabwe and clearly hoped to unseat >McKinnon, who is a vociferous proponent of the ban. > >Despite this break with the usual consensus politics of the Commonwealth, >McKinnon succeeded in winning a second four-year term. He had the support >of Britain, Australia and Canada. Only 11 countries backed Mbeki’s >candidate. How much political pressure Britain brought to bear to get this >result is not known. > >As a face-saving gesture a six-member task force was set up to consider >the question of readmitting Zimbabwe. It consisted of South Africa and >Mozambique, who are supporters of readmission, Canada and Australia, who >are opposed to it and India and Jamaica, who are thought of as neutral. >Setting up a committee avoids complete humiliation for the African >governments who want Zimbabwe back in the Commonwealth. It gives the >appearance that the organisation is in some way democratic and listens to >the opinions of all its members. The reality is that Britain continues to >dominate an organisation that perpetuates a colonial relationship. > >The current African governments are desperate for aid and trade. They will >not seriously oppose the British government. At the same time they want to >appear as anti-imperialists to their own populations at home. > >Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe’s own strident anti-imperialist >rhetoric has put them all in a difficult position. This is especially true >of South Africa. Mugabe’s seizure of white-owned farms has raised the >question of the distribution of land in South Africa too. > >Mbeki cannot afford to distance himself from Mugabe. If he is seen to side >with Britain he will lose all political credibility as a supposed leader >of the national liberation struggle. His failure to mobilise any >significant level of support at the conference points to the impotence of >Mbeki’s nationalist politics. > >In the past it was possible for African leaders to wring certain >concessions out of the West because of the existence of the Soviet Union. >Since the end of the Cold War this has become impossible. Africa’s former >colonial masters are in the process of clawing back every concession they >ever granted. > >In the face of the assault on his people’s living conditions, Mugabe >demonstrated the same impotence as Mbeki. He launched a bitter verbal >attack on the British government. “There are other clubs we can join,” he >blustered. But so far he has not quit the Commonwealth despite his threats. > >For all his denunciations of British interference in Zimbabwe he is >reluctant to burn all his bridges. Membership of the Commonwealth has no >tangible benefits in itself. But it offers certain advantages to members. >Mozambique, which was never a British colony, recently joined the >organisation. > >Principally the Commonwealth offers a place on the world stage for the >leaders of semi-colonial countries. Nigeria’s expenditure on the >conference is an indication of how seriously they take it. Their desire >for political kudos makes them easy for Britain to manipulate. > >As an old colonial power, the United Kingdom excels in this kind of >politics. Blair himself may be a political lightweight in comparison to >many of the African leaders with whom he has to deal, but he has the >weight of generations of experience behind him. > >Zimbabwe finds itself denied aid and expelled from the International >Monetary Fund as a result of its clash with Britain. Regimes with no >better democratic record but which have taken care to keep on the right >side of their old colonial master are viewed more favourably. They still >have lines of credit and aid. > >The price they pay, or rather their people pay, is that they have to >follow all the prescriptions of the IMF. Living conditions, health care, >education and jobs have been systematically wiped out over the last two >decades as a result. Commonwealth leaders spoke about the need to combat >AIDS and poverty, but their policies have created the conditions in which >poverty and diseases have spread unchecked across Africa. > >Zimbabwe is suffering the same fate in worse degree. Many of its people >are starving. Half of them rely on food aid to survive. Mugabe opposed the >free market measures that the Commonwealth and the IMF tried to impose on >him, but his autarkic economic model is not a viable alternative. It has >plunged his country into economic regression. > >If the UK and the international financial institutions bear the primary >responsibility for the condition of Zimbabwe, Mugabe has played a >secondary role. For two decades he has remained a member of an >organisation that perpetuates the colonial relationship. This most >militant of nationalists, who endured prison and led an armed struggle >against a better-armed military force, loved to strut on the Commonwealth >stage. Even now he would go back to it if he could. At no point did he >ever envisage breaking with the imperialist framework of international >relations. His own nationalist outlook locked him into the Commonwealth >and all that it stands for. > >Blair’s role in the conference was characterised by his usual >sanctimonious moralising. And also as usual this failed to conceal his >rank hypocrisy. He demanded that Zimbabwe was excluded, while pressing for >the readmission of Pakistan which remains a military dictatorship. > >Pakistan was excluded from the Commonwealth in 1999 when General Musharraf >came to power. McKinnon praised Pakistan for “moving in the right >direction.” Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien pointed out that >Pakistan was “making a good contribution to the war on terrorism.” > >If human rights were indeed criteria for Commonwealth membership, then >both Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her prime minister would have >found themselves excluded. The UK government is systematically violating >human rights in its “war against terrorism.” It is detaining people >without access to lawyers. Over the last week more than a dozen people >have been arrested in this manner. It is sharing US intelligence that has >been extracted under torture. In its most flagrant breach of human rights, >and one that far out strips anything that Mugabe can claim, it has >launched an unprovoked war against another country. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: >http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l >To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: >[log in to unmask] > >To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L >Web interface >at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~