By Franklin Sone Bayen
Our qualification and greater ambitions for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa should not in anyway blunt our lethal power at the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) in Angola. This country has often been hard put to manage both tournaments in the same year. It is as though World Cup euphoria downplays Nations Cup importance.
Excepting 2002 when we won the Nations Cup even as we were in for the World Cup, the story has been bleak from 1982, through 1990, 1998. In 1994 when we took part in the USA World Cup, we did not even qualify for the Nations Cup. Conversely, we were out of World Cup 2006 but failed to reach the top in the Nations Cup. We stumbled before the Ivory Coast at the quarter-finals after penalty shootout.
In 1982, we had a disastrous Nations Cup in Libya prior to an unprecedented wonderful World Cup for Africa when we went undefeated, conceded only one goal in three group stage games and played a draw with eventual World Cup winners, Italy.
Meanwhile, glory was all ours barely two years later when we won the Nations Cup for the first time in 1984. Of course, that was not a World Cup year. In 1986 when we did not qualify for the World Cup, we had another wonderful Nations Cup, stumbling only at the final in a hard fought game with hosts Egypt. Likewise, in 1988, a non-World Cup year, the show was again all ours. We won the cup.
Next, the memorable 1990 World Cup and again the Nations Cup that year was a fiasco. Meanwhile, after another unmemorable Nations Cup in 1992, our worst Nations Cup-World Cup story was in 1994 when we did not even qualify for the Nations Cup and later witnessed our worst World Cup in the US.
South Africa 1996, though not a World Cup year, was a Nations Cup many Cameroonians hate to remember. But France 1998, another Nations Cup-World Cup year for us, equally brought a vexing Nations Cup experience. We were licked by half-baked teams like the DR Congo and were eliminated at group stages.
As the Song-Mboma-Eto’o-Etame-Njitap generation ripened, they renewed Cameroon’s romance with Nations Cup glory in 2000, defeating our traditional Nations Cup final sparring partners Nigeria in their own backyard to take the cup home for keeps according to the former three wins rule. That same generation it was, that defied the Nations Cup-World Cup spell to play great in the 2002 Nations Cup in Mali. They won the cup a fourth time, though they were headed for the Japan-Korea, our last combined Nations Cup-World Cup year.
Here we are again with both tourneys to manage. SA 2010, Africa’s first World Cup, is ours to grab. But Nations Cup 2010 is equally a must-do for us. It comes nearly a decade since we last won the trophy.
The World Cup, we wish to win, and yes, we can. But the Nations Cup we already know how to win. Unquestionably, we must win it again. We cannot lie on our laurels when Egypt’s six wins have dwarfed our four. For that matter, going to the World Cup with a Nations Cup title in hand should be a big morale booster. Whatever distracts our team during the twin tourney years, they should be reminded that, in any case, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.
This posting first featured as Editorial in my sport supplement "This is SPORT! This is FOOTBALL! on the back cover of Standard Tribune currently on the market
Monday, 30 November 2009
Fotso's battle with Cameroon & E. Guinea gov'ts
By Franklin Sone Bayen
If no one is suspecting anything beyond regular procedure in the recent decision by the Central African Banking Commission (COBAC) to place the Commercial Bank of Cameroon (CBC) under watch for possible liquidation, Yves Michel Fotso, proprietor of the bank, is crying foul.
While admitting that CBC is not faultless, Fotso is alleging that COBAC is being manipulated by Equatorial Guinea to settle scores after his bank won a case against the neigbhouring state, obtaining 40 billion FCFA as damages because Malabo illegally prohibited establishment of a CBC branch there. CBC lawyers were in the process of identifying Equatorial Guinea accounts abroad to obtain payment of the penalty when the COBAC sanction fell. Fotso considers the sanction, that discharges him of his functions as board chair of the bank, too severe and hides ulterior motives.
Yet, even those accusations seem to be only part of the story. The paternalistic intervention by the Cameroon government to “bailout” the bank looks like a calculated first step towards embracing a rival to suffocate him – stepping into the Fotso Empire to eventually own it (seize it) or crumble it.
But why?
It has not been said how Yaounde and Malabo would have conspired to suffocate CBC. However, it can be conjectured that, just as it is possible Malabo is pulling its oil weight in COBAC – that little country holds more than 47% of reserves in the Bank of Central Africam States (BEAC) – our government was also in a position to defend CBC if it had the will to. Apparently, it did not. Instead of chasing the hawk before chiding the chicks, our government seems to have let the hawk grab the chick before engaging wings to go to its rescue. All of that to look magnanimous and, while the public applauds, reap from Fotso family sweat.
There are precedents to show that when some persons in authority are uncomfortable with the actions or mere existence of certain individuals, they use the huge state machinery to crush them. They settle personal scores or sometimes do so on behalf of the president.
Henri Sack who ran TV Max, the first private TV in Douala, had a taste of it when former CRTV GM, Gervais Mendo Ze, presented him as an anti-patriot simply because TV Max acquired exclusive rights for a Cameroon international match earlier this decade, and required CRTV to buy the images. Insisting national team matches are a matter of sovereignty, Mendo made CRTV broadcast the match in defiance of TV Max’s exclusive rights, of course, without payment. Somehow, CRTV went on to defeat TV Max in a case in France.
That was only the beginning of trouble for Sack. TV Max was thenceforth always put on the wrong side of the law. Its transmission pylons around Village, a neighbourhood on the Yaounde outlet from Douala were knocked down for “being too close to the Douala International Airport, posing a risk to planes in flight”. Other pylons around were spared. TV Max eventually died slow death. In the early 1990s, Victor Fotso and Kadji Defosso turned coat from early support for the newly-created opposition Social Democratic Front (SDF), when government tax agents showed them red.
Fotso since become a pillar of the Biya regime, bankrolling its operations. He is presently mayor of his Bandjoun hometown, near Bafoussam on the ticket of the president’s party. He is also known to have used his influence to position some of his several wives at elective positions. At least one of them is deputy mayor of the Yaounde I district. Another is Member of Parliament. Apparently through the same influence, his son Yves Michel, a private sector personality, became managing director of Cameroon Airlines (Camair), a position hitherto reserved for government cadres.
Yet does it look like some elements of the Biya regime believe Yves Michel was party to a plot to have the president killed in a faulty plane by purchasing the Albatross. He was involved in the deal because the government undertook the purchase, pretending the plane was for Camair use, to avoid scrutiny by the IMF which thought such a purchase just for the president’s comfort, was misplaced priority at a time Cameroon was making its case for HIPC debt cancellation in the middle of this decade.
Now that son of Victor Fotso is swearing he will defend his property even with is life. Such statements are not often heard from people of Fotso’s stature. He believes COBAC is just a subterfuge for people with diabolic motives. “I’m sorry, but if it becomes an institution used to eliminate people, I’m ready to die. I’ll accept to be sacrificed,” said Fotso in a telephone intervention on an talkshow a fortnight ago, on a Douala-based private TV channel, STV.
So why would a “prince” put his life on the line like that?
And that was not Fotso’s first media outing on a burning issue. Late last year he came out strong in an interview broadcast simultaneously by three private TV channels (STV, Equinox TV and Canal 2) telling his side of the story over the Albatross Affair. His approach, maximizing TV audience through the three channels, was so effective everyone was talking about it the next morning. Fotso’s smartness apparently vexed certain people in authority.
The Fotso heir, who has been on a travel ban, might have been saved from prison last year only by his father’s personal intervention when he was summoned to the Judicial Police in Yaounde. To protect him, his aging father accompanied him to Yaounde, spent the night in his hotel room for fear he could be abducted and the next morning, accompanied him for the police interrogation, as if to say “that’s my son, if you will take him, you’ll have to take me too.”
The younger Fotso walked free from there. Hardly anyone implicated in the Albatross Affair walked free after visiting the Judicial Police. But whether he can free the family empire from this suspected onslaught may take more than his father’s watchful eyes.
This posting first featured on my column "STATE OF THE NATION" in Standard Tribune (currently on the market), published in Yaounde Cameroon
If no one is suspecting anything beyond regular procedure in the recent decision by the Central African Banking Commission (COBAC) to place the Commercial Bank of Cameroon (CBC) under watch for possible liquidation, Yves Michel Fotso, proprietor of the bank, is crying foul.
While admitting that CBC is not faultless, Fotso is alleging that COBAC is being manipulated by Equatorial Guinea to settle scores after his bank won a case against the neigbhouring state, obtaining 40 billion FCFA as damages because Malabo illegally prohibited establishment of a CBC branch there. CBC lawyers were in the process of identifying Equatorial Guinea accounts abroad to obtain payment of the penalty when the COBAC sanction fell. Fotso considers the sanction, that discharges him of his functions as board chair of the bank, too severe and hides ulterior motives.
Yet, even those accusations seem to be only part of the story. The paternalistic intervention by the Cameroon government to “bailout” the bank looks like a calculated first step towards embracing a rival to suffocate him – stepping into the Fotso Empire to eventually own it (seize it) or crumble it.
But why?
It has not been said how Yaounde and Malabo would have conspired to suffocate CBC. However, it can be conjectured that, just as it is possible Malabo is pulling its oil weight in COBAC – that little country holds more than 47% of reserves in the Bank of Central Africam States (BEAC) – our government was also in a position to defend CBC if it had the will to. Apparently, it did not. Instead of chasing the hawk before chiding the chicks, our government seems to have let the hawk grab the chick before engaging wings to go to its rescue. All of that to look magnanimous and, while the public applauds, reap from Fotso family sweat.
There are precedents to show that when some persons in authority are uncomfortable with the actions or mere existence of certain individuals, they use the huge state machinery to crush them. They settle personal scores or sometimes do so on behalf of the president.
Henri Sack who ran TV Max, the first private TV in Douala, had a taste of it when former CRTV GM, Gervais Mendo Ze, presented him as an anti-patriot simply because TV Max acquired exclusive rights for a Cameroon international match earlier this decade, and required CRTV to buy the images. Insisting national team matches are a matter of sovereignty, Mendo made CRTV broadcast the match in defiance of TV Max’s exclusive rights, of course, without payment. Somehow, CRTV went on to defeat TV Max in a case in France.
That was only the beginning of trouble for Sack. TV Max was thenceforth always put on the wrong side of the law. Its transmission pylons around Village, a neighbourhood on the Yaounde outlet from Douala were knocked down for “being too close to the Douala International Airport, posing a risk to planes in flight”. Other pylons around were spared. TV Max eventually died slow death. In the early 1990s, Victor Fotso and Kadji Defosso turned coat from early support for the newly-created opposition Social Democratic Front (SDF), when government tax agents showed them red.
Fotso since become a pillar of the Biya regime, bankrolling its operations. He is presently mayor of his Bandjoun hometown, near Bafoussam on the ticket of the president’s party. He is also known to have used his influence to position some of his several wives at elective positions. At least one of them is deputy mayor of the Yaounde I district. Another is Member of Parliament. Apparently through the same influence, his son Yves Michel, a private sector personality, became managing director of Cameroon Airlines (Camair), a position hitherto reserved for government cadres.
Yet does it look like some elements of the Biya regime believe Yves Michel was party to a plot to have the president killed in a faulty plane by purchasing the Albatross. He was involved in the deal because the government undertook the purchase, pretending the plane was for Camair use, to avoid scrutiny by the IMF which thought such a purchase just for the president’s comfort, was misplaced priority at a time Cameroon was making its case for HIPC debt cancellation in the middle of this decade.
Now that son of Victor Fotso is swearing he will defend his property even with is life. Such statements are not often heard from people of Fotso’s stature. He believes COBAC is just a subterfuge for people with diabolic motives. “I’m sorry, but if it becomes an institution used to eliminate people, I’m ready to die. I’ll accept to be sacrificed,” said Fotso in a telephone intervention on an talkshow a fortnight ago, on a Douala-based private TV channel, STV.
So why would a “prince” put his life on the line like that?
And that was not Fotso’s first media outing on a burning issue. Late last year he came out strong in an interview broadcast simultaneously by three private TV channels (STV, Equinox TV and Canal 2) telling his side of the story over the Albatross Affair. His approach, maximizing TV audience through the three channels, was so effective everyone was talking about it the next morning. Fotso’s smartness apparently vexed certain people in authority.
The Fotso heir, who has been on a travel ban, might have been saved from prison last year only by his father’s personal intervention when he was summoned to the Judicial Police in Yaounde. To protect him, his aging father accompanied him to Yaounde, spent the night in his hotel room for fear he could be abducted and the next morning, accompanied him for the police interrogation, as if to say “that’s my son, if you will take him, you’ll have to take me too.”
The younger Fotso walked free from there. Hardly anyone implicated in the Albatross Affair walked free after visiting the Judicial Police. But whether he can free the family empire from this suspected onslaught may take more than his father’s watchful eyes.
This posting first featured on my column "STATE OF THE NATION" in Standard Tribune (currently on the market), published in Yaounde Cameroon
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Didn't Fifa favour Egypt for Algeria playoff?
By Franklin Sone Bayen*
Algeria finally had their way over Egypt to obtain Africa's last World Cup ticket after their playoff in Khartoum Sudan on November 18, but that match should not have been necessary had Fifa followed its own rules to the very last letter.
Because Algeria scored three goals against Egypt in the away leg and Egypt scored only two against Algeria in the return leg in the Africa Group C of the 2010 World Cup qualifiers, Algeria had an advantage based on Point 5 of the new FIFA rule for teams even on points at the end of group matches, like both countries in Africa Group C.
Nearly a month before the final group games of this 2010 World Cup qualifiers, we presented an exhaustive analysis of the expected outcome for Cameroon based on the possible results from matches on November 14 in Group A: Morocco-Cameroon and Togo-Gabon. It was a two part write-up, one titled “CMR-Morocco: THE LAST IFS”. The second, “Most complicated scenario”, was based on the new FIFA rule to rank teams even on points at the end of group games.
Our emphasis in the second write-up was on a scenario whereby Cameroon and their lone challengers Gabon were tied at 10 points each after the November 14 matches, ie, if Moroco defeated Cameroon and Gabon drew with Togo.
As it turned out, Cameroon’s victory over Morocco rolled them a red carpet to the World Cup. It rendered unnecessary and useless any further calculations (ifs) based on the outcome of the Togo-Gabon match in Lome the same day.
With Cameroon’s 13 points, even a victory for Gabon raising them to 12 points would have been of the no consequence. Worst case scenario for Gabon, they were beaten 1-0 by Togo, to mark time at nine points. Cameroon thus sailed through, with safe four points from Gabon.
The Indomitable Lions thus spared already anxious Cameroonians the trouble of that “Most complicated scenario”. Instead, where it applied, and nearly so perfectly, was between Egypt and Algeria. They ended the qualifiers at par on everything from points to goals scored, goals conceded, goal difference and even more. Plus, they faced each other on the last day of play on November 14, Egypt beating Algeria 2-0 to attain that nearly perfect equality, necessitating their playoff on November 18 in Khartoum, Sudan. Algeria won the playoff 1-0 to grab Africa's last World Cup ticket.
Weeks ahead of their Saturday game, FIFA notified that if Egypt defeated Algeria 2-0 on the last day of play, the two would go for a playoff. That was because ahead of that game, Algeria had 13 points after four matches, Egypt 10; Algeria had scored nine goals, Egypt seven; Algeria had conceded two goals, Egypt four; Algeria had +7 in goal difference, Egypt +3. Algeria had beaten Egypt in the first leg in Algeria 3-1. This meant that if Egypt defeated Algeria 2-0 in Egypt, both teams would be tied at 13 points, they would both have scored nine goals, both would have conceded four goals, both would thus have ended the qualifiers with +5 in goal difference and each would have beaten the other at home by a two-goal difference. (Nearly) perfect equality!
As we explained in our previous write-up, this is what the new FIFA rule says about ranking of teams with equal points sourced from the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia: “If teams are even on points at the end of group play, the tied teams will be ranked by: 1. goal difference in all group matches (Algeria +5, Egypt +5) 2. greater number of goals scored in all group matches (Algeria 9, Egypt 9) 3. greater number of points obtained in matches between the tied teams (Algeria 3, Egypt 3) 4. goal difference in matches between the tied teams (3-3: 1st leg Algeria 3-1 Egypt, 2nd leg Egypt 2-0 Algeria) 5. greater number of goals scored in matches between the tied teams (Algeria 3, Egypt 2, take note of this) 6. drawing of lots, or playoffs (if approved by FIFA).”
Take note that Algeria have an advantage over Egypt on point 5. It may seem complicated but understand it in other words thus: which team scored more goals in either of the matches played between Algeria and Egypt? In the away leg, Algeria won scoring three goals. In the return leg, Egypt won scoring just two. Point 5 disregards goals conceded in matches between tied teams.
Although they were even on particular goal difference, it must be pointed out that FIFA put that as one of the conditions for ranking teams tied on points, and ought to have respected it. Algeria had the advantage, but FIFA seemed to have foreseen and ignored it. Reason they skipped to point 6, ie, the Algeria-Egypt playoff on November 18.
Rules well applied, will always penalize someone and leave them offended. Nigeria, clearly a favorite in the 2006 World Cup qualifiers, bowed to the old FIFA rule whereby the first consideration (Point 1) has now become Point 3 in the new rule. That gave Angola the ticket to the 2006 World Cup to the detriment of Nigeria who had better goal difference (+14) in all group matches (Point 1 in the new rule). Angola had only +6. Nigeria had scored far more goals (Point 2 in the new rule), a whopping 21. Angola had scored only 12. But Angola had grabbed four out of six available points in matches between the two teams (Point 1 in the old rule, Point 3 in the new rule), having beaten Nigeria 1-0 in the away leg in Angola and held them to a 1-1 draw in the return leg in Nigeria.
Nigerian fans thought they had been cheated, but that was the rule then. It was respected. Not quite so for Algeria-Egypt in the 2010 qualifiers.
BESIDES POSTING A COMMENT HERE, TO REACT TO THIS ARTICLE, WRITE TO:
editor.sportfoot@yahoo.com or
sbayern@yahoo.com
or call +237 33 12 91 97
*The author is editor-in-chief of Cameroon sport magazine “This is SPORT! This is FOOTBALL!”
Algeria finally had their way over Egypt to obtain Africa's last World Cup ticket after their playoff in Khartoum Sudan on November 18, but that match should not have been necessary had Fifa followed its own rules to the very last letter.
Because Algeria scored three goals against Egypt in the away leg and Egypt scored only two against Algeria in the return leg in the Africa Group C of the 2010 World Cup qualifiers, Algeria had an advantage based on Point 5 of the new FIFA rule for teams even on points at the end of group matches, like both countries in Africa Group C.
Nearly a month before the final group games of this 2010 World Cup qualifiers, we presented an exhaustive analysis of the expected outcome for Cameroon based on the possible results from matches on November 14 in Group A: Morocco-Cameroon and Togo-Gabon. It was a two part write-up, one titled “CMR-Morocco: THE LAST IFS”. The second, “Most complicated scenario”, was based on the new FIFA rule to rank teams even on points at the end of group games.
Our emphasis in the second write-up was on a scenario whereby Cameroon and their lone challengers Gabon were tied at 10 points each after the November 14 matches, ie, if Moroco defeated Cameroon and Gabon drew with Togo.
As it turned out, Cameroon’s victory over Morocco rolled them a red carpet to the World Cup. It rendered unnecessary and useless any further calculations (ifs) based on the outcome of the Togo-Gabon match in Lome the same day.
With Cameroon’s 13 points, even a victory for Gabon raising them to 12 points would have been of the no consequence. Worst case scenario for Gabon, they were beaten 1-0 by Togo, to mark time at nine points. Cameroon thus sailed through, with safe four points from Gabon.
The Indomitable Lions thus spared already anxious Cameroonians the trouble of that “Most complicated scenario”. Instead, where it applied, and nearly so perfectly, was between Egypt and Algeria. They ended the qualifiers at par on everything from points to goals scored, goals conceded, goal difference and even more. Plus, they faced each other on the last day of play on November 14, Egypt beating Algeria 2-0 to attain that nearly perfect equality, necessitating their playoff on November 18 in Khartoum, Sudan. Algeria won the playoff 1-0 to grab Africa's last World Cup ticket.
Weeks ahead of their Saturday game, FIFA notified that if Egypt defeated Algeria 2-0 on the last day of play, the two would go for a playoff. That was because ahead of that game, Algeria had 13 points after four matches, Egypt 10; Algeria had scored nine goals, Egypt seven; Algeria had conceded two goals, Egypt four; Algeria had +7 in goal difference, Egypt +3. Algeria had beaten Egypt in the first leg in Algeria 3-1. This meant that if Egypt defeated Algeria 2-0 in Egypt, both teams would be tied at 13 points, they would both have scored nine goals, both would have conceded four goals, both would thus have ended the qualifiers with +5 in goal difference and each would have beaten the other at home by a two-goal difference. (Nearly) perfect equality!
As we explained in our previous write-up, this is what the new FIFA rule says about ranking of teams with equal points sourced from the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia: “If teams are even on points at the end of group play, the tied teams will be ranked by: 1. goal difference in all group matches (Algeria +5, Egypt +5) 2. greater number of goals scored in all group matches (Algeria 9, Egypt 9) 3. greater number of points obtained in matches between the tied teams (Algeria 3, Egypt 3) 4. goal difference in matches between the tied teams (3-3: 1st leg Algeria 3-1 Egypt, 2nd leg Egypt 2-0 Algeria) 5. greater number of goals scored in matches between the tied teams (Algeria 3, Egypt 2, take note of this) 6. drawing of lots, or playoffs (if approved by FIFA).”
Take note that Algeria have an advantage over Egypt on point 5. It may seem complicated but understand it in other words thus: which team scored more goals in either of the matches played between Algeria and Egypt? In the away leg, Algeria won scoring three goals. In the return leg, Egypt won scoring just two. Point 5 disregards goals conceded in matches between tied teams.
Although they were even on particular goal difference, it must be pointed out that FIFA put that as one of the conditions for ranking teams tied on points, and ought to have respected it. Algeria had the advantage, but FIFA seemed to have foreseen and ignored it. Reason they skipped to point 6, ie, the Algeria-Egypt playoff on November 18.
Rules well applied, will always penalize someone and leave them offended. Nigeria, clearly a favorite in the 2006 World Cup qualifiers, bowed to the old FIFA rule whereby the first consideration (Point 1) has now become Point 3 in the new rule. That gave Angola the ticket to the 2006 World Cup to the detriment of Nigeria who had better goal difference (+14) in all group matches (Point 1 in the new rule). Angola had only +6. Nigeria had scored far more goals (Point 2 in the new rule), a whopping 21. Angola had scored only 12. But Angola had grabbed four out of six available points in matches between the two teams (Point 1 in the old rule, Point 3 in the new rule), having beaten Nigeria 1-0 in the away leg in Angola and held them to a 1-1 draw in the return leg in Nigeria.
Nigerian fans thought they had been cheated, but that was the rule then. It was respected. Not quite so for Algeria-Egypt in the 2010 qualifiers.
BESIDES POSTING A COMMENT HERE, TO REACT TO THIS ARTICLE, WRITE TO:
editor.sportfoot@yahoo.com or
sbayern@yahoo.com
or call +237 33 12 91 97
*The author is editor-in-chief of Cameroon sport magazine “This is SPORT! This is FOOTBALL!”
Sunday, 30 August 2009
Confirmed! Lockerbie Bomber's Release Was a Deal
Revealed by Authoritative British Newspaper
By Franklin Sone Bayen
Now it's not the trouble-making son of international nuissance, Muamar Kaddaffi who's bad-mouthing the UK for hypocritically releasing a convicted bomber purportedly on "compassionate grounds" because he is "terminal ill with prostate cancer". An authoritative British newspaper has found that the "Lockerbie Bomber's" release was nothing but a deal to secure lucrative UK oil and gas exploitation interests with Lybia. Jack Straw, the man who OKed the deal has been explaining, not refuting the deal took place, the Sunday Times (London) has reported.
The paper quoted leaked letters by UK Justice Secretary (senior minister) Jack Straw to the Scottish Justice minister, revealing that Straw consented to the release of the "Lockerbie Bomber", Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for reasons contained in this extensive quote from The Sunday Times website (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814939.ece):
"Two letters dated five months apart show that Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country.
In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Straw said he favoured an option to leave out Megrahi by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before a specified date would not be considered for transfer.
Downing Street had also said Megrahi would not be included under the agreement.
Straw then switched his position as Libya used its deal with BP as a bargaining chip to insist the Lockerbie bomber was included.
The exploration deal for oil and gas, potentially worth up to £15 billion, was announced in May 2007. Six months later the agreement was still waiting to be ratified.
On December 19, 2007, Straw wrote to [Kenny] MacAskill [Justice Minister of Scotland] announcing that the UK government was abandoning its attempt to exclude Megrahi from the prisoner transfer agreement, citing the national interest.
In a letter leaked by a Whitehall [UK government] source, [Straw] wrote: “I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion.
“The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom, I have agreed that in this instance the [prisoner transfer agreement] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual.”
Within six weeks of the government climbdown, Libya had ratified the BP deal. The prisoner transfer agreement was finalised in May this year, leading to Libya formally applying for Megrahi to be transferred to its custody."
Under the United Kingdom governing system, Scotland, which is part of the UK, enjoys autonomy over most aspects of justice, yet the release of such a high profile prisoner, involving UK sovereignty and security interests, required London's okay, which Straw tactfully granted.
Jack Straw, previously UK Foreign Secretary, was pivotal in making a case for war against Iraq in 2003. Like Colllin Powell, then US Secretary of State, Straw held brief for the UK in making outrageous claims before the UN Security Council to convince the world that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Powell has since expressed remorse for the shameful deed.
By Franklin Sone Bayen
Now it's not the trouble-making son of international nuissance, Muamar Kaddaffi who's bad-mouthing the UK for hypocritically releasing a convicted bomber purportedly on "compassionate grounds" because he is "terminal ill with prostate cancer". An authoritative British newspaper has found that the "Lockerbie Bomber's" release was nothing but a deal to secure lucrative UK oil and gas exploitation interests with Lybia. Jack Straw, the man who OKed the deal has been explaining, not refuting the deal took place, the Sunday Times (London) has reported.
The paper quoted leaked letters by UK Justice Secretary (senior minister) Jack Straw to the Scottish Justice minister, revealing that Straw consented to the release of the "Lockerbie Bomber", Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for reasons contained in this extensive quote from The Sunday Times website (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814939.ece):
"Two letters dated five months apart show that Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country.
In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Straw said he favoured an option to leave out Megrahi by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before a specified date would not be considered for transfer.
Downing Street had also said Megrahi would not be included under the agreement.
Straw then switched his position as Libya used its deal with BP as a bargaining chip to insist the Lockerbie bomber was included.
The exploration deal for oil and gas, potentially worth up to £15 billion, was announced in May 2007. Six months later the agreement was still waiting to be ratified.
On December 19, 2007, Straw wrote to [Kenny] MacAskill [Justice Minister of Scotland] announcing that the UK government was abandoning its attempt to exclude Megrahi from the prisoner transfer agreement, citing the national interest.
In a letter leaked by a Whitehall [UK government] source, [Straw] wrote: “I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion.
“The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom, I have agreed that in this instance the [prisoner transfer agreement] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual.”
Within six weeks of the government climbdown, Libya had ratified the BP deal. The prisoner transfer agreement was finalised in May this year, leading to Libya formally applying for Megrahi to be transferred to its custody."
Under the United Kingdom governing system, Scotland, which is part of the UK, enjoys autonomy over most aspects of justice, yet the release of such a high profile prisoner, involving UK sovereignty and security interests, required London's okay, which Straw tactfully granted.
Jack Straw, previously UK Foreign Secretary, was pivotal in making a case for war against Iraq in 2003. Like Colllin Powell, then US Secretary of State, Straw held brief for the UK in making outrageous claims before the UN Security Council to convince the world that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Powell has since expressed remorse for the shameful deed.
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Obama’s Kennedy Passes On
(Or Edward Kennedy's Nunc Dimittis)
By Franklin Sone Bayen
Edward Kennedy passed on today. For many, his eulogies would be well-rehearsed sing-songs: “the last surviving brother of the late President John Kennedy”, “the last survivor of the Kennedy political dynasty”, “the only Kennedy of his generation to pass on without tragedy”, etc. But for us Africans, Edward Kennedy will remain long in our hearts for giving his all, even defying his failing health to hand to Africa, America’s stool of power and honor.
Don’t get me wrong. It took Obama’s political savvy, a highly motivated and focused team and several other factors, but chief among those other factors was Kennedy’s endorsement and open campaigning for Obama at a critical time in the Democratic Party primaries in 2008. An American political prince and a high profile, mainstream politician who to his death had served 47 years in America’s legislative upper house, this brother of a beloved and martyred former president threw his weight behind Obama in a way that shocked Hillary Clinton. The bitter reaction of the Clinton’s after the Kennedy move spoke of its significance. It opened the way for - first cautious, later a floodgate of - endorsements by the high and mighty of the American political class.
In American politics, being likened to John Kennedy is a big blanket endorsement. Bill Clinton enjoyed that in his 1992 run for “looking like the Kennedys” and for appearing in a picture as a schoolboy putting a question to the late president. Likewise another Democrat, John Kerry, from Massachusetts like the Kennedys, for having same initials (JFK – John Forbes Kerry, like John Fitzgerald Kennedy) and even for having dated the sister of the late president's wife.
Edward Kennedy gave a bit (perhaps a lot) of that to Obama when he likened that son of a Kenyan to his beloved brother, the late president. Many recalled that another Kennedy, Robert, had predicted or prophesied in 1968 (when he ran for president but fell to an assassin's bullet), that within 40 years, it would be possible for an African American to be president of the United States, far-fetched in the 1960s because of still lingering racial segregation. 2008 marked 40 years on the calendar and Edward Kennedy (the surviving Kennedy prophet) saw that coming to pass before his own eyes. He grabbed the moment and went campaigning vigorously for Obama though ailing with a diagnosed malignant brain cancer. He managed to appear at the Democratic Party Convention to finish the fight for Obama.
Like the biblical Prophet Simeon, Edward Kennedy attended Obama’s inaugural, though it took “crawling all the way” on a wheelchair, to see with his own eyes. When Kennedy was rushed away that day, in crisis, from the inaugural venue, I said to myself that history (legend, rather) was going to repeat itself. I thought the old man (aged 77) would pass on that day, satisfied that he had seen it. I felt he had said his Nunc dimittis servum tuum Domine, like Simeon in Luke chapter 2:
“Now thou dost dismiss thy servant in peace,
O Lord, according to thy word.
Because mine eyes have seen my salvation,
Which thou hast prepared in the face of all peoples,
A Light to the revelation of the
Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel."
Kennedy held on seven good months after, perhaps waiting to help Obama push through one of his loudest campaign promises – healthcare reform, also Kennedy's pet subject. Now in a cross-party deadlock, every Senate vote would count. Knowing that, but apparently sensing his time to go was nigh, Kennedy wrote to his Massachusetts State authorities, proposing changes to the Senate succession procedure that would enable immediate succession for him once he was unavailable, so that Obama’s reform is not blocked for lack of even one vote (his, Massachusetts’). He might have run out of patience, waiting too long since his Nunc Dimittis to see the health reform. Dying less than a week after that move shows even more that Kennedy gave all for Obama, even his life. He was Obama’s man. He was Africa’s man, our own Prophet Simeon in a foreign land.
In a tribute, Obama describes Kennedy as his mentor. A statement from Nelson Mandela's office salutes Kennedy for his involvement in the struggle against Apartheid "at a time when the freedom struggle was not widely supported in the West." Kennedy was also key in negotiating with Republicans in 2006 to champion the cause for comprehensive immigration reform that would in the long-run grant US citizenship to illegal immigrants including Africans, although, for same reason, Latinos (the biggest immigrant population) would also claim Kennedy as theirs.
And so do the curtains drop over the long and beautiful, though tragic, political story of the Kennedys who gave so much to the Black race, including President Kennedy’s Peace Corps initiative and his initiation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlawed segregation against Blacks. An act finally signed only by Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, after Kennedy’s assassination in 1963.
So, yet another title for this write up could have been "Africa Loses It's Last Kennedy".
By Franklin Sone Bayen
Edward Kennedy passed on today. For many, his eulogies would be well-rehearsed sing-songs: “the last surviving brother of the late President John Kennedy”, “the last survivor of the Kennedy political dynasty”, “the only Kennedy of his generation to pass on without tragedy”, etc. But for us Africans, Edward Kennedy will remain long in our hearts for giving his all, even defying his failing health to hand to Africa, America’s stool of power and honor.
Don’t get me wrong. It took Obama’s political savvy, a highly motivated and focused team and several other factors, but chief among those other factors was Kennedy’s endorsement and open campaigning for Obama at a critical time in the Democratic Party primaries in 2008. An American political prince and a high profile, mainstream politician who to his death had served 47 years in America’s legislative upper house, this brother of a beloved and martyred former president threw his weight behind Obama in a way that shocked Hillary Clinton. The bitter reaction of the Clinton’s after the Kennedy move spoke of its significance. It opened the way for - first cautious, later a floodgate of - endorsements by the high and mighty of the American political class.
In American politics, being likened to John Kennedy is a big blanket endorsement. Bill Clinton enjoyed that in his 1992 run for “looking like the Kennedys” and for appearing in a picture as a schoolboy putting a question to the late president. Likewise another Democrat, John Kerry, from Massachusetts like the Kennedys, for having same initials (JFK – John Forbes Kerry, like John Fitzgerald Kennedy) and even for having dated the sister of the late president's wife.
Edward Kennedy gave a bit (perhaps a lot) of that to Obama when he likened that son of a Kenyan to his beloved brother, the late president. Many recalled that another Kennedy, Robert, had predicted or prophesied in 1968 (when he ran for president but fell to an assassin's bullet), that within 40 years, it would be possible for an African American to be president of the United States, far-fetched in the 1960s because of still lingering racial segregation. 2008 marked 40 years on the calendar and Edward Kennedy (the surviving Kennedy prophet) saw that coming to pass before his own eyes. He grabbed the moment and went campaigning vigorously for Obama though ailing with a diagnosed malignant brain cancer. He managed to appear at the Democratic Party Convention to finish the fight for Obama.
Like the biblical Prophet Simeon, Edward Kennedy attended Obama’s inaugural, though it took “crawling all the way” on a wheelchair, to see with his own eyes. When Kennedy was rushed away that day, in crisis, from the inaugural venue, I said to myself that history (legend, rather) was going to repeat itself. I thought the old man (aged 77) would pass on that day, satisfied that he had seen it. I felt he had said his Nunc dimittis servum tuum Domine, like Simeon in Luke chapter 2:
“Now thou dost dismiss thy servant in peace,
O Lord, according to thy word.
Because mine eyes have seen my salvation,
Which thou hast prepared in the face of all peoples,
A Light to the revelation of the
Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel."
Kennedy held on seven good months after, perhaps waiting to help Obama push through one of his loudest campaign promises – healthcare reform, also Kennedy's pet subject. Now in a cross-party deadlock, every Senate vote would count. Knowing that, but apparently sensing his time to go was nigh, Kennedy wrote to his Massachusetts State authorities, proposing changes to the Senate succession procedure that would enable immediate succession for him once he was unavailable, so that Obama’s reform is not blocked for lack of even one vote (his, Massachusetts’). He might have run out of patience, waiting too long since his Nunc Dimittis to see the health reform. Dying less than a week after that move shows even more that Kennedy gave all for Obama, even his life. He was Obama’s man. He was Africa’s man, our own Prophet Simeon in a foreign land.
In a tribute, Obama describes Kennedy as his mentor. A statement from Nelson Mandela's office salutes Kennedy for his involvement in the struggle against Apartheid "at a time when the freedom struggle was not widely supported in the West." Kennedy was also key in negotiating with Republicans in 2006 to champion the cause for comprehensive immigration reform that would in the long-run grant US citizenship to illegal immigrants including Africans, although, for same reason, Latinos (the biggest immigrant population) would also claim Kennedy as theirs.
And so do the curtains drop over the long and beautiful, though tragic, political story of the Kennedys who gave so much to the Black race, including President Kennedy’s Peace Corps initiative and his initiation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlawed segregation against Blacks. An act finally signed only by Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, after Kennedy’s assassination in 1963.
So, yet another title for this write up could have been "Africa Loses It's Last Kennedy".
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Tripoli, Jo’burg : Tale of two home-comings
By Franklin Sone Bayen
This past week, two outcasts (well, an “outlaw” and an “outcast”) in the eyes of the dominant West and a world organization, were given vexing heroic home-coming receptions. As news reports carried the anger of the US and the UK over the popular reception given the “Lockerbie Bomber” Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi in his home country, another African, Caster Semenya of South Africa was receiving the trauma of her life prior to and after she had a clean win of the female 800m race in the World Athletics Championship in Berlin. She has today been given a heroine’s welcome (mind the precision – a heroine’s welcome, not a hero’s welcome – she’s a woman) in Johanesburg, South Africa. Like the “bomber”, the runner was also received by the head of state.
What they fail to remember is that a people's revival may begin somewhere, just somewhere, yet is it the revival of a people and who knows how far it would go? Here it's been sport. But they seem to have forgotten how Obama happened in a whirlwind that they couldn't hold back, tried how they did.
I’m going to seem supportive or condoning of two practices horrible to me: terrorism and homosexuality. (The place of the latter in this write up is not obvious this far.) If Abdelbaset dies three months from now of prostate cancer as his doctor predicts, he may not have the chance to go to a court of appeal to disprove his earlier conviction as the man who orchestrated the mid-air explosion of the US Pan-Am plane over Lockerbie in Scotland, UK in 1988 leaving 270 dead, most of them Americans. So he would die a convicted bomber.
And if he really is a terrorist, I have no business with him. I hate terrorists. They often kill with “spray bullets” harming even the innocent. I won’t want to be blown up in plane because a terrorist is targeting Yankees or Brits or Jews on board, most often their only crime being their origin. If they die and I die, we all died. My family mourns as theirs do. That’s not the only reason I hate terrorists. But that’s not the issue here.
The point here is the disclosure (revelation?) by the son of Kaddaffi (who should know), that trade interests were at the root of the “bomber’s” release on purported “compassionate grounds”. If nothing else, that disclosure comes to reinforce our increasing understanding that the dominant powers preach values but practise interests. Were it the case, why shouldn’t Libyans celebrate their government’s use of their own power – the power of their natural endowment – to counterbalance western arrogance? In their eyes, Abdelbaset was worth making Scotland (UK) defy “instructions” from the US. And that came within days of Switzerland’s apology to Libya (for similar reasons) for their “abusive” arrest, weeks ago, of Kaddaffi’s son.
And what if Libyans, rightly or wrongly, consider Abdelbaset an innocent victim of western victimization, convinced that following Abdelbaset’s appealing of his conviction, he remains innocent, shouldn't that be reason enough for their airport hurrays at the “bomber’s” arrival?
Caster Semenya
When controversy broke that the girl is a boy, voices rose from TV screens, radio sets and living rooms blasting racism. I felt so too, yet I was more bemused than angry. I found occasion to learn something new. I was wondering why all the fuss about an athlete’s gender when all they needed do was look at her genitals (sought of “forget the genes – pull down the jeans!” as Alice Dreger of the New York Times puts it). Now I’ve come to learn that it goes beyond all that. Now I know that certain human chromosomes and hormones can make even a woman with physical (visible) female organs a man biologically. That’s what takes weeks for scientists to prove and that’s proof that could be brought against Caster Semenya in the coming weeks.
Yet the argument remains, that even that scientific proof won’t seal a case against the South African girl. If hormone composition - not physical proof - should be considered an undue advantage, some have argued, why are girls, unnaturally as tall as boys or even taller, not disqualified from competing with fellow girls. And I’d add, that one advantage only brings another disadvantage. Semenya is clearly disadvantaged when it comes to feminine looks. When Miss Semenya’s age-mates are whistled and courted by naughty boys on street corners, the same boys surely mock at her for her mannish looks, more so perhaps, after the Berlin disgrace. So why shouldn’t she enjoy her muscles advantage in sport?
(And in some society, faced with now stigmatizing questions over her womanness, Miss Semenya could in a short while become Mr Semenya. She could be tempted to use her Berlin-earned dollars to undergo surgery that could add value to her handsome muscular body that even turns on some women, and thus become one of the world's famous homosexuals or transsexuals.)
A report on skynews.com said some placards by South African fans at Jo’burg airport this Tuesday read: "Casterology science of running", "Caster first lady of sport" and "100% female woman". Sarcastic words to shame detractors.
No less sarcastic than the listener who wrote to BBC Focus on Africa after Jamaican Ussain Bolt, another black sensation at the Athletics Championship, won his third gold in the 4X100 relay. The listener said he could carry out a test to prove Ussain was a horse, not a human being. And how Jamaicans, our African folks also had their share of Caucasian scorning for their astonishing showing at the Championship, beating the US at its traditional sprint events and only five medals short of the US catch! There were claims Jamaicans might have been bolstered by drugs. OK, marijuana is consumed openly in Jamaica, but there are routine tests to do. Check them or stay quiet. Don't be sore losers, OK? The Jamaican prime minister also announced plans for their heroic welcome.
So, it turns out, this is a tale of three home-comings.
This past week, two outcasts (well, an “outlaw” and an “outcast”) in the eyes of the dominant West and a world organization, were given vexing heroic home-coming receptions. As news reports carried the anger of the US and the UK over the popular reception given the “Lockerbie Bomber” Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi in his home country, another African, Caster Semenya of South Africa was receiving the trauma of her life prior to and after she had a clean win of the female 800m race in the World Athletics Championship in Berlin. She has today been given a heroine’s welcome (mind the precision – a heroine’s welcome, not a hero’s welcome – she’s a woman) in Johanesburg, South Africa. Like the “bomber”, the runner was also received by the head of state.
What they fail to remember is that a people's revival may begin somewhere, just somewhere, yet is it the revival of a people and who knows how far it would go? Here it's been sport. But they seem to have forgotten how Obama happened in a whirlwind that they couldn't hold back, tried how they did.
I’m going to seem supportive or condoning of two practices horrible to me: terrorism and homosexuality. (The place of the latter in this write up is not obvious this far.) If Abdelbaset dies three months from now of prostate cancer as his doctor predicts, he may not have the chance to go to a court of appeal to disprove his earlier conviction as the man who orchestrated the mid-air explosion of the US Pan-Am plane over Lockerbie in Scotland, UK in 1988 leaving 270 dead, most of them Americans. So he would die a convicted bomber.
And if he really is a terrorist, I have no business with him. I hate terrorists. They often kill with “spray bullets” harming even the innocent. I won’t want to be blown up in plane because a terrorist is targeting Yankees or Brits or Jews on board, most often their only crime being their origin. If they die and I die, we all died. My family mourns as theirs do. That’s not the only reason I hate terrorists. But that’s not the issue here.
The point here is the disclosure (revelation?) by the son of Kaddaffi (who should know), that trade interests were at the root of the “bomber’s” release on purported “compassionate grounds”. If nothing else, that disclosure comes to reinforce our increasing understanding that the dominant powers preach values but practise interests. Were it the case, why shouldn’t Libyans celebrate their government’s use of their own power – the power of their natural endowment – to counterbalance western arrogance? In their eyes, Abdelbaset was worth making Scotland (UK) defy “instructions” from the US. And that came within days of Switzerland’s apology to Libya (for similar reasons) for their “abusive” arrest, weeks ago, of Kaddaffi’s son.
And what if Libyans, rightly or wrongly, consider Abdelbaset an innocent victim of western victimization, convinced that following Abdelbaset’s appealing of his conviction, he remains innocent, shouldn't that be reason enough for their airport hurrays at the “bomber’s” arrival?
Caster Semenya
When controversy broke that the girl is a boy, voices rose from TV screens, radio sets and living rooms blasting racism. I felt so too, yet I was more bemused than angry. I found occasion to learn something new. I was wondering why all the fuss about an athlete’s gender when all they needed do was look at her genitals (sought of “forget the genes – pull down the jeans!” as Alice Dreger of the New York Times puts it). Now I’ve come to learn that it goes beyond all that. Now I know that certain human chromosomes and hormones can make even a woman with physical (visible) female organs a man biologically. That’s what takes weeks for scientists to prove and that’s proof that could be brought against Caster Semenya in the coming weeks.
Yet the argument remains, that even that scientific proof won’t seal a case against the South African girl. If hormone composition - not physical proof - should be considered an undue advantage, some have argued, why are girls, unnaturally as tall as boys or even taller, not disqualified from competing with fellow girls. And I’d add, that one advantage only brings another disadvantage. Semenya is clearly disadvantaged when it comes to feminine looks. When Miss Semenya’s age-mates are whistled and courted by naughty boys on street corners, the same boys surely mock at her for her mannish looks, more so perhaps, after the Berlin disgrace. So why shouldn’t she enjoy her muscles advantage in sport?
(And in some society, faced with now stigmatizing questions over her womanness, Miss Semenya could in a short while become Mr Semenya. She could be tempted to use her Berlin-earned dollars to undergo surgery that could add value to her handsome muscular body that even turns on some women, and thus become one of the world's famous homosexuals or transsexuals.)
A report on skynews.com said some placards by South African fans at Jo’burg airport this Tuesday read: "Casterology science of running", "Caster first lady of sport" and "100% female woman". Sarcastic words to shame detractors.
No less sarcastic than the listener who wrote to BBC Focus on Africa after Jamaican Ussain Bolt, another black sensation at the Athletics Championship, won his third gold in the 4X100 relay. The listener said he could carry out a test to prove Ussain was a horse, not a human being. And how Jamaicans, our African folks also had their share of Caucasian scorning for their astonishing showing at the Championship, beating the US at its traditional sprint events and only five medals short of the US catch! There were claims Jamaicans might have been bolstered by drugs. OK, marijuana is consumed openly in Jamaica, but there are routine tests to do. Check them or stay quiet. Don't be sore losers, OK? The Jamaican prime minister also announced plans for their heroic welcome.
So, it turns out, this is a tale of three home-comings.
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Obama To Boycott Racism Conference?
By Franklin Sone Bayen
Did you hear the US will be boycotting an international conference to address issues of racism in the world?
Take note, that boycott is taken by an administration over which Barack Obama presides, where the last decisions are taken by him, the son of a man from Africa, the continent that suffered the most from racial discrimination and other human crimes related to racial discrimination, including the trans-Atlantic slave trade, racial segregation in the US, and Apartheid in South Africa.
Obama himself testified he was object of some not-so-veiled racial prejudice from his own white grandmother who so loved him, yet could not hide her reservations about black people.
There are of course convincing arguments motivating this decision by Obama's administration, including their disapproval of the outright condemnation of Israel as a racist state because of its occupation of Palestine.
I'm personally more tolerant than many Africans of Israel's occupation of Palestine, which I consider strategic for Israel's survival until the necessary guarantees are laid out. Yet I'm hesitant to give any US administration a blank cheque to snub the rest of the world the way they did by walking out with Israel from the Durban (South Africa) conference in 2001.
Well, that should have been expected. That was the administration of George Bush Jr, the arrogant war-monger, who would throw his airs of superiority at anyone's face without any qualms.
But here now we have our own Obama. Can there be any better reminder than this excerpt from The Washington Post? "U.N. officials have urged the Obama administration to participate in the April conference on racism, saying that the election of the first African American president presents the United States with an opportunity to inspire other minorities and to highlight U.S. progress in the years since slavery was abolished and blacks were granted civil rights." (Saturday, February 28, 2009; Page A06) or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022702826.html
Has Obama read it?
Whatever the case, Obama knows the reality of racism and knows how it hurts. And whatever the case, although there may be a multitude of white technocrats at the State Department, reasoning white as they advise Obama on issues, are we not given to understand that the final decision comes down to our brother's Oval Office desk? That it takes him to decide, boycott or not.
So, if boycott the US will, even under Obama like under Bush, I warn you to begin to see reality beyond our election victory euphoria, that Obama is, after all, president of the United States of AMERICA.
Yes, millions of Americans proved they have turned a page from their racist past, they embraced Obama for who he is, not for what he is. They voted for him as president not based on the colour of his skin, but on the content of his character.
Yet, it is still Uncle Sam's country, especially within power circles; still very much Yankeeland. Obama may now hold executive powers, but there is more to it than meets the eye ruling a country like the US for someone like Obama. He doesn't always carry sway because there are still strong lobbies, breathing down his neck as he signs executive orders.
Strangely enough, Obama is proving to be up to the challenge with lobbyists as The Associated Press reports: "Obama challenges lobbyists to legislative duel" over his resolve to fulfil his campaign promises on healthcare reforms. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090228/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_lobbyists)
Obama, where are your muscles over racism?
That's still the way of the world. That's Africa for you. That's how it goes for the Blackman until we change it. Totally.
Did you hear the US will be boycotting an international conference to address issues of racism in the world?
Take note, that boycott is taken by an administration over which Barack Obama presides, where the last decisions are taken by him, the son of a man from Africa, the continent that suffered the most from racial discrimination and other human crimes related to racial discrimination, including the trans-Atlantic slave trade, racial segregation in the US, and Apartheid in South Africa.
Obama himself testified he was object of some not-so-veiled racial prejudice from his own white grandmother who so loved him, yet could not hide her reservations about black people.
There are of course convincing arguments motivating this decision by Obama's administration, including their disapproval of the outright condemnation of Israel as a racist state because of its occupation of Palestine.
I'm personally more tolerant than many Africans of Israel's occupation of Palestine, which I consider strategic for Israel's survival until the necessary guarantees are laid out. Yet I'm hesitant to give any US administration a blank cheque to snub the rest of the world the way they did by walking out with Israel from the Durban (South Africa) conference in 2001.
Well, that should have been expected. That was the administration of George Bush Jr, the arrogant war-monger, who would throw his airs of superiority at anyone's face without any qualms.
But here now we have our own Obama. Can there be any better reminder than this excerpt from The Washington Post? "U.N. officials have urged the Obama administration to participate in the April conference on racism, saying that the election of the first African American president presents the United States with an opportunity to inspire other minorities and to highlight U.S. progress in the years since slavery was abolished and blacks were granted civil rights." (Saturday, February 28, 2009; Page A06) or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022702826.html
Has Obama read it?
Whatever the case, Obama knows the reality of racism and knows how it hurts. And whatever the case, although there may be a multitude of white technocrats at the State Department, reasoning white as they advise Obama on issues, are we not given to understand that the final decision comes down to our brother's Oval Office desk? That it takes him to decide, boycott or not.
So, if boycott the US will, even under Obama like under Bush, I warn you to begin to see reality beyond our election victory euphoria, that Obama is, after all, president of the United States of AMERICA.
Yes, millions of Americans proved they have turned a page from their racist past, they embraced Obama for who he is, not for what he is. They voted for him as president not based on the colour of his skin, but on the content of his character.
Yet, it is still Uncle Sam's country, especially within power circles; still very much Yankeeland. Obama may now hold executive powers, but there is more to it than meets the eye ruling a country like the US for someone like Obama. He doesn't always carry sway because there are still strong lobbies, breathing down his neck as he signs executive orders.
Strangely enough, Obama is proving to be up to the challenge with lobbyists as The Associated Press reports: "Obama challenges lobbyists to legislative duel" over his resolve to fulfil his campaign promises on healthcare reforms. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090228/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_lobbyists)
Obama, where are your muscles over racism?
That's still the way of the world. That's Africa for you. That's how it goes for the Blackman until we change it. Totally.
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Join the African Voice Here
Everyone is planning something to save Africa. But is anyone listening to Africa? Does Africa have a say in the way things happen in the world? There is an African perspective to the things happening around the world. Some of Africa's views will be expressed and discussed on this blog.
Indeed Africa needs to be saved. But by who? Those who destroyed (are destroying) it? Those who conspired to allow it to be destroyed? Those who are waiting for the means to save it? Or those who simply have the will to save it?
Join the conversation on this blog.
Your African friend,
Sone Bayen
Indeed Africa needs to be saved. But by who? Those who destroyed (are destroying) it? Those who conspired to allow it to be destroyed? Those who are waiting for the means to save it? Or those who simply have the will to save it?
Join the conversation on this blog.
Your African friend,
Sone Bayen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)