[Ugnet] West blind to Zim's sucesses
West blind to Zims successes By Obi Egbuna in WASHINGTON D.C ON JULY 13 2007, a correspondent for the Washington Posts foreign service, Craig Timberg, wrote an article titled "In Zimbabwe fewer affairs and less HIV". Because of the anti-Mugabe slant of his work, Timberg received front-page coverage, a distinction very few journalists can say they have accomplished in their careers as reporters. This article validated the assertion and sentiments pro-Mugabe supporters worldwide maintain, that the propaganda war being waged by the West in an attempt to discredit and isolate Zimbabwe knows no bounds or parameters. Timberg highlighted a discussion he had with a mathematics teacher by the name of Thomas Muza whom he said recounted his struggle in trying to support his wife and mistress on a teachers salary. While Timberg apparently couldnt resist the temptation of magnifying what he considered decadent behaviour, his motivation for incorporating this in the story should never be mistaken for journalistic integrity or commitment to Western family values. If Timberg chose to, he could have discussed how Zimbabwes Ministry of Health and Child Welfare prioritises HIV and Aids prevention with priority on behavioural change. This is extremely significant because most African countries focus on treatment and care due to limited resources. Timberg also conveniently omitted Zimbabwes National Aids Levy, the only one of its kind the world over, that benefits child-headed households, support groups for people living with HIV and Aids, and patients on home-based care. Because the Washington Post foreign service office that covers the Sadc region is based in South Africa, and Washingtons political muscle has failed to convince countries in the region that it would be "advantageous" to betray Zimbabwe, articles aimed at downplaying President Mugabe and Zanu-PFs significant achievements should never surprise Africans at home or abroad. Timberg claimed "Zimbabwes experience shows that the connection between Aids and economics is not nearly so straightforward". A sweeping indictment of this nature gave him the luxury of not informing the millions of people who read his article, that when Zimbabwes applications to the Global Aids Fund for rounds 2, 3, 4,and 6 were denied, the decision was made by former United States health secretary Tommy Thompson and his British counterpart Richard Feacham, who were the Funds chair and executive directors. Both men were living up to the mandates from their respective governments instead of the mandate of the Fund, which aims to assist all people in need of resources. Timberg went on to talk about how the 18,1 percent HIV prevalence in Zimbabwe is higher than all but five countries in the world, instead of informing his readers that the 15 percent decline in HIV/Aids cases in Zimbabwe is one of only three success stories in Africa, and the most rapid. Timberg also ignored the fact that Zimbabwes blood transfusion programme became a training centre in collaboration with the World Health Organisation, that resulted from the initiative taken by President Mugabes Government when the first HIV/Aids case was identified 22 years ago. In addition to failing to highlight the genocidal implications of using humanitarian aid as a political weapon against Zimbabwe, Timberg failed to inform his readers that Zimbabwes land reform programme was the motivating factor for the Western policy of using HIV and Aids funds as a weapon against President Mugabe. The fact that the development agencies representing Canada, Sweden and Denmark, who were on the ground in Zimbabwe doing HIV/Aids support projects, all informed the Minister of Health and Child Welfare, Dr David Parirenyatwa, that they were instructed by their respective governments to leave Zimbabwe, speaks volumes about the Western worlds "compassion" for Africa. If Timberg spoke to Dr Parirenyatwa, he would have learnt that the World Food Programmes commitment to assist Zimbabwe is because of the progress being made by his ministry and the National Aids Council another example of how self-determination stemming from the Third Chimurenga goes beyond the political realm in Zimbabwe. While George W. Bushs emergency plan for Aids relief excluded Zimbabwe, the William J. Clinton Foundation sponsors 10 000 HIV and Aids orphans after initially refusing to provide assistance until it discovered Zimbabwes commitment to the eradication of HIV/Aids. The timing of Timbergs article was not coincidental. During the Congressional Black Caucus Health Brain Trust meetings in September 2006 and May 2007, many of the health advocacy organisations in attendance discussed how they had ignored the increase of HIV and Aids in our communities in the US because of too much focus on Africa. This explains why Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California, who chairs CBCs Brain Trust on
[Ugnet] S Leone opposition unites after winning Parliament
S Leone opposition unites after winning ParliamentKatrina
Manson | Freetown, Sierra Leone 25 August 2007 07:17
DisplayDCAd('220x240','1','');
Sierra Leone's main opposition parties will campaign jointly against
Vice-President Solomon Berewa in a presidential run-off after taking control of
the West African country's Parliament, a party chief said on Friday.
The move puts All People's Congress (APC) leader Ernest Bai Koroma in position
to succeed outgoing President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, amid calls for change and
faster reconstruction after a 1991 to 2002 civil war.
Veteran politician Charles Margai, who defected from Kabbah's Sierra Leone
People's Party (SLPP) when it chose Berewa as candidate, said he would throw
his People's Movement for Democratic Change (PMDC) behind Koroma on a joint
campaign tour.
Koroma won 44,3% of votes in the August 11 presidential election, short of the
55% needed to avoid a run-off, according to provisional results announced late
on Thursday.
Berewa won 38,3 % and Margai 13,9%.
PMDC endorsement will likely hand the northerner Koroma extra support in the
southern part of the country -- Margai's home and also the traditional
heartland of SLPP support.
The SLPP performed best in the south, failing to win a single parliamentary
seat in the western region around the capital, Freetown, and only a few in the
north, handing a parliamentary majority to Koroma's APC with 59 of the 112
seats.
'End tribalism'
"Let us put all tribalism, sectionalism, regionalism behind us. My desire to
unify this nation was one of the factors that urged me to appeal to the
membership of the PMDC to lend support to the APC. Never again will the
north/south-eastern divide raise its ugly head in Sierra Leone," Margai told
reporters on Friday.
Margai said his own party's constitution barred him from taking up any post in
an APC government, but said the PMDC would campaign jointly with the Koroma's
APC to defeat Berewa.
"I'm sure he has seen the writing on the wall ... He knows defeat is imminent.
The people of Sierra Leone have spoken that they want change," Margai said.
Koroma's spokesperson urged Berewa late on Thursday to concede and save the
impoverished country the expense of a second round.
But Berewa's camp rejected the call, insisting it would fight the run-off,
which should take place within two weeks of the final results announcement, due
on Saturday.
"We will absolutely win the presidential second round run-off," SLPP
spokesperson Victor Reider said.
"We feel great today. We think that the credit should go to a government that
is law-abiding, that has been able to engender a democratic process such that
the opposition has won the Parliament. That is to our credit," Reider said.
"What we have done in the last five years the APC failed to do in 24 years," he
said.
The APC ruled the former British colony for more than two decades before the
war, which was sparked in part by widespread official corruption and funded by
diamonds which rebels mined and sold to buy guns via neighbouring Liberia. --
Reuters
-
All new Yahoo! Mail
-
Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.___
Ugandanet mailing list
Ugandanet@kym.net
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
% UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---
[Ugnet] Fwd: New policy may not strengthen the naira - former CBN director
Africare- NewPublications <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:39:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Africare- NewPublications <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Fwd: New policy may not strengthen the naira - former CBN director Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:16:39 -0400 Subject: New policy may not strengthen the naira - former CBN director THE NATION 'New policy may not strengthen the naira - former CBN director 26/8/2007 The new policy talked about by the governor of Central Bank is only new now, it has not been a new thing. I remember that at the Nigerian Economic Society (NES) meeting at Shiroro Hotel in Minna, Niger State in 1990, my group, worked on how to solve this problem of naira nose diving. An idea came up: why can't we not have another naira, as we did in 1984, a new naira which will actually exchange for the old naira. At that particular time, the rate of a dollar to naira was N8.0378. That was what naira was exchanging per dollar. So, the new naira note will now be exchanged for the old naira. So, that was the idea. But you see another discussion that came up is this: is it not better to look at what caused the nose diving of the currency? Perhaps, a better answer could be found there. And then we discovered that it is due to fiscal profligacy of the government; government spending too much more than what it can generate in form of revenue. You see, the simple quantity theory of money in economics actually states that, when you are pumping out more money than the level of domestic transaction, the price will go up, the exchange rate would fall. And that's exactly what happened. You see, most of the time, when the legitimacy of government is doubted, it may never be able to go ahead to tax people, because people will not pay tax. So, what they (government) only does is to use another approach of taxation to get money from the people. How? They pump more money into the system. And when they pump money into the system, with the same level of goods and transaction remaining constant, then you have actually deflated the value of money people are holding. If I'm having N100 with me before and I can buy 100 goods but when more money is available in the system say about N200 with the goods level remaining at 100, that means the money will be able to buy 100 goods. at the rate of N100; I will now only be able to buy just 50 as against the 100 at the initial stage. So, you have taxed me by reducing the value of the money I'm holding by half as a result of government pumping money into the system. Most of the time, government uses the instrumentality of going to the Central Bank to borrow money from the public, via Treasury Bill. When they buy or they wish to buy from the public, at a specified rate and the public is not willing to buy the government instrument, that's the Treasury Bills, then the Federal Government mandates the Central Bank to buy same. So, when the Central Bank buys for the Federal Government, what do they do? They credit the account of the Federal Government and at the end of three months, when the Treasury Bills mature, the Federal Government will pay back to Central Bank that bought for it. The Central Bank will collect the money and pay the public that bought Treasury Bills including interest. Now the interest on treasury bills at times can be as high as a very huge money and at the end of the year, that interest, which is now called operating surplus, will now go to the account of the Federal Government. So, government now instructing the Central Bank to sell Treasury Bills for them so that they can get money from the public, it is the same government that is now having access to the interest that is being collected. That is cheap money. In economics, we call that money creation. There have been a lot of money creation into the system over a long time through the use of Treasury Bills. Now if Solodu goes ahead to implement this programme, what is the evidence that the government will caution itself and it will not spend too much again as to be able to lead to another depression that may lead to the devaluation of the naira, there is no evidence. You are familiar with the Nigerian environment. Look at the number of past state governors that have problems now, spending anyhow, people carrying lots of money outside the country. So the spending may likely continue. So that method (the new policy regime) may not be able to solve the problem of naira nose diving. That may not be the solution. So that is my fear. Unless you caution the government that is actually the originator, the formulator and then the implementor of this policy, in terms of the value of the money going down, we will never be able to use that method which Soludo is talking about to be able to get an appropriate and good value of naira. Is this policy driven by what other countri
[Ugnet] Fwd: The Africans Of My Youth
Africare- NewPublications <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:15:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Africare- NewPublications <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Fwd: The Africans Of My Youth Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:33:03 - Subject: The Africans Of My Youth The Africans Of My Youth By Sabella Ogbobode Abidde If you need to reach me you may do so by clicking here; but please, do not ask me about religion. I get the evil look every time I tell people I am an agnostic who teeters on atheism. My world resolves around ethics and the rule of law. That's it. I have no use for religion: religious convictions are not part of my existence -- the laws of man are good enough for me. I have lived in several cities: Seattle, Miami, Norman, Minneapolis- Saint Paul, Saint Cloud, the District of Columbia, Houston, and Mankato. I am not sure where I am going to live next. And I have never really had a profession, only jobs: been a cook, a dishwasher, a civil servant, house cleaner, university instructor and researcher and so on and so forth. Every so often I get questions concerning the role and place of the African woman. Well, I don't know; at least not with any certainty. What seems to work best is when both partners work as a team: cooperate, coordinate and collaborate their marital efforts. And they should be mindful of the insidious effect of modernization on the African family. "One generation plants the trees, and another gets the shade" (Chinese Proverb) During my formative years in Lagos, Ilorin, and Jos, people, places, culture and politics were all part of my everyday existence. Especially people. And so people are at the center of this treatise. Forgive me if I profusely effuse over the Africans of my youth. Forgive me if I sound too nostalgic. Forgive me I idolize them and idealize a time that once was, but now seem to be on the passing. I grew up at a time when giants roamed the African continent. I grew up at a time when -- to borrow a popular parlance -- "men were men." These were persons of high intellect and strong persona. And even those lacking formal schooling walked and spoke as though they were products of Makerere, Ibadan, Harvard Cambridge, Ife, and other great institutions. Most were charismatic, introspective. And most were large, and in some cases, larger than life. Comparing then and now, one could say "nature and nurture" no longer create such men (and their female counterparts) in great numbers. Although a few of such personalities are still around, their numbers are dwindling. My guess is that most Africans, of admirable standing, now live in the West. Ronald Wilson Reagan it was who said "Each generation goes further than the generation preceding it because it stands on the shoulders of that generation." Forgive my sense of disillusionment, and hyperbolic language; I am inclined to think Africa of the last fifteen years will be hard-pressed to name two hundred Africans, living in Africa, who are of the same or comparable in status to those of yesteryears. The newer generations seem not to have measured up to the previous ones. Perhaps the values and priorities are different; perhaps times are different. That said; it is not lost on me that every generation has its own heroes and heroines, bastards, beacons, crooks and vagabonds. And indeed, every generation has its distinctive culture and value system. Let me say, here and now, that the Africans I have in mind were not gods or saints. In fact, most made very bad political mistakes. But that's not what I am after; this is not about their failings and shorts comings. I'll leave that to others to write and talk about. This is about a group of people who stirred my soul and made me think and wonder; this is about a group of people I was fond of: a group of men and women, scattered all over the continent, whose deeds, talents, courage and pronouncements gave me the impetus to imagine life's endless possibilities. In spite of its follies and foibles, the Africa of my youth was a nourishing estate. This is about a group of men and women who secured our independence. This is about Africans who were proud to be Africans. This is about men and women who walked the unknown path despite its challenges, and who crossed stormy seas and spiked tributaries in search of our liberty. These are Africans who gave their lives just so we may live, go forth, and prosper. Others were singers and song writers, painters, lawyers, members of the armed forces, and of various vocation and avocation. They touched my life and the lives of my friends, my equals, and the public. In the Nigeria of my youth, we read about these men in the pages of the dailies, books and magazines; and were also told about them by the grownups. I don't remember them all now, but I do now remember Amílcar Cabral, Adu Boahen, Agostinho Neto, Kingsley Ozuomba Mbadiwe, Jomo Kenyatta, Patrice Lumumba, Samo
[Ugnet] EA Federal President
East African president; why I nominate Annan, Mbeki August 27, 2007 During my August 22 interview on VOAs Straight Talk Africa I proposed that, to expedite union, a non-East African could serve as the first President. I mentioned former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan or South African President Thabo Mbeki, whose term soon expires, as eminent excellent candidates. While there are qualified East Africans, my proposal was meant to deal with what I believe to be the root of Tanzanians fears about fast-tracking political integration: some of the current rulers have more political baggage than others. East Africans are aware that we lost a golden opportunity when Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, Jomo Kenyatta, and Apollo Milton Obote could not attain dreams of a federated East Africa. Had the Kampala Agreement of 1964, intended to ameliorate the issue of uneven industrial development, been ratified by Kenya, East Africa could be a roaring economic tiger, with richer nationals. A federated executive, presiding over East Africas 120 million plus citizens and $35 to $40 billion GDP would instantly enhance our ability to improve terms of trade with the West. Like other East Africans, Tanzanians support economic integration. Inequitable industrial development, the albatross since 1960s, can be redressed through industrial policies. But with fast-tracking political integration, there is no telling which one of the current rulers could end up as Federal President. Kenyas Mwai Kibaki, who heads the regions most industrialised economy, has stellar credentials for having combated Arap Mois tyranny. His liabilities include advanced age, 75, and persistent reports that massive corruption hasnt been tamed. Rwandas Paul Kagame and Burundis Pierre Nkurunziza both preside over countries emerging from cataclysmic ethnic conflict. As Federal Presidents, might they not spend too much time focusing on consolidating their countries modest stability gains? Tanzanias Jakaya Kikwete, for long foreign minister of a stable country, has the least baggage. While being the most attractive candidate, he could be accused of relative inexperience. However, too much experience can be a liability. Ugandas Yoweri Museveni boasts 20 years in power; he has accumulated the most baggage. The modus operandi [merits] that have helped Museveni collect his suitcases are preference for militarism and a disdain for democracy. This modus operandi won him power in 1986; the same propelled him into destructive military adventures in Rwanda and Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Congo baggage may yet catch up; since the International Criminal Court (ICC) has confirmed that its investigating the alleged massive atrocities in DR Congos Ituri region while it was occupied by Uganda, the possibility of indictments, including Musevenis, cant be ruled out, damaging his prospects for Federal Presidency. Museveni affirmed his anti-democratic credentials most recently when he jettisoned Ugandas Constitutional presidential term limits. Even then, many Ugandans believe that despite widespread rigging, opposition leader Dr Kizza Besigye won. Eminent Africans such as Annan or Mbeki -or a comparable East African with similar stature- would alleviate all the fears about presidential baggages. Annan or Mbeki would preside over one interim period, whose term could be shorter than a normal five-year allotment. Moreover, jealousy and rivalry amongst the current presidents, all of whom certainly want the distinction of being the first Federal President, would become a moot issue. Once the interim Federal Presidency starts, the current presidents would resign. They could become candidates for the Federal Presidency, like any other interested citizen and campaign for votes. All qualified candidates would get equal funding and media time. Moreover, each candidate would only contest for votes from other member countries, except their own, in the first round. So, should Kikwete run for the Federal Presidency, only ballots cast in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi, would count towards his total in the first round. Similarly, a candidate from Uganda would rely on votes from other member countries except Uganda. The two leading candidates then contest head-to-head in a second round. The formula compels candidates to develop a true Pan-East African socio-economic and political programme in order to campaign effectively. A young Ugandan harbouring future political ambition might see value in living in Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi, at some stage in his or her life, and bonding with nationals there. Lets not squander this second golden opportunity to create a Great East Africa. Mr Allimadi is publisher of New York-based The Black Star News [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Michael BWambuga wa Balo
[Ugnet] Who mainly constituted SRB says Maj Gen Zed Maruru
...I don't think he ordered all the killings. It is interesting when they say most of the State Research Bureau boys were Nubians, but they were Banyarwanda. They were literally mercenaries. And I am not sure they are not back in [today's] Internal Security Organisation. ... How former air force boss fled Amin's hatchet squad Maj. Gen. Zeddy Maruru, a retired air force senior pilot, spoke to Rodney Muhumuza for this continuation of the first part of a new series in which senior citizens tell their story and experiences about the governments under which they worked. Here he recounts how he managed to escape arrest by Amin's State Research Bureau agents Maj. Gen. Zeddy Maruru One morning in 1977, I decided to go and live in Kamwezi, Kabale, near the Rwanda border. I stayed there for three days, not knowing that State Research Bureau operatives would arrive on the day I left. NARROW ESCAPE: Maruru during the interview. Photo by Uthman Kiyaga I had told my workers I was going on safari. When I came back after three days, I drove straight away to my cousin's house as I was still building mine. As I approached my cousin's home, his wife emerged from the house. She knew the sound of my car and I noticed there was something strange. My cousin had gone into hiding after State Research Bureau agents were advised by local Muslims to arrest my cousin if they wanted to know my whereabouts. He had walked almost up to Ishaka [about 120kms], got transport to Kasese, before connecting to Kampala. I took a panya route [village path] and went to my parents' home, where I damped the car and went to Kabale town. I had a few friends who advised and promised to help me sneak into Rwanda, but I knew well enough that State Research Bureau boys manned the borders. I decided to come back to Kampala in disguise. I avoided using the taxi park and fortunately I saw [Lt. Col] William Ndahendekire, who was the chairman of Uganda Development Corporation. I walked up to him and told him I had a transport problem. He took me to his house, went back to town and returned later for lunch. He then gave me a lift to Kampala, where my wife, who was working in National Housing, was staying in the Bukoto Flats. She had been chased from our home in Kololo. I went to her flat and lay low as I organised myself. I was in that flat for nine days, and my car had been brought from the village for sale. I wanted to give it to my brother, but we had to transfer ownership. And it was a requirement that both buyer and seller must present themselves at the revenue office. Luckily enough, I found the licensing officer was my old boy at Ntare School. I quickly told him I couldn't be around any more than I had done. I signed something quickly and left through the backdoor. I headed to the railway station, where I took a taxi to Bukoto. There, I picked only my luggage, a briefcase, and went to the Law Development Centre in Makerere. When my brother left the licensing office, he found State Research Bureau boys had surrounded the vehicle. The car was parked outside. They asked him where the owner of the car was and he told them he had bought it long ago. But they were so illiterate that they could not ask for the logbook to see that the transfer had been done that day. They were confused and they let him go. They rushed to Bukoto and laid an ambush near my wife's flat. Immediately my wife entered the flat and switched on the lights, they came. They asked for me, saying I was not in the village and my car was in town. They looked for me everywhere and luckily enough they did not harass her. I spent the night at LDC and at 6 a.m. I was in the taxi park heading to Jinja and later to Tororo, where I had a sister who was married to the headmaster of Tororo Girls' School. I told her it was time to leave the country. I contacted somebody I knew in Customs who promised to help. I spent the night in Tororo, my Customs' contact having told me he would pick me at 8.30 a.m. the following morning. We drove up to Malaba border post. He left me in the car. I could see policemen and State Research Bureau agents moving around, but I had all sorts of guises. When he came back, we continued from immigration to police, where he leaned out of the car window and said we were going for a drink at Malaba Safari Hotel, just across the border. There was no beer in Uganda anyway. When we crossed the bridge, we indeed went for a drink at the Safari Hotel. I left Uganda without an exit visa, but I was given an entry visa on the Kenyan side, as they understood what was happening in Uganda. Just as I was at the immigration, a Tanzanian friend who was working at the East African Development Bank was also going to Nairobi. He was alone in the car and he gave me a lift to Nakuru, where we had lunch. We spoke on many issues except why I was leaving Uganda. It was at Nakuru that
[Ugnet] BUGANDA'S TROUBLES IS ITS ELITES, NOT UGANDA
Buganda's Troubles Is Its Elites, Not Uganda By Ocii Okelloruk August 26, 2007 In my previous write-up on the question of Secession and Reconciliation I pointed out why Uganda is as she is today, mainly due to the heinous political actions by Baganda elites, thus: a). Their irresponsible connivance to bring Dr. Obote governments down: i). Ibingira's non-confidence vote; ii). KY's ultimatum, 'Dr. Obote move off Buganda soil with his new government'. 2). Using army officers to overthrow Dr. Obote I & II governments - attempt to assassinate the president notwithstanding. 3). Colluding with Museveni in the bush war, to overthrow Dr. Obote II government. All these are political maneouvers that have led to the country's collapse. Continuous glossing over these actions by Uganda political elites generally, so not to point accusing finger to appear politically correct, is a disservice to the nation. Uganda is not going to see stability and economic growth, because Ugandan political elites do not point accusing fingers.The reality teaches the opposite. And if anything, the state of the nation will even get worse unless and until brave men and women begin to shed off the culture of silence and ignorance, and brave uncharted waters, boldly pointing accusing fingers whenever and where it is required, with the ultimate goal to bring to an end, political buffoonery of which the most dangerous consequences is the sea of illiterate and unskilled human resources the country has today beside ethnic jingoism. Of late, like I have pointed out in my earlier write-up, there seems to be outpouring calls by some Baganda elites for Buganda to secede from Uganda. To most of these elites, the marriage between Buganda and the rest of Uganda is not working. At stake is the question of the 9000 sq mile of supposedly the monarchy land now under control of the central government. How much land from other regions, are under control of the central government does not seem to be of any concern to these Baganda elites. All they look for; all they have ever looked for, since the formation of the country, that they helped create while working diligently as agents of colonialists, is Buganda interests, even when what they do causes grieves, suffering, and in some cases deaths of other fellow country men, women, and children. To the myopic Baganda elites, all else are irrelevant save Buganda so called "special" status, federo, or outright secession! No one ethnic group that now comprise Ugandans came to Buganda in 1900 and signed any agreement with her to form what is now Uganda. All protection agreements signed between the various Kingdoms, that culminated into the formation of the country, were signed with the British. It was those agreements that made Uganda a British protectorate, not the signatories between Buganda and the rest of other ethnic groups. Of the groups that signed the protection agreements were the Baganda, Ankole, and Batoro. The Basoga with their Kyabazinga were ignored. The rest of other ethnic groups covering the East to the North were forcefully brought into this new country by the Baganda agents in cahoots with their colonial masters. The Banyoro lost two counties in the process. If today the likes of Hon. Beti Kamya thinks the marriage is not working, then they must first tell us what marriage! What agreement did Baganda sign with any other ethnic groups comprising Ugandans that led to the establishment of the country? Is there a document these Baganda elites can produce so that maybe Ugandans can happily engage in debating whether the marriage is working or not such that Buganda is let go? The pre-independent agreement with the British, several years after Baganda colonial agents helped create the country, that led to independent, only sugested a future federal status for Buganda. The operative word here is "future". The suggestion therefore was not and is not binding even today, to warrant any calls by some Baganda elites, for secession. Dr. Obote even bent over backward to allow Buganda special status. Why would Buganda be granted special status and not all the other ethnic groups? Even worse, Baganda have never appreciated Dr. Obote for granting them special status albeit briefly. All they were and are still hankering for is their lackey position, as colonialists' agents, presiding over other ethnic groups; acquiring resources from their regions to enrich themselves and Buganda. Anything short of that, the marriage is not working, and Buganda must secede! Quite frankly this is the mentality that has killed Africa. Many times one comes across a couple of buffoons scheming to become "independent" from other Africans, but the same buffoons would pay absolutely no attention to a foreigner, like European or Asian, displacing them from their land. How much land have whites bought in Buganda today that has led to the displacement of the ordinary ind
[Ugnet] Buganda's Troubles Is Its Elites, Not Uganda
Buganda's Troubles Is Its Elites, Not Uganda By Ocii Okelloruk August 26, 2007 In my previous write-up on the question of Secession and Reconciliation I pointed out why Uganda is as she is today, mainly due to the heinous political actions by Baganda elites, thus: a). Their irresponsible connivance to bring Dr. Obote governments down: i). Ibingira's non-confidence vote; ii). KY's ultimatum, 'Dr. Obote move off Buganda soil with his new government'. 2). Using army officers to overthrow Dr. Obote I & II governments - attempt to assassinate the president notwithstanding. 3). Colluding with Museveni in the bush war, to overthrow Dr. Obote II government. All these are political maneouvers that have led to the country's collapse. Continuous glossing over these actions by Uganda political elites generally, so not to point accusing finger to appear politically correct, is a disservice to the nation. Uganda is not going to see stability and economic growth, because Ugandan political elites do not point accusing fingers.The reality teaches the opposite. And if anything, the state of the nation will even get worse unless and until brave men and women begin to shed off the culture of silence and ignorance, and brave uncharted waters, boldly pointing accusing fingers whenever and where it is required, with the ultimate goal to bring to an end, political buffoonery of which the most dangerous consequences is the sea of illiterate and unskilled human resources the country has today beside ethnic jingoism. Of late, like I have pointed out in my earlier write-up, there seems to be outpouring calls by some Baganda elites for Buganda to secede from Uganda. To most of these elites, the marriage between Buganda and the rest of Uganda is not working. At stake is the question of the 9000 sq mile of supposedly the monarchy land now under control of the central government. How much land from other regions, are under control of the central government does not seem to be of any concern to these Baganda elites. All they look for; all they have ever looked for, since the formation of the country, that they helped create while working diligently as agents of colonialists, is Buganda interests, even when what they do causes grieves, suffering, and in some cases deaths of other fellow country men, women, and children. To the myopic Baganda elites, all else are irrelevant save Buganda so called "special" status, federo, or outright secession! No one ethnic group that now comprise Ugandans came to Buganda in 1900 and signed any agreement with her to form what is now Uganda. All protection agreements signed between the various Kingdoms, that culminated into the formation of the country, were signed with the British. It was those agreements that made Uganda a British protectorate, not the signatories between Buganda and the rest of other ethnic groups. Of the groups that signed the protection agreements were the Baganda, Ankole, and Batoro. The Basoga with their Kyabazinga were ignored. The rest of other ethnic groups covering the East to the North were forcefully brought into this new country by the Baganda agents in cahoots with their colonial masters. The Banyoro lost two counties in the process. If today the likes of Hon. Beti Kamya thinks the marriage is not working, then they must first tell us what marriage! What agreement did Baganda sign with any other ethnic groups comprising Ugandans that led to the establishment of the country? Is there a document these Baganda elites can produce so that maybe Ugandans can happily engage in debating whether the marriage is working or not such that Buganda is let go? The pre-independent agreement with the British, several years after Baganda colonial agents helped create the country, that led to independent, only sugested a future federal status for Buganda. The operative word here is "future". The suggestion therefore was not and is not binding even today, to warrant any calls by some Baganda elites, for secession. Dr. Obote even bent over backward to allow Buganda special status. Why would Buganda be granted special status and not all the other ethnic groups? Even worse, Baganda have never appreciated Dr. Obote for granting them special status albeit briefly. All they were and are still hankering for is their lackey position, as colonialists' agents, presiding over other ethnic groups; acquiring resources from their regions to enrich themselves and Buganda. Anything short of that, the marriage is not working, and Buganda must secede! Quite frankly this is the mentality that has killed Africa. Many times one comes across a couple of buffoons scheming to become "independent" from other Africans, but the same buffoons would pay absolutely no attention to a foreigner, like European or Asian, displacing them from their land. How much land have whites bought in Buganda today that has led to the
[Ugnet] 'I feel grossly violated enough to seek justice'
'I feel grossly violated enough to seek justice' THE cocktail of travel and illegal economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the EU, the US and their allies have been condemned by progressive people the world over. Former UN secretary general Kofi Annan, the Non-Aligned Movement, Comesa, and Sadc, to mention a few, have called for the lifting of the ruinous sanctions but the Western rabble-rousers have, however, refused to heed the calls. This week, Senator Aguy Clement Georgias, who has previously written to the British and American governments about the sanctions, decided to take the bull by the horns by launching a legal challenge against London in the British High Court. The Herald caught up with Sen Georgias to discuss his landmark lawsuit among other issues. QUESTION: Senator Georgias, you are taking the British government to court over the sanctions the EU imposed on Zimbabwe. Can you tell our readers what motivated the lawsuit? ANSWER: Put simply on May 26 I was refused leave to enter or transit through the United Kingdom en route to New York where I was to receive an international award on behalf of my company Trinity Engineering, Pvt. Ltd. The grounds of refusal, as stated by the immigration officials, are that my name appeared on the list of persons banned by the European Union from travelling or transiting through EU member states as part of the sanctions, or as they call them restrictive measures on Zimbabwe. I am therefore challenging, the British government on this and seeking damages for the inhuman treatment I received at the hands of the immigration officials. Q: What are the main arguments you raise in your legal challenge? A: The matter is now before the courts and I therefore cannot discuss this matter in greater detail. In short the sanctions are imposed by the EU and enforced by the UK in this instance, violate my individual rights, the rules of distinction and are therefore a violation of human rights. I feel grossly violated enough to seek justice. I have repeatedly stated that the EU sanctions on Zimbabwe are wrongful and misplaced in so far as they impact negatively, the lives of ordinary people with serious contagion on a whole sub-region. The legal basis of my challenge is the unjustifiable inclusion of my name on the travel ban list against a broader challenge to the validity, legality and justification of the harsh EU sanctions. Q: It appears you are challenging only the travel ban on government leaders. Does this mean there are no other sanctions apart from the travel ban? A: The travel ban on Government leaders, on its own is not as significant in terms of impacting the national economy. It is the restrictions on financial resources, access to lines of credit and balance of payments support that are having the deleterious effect on the economy and causing hardships. Remember London is the world's banking capital with the major banks and leading financial institutions all headquartered there. Albion, through the bank of England, is therefore key. I find it sickening that the EU and some quarters are singing the mantra that there are no economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe. Even some sections of the local media appear dissonant on this fact. If one cares to find out you will see that measures being taken against Zimbabwe are not a new foreign policy tool for the EU. These measures have been applied in many other countries that the EU have sought to manipulate. This is why the EU appears recalcitrant on Zimbabwe despite the undertaking to continually review the impact of their sanctions on us. The argument that the sanctions are targeted is hollow, considering the economic malaise on Zimbabwe. Suffice it to say I am challenging the entire EU sanctions. Q: You filed your lawsuit on Tuesday August 21, has the British government responded to your challenge? A: They have, but I cannot discuss this issue in any meaningful detail as the matter is now before the courts, I do not want to say anything that may be prejudicial to my case. I am sure you will be able to follow and report on the litigation once the court hearing begins. Q: Are you also going to go for the Americans in light of their sanctions law, the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act? A: I already have gone for the Americans. Last year I wrote, as a businessman and interested citizen, before my appointment in Government, to the US Congressional leaders, in the Senate and House of Representatives as well as the Black Congressional Caucus to appeal for the lifting of sanctions. But if you mean going to them by way of legal challenge in the courts then the answer is I have not considered that course of action yet. This is not to say the US sanctions have a lesser effect on the economy. To the extent that the US sanctions are explicit in terms of banning financial support for Zimbabwe from multilateral agencies in which the
