Friday, March 25, 2011

Uganda's Museveni on Libya's Gaddafi and the West

Yoweri K. Museveni is President of the Republic of Uganda. This article was originally published in Uganda’s New Vision newspaper. Full copy:

First published: Friday, 25 March 2011; 11:37 GMT
Museveni on Gaddafi and the West
By President Yoweri Museveni, Uganda

BY THE time Muammar Gaddaffi came to power in 1969, I was a third-year university student at Dar-es-Salaam. We welcomed him because he was in the tradition of Col. Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt who had a nationalist and pan-Arabist position.

Soon, however, problems cropped up with Col. Gaddafi as far as Uganda and Black Africa were concerned. Idi Amin came to power with the support of Britain and Israel because they thought he was uneducated enough to be used by them. Amin, however, turned against his sponsors when they refused to sell him guns to fight Tanzania.

Unfortunately, Col. Muammar Gaddafi, without getting enough information about Uganda, jumped in to support Idi Amin. This was because Amin was a ‘Moslem’ and Uganda was a ‘Moslem country’ where Moslems were being ‘oppressed’ by Christians. Amin killed a lot of people extra-judicially and Gaddafi was identified with these mistakes.

In 1972 and 1979, Gaddafi sent Libyan troops to defend Idi Amin when we attacked him. I remember a Libyan Tupolev 22 bomber trying to bomb us in Mbarara in 1979. The bomb ended up in Nyarubanga because the pilots were scared. They could not come close to bomb properly. We had already shot-down many Amin MIGs using surface-to-air missiles.

The Tanzanian brothers and sisters were doing much of this fighting. Many Libyan militias were captured and repatriated to Libya by Tanzania. This was a big mistake by Gaddafi and a direct aggression against the people of Uganda and East Africa.

The second big mistake by Gaddafi was his position vis-à-vis the African Union (AU) Continental Government “now”. Since 1999, he has been pushing this position. Black people are always polite. They, normally, do not want to offend other people. This is called ‘obufura’ in Runyankore, mwolo in Luo – handling, especially strangers, with care and respect.

It seems some of the non-African cultures do not have ‘obufura’. You can witness a person talking to a mature person as if he or she is talking to a kindergarten child. “You should do this; you should do that; etc.”

We tried to politely point out to Col. Gaddafi that this was difficult in the short and medium term. We should, instead, aim at the Economic Community of Africa and, where possible, also aim at Regional Federations. Col. Gaddafi would not relent. He would not respect the rules of the AU. Something that has been covered by previous meetings would be resurrected by Gaddafi. He would ‘overrule’ a decision taken by all other African Heads of State. Some of us were forced to come out and oppose his wrong position and, working with others, we repeatedly defeated his illogical position.

The third mistake has been the tendency by Col. Gaddafi to interfere in the internal affairs of many African countries using the little money Libya has compared to those countries. One blatant example was his involvement with cultural leaders of Black Africa – kings, chiefs, etc. Since the political leaders of Africa had refused to back his project of an African Government, Gaddafi, incredibly, thought that he could by-pass them and work with these kings to implement his wishes.

I warned Gaddafi in Addis Ababa that action would be taken against any Ugandan king that involved himself in politics because it was against our Constitution. I moved a motion in Addis Ababa to expunge from the records of the AU all references to kings (cultural leaders) who had made speeches in our forum because they had been invited there illegally by Col. Gaddafi.

The fourth big mistake was by most of the Arab leaders, including Gaddafi to some extent. This was in connection with the long suffering people of Southern Sudan. Many of the Arab leaders either supported or ignored the suffering of the black people in that country. This unfairness always created tension and friction between us and the Arabs, including Gaddafi to some extent.

However, I must salute H.E. Gaddafi and H.E. Hosni Mubarak for travelling to Khartoum just before the Referendum in Sudan and advising H.E. Bashir to respect the results of that exercise.

Sometimes Gaddafi and other Middle Eastern radicals do not distance themselves sufficiently from terrorism even when they are fighting for a just cause. Terrorism is the use of indiscriminate violence – not distinguishing between military and non-military targets. The Middle Eastern radicals, quite different from the revolutionaries of black Africa, seem to say that any means is acceptable as long as you are fighting the enemy. That is why they hijack planes, use assassinations, plant bombs in bars, etc. Why bomb bars? People who go to bars are normally merry-makers, not politically-minded people.

We were together with the Arabs in the anti-colonial struggle. The black African liberation movements, however, developed differently from the Arab ones. Where we used arms, we fought soldiers or sabotaged infrastructure but never targeted non-combatants. These indiscriminate methods tend to isolate the struggles of the Middle East and the Arab world. It would be good if the radicals in these areas could streamline their work methods in this area of using violence indiscriminately.

These five points above are some of the negative points in connection to Col. Gaddafi as far as Uganda’s patriots have been concerned over the years. These positions of Col. Gaddafi have been unfortunate and unnecessary.

Nevertheless, Gaddafi has also had many positive points objectively speaking. These positive points have been in favour of Africa, Libya and the Third World. I will deal with them point by point.

Col. Gaddafi has been having an independent foreign policy and, of course, also independent internal policies. I am not able to understand the position of Western countries which appear to resent independent-minded leaders and seem to prefer puppets. Puppets are not good for any country.

Most of the countries that have transitioned from Third World to First World status since 1945 have had independent-minded leaders: South Korea (Park Chung-hee), Singapore (Lee Kuan Yew), China People’s Republic (Mao Tse Tung, Chou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, Marshal Yang Shangkun, Li Peng, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jing Tao, etc), Malaysia (Dr. Mahthir Mohamad), Brazil (Lula Da Silva), Iran (the Ayatollahs), etc.

Between the First World War and the Second World War, the Soviet Union transitioned into an Industrial country propelled by the dictatorial but independent-minded Joseph Stalin. In Africa, we have benefited from a number of independent-minded leaders: Col. Nasser of Egypt, Mwalimu Nyerere of Tanzania, Samora Machel of Mozambique, etc. That is how Southern Africa was liberated. That is how we got rid of Idi Amin. The stopping of genocide in Rwanda and the overthrow of Mobutu, etc., were as a result of efforts of independent-minded African leaders.

Muammar Gaddafi, whatever his faults, is a true nationalist. I prefer nationalists to puppets of foreign interests. Where have the puppets caused the transformation of countries? I need some assistance with information on this from those who are familiar with puppetry. Therefore, the independent-minded Gaddafi had some positive contribution to Libya, I believe, as well as Africa and the Third World.

I will take one little example. At the time we were fighting the criminal dictatorships here in Uganda, we had a problem arising of a complication caused by our failure to capture enough guns at Kabamba on February 6, 1981. Gaddafi gave us a small consignment of 96 rifles, 100 anti-tank mines, etc., that was very useful. He did not consult Washington or Moscow before he did this. This was good for Libya, for Africa and for the Middle East. We should also remember as part of that independent-mindedness he expelled British and American military bases from Libya, etc.

Before Gaddafi came to power in 1969, a barrel of oil was 40 American cents. He launched a campaign to withhold Arab oil unless the West paid more for it. I think the price went up to US$20 per barrel. When the Arab-Israel war of 1973 broke out, the barrel of oil went to US$40.

I am, therefore, surprised to hear that many oil producers in the world, including the Gulf countries, do not appreciate the historical role played by Gaddafi on this issue. The huge wealth many of these oil producers are enjoying was, at least in part, due to Gaddafi’s efforts. The Western countries have continued to develop in spite of paying more for oil. It, therefore, means that the pre-Gaddafi oil situation was characterised by super exploitation in favour of the Western countries.

I have never taken time to investigate socio-economic conditions within Libya. When I was last there, I could see good roads even from the air. From the TV pictures, you can even see the rebels zooming up and down in pick-up vehicles on very good roads accompanied by Western journalists. Who built these good roads? Who built the oil refineries in Brega and those other places where the fighting has been taking place recently? Were these facilities built during the time of the king and his American as well as British allies or were they built by Gaddafi?

In Tunisia and Egypt, some youths immolated (burnt) themselves because they had failed to get jobs. Are the Libyans without jobs also? If so, why, then, are there hundreds of thousands of foreign workers? Is Libya’s policy of providing so many jobs to Third World workers bad? Are all the children going to school in Libya? Was that the case in the past – before Gaddafi? Is the conflict in Libya economic or purely political?

Possibly, Libya could have transitioned more if they encouraged the private sector more. However, this is something the Libyans are better placed to judge. As it is, Libya is a middle income country with GDP standing at US$89.03 billion. This is about the same as the GDP of South Africa at the time Mandela took over leadership in 1994 and it is about the current size of GDP of Spain.

Gaddafi is one of the few secular leaders in the Arab world. He does not believe in Islamic fundamentalism that is why women have been able to go to school, to join the army, etc. This is a positive point on Gaddafi’s side.

Coming to the present crisis, therefore, we need to point out some issues. The first issue is to distinguish between demonstrations and insurrections. Peaceful demonstrations should not be fired on with live bullets. Of course, even peaceful demonstrations should coordinate with the police to ensure that they do not interfere with the rights of other citizens.

When rioters are, however, attacking police stations and army barracks with the aim of taking power, then, they are no longer demonstrators; they are insurrectionists. They will have to be treated as such. A responsible government would have to use reasonable force to neutralise them. Of course, the ideal responsible government should also be an elected one by the people at periodic intervals.

If there is a doubt about the legitimacy of a government and the people decide to launch an insurrection, that should be the decision of the internal forces. It should not be for external forces to arrogate themselves that role, often, they do not have enough knowledge to decide rightly. Excessive external involvement always brings terrible distortions. Why should external forces involve themselves? That is a vote of no confidence in the people themselves.

A legitimate internal insurrection, if that is the strategy chosen by the leaders of that effort, can succeed. The Shah of Iran was defeated by an internal insurrection; the Russian Revolution in 1917 was an internal insurrection; the Revolution in Zanzibar in 1964 was an internal insurrection; the changes in Ukraine, Georgia, etc., all were internal insurrections. It should be for the leaders of the Resistance in that country to decide their strategy, not for foreigners to sponsor insurrection groups in sovereign countries.

I am totally allergic to foreign, political and military involvement in sovereign countries, especially the African countries. If foreign intervention is good, then, African countries should be the most prosperous countries in the world because we have had the greatest dosages of that: slave trade, colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism, etc.

All those foreign-imposed phenomena have, however, been disastrous. It is only recently that Africa is beginning to come up partly because of rejecting external meddling. External meddling and the acquiescence by Africans into that meddling have been responsible for the stagnation in Africa.

The wrong definition of priorities in many of the African countries is, in many cases, imposed by external groups. Failure to prioritise infrastructure, for instance, especially energy, is, in part, due to some of these pressures. Instead, consumption is promoted.

I have witnessed this wrong definition of priorities even here in Uganda. External interests linked up, for instance, with internal bogus groups to oppose energy projects for false reasons. How will an economy develop without energy? Quislings and their external backers do not care about all this.

If you promote foreign-backed insurrections in small countries like Libya, what will you do with the big ones like China which has got a different system from the Western systems? Are you going to impose a no-fly-zone over China in case of some internal insurrections as happened in Tiananmen Square, in Tibet or in Urumuqi?

The Western countries always use double standards. In Libya, they are very eager to impose a no-fly-zone. In Bahrain and other areas where there are pro-Western regimes, they turn a blind eye to the very same conditions or even worse conditions.

We have been appealing to the UN to impose a no-fly-zone over Somalia so as to impede the free movement of terrorists, linked to Al-Qaeda that killed Americans on September 11; killed Ugandans last July and have caused so much damage to the Somalis, without success. Why? Are there no human beings in Somalia similar to the ones in Benghazi? Or is it because Somalia does not have oil which is not fully controlled by the western oil companies on account of Gaddafi’s nationalist posture?

The Western countries are always very prompt in commenting on every problem in the Third World – Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc. Yet, some of these very countries were the ones impeding growth in those countries. There was a military coup d’état that slowly became a Revolution in backward Egypt in 1952. The new leader, Nasser, had ambition to cause transformation in Egypt. He wanted to build a dam not only to generate electricity but also to help with the ancient irrigation system of Egypt. He was denied money by the West because they did not believe that Egyptians needed electricity.

Nasser decided to raise that money by nationalising the Suez Canal. He was attacked by Israel, France and Britain. To be fair to the USA, President Eisenhower opposed that aggression that time. Of course, there was also the firm stand of the Soviet Union at that time. How much electricity was this dam supposed to produce? Just 2,000 mgws for a country like Egypt!! What moral right, then, do such people have to comment on the affairs of these countries?

Another negative point is going to arise out of the by now habit of the Western countries over-using their superiority in technology to impose war on less developed societies without impeachable logic. This will be the igniting of an arms race in the world. The actions of the Western countries in Iraq and now Libya are emphasising that might is “right.” I am quite sure that many countries that are able will scale up their military research, and in a few decades we may have a more armed world.

This weapons science is not magic. A small country like Israel is now a super power in terms of military technology. Yet 60 years ago, Israel had to buy second-hand fouga magister planes from France. There are many countries that can become small Israels if this trend of overusing military means by the Western countries continues.

All this notwithstanding, Col. Gaddafi should be ready to sit down with the opposition, through the mediation of the AU, with the opposition cluster of groups which now includes individuals well known to us – Ambassador Abdalla, Dr. Zubeda, etc.

I know Gaddafi has his system of elected committees that end up in a National People’s Conference. Actually Gaddafi thinks this is superior to our multi-party systems. Of course, I have never had time to know how truly competitive this system is. Anyway, even if it is competitive, there is now, apparently, a significant number of Libyans that think that there is a problem in Libya in terms of governance. Since there has not been internationally observed elections in Libya, not even by the AU, we cannot know what is correct and what is wrong. Therefore, a dialogue is the correct way forward.

The AU mission could not get to Libya because the Western countries started bombing Libya the day before they were supposed to arrive. However, the mission will continue. My opinion is that, in addition, to what the AU mission is doing, it may be important to call an extra-ordinary Summit of the AU in Addis Ababa to discuss this grave situation.

Regarding the Libyan opposition, I would feel embarrassed to be backed by Western war planes because quislings of foreign interests have never helped Africa. We have had a copious supply of them in the last 50 years – Mobutu, Houphout Boigny, Kamuzu Banda, etc. The West made a lot of mistakes in Africa and in the Middle East in the past. Apart from the slave trade and colonialism, they participated in the killing of Lumumba, until recently, the only elected leader of Congo, the killing of Felix Moummie of Cameroon, Bartholomew Boganda of Central African Republic, the support for UNITA in Angola, the support for Idi Amin at the beginning of his regime, the counter-revolution in Iran in 1953, etc.

Recently, there has been some improvement in the arrogant attitudes of some of these Western countries. Certainly, with black Africa and, particularly, Uganda, the relations are good following their fair stand on the black people of Southern Sudan. With the democratisation of South Africa and the freedom of the black people in Southern Sudan, the difference between the patriots of Uganda and the Western governments had disappeared. Unfortunately, these rush actions on Libya are beginning to raise new problems. They should be resolved quickly.

Therefore, if the Libyan opposition groups are patriots, they should fight their war by themselves and conduct their affairs by themselves. After all, they easily captured so much equipment from the Libyan army, why do they need foreign military support? I only had 27 rifles. To be puppets is not good.

The African members of the Security Council voted for this Resolution of the Security Council. This was contrary to what the Africa Peace and Security Council had decided in Addis Ababa recently. This is something that only the extra-ordinary summit can resolve.

It was good that certain big countries in the Security Council abstained on this Resolution. These were: Russia, China, Brazil, India, etc. This shows that there are balanced forces in the world that will, with more consultations, evolve more correct positions.

Being members of the UN, we are bound by the Resolution that was passed, however rash the process. Nevertheless, there is a mechanism for review. The Western countries, which are most active in these rash actions, should look at that route. It may be one way of extricating all of us from possible nasty complications.

What if the Libyans loyal to Gaddafi decide to fight on? Using tanks and planes that are easily targeted by Mr. Sarkozy’s planes is not the only way of fighting. Who will be responsible for such a protracted war? It is high time we did more careful thinking.

Monday, January 24, 2011

Uganda: Surely, we are not as simplistic as the Tunisians; are we? (column) - North Africa: Dispirited Arabs burning for change (analysis)

In the past week, nearly two dozen attempted self-immolations have been reported across the Arab world, three of them fatal.

The horrifying public suicide attempts echo the iconic act of Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old Tunisian who set himself on fire in mid-December after police confiscated the produce cart he was using to make a living. Bouazizi died weeks later of his burns, but his desperate act triggered protests that eventually led Tunisian president Zine Al-Abdine Ben Ali to flee the North African country he had ruled with an iron fist for 23 years.

On Jan. 15, one day after the fall of Ben Ali, a 37-year-old Algerian man died after setting himself alight. Since then, at least 22 attempted self- immolations have been reported in Algeria, Mauritania, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

"The self-immolations appear to be political acts," says Michael Biggs, a sociologist at Oxford University. "These people may have personal grievances, but they're clearly attributing those grievances to the political system. They may be thinking that 'if Bouazizi can set himself on fire and precipitate a massive, popular uprising then why can't I to resolve my problem?'"

According to Biggs, incidents in which protestors deliberately set themselves on fire are extremely rare, "but much less rare than people might think."

Since the 1960s, over 1,000 cases of self-immolation have been recorded in more than 25 countries worldwide. It often occurs in waves and is most prevalent in India, Vietnam and South Korea, which account for more than half of all cases.

Read more below, in four articles, courtesy of The Norwegian Council for Africa -

North Africa: Dispirited Arabs burning for change (analysis)
Inter Press Service (IPS), by Cam Mcgrath
Monday, 24 January 2011
Cairo (Egypt) — Upset over a policy that prevented him from buying subsidised food, Egyptian restaurant owner Abdou Abdel Moneim travelled to Cairo to find someone in parliament to help.

When security officers prevented him from submitting his complaint to MPs entering parliament, the 49-year-old man doused himself in fuel and cursed the Egyptian regime as he disappeared into a ball of fire.

Abdel Moneim survived with severe burns to his legs and face, but by the end of the day similar incidents had occurred in three different North African countries. In the past week, nearly two dozen attempted self-immolations have been reported across the Arab world, three of them fatal.

The horrifying public suicide attempts echo the iconic act of Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old Tunisian who set himself on fire in mid-December after police confiscated the produce cart he was using to make a living. Bouazizi died weeks later of his burns, but his desperate act triggered protests that eventually led Tunisian president Zine Al-Abdine Ben Ali to flee the North African country he had ruled with an iron fist for 23 years.

Analysts say the Tunisian revolt has resonated with millions of Arabs living under repressive regimes who are frustrated with their difficult economic conditions and limited opportunities to improve their lot. Many are drawing parallels to the situation in their own country, and wondering if a similar uprising will take place.

It's not surprising then that the heroic story of a vegetable seller whose horrific yet spectacular death brought down a tyrant has taken on an almost legendary flavour. But it may also be inspiring more tragic stories.

On Jan. 15, one day after the fall of Ben Ali, a 37-year-old Algerian man died after setting himself alight. Since then, at least 22 attempted self- immolations have been reported in Algeria, Mauritania, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The suspected motive behind each incident has varied. One man was protesting corruption and injustice, another was reportedly upset at being unable to secure cheap housing, and two textile workers objected to their employer's decision to transfer them to other departments.

"The self-immolations appear to be political acts," says Michael Biggs, a sociologist at Oxford University. "These people may have personal grievances, but they're clearly attributing those grievances to the political system. They may be thinking that 'if Bouazizi can set himself on fire and precipitate a massive, popular uprising then why can't I to resolve my problem?'"

According to Biggs, incidents in which protestors deliberately set themselves on fire are extremely rare, "but much less rare than people might think."

Since the 1960s, over 1,000 cases of self-immolation have been recorded in more than 25 countries worldwide. It often occurs in waves and is most prevalent in India, Vietnam and South Korea, which account for more than half of all cases.

There are examples of Kurdish nationalists setting themselves on fire during protests in Europe in the 1990s, but until now the practice has not been common in the Muslim world, possibly due to Islam's strong prohibition of both suicide and cremation.

"It's mostly an Eastern practice. In Buddhism and Hinduism burning has a more sacred character and is an accepted form of disposing of dead bodies, so it's not the terrible thing as we think of it in Christian and Muslim religious traditions," Biggs told IPS.

The spectacle of a fiery death can be highly effective in focusing world attention on a cause or injustice. A photograph of Thich Quang Duc, the elderly Buddhist monk who immolated himself in the middle of a busy intersection in Saigon in 1963, became one of the iconic images of the Vietnam War. It was also instrumental in turning the tide of U.S. public opinion against the war.

The brutal act of setting oneself on fire usually elicits reactions of shock and horror, but also sympathy, Biggs explains. It has been utilised as a political form of protest by South Korean labour activists, Czechs opposed to Soviet occupation, and by upper-caste Indians, among others.

"Bouazizi's is probably the most successful example," he says. "The Tunisian government fell very quickly because his one action inspired many other people to go into the streets. It was also successful in South Vietnam in the 1960s, but it took five months and six monks and a nun to die before the regime was overthrown."

The historical efficacy of self-immolation protests may be one reason Arab officials and state media have attempted to portray the series of "copycat" suicide attempts as the non-political acts of opportunistic and mentally unstable individuals.

"Suicide has become a fad and is being used for blackmail," declared Egyptian state-run newspaper Al-Akhbar, deriding a man who reportedly threatened to set himself on fire after his request for public housing was repeatedly turned down.

Arab governments have appealed to religious leaders to stress Islam's injunctions against suicide in order to discourage Muslim youth from taking their own life. Imams at state-monitored mosques in Egypt and Algeria condemned self-immolation during their weekly sermons on Friday, claiming suicidal thoughts stemmed from a lack of faith.

Al-Azhar, the highest authority in Sunni Islam, issued a statement last week reaffirming that suicide violates Islam even when it is carried out as a social or political protest.

"Islam categorically forbids suicide for any reason and does not accept the separation of souls from bodies as an expression of stress, anger or protest," its spokesman said.

Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of Egypt's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, had a different take on the state-endorsed message. In a statement the influential cleric urged Arab youth to honour the sanctity of life, blaming repressive regimes for conditions that have driven them to despair.

"Dear young men, take care of your life because it is a great bounty from Allah, and do not set yourself on fire as it is the tyrants who should burn. Be patient, endure and be steadfast. Tomorrow will come soon enough."
- - -

Uganda: Surely, we are not as simplistic as the Tunisians; are we? (column)
The Monitor (Uganda), by Fredrick M. Masiga*
Monday, 24 January 2011
Kampala (Uganda) - Life sometimes brings along very strange coincidences and you cannot help but wonder if some of these parallels are accidental or could be interpreted as merely fateful coincidences. The events unfolding in Ivory Coast and Tunisia in the last few weeks draw a familiar line or might have a futuristic similarity to Uganda.

Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali is the disgraced former president of Tunisia. He fled the country after a 'protracted' mass revolt that started off from the flimsiest of events. A Tunisian fruits and vegetable vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, who was accosted by local municipal council authorities, decided he had had enough with the authorities and decided to torch himself. He did not live long enough to witness that his callous act led to the ouster of Ben Ali who has ruled the country for 23 years.

Twenty six-year-old Bouazizi, like many of his youthful countrymates, woke up on the day to go out in the streets to fend for his family. He was evicted from the streets, his cart, his only means of survival was impounded, he was beaten by authorities, and his attempts to get redress from higher authorities were met with a thick wall of bureaucracy.

What drove this young man to commit what has become a celebrated act of crime in most of the Arab North Africa was not an act of cowardice rather the futility of life in a police state deficient of various freedoms and where the State has failed to provide employment and food for its people.

Some quarters in Uganda have discussed similarities of life in Tunisia to Uganda's. That the level of unemployment is high yet more and more graduates continue to be delivered from the various institutions of higher learning.

In his 23 years at the helm, Ben Ali has organised only three presidential elections and one constitutional referendum in 2002 in which not the presidential term limits were removed but the maximum term limits for a president was moved from 70 to 75 years which ironically is how old Ben Ali is now.

There were fears he would seek to return in the country's presidential elections in 2014 but first he was preparing to revisit the constitution to amend the age issue. Only now have the vast wealth of the Tunisian first family come to light to the rest of the world. Amid all the chaos, Madam Ben Ali was still able to pack up gold and other expensive metals worth $1.5 billion. But the question that many Tunisians, and Ugandans can ask the same, is how would one family accumulate wealth so much that even at the delicate one moment of total national madness they are still able to almost grab ($1.5b) and run with it?

Ben Ali's flight has thrown the country into an unexpected situation of economic woes. An economic crisis is looming with further unemployment expected because the family is said to own more than half of the large businesses that employ most urban Tunisians. The family owns businesses in real estate, financial institutions, leisure and hospitality, media and various manufacturing outfits.

Tunisia is going to its knees because a family has left under such circumstances such as Ben Ali's, the question being asked are embarrassing and point to a nation that slept while its leader implemented kitchen economic policies.

With a promise of an oil economy in the pipeline, Ugandans need to watch who is getting into the oil industry and how the oil revenue will be shared. An oil policy that is transparent and takes care of individual and national interests of Ugandans would be a positive point to start from.

Come February 18, we shall be more concerned about who, among the presidential candidates, will refuse rather than accept the results of the elections. I doubt we want somebody to do a Cote d'Ivoire here but more than half a century of politics after African countries received independence from their colonial masters, nothing is surprising anymore.

Ugandans, even with all the accolades they have of life and fun-loving people, as a people are very hypocritical individuals and therefore their real emotions and thoughts are most times shrouded in falsehood. So, a Cote d'Ivoire or a Tunisia could be the jinx embedded beneath our skin.

* Mr Masiga is the managing editor - Weekend editions of the Monitor Publications Ltd.
- - -

Tunisia: To the tyrants of the Arab world...(opinion)
Al Jazeera, by Lamis Andoni (
Monday, 17 January 2011
The Tunisian uprising, which succeeded in toppling Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, the Tunisian president, has brought down the walls of fear, erected by repression and marginalisation, thus restoring the Arab peoples' faith in their ability to demand social justice and end tyranny. Click here to read full article at
- - -

Tunisia: The wombs of African women will fell dictators and bring freedom (opinion)
The East African (Kenya), by Charles Onyango-Abbo
Monday, 17 January 2011
Nairobi (Kenya) - We have just seen something we haven’t witnessed in a North African, or Arab, country for donkey years. Click here to read full article at

Monday, January 03, 2011

Al-Shabab and Al-Qaeda: Playing Americans for suckers - Clooney Falling Into Bin Laden’s Sudan Trap

Al-Shabab and Al-Qaeda: Playing Americans for suckers
Source: Michael Scheuer's
Author: Michael Scheuer
Published: 15 July, 2010. Full copy (excluding 4 Comments):
The suicide bombing in Uganda’s capital of Kampala by the Somali Islamist group al-Shabab serves several agendas. While the facile and clueless Western media call it an “anti-World Cup attack” and the lame Obama White House says it proves al-Qaeda’s “racism” toward Africans, the reality is that from al-Sahbab’s perspective the attack is a logical and necessary response to the prolonged U.S.- and Western-backed intervention in Somalia. (How long, one wonders, will it take U.S. and Western officials to learn people don’t like being occupied?) The Kampala attack also is another episode in al-Qaeda’s ongoing campaign to lure the United States into more interventions in the Muslim world.

At the most basic level, there would be no al-Shabab in Somalia — at least not at its present strength, reach, and popularity — if Washington had not panicked several years ago at the thought of an Islamist organization known as the “Islamic Courts” taking power in Somalia. The Islamic Courts’ had all but displaced a feckless, corruption-ridden UN-backed Transitional Federal Government (TFG), and was beginning to bring a harsh but effective law-and-order system to Somalia for the first time in decades. Under President Bush, however, Washington could not stand the thought of a working Islamic government and so labored overtly and covertly for its demise.

Ultimately, Washington supported Ethiopia’s late-2006 invasion of Somalia without thinking through that it would henceforth be seen as the sponsor of Christian Ethiopia’s invasion of Muslim Somalia. The invasion turned Somalis of most factions against the interloping Christian occupiers. The large and better-armed Ethiopian conventional forces prevailed, broke up what was left of the Islamic Courts, and protected the UN-backed TFG, which now appeared even more as the imposed creature of hostile Christian countries. The Ethiopians fought a growing guerrilla war against the Somali militias and insurgents until casualties became too heavy and Addis Ababa decided to withdraw its forces. The African Union then acted to supply the 5,000 military personnel from Uganda and Burundi who now are the peacekeepers and TFG-protectors in the capital of Mogadishu.

The sum of this complicated story is that al-Shabab was born, developed quickly, and now appears to have the manpower, political savvy, and military wherewithal to compete for control of much of the central and southern portions of Somalia. Al-Shabab’s quick evolution is the result of several factors, including foreign occupation, which historically radicalizes Somalia’s usually moderate form of Islam, and the availability of help from al-Qaeda, especially in the form of veteran fighters, who offer training and a leaven of combat experience, and media operatives whose expertise has dramatically improved the quality of al-Shabab media capabilities during the past two years. In addition, a substantial inflow of aid from Arab Peninsula countries who are nominally U.S. “allies” has allowed al-Shabab and other Somali Islamists to deliver food and health services to destitute Somalis and improve their weaponry.

Having helped destroy the less radical Islamic Courts regime and still backing the moribund TFG, Washington now confronts the potential of al-Shabab controlling two thirds of Somalia and — after the Uganda bombing — the specter of the group slowly destabilizing heretofore reliably pro-U.S. regimes in Ethiopia, Kenya, and elsewhere in East Africa.

Neither Ethiopia nor Kenya is as stable as it was before the Islamic Courts were destroyed. Ethiopia paid a high price for its invasion and occupation of Somalia not only in terms of funds and lives, but in earning the durable enmity of Somali Muslims and their Islamist allies in Africa and overseas. Kenya has likewise earned al-Shabab’s wrath for supporting the corrupt TFG regime and for its willingness to host the dozen or more UN agencies and multiple Western NGOs who are operating in Somalia with intentions that are perceived by many Somalis as anti-Islamic.

And here is where al-Qaeda is luring the United States into another potentially disastrous intervention. Even though it has expended a minimum and mainly media-focused effort to support al-Shabab, Washington’s abject fear of al-Qaeda — notwithstanding Obama’s cocky and denigrating words about the group — has made bin Laden’s al-Shabab ally a primary U.S. target and therefore yet another vehicle for luring America into an expensive fight on Muslim territory.

Even before all the causalities from the bombing were counted, for example, the FBI had sent investigators to the “crime scene” in Kampala — as if the Ugandans need help from the helpless — and yesterday Rudyard Obama said he would “redouble” U.S. efforts in Somalia, which certainly means more U.S. military involvement there and the pouring of more taxpayer money into the maw of the corrupt-to-the-bone TFG. And as it becomes clear that Ethiopian and Kenyan security are also threatened by al-Shabab, those countries too will be the recipients of Mr. Obama’s resolute eagerness to dig us ever deeper into expensive, Bush-like foreign adventures.

Overall, Bush and Obama took a problem that was on the periphery of top U.S. security issues and through mindlessness and intervention made it an agent of destabilization in East Africa and a growing drain on U.S. resources. Renewed U.S. efforts against al-Shabab, together with Washington’s efforts to undermine the Muslim government of Sudan and get U.S. military forces involved in the irrelevant-to-America Darfur civil war, will again do al-Qaeda’s work for it by validating for Muslims bin Laden’s claim that Washington intends to destroy all Muslim regimes except those of the Arab tyrants who supply oil to the United States and its allies.

Years ago Osama bin Laden said something akin to: “All we need to do is send two mujahedin anywhere on earth to wave a flag that has ‘al-Qaeda’ on it and the Americans will arrive the next day with their troops and an open wallet.” As Obama hungrily gobbles down this latest lure from al-Qaeda, one can only think that there truly is a sucker born every minute.
[End of copy]
- - -

Further Reading

Clooney Falling Into Bin Laden’s Sudan Trap
Source: FOX News -
Date: Monday, 03 January 2011. Full copy (excluding 271 Comments):

With the U.S. government and such scintillating strategic thinkers as George Clooney, Don Cheadle, Angelina Jolie, and Mia Farrow in the lead, the West is about to help rip Darfur and the rest of Muslim Sudan's oil-rich southern territories out of the country and create an independent, largely Christian state.

Under the guise of a "referendum" (set for 9 January 2011) that will be observed by a 110-person European Union team of imperial busybodies, Sudan's primarily Christian south will be severed from the Sudanese nation-state, setting the stage for a continuation of the decades old Muslim-Christian Sudanese civil war. The difference will be that henceforth - as is occurring in Somalia - the U.S. and the West will be obliged to protect the new nation they created by theft and oil lust with diplomacy, funding, arms, military training, and eventually troops.

And what is America's interest in becoming involved to the hilt and inextricably in Sudan? What is so vital to the United States in Sudan that President Obama is pressing the leaders of Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, and the other states of the African Union to support "our intense interest in having a successful referendum" - read that as "our intense interest in carving up Sudan to suit our imperial purposes and corner access to Sudanese oil." (As an aside, one must admit Rudyard Obama is nothing if not an aggressive proponent of improving - that is, "Westernizing" - the lives of "our little brown brothers," although the blatant theft of Islamic land is a rather odd component for the kinder and more gentle "Muslim outreach program" Obama announced in Cairo and Jakarta.)

The answer is that Obama, our bipartisan political elite, the mainstream media, and the rich, immature, libertine, and anti-U.S. Hollywood set lead by Clooney, et al, want to feel good about themselves by doing "good" for foreigners. For these elite U.S. citizens-of-the-world, ordinary Americans and their kids can starve, freeze, live on the streets, fail to find work, and remain illiterate forever. In essence, they can rot while Washington spends their taxes on Darfur - a place where absolutely no genuine U.S. interest is at stake.

Now, that's a bit harsh and in one aspect even wrong. The Democrats and Republicans must ensure that ordinary Americans are kept well-off enough to keep having children who will join the U.S. military that will be used to fight the wars their interventionism start. And there can be no doubt that Washington's leading role in championing Darfur's secession from Sudan will intensify America's war with Islam and the evolving Islam-vs-Christianity war in Africa. And, not surprisingly, the ever-adept Osama bin Laden began setting this trap for the United States over the course of the last decade.

Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Abu Yaha al-Libi, one of al-Qaeda's leading theologians, have spoken publicly and on multiple occasions about Washington's intention to intervene in Somalia and Sudan to halt the spread of Sunni Islam in the Horn of Africa; to eliminate the Islamic regime in Sudan; to champion the spread of Christianity in Africa; and to ensure Sudan's massive oil reserves are in pro-U.S. hands. Obama's administration, with full Republican support, is about to make these three al-Qaeda leaders appear omniscient to the Muslim world.

READ THE FULL STORY AT NON-INTERVENTION.COM [By Michael Scheuer entitled "U.S. intervention in Sudan and Somalia: Sowing war’s whirlwind for Americans" published Wednesday, 29 December 2010]
- - -

Postscript from Uganda Watch editor
Note the following copy of two quotations published in the sidebar of Michael Scheuer's
My policy has been and will continue to be ... to be on friendly terms with, but independent of, all nations on earth. To share in the broils of none. To supply their wants, and be carriers for them all; being thoroughly convinced that it is our policy and interest to do so; and that nothing short of self-respect, and that justice which is essential to a national character, ought to involve us in war.
George Washington

Don't patronize the enemy. They mean business. They mean every word they say. They're killing us now. Their will is not broken, They mean it. ... If they're there, your job is to kill them all. I did not want to have them just retreat and have to fight them all over again.
Maj. Gen. James Mattis, USMC
Also, note that according to Michael Scheuer's About page, he resigned from the CIA in November, 2004 and since that date has written for and
- - -

Follow news from Sudan at this site's parent blog, Sudan Watch