President Obama as seen by the world

A messiah, philanthropist, politician, courageous and a play boy

The 44^th and first African-American President of the United States of America is seen by many from different angles, to represent different things. It could as well be the good, the bad, the ugly and why not, the best.

Ordinary Africans: They see Obama as someone who is expected to use his position to pressure African leaders to stop clinking to power. They also hope he will prevent US and US firms and other western companies and banks from serving as safe-havens for embezzled funds from the continent.

Pan Africanists: They believe Africa needs a rebirth and another wind of change to blow across the continent. They hope Obama not only being an African-American, but, supposedly, passionate about Africa, would use his position as the most powerful man on earth, to destroy neo-colonial ties and help Africa to be able to stand up to its own feet. The colonial cup web is really complicated and very difficult. It will take a strong man and a strong nation like America with the will and ability to destroy it certainly to the disgruntlement of several other “developed” nations.

This is however, daunting and life threatening because; he has to serve the interest of the US first. Many Pan Africanists believe Africa is in shackles today because of the relics of neo-colonial systems which have continued to kill any nationalistic instincts and hunt various countries’ development. Most leaders are still products of the neo-colonial administration and are serving neo colonial interests.

Just as Obama cautioned those who prolong their stay in power through corruption and deceit, many expect him to caution developed countries who use their military and economic prowess to stifle political and economic development in developing countries and institutionalise state corruption through shady contracts and other business deals. People see in him, a man courageous enough and capable to change the tides. It’s just a matter of will.

Moderate Arabs. Obama’s policy of pursuing dialogue before action is likened to thinking before acting. This is well received by many who see in him, a kind of solution to the disturbing Israeli Palestine conflict.

Obama must be bold enough to tell Israel that they have to make major pre 1967 concessions just as well as remind Palestinians/Arabs that they must recognise Israel’s right to exist. Anything short of this, will mal any “sustainable” Middle East peace deal.

Fundamentalists: They say Obama is just a rubber stamp who will not be able to make any change or difference. Some of them see his choice of Rham Emmanuel (Chief of Staff) and Hilary Clinton (Secretary of State) diehard supporters of Israel as a clear indication that US policy towards resolving the Middle East crisis will not change.

Europeans. They consider Obama as a president whose mandate will be more subtle than that of his predecessor.

Some believe Obama is a messiah with a panacea to all national and international problems. Never in world history has a leader of a country been greeted with such euphoria as was the case with OBAMA in various continents

Many see Obama as a philanthropist because as they say, he seems to have the good will and intentions. They see him as someone who will "re-distribute" the wealth not only within US but also out of the US. That is while some equally say he is more socialist, liberalist inclined than the traditionally capitalist America.

Others see him just as any other politician. Politics is a game of interests and politicians hardly respect their words. They constantly use sweet words to cajole people.

A lot more see in him a “player” and a “lover boy”, a handsome guy who can be the target of any woman. They already fear another “Monica Lewinsky” affair in the White House.

Many see him as an incarnation of hope and the dawn of a new era. Swedish newspapers among which, DN asserted this. Others equally see him as just trying to gain attention for his first days in office and will soon change course.

People also see Obama as Mr Realistic, Understanding and Pragmatic. He started manifesting these from day one in office by suspending Quantanamo trials and cutting the huge salaries for White House senior aides. People also want to him to understand that democracy which is America’s biggest product should not be forced on people in the name of freedom. It should be well marketed and left for buyers to decide whether they will go in for it or not. This school of thought argue that some of America’s strongest allies like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Morocco are themselves very anti democracy countries.

Some see him as a star/celebrity and will want be with him all the time, reason why his inauguration attendance was record breaking in US history. Over 2 million people attended.

Whatever be the case, a builder can only be judged on how and what he builds. Time will tell.

President Barack Obama: As pragmatic as idealistic.

Thursday January 20, 2009 entered the annals of history as the day the first ever African American, Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44 President of the United States of America, something which appeared almost impossible just four decades ago.

Obama in his inauguration speech did not only talk to please his “fans” and supporters but sounded as pragmatic as well idealistic as he briefly addressed both domestic and foreign policies issues. Conscious of the fact that he is taking over a shattered economy and a country whose image has been badly tainted, he said bluntly "Our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed,"

As to apportioned blame he emphasised "Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age,"

He however, reiterated that everybody is needed on board for the new beginning "Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin the work of remaking America." It was not only a blame game as the celebrated orator cum president urged Americans to choose "hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord"

His appeal for the building of America cut across racial, religious and ethnic lines is a strong appeal to leaders of other countries who have chosen to rule with radical religious believes, and who work solely with “comrades” and the aristocratic class for the impoverishment of the population.

The composition of his cabinet of conservatives, liberals, Republicans and Democrats etc all shows his openness to work with all school of thoughts. This is his strength as well as may be a source of weakness if this openness is not well managed. In the course of listening to everybody he may end up listening to nobody.

Appeal to the outside world

PRESIDENT Obama admitted that America is a relatively richer country and would be ready to help others. However, “help” or extending a hand as such is something pretty rare of pure capitalist countries. It is hope that such help should not be accompanied with strings which will instead leave the receivers more impoverished in the long run.

Talking to foreign leaders he warned “those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy." It is true that some leaders have taken the blame- game as an excuse or cover note but, this does not cancel the fact that a great portion of problems of the developing countries and Africa in particular, are being promoted from outside, through funny and shady business deals, supporting neo-colonial leaders, suppressing nationalistic instincts directly or indirectly.

A senior US diplomat said “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmanoeuvred. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe”. This sounds very funny and may not represent the ideals of a supposedly frantic person like Obama. People with such views should be kept out of his extended team.

That notwithstanding, for a continent whose leaders are a majority relayed-colonial-era-puppets, Obama warned, “those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist," All the leaders Cameroon, Gabon, Chad, Central Africa republic, Equitorial Guinea, Burkina Faso, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Togo, Eygpt, Saudi Arabia etc are examples.Democracy should however, never be imposed on people. It should rather be proposed.

As a good politician he expressed the need to end “petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics." However, that is really sweet to hear for; politicians are remarkable for not keeping to their promises.

We are waiting to see the great change for Obama who has not only proven to be very pragmatic but who also sounds idealistic. However, freedom fighter Marti Luther King just as Idi Amin of Uganda had predicted that a black would rule America soon. Many thought they were unrealistic or idealistic too.

Avoid this President Obama

Unlike targeting individuals, the all powerful US has successfully imposed sanctions on regimes which it considers undemocratic or tyrannical. Unfortunately, like the case in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran, and Cuba etc this has caused more harm than good to "innocent"citizens.

As Professor Arthur Mutambara President of a faction of the MDC in Zimbabwe says “People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons”, . Putting up legislation or effectively applying laws that prevent the embezzlement of funds and starching them in US banks or doing business with it with US firms such as the buying of business shares and real-states in US with doubtful sources of finances from Africa and elsewhere, would help Africa and the world better.

Work has started already.

Pope petitioned over human right abuses and other crisis in Cameroon

The Progressive Initiative for Cameroon known by its acronym as PICAM has urged Pope Benedict XVI to include discussions on human rights, justice, democracy and freedom on his agenda as he visits Cameroon come March 2009.

The Cameroonian, US based Non Governmental Organisation specialised in the domain of human rights and democracy, beckons the Supreme pontiff to “ include discussions on democracy, human rights and the plight of Cameroonians” during his private discussion with the president of Cameroon, Paul Biya.

According to the release available on its webpage and signed by CEO, Eric Ngonji Njungwe, the visit of the pope is not only welcome by the over 3.5 million Catholic Christians in Cameroon, but, the choice of Cameroon for the first visit of the pontiff to Africa, is also perceived with “mixed feelings” . PICAM says the visit could be "blessings to the misconduct and suffering [the Biya government] have caused its people”.

However, PICAM holds that the voice of the pope may not only be heard by the Cameroon government, but, will at least draw world attention on the poverty, corruption, human rights abuses and suffering under which Cameroonians live daily under the regime in place. “An authoritative voice such as yours will draw the attention of the government of Cameroon and will draw the focus of political leaders world wide”, it reads.

The NGO has also posted an online petition to the Pope which has already been signed by several Cameroonians, most of whom have been compelled to remain abroad due to the precarious environment at home. The NGO also acknowledges that the Holy Father has constantly condemned the injustices, violence and conflict in areas like Somalia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, forgetting that such ills also exists in areas considered “peaceful” as Cameroon. Though gravity of situation may not be as in the aforementioned countries, the human right crusader notes that “citizens of Cameroon are routinely subjected to arbitrary arrests, torture and imprisonment where prolonged periods of detained in squalid and decrepit conditions often result to death and disease”.

A senior Cameroonian Catholic cleric once said “the absence of war in Cameroon does not mean there is peace at all”

The PICAM release dating January 15, also affirms in very strong terms that those who protest even peacefully do risk seriously beating and shootings. It would be recalled that in 2005 and 2006, four University of Buea students were killed as they protested for the reduction of fees and in the second incident, as students clamoured against open fraud in the “competitive examination” results to the Medical school in that university.

Still in 2007, a GTC Kumba, student was shot dead as students protested against intermittent power cuts. A similar situation equally occurred in Abong Mbang in the East province. In the same year, a motor cycle rider was shot dead in the North West province as they protested against wanton police harassment.

The peak of the abuses was in February 2008 where trigger-happy government troops in different parts of the country under instructions, opened fire killing 40 people according to government sources and over 200 according to independent sources. Several hundreds were beaten and imprisoned as they took to the streets due to the rising cost of living. At the time, President Biya claimed the, protesters, mainly youths, were being manipulated. But, in his 2009 New Year state of the nation address, he admitted his mea cupa to the fact that the protests were due to the frustration, employment and poverty. In a related development, protests against the modification the constitution to permit Biya who has already ruled for over a quarter a century, from running for another mandate, were also violently suppressed.

PICAM also says it “recognizes that dialogue and engagement of dictators, supported by diplomatic pressure may be fruitful in bringing about positive change.” The NGO notes that though the arrival of the Pope is in prelude to the October 2009 meeting of Africa Bishop, the Holy Father should use the opportunity to pressure Biya.

Benedict XVI would be the second pope to visit Cameroon and the third pontifical visit to the second. Pope John Paul II had earlier visited Cameroon in 1985 and in 1995 during which he baptised Biya’s son. Cameroonians who believe the pope represents good values are urging him not to endorse injustice, poverty, oppression and despair in Cameroon by speaking against it clearly.

Cameroon’s Christian Cardinal Tumi, has often spoken vehemently against such ills, to the extend of being labelled “rebelled and opposition cardinal”. His lastest outing was on New Year Day when he called for embezzled funds to be reinstated to state coffers. Later and meeting Maroua mid January, the bishops of Cameroon also condemned insecurity, bribery, tribalism, impunity and corruption which have been institutionalised in the country by the regime. These ills are what have been described as a crisis and a time bomb in Cameroon

Middle East conflict: Sweden opts for pragmatism

The Foreign Minister of Sweden, Carl Bildt, has made it clear that the best way for durable peace in the Middle East is to end the economic isolation of the already impoverished Gaza Strip. Speaking to reporters in Stockholm after a visit to Middle East as part of an EU delegation, Carl Bildt, reiterated that “You cannot stop the smuggling without ending the isolation policy”

During the press briefing on Thursday January 8, the Swedish top diplomat equally castigated Israel for some of its policies, which he described as morally indefensible. According to a report published in The Local, Sweden’s leading newspapers in English, Israel policy of isolating the Gaza strip “ is in itself not morally defensible, but it is also not politically possible to stop the smuggling because of the extremely strong excitement to smuggle that is baked into the isolation policy”

Israel and its strongest ally, the US, have constantly accused Hamas, which controls Gaza since June 2007, of smuggling weapons through tunnels. These weapons among which are rockets said to be made in Iran and China are used to launch attacks on Israel.

Minister Carl emphasized that when people are over isolated, they will certainly try to “dig their way out” the other way. Carl noted with regrets that the blockade of Gaza Strip, resulting to the acute shortage of food and other basic resources, have pushed people to digging tunnels to transport food as well as to smuggle explosives and other weapons.

He went further, “For every bomb that falls, for every rocket that is shot, for every child that dies, hatred, opposition and tensions are created that we will later have to deal with,"

Sweden is expected to take over the rotating leadership of the European Union later this year and Carl has expressed his wish to see lasting peace in the Middle East.

Since the creation of the state of Israeli in 1948, it has never been at peace with her Arab neighbours. Both parties need to make sacrifices for any meaningful peace.

Impunity and arrogance!

In a related development, the acting President of South Africa, in at major press outing after 100 days in office, regretted that some countries do act with impunity because of their economic or military strength.

In an interview published on January 8, by Mail and Guardian, Kgalema Motlanthe said “….the UN, and the UN Security Council in particular, is in need of urgent reform in order to become more representative of the world’s population. The problem is that if a country has powerful friends on the Security Council they can sometimes act with impunity. All you have to do is listen to the minister of foreign affairs or defence of Israel to know that you are dealing with people who believe they can cock a snook with impunity.”

According to him, just as many leaders of other nations, there is the urgent need to review the issue of veto power in the UN Security. Many of the few countries with veto power have abused such privileges.

“ Yes, because the veto powers enjoyed by some on this council in fact also promote selfish and sectional interests, which is contrary to the collective and principled mandate of the UN…” he said.

In another interview equally published on BBC website, Yigal Palmor an Israeli foreign ministry worker said “Hamas must not be able to re-arm itself, and that the UN resolution "does not provide practical means to create a sustainable ceasefire".

Sweden recently authorised a 10 million Swedish kronor, about $1.3 million of emergency aide for the trouble-ridden Gazans. The suggestion of the Swedish foreign Minister if applied may go a long way to established e “sustainable peace” in Middle East and pave the way for the creation of two independent states, that is, Israel and Palestine. However, Sweden just as the EU, considers Hamas, a terrorist organisation.

The political, economic and military ambitions as well as illusions of several countries have prevented them from making any peace in most parts of the world a reality. They prefer working on statements and at times provocative ones, with virtually no weight. Often, actions are completely neglected and some actions taken, instead stir more conflict.

Terrorist organisations, Liberation Movements and State Terrorism

Is fighting terrorism a non starter?

What has prompted me to write this article are the remarks of the representative of Swedish Migration Board made in Court during a hearing of a case between a demoted Migration employee, Lenart Eriksson and the Migration Board on October 10 in Mölndal, Sweden. Staffan Opitz said bluntly that Hamas should be considered is a “liberation movement”. This may contradict the official position of Sweden and European Union visa a Vis the Movement. But, is Opitz totally wrong to refer to Hamas as a liberation Movement? It all depends on what we define as terrorism or terrorist and from what angle we see it.

Lenart Eriksson. 51, head of an asylum assessment unit was demoted allegedly because he maintains a pro Israel blog. (The Local .se) This was interpreted by some people among whom was his supervisor, Eugene Palmer, as a stand which is incompatible with his job,given that in such a position, private views on such sensitive matters like the Middle East conflict, should not be aired in public. Others also believe it could make Lenart to favour or disfavour some asylum seekers. I think of Palestinian or Arabs. However, he took the case to court and won but, the Migration maintained its decision not to reinstate him, instead, preferred to pay him a little of over 1.2 million Swedish Krona.

Who is a terrorist and who is not. Several freedom fighters have been called terrorists and several terrorists referred to as freedom fighters. But again who are the real terrorists. Any definition of the term depends on our inclinations.

Take a look at these organisations. The Hamas in Palestine, The ANC in South Africa, Moroccan Islamist Combatant, Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta region MEND in Nigeria, Southern Cameroon National Council separatist in Cameroon, Basque Separatist in Spain, Irish Republican Army, The Lord Resistance Army, in Congo Kinshasa, Justice and Equability Movement and the Janjaweed Militia and Sudan, FARC in Columbia, Tamil Nadu Liberation Army in Sri Lanka, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ku Klux Klan in the USA, Jemaah Islamiya, Moslem brother, others like Al Qaeda, MUJAHEDEN fighters etc. The list is really long.

I have deliberately added some names among which are some in Africa to explain my case. NB. I have not qualified any of the above as a terrorist organisation nor the countries below. When I consulted the wikipedia list of terrorist organisations as claim by various countries and organisations, the first remark was that, the supposed terrorists are mostly from a religious inclination. Should we then kill in the name of God or should we consider others terrorists because of their religious beliefs.

Take a look at these countries, the USA, Britain, France, Portugal, Russia, Israel, Iran, Australia, Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, Burma, Turkmenistan, and any other country you may want to add. What is and who are state terrorists and who are those sponsoring terrorism?

During the liberation war in South Africa, some people branded the ANC as a terrorist Organisation. Yet there were countries supporting the terrorising apartheid regime which had been “publicly” suspended in most international organisations and was under “sanctions”.

In an article published in www.netcomuk.uk/springbk/enemy and written by Sarah, Maid of Albion, the writer in her presentation still qualifies Mandela and the ANC as terrorists citing papers city Boer news, South African Cross, Reality SA etc. She claims Mandela was still defiant in his autobiography. However British conservative, David Cameron in a declaration 2006, distanced himself from former British Premiere, Margaret Thatcher’s policies towards ANC. He said the ANC was not a terrorist organisation, despite the fact that some countries like the USA and other European states branded it as such. It would be recalled that Mandela was removed from USA terrorists list only in 2008.

Many people have resulted to using force in achieving what they have not been able to do with peace but have been branded terrorists. Is that fair, wrong or right? Is struggling to gaining freedom by the barrel of the gun terrorism? Is militating for the destruction of sovereign states or the killing of its people, not pure terrorism?

I want to go far beyond that. What is now manifested as physical terrorism carried out through suicide attacks, hostage takings, open massacres etc are often culmination of frustrations and lost of hope which can be looked at from different angles. Radical religious teachings which seem to dignify the killing of people who may not be of “our faith” is equally crystal clear terrorism

But most importantly, the real terrorists are those who have propelled political, economic, social terrorism through imperialism, exploitation, oppression and domination at the highest levels and by all means. They are the people funding rebels and opposition parties to destabilise governments. They are the people supporting government which do not even represent the will of the people. Some may also want to call those setting confusion in Africa, terrorists, my opinion is not different. They support rebels some of whom have divided their country into factions so as to facilitate the expropriation of natural resources.

In that case, terrorists are not only those who kill in the name of God and liberation. They also include those who slaughter and cause untold pain and agony because of their insatiable desire for economic and political expansions. Are we therefore all terrorists? Supposed terrorists or freedom fighters always used force either, through irrational bombings, invasions and suicide attacks, funding of rebels etc.

Again I see terrorism inextricably link to the issue of race. One race wants to dominate or terrorise the others. It manifestations are within national and international boundaries. Terrorism in the Middle East is deeply racially motivated. Terrorism in the USA, Europe etc has racial connotations. This also applies to those sponsoring terrorists in Africa. It all has racial and economic undertones. That is the bitter truth.

Many have been considered terrorists not really because they are, but because, opinion leaders or state leaders want to them to be considered as such. Today, the qualification of some people as terrorists may not even be a reflection of the views of the majority but those of a few leaders who have successfully and tactfully done so.

I think the best way to counter terrorism which we all hate, is to look at the causes and see how we can resolve them. The root causes of terrorism may even be far from religious. I strongly see political and economic undertones which have culminated today to the spread of terrorism. The desire by others to seek political and economic domination has made others feel marginalised result to “unconventional” mean to achieve their goals which they call, liberation. This does in any way imply that religious extremists are not also responsible for terrorism. Some have hidden under religion to kill and bomb indiscriminately.

If we could just learn to respect others, avoid sowing confusion for political or economic gains, respect the religious beliefs of others and their right to exist, then we must have killed terrorism to a greater extend. Inasmuch as this is not done, fighting terrorism is a non-starter.