GAMBIA: REMEMBERING BLOODY 11 NOVEMBER 1994

By Rtd. Lt. Binneh S. Minteh

Who Are Responsible For The Summary Executions of Officers & Men of The Gambian Armed Forces? PART I

The events of November 11^th 1994 marked the beginning of a gloomy era in the annals of Gambian history. But what does that break mean? In a conventional approach to international affairs, war took place among nations. But on the sad day of November 11^th 1994, very poor, uneducated and half baked high school graduates challenged surprised and summarily executed gallant sons of The Gambia. Their execution showed an awful form of violence and to assess that faithful day’s state of affairs, several questions are necessary. Who carried out the executions?  What justifies the summary execution of those gallant sons?

Of all the potential manifestations of innocence on the part of the AFPRC military junta that carried out the summary executions, a review of the standard bodies of evidence appealed in supporting the fact that members of the Armed Forces Patriotic Revolutionary Council ordered the summary executions of the officers and men of the Gambian armed forces on the sad day of November 11th 1994.  For the presentation before any legal institution, these evidences can be divided into four interrelated sets of arguments for any legal proceedings. They could be presented as follows: the presence of council members at Yundum Army Barracks; their assembling of soldiers, the threatening by Edward Singhateh and his firing of a shot; the arresting of Lieutenant Bassiru Barrow and others, the attack on Fajara Barracks in the wee hours of the night where Lieutenant Abdoulie Dot Faal and others were executed and finally the executions at either the Nyambai forest and the Yundum Barracks or both. These are the principal ways in which the military junta fully participated in the summary executions and torture of innocent Gambian citizens.

As a victim who survived the ordeal of November 11^th 1994, the new global order warrants my exposition of all such atrocities for the consumption of transnational civil society. It is not out of revenge, jealousy or contempt but a simple notion of truth and reconciliation. Societies, communities and people go through transformations in different ways and history has always taught us that most transformations could be rough and long. In the process, it is therefore important for public officials to be held accountable and take full responsibility for their actions. Events of November 11^th 1994 must also be fully accounted for.

No one can therefore deny the fact that the likes of President Yaya Jammeh, SOS Edward Singhateh, SOS Yankuba Touray, former vice chairman Sana Sabally, SOS Babucarr Jatta, owe an explanation to not only the Gambia and her people, but to the civilized international community. They must understand that the authority of states are declining and “their command over outcome is not what it used to be” (Susan Strange, 1). The issue of human rights has robustly transformed the international community and international human rights laws are rapidly gaining ground. Immunity should not be the umbrella to hide under as the question of immunity has become a heated debate in the international arena. It is also becoming a norm of the 21^st century for heads of governments and senior government officials be stripped of immunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In remembering November 11^th 1994 I urge all Gambians and friends of the Gambia to pay a one minute silence in prayer for the following gallant sons who were cold bloodedly murdered by the regime of President Yaya Jammeh.

1.        Lieutenant Bassiru Barrow

2.      Lieutenant Abdoulie Dot Faal

3.      Lieutenant Gibril Seye

4.      Second Lieutenant Bakary Manneh

5.      Second Lieutenant Buba Jammeh

6.      Second Lieutenant Momodou Lamin Darboe.

7.      Officer-Cadet Sillah.

8.      Warrant- Officer Nyang.

9.      Cpl Bassiru Camara and many others rank and files.

May their souls rest in perfect and eternal peace.

To the families of the above victims and to all peace loving Gambians, let us keep hope alive and continue praying for our lost loved ones. Events in this 21^st century should be a lesson to all that tyrants and dictators can no longer escape the radar of transnational justice. In conclusion, it is my contention that the five ruling members of the Armed Forces Provisional Ruling Council (Retired Colonel Yaya Jammeh, Retired captain Sana Sabally, Retired Captain Edward Singhateh, Retired Captain Yankuba Ouray, Deceased Retired Captain Sadibou Hydara) are fully responsible for the summary executions of November 11^th 1994.

MAY GOD BLESS THE CIVILIZED INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AND DOWN WITH ALL DICTATORS AND TYRANTS IN THE WORLD.

Source:thegambiaecho.com

This article was first published by thegambiaecho.com in nov 2006.

Ghaddafi's death. A critic of the former Libyan leader breaks his silence

By Aroun Rashid Deen NY, USA

How history has come to pass, again,ghoulishly! This time, its victim: the self-proclaimed king of Sub-Saharan Africa, the flamboyant narcissist, Muammar Ghaddafi. History – in its chilling form – is not going to end with him because man, in his stubbornness to want to hold on to absolute power at all times at all costs, gets blinded, dumbed and deafened by Power-Absolute.

The video clip of a bloodied and dying Muammar Ghaddafi being bludgeoned is disturbing enough to rattle the very foundation of human conscience. The scene of his captors – Libyan revolutionary fighters – gloating as he faces death, horribly, brings to mind the scene in Homer’s The Iliad, where Achilles kills Hector and drags his body behind his chariot around Troy. It also reminds us of the delight taken by a mob of drunken and drug-induced Liberian rebels, led by a war-lord Prince Johnson, as they were slaying then-Liberian President Samuel Doe while cameras were rolling. The dying Samuel Doe lay naked, crying for mercy as he was stabbed to death and mocked.

What is troubling in this instance about Ghaddafi, as it was with Saddam Hussein, Samuel Doe and, to a lesser degree, Laurent Gbagbo of Cote D’Ivoire and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, is that we are witnessing the deadly blow of Power-Absolute being inflicted on its abuser. It always comes at a time when all that is left of man is the bare state of weakness, emptiness and irrelevance; features that also define us as mortal, but which we almost always brush aside or ignore once we command some level of political authority.As the distinguished French philosopher, Christian-thinker and essayist Simone Weil puts it in The Iliad: in the process of killing someone else we actually are killing ourselves. And as we witness the brutality on Ghaddafi that may have led to his death, we also actually witness ourselves, helplessly doomed, being killed.

I despise Ghaddafi – even in death – because of his role in the wars that brought about the brutal deaths of millions of Sierra Leoneans and Liberians and the devastation that those wars have brought to both countries. And what’s more, he was never held accountable for his actions.By the same token, I find no pleasure in witnessing his brutal death. Those who broadcast it on television or print it on their newspapers, however,should not be criticized as insensitive to its gruesome nature. They are just performing a responsibility they hold to the public.The alleged execution of the Libyan dictator has drawn worldwide concern and criticism not so much because he died but because of the brutal circumstances in the moments leading to his death – and witnessed by millions worldwide. Seeing, they say, is believing. However, seeing in this circumstance goes beyond believing. The savagery of what we witnessed is troubling.

With Ghaddafi abandoned, stripped of everything but his mere mortal self, what we see in that last moment is not a ‘powerful’ ruler but a representative of all of us – human beings – with our own blood spilling. This might account for the reason why some of us, despite our curiosity, turn away the moment we see it. But such brutal killings are

being carried out every day in the secret dungeons that also define the misguided absolute power of the Moammar Ghaddafis, the Hosni Mubaraks, the Samuel Does and the Saddam Husseins. Many have perished in the most gruesome ways at the hands of all these terrible men. Dictators often perceive their citizens as sub-human. In the early days of the protest-turned-revolt in Libya, Ghaddafi referred to the protestors as rats and cockroaches who would be tracked down, house to house, and crushed. The irony, of course, is that in the end is it Ghaddafi himself who, in an attempt to escape the rebels, was reduced to crawling in a drainage pipe, the home of rats and cockroaches.

Obsessed by the hunger for absolute power, dictators continuously mistake their authority for power. While they are only temporarily entrusted with the custody of authority, power is in the hands of the people, always. Authority is the legitimate consent that the governed entrust to the governor to rein as a leader, regardless of how that leader comes into the position. The people are the power. And when leaders try to wrest that power from the people at all costs, they end up hurting the very people who are the true custodians of absolute power. There is a limit to how much a leader can impose his will on the people, because only the governed have the ability to impose their will on the leader – as we have seen with all of the fallen men mentioned above.When a once great leader disgracefully succumbs, alas, people tend to wonder, with a troubled feeling of disbelief, why that is. History, as always, is merely at work.

The fall of Muammar Ghaddafi must serve as a warning to all leaders, be they autocratic, totalitarian or so-called democratic. History cannot be more clear: When leaders resort to devilish acts to cling to their authority, they end up making of their subjects the very devils who would eventually deliver them to their graves. Leaders of all nations great and small: You have been warned!

Aroun Rashid Deen is a freelance journalist. He lives in New York, USA

ard228@nyu.edu

Zimbabwe:Thou shalt not criticise Comrade Mugabe!

By KITSEPILE NYATHI

A Zimbabwean minister and a Roman Catholic priest who were arrested for criticising President Robert Mugabe were released on Wednesday after spending six days in police cells.

Moses Mzila Ndlovu - a co-minister in the Organ of National Healing and Reconciliation - and Father Marko Mnkandla were detained after attending mass in memory of victims of a 1980s army massacre in Western parts of the country.

On Tuesday they were granted $500 bail each and ordered to surrender their passports.

But their freedom was delayed because they did not have the travel documents with them.

Leg irons

The duo’s lawyers complained that they were denied access to their clients. They said Ndlovu and Mnkandla were also denied food during their detention.

The two were brought in leg irons amid tight security in a small town south-west of the capital Harare.

Ndlovu, who is also the deputy secretary general of the smaller faction of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), is charged under the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act for allegedly saying the police, intelligence service and the army were being used by President Mugabe to violate human rights.

The killings that occurred in Matabeleland soon after Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980 have remained a hot issue because the perpetrators have never been brought to book and Mugabe has defied pressure to apologise.

Police have also stepped up the arrest of Mugabe’s opponents ahead of elections planned for this year

Source:africa review

Yahya Jammeh: the last vestige of dictators in West Africa

Written by Joseph Sherman

Yahya Jammeh has ruled Gambia since 1994. The tiny West African nation’s citizens have grown familiar with the unpredictable exploits of its absolute ruler, who insists on being called His Excellency President Professor Dr. Al-Haji Yahya Jammeh.

He is known not only for his herbs-and-banana cure for AIDS but also his threat to behead gays and his mandate that he alone may drive through the giant arch commemorating his coup in the moldering capital, Banjul. Not to mention the documented disappearances, torture and imprisonment of dozens of journalists and political opponents

Even in the often brutal context of his 15-year dictatorship, the roundups of 2009 stand out, the president’s few open critics in Gambia say. Since the 1994 coup that brought him to power, at least 27 journalists have fled the country. One was murdered and another has not been seen since his arrest by the dreaded National Intelligence Agency. Others have described prolonged torture by electric shock and the use of knives and lighted cigarettes in Mr. Jammeh’s jails.

In early 2009, Mr. Jammeh apparently became concerned about witches in this country of mango trees, tropical scrub, dirt roads, innumerable police checkpoints and Atlantic coastline frequented by sun-seeking European tourists mostly unaware of the activities at nearby Mile 2 State Central Prison, where many opponents of the regime are taken

Leaders like Yahya Jammeh need to get over short-term interests – which is driven by greed, fear and insecurity, which has long hindered Africa to take the trip with the political instability. Non-Africans dominate the debate today on Africa’s future. It is time that Africa makes its voice heard, the real citizens take a step forward and dare to take a bigger leap for Africa future. This will be very difficult when the current leaders not want to lose power and their stranglehold over the country. It may be tough but Africans themselves know that the foundation of poverty in Africa still exist is in the corrupt politics.

A new system of governance that recognizes all ethnic groups, social justice and women must be respected and allowed to take place as a leader. Science, Technology and Innovation have to come into Africa. Military coups must stop.  African Unity (AU) must be stronger and emerge as the role of the military groups and to corrupt leaders in place. For this, strong men and women come forward and resist the old corrupt Africa and convey the vision of a better Africa.

Mr. Jammeh came to power as part of a military junta, overthrowing a democratically elected government in a bloodless coup. As president, he has won every election. Vowing to root out corruption when he began his rule, Mr. Jammeh is now accused of participation in it. It is high time he quits and allows democratic governance to take place in Gambia.

Source:http://thenewdailynation.com

The Twilight of Tyranny?

By John Feffer, March 1, 2011

Back in 2005, Congress considered a bill to remove two dictators a year for the next 20 years. "Some people think a world without tyrants is utopian," former U.S. ambassador to Hungary Mark Palmer told me that year. "And they think it's more utopian to have a deadline." Palmer, whose book Breaking the Real Axis of Evil inspired the ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2005, continued: "we're down to a limited number of dictators, and it's entirely feasible to get the rest of them out. Most are pretty creaky and won't even live until 2025!"

The ADVANCE Democracy Act picked up only 17 co-sponsors in the House and died in committee in 2007. That same year, President George W. Bush's pledge to support "democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," was no more successful. Democracy promotion was fatally weakened by the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. economic and military support for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and several other authoritarian regimes over the years – a double-strength double standard – dealt this philosophy a death blow.

But today, pundits on both the left and the right are again dreaming of a world without tyrants. For them, a 2025 deadline is far too generous deadline.

Egypt's Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia's Ben Ali are now gone. Libya's Muammar Gaddafi commands a dwindling number of supporters. Ali Abdullah Saleh is facing daily protests in Yemen. Paul Biya in Cameroon and Omar Bongo of Gabon might be in the next hot seats. Protests in China and Cuba, though small and immediately squelched, have drawn inspiration from the popular uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa. Dictators everywhere are calling their Swiss bankers and readying their escape jets. Perhaps North Korea's Kim Jong Il is reserving one of Robert Mugabe's villas in Zimbabwe, where he and his family might join Gaddafi in the last refuge for scoundrels.

Are we seeing the beginning of the end of an era that stretches back to the very origins of human political organization? And will Bush and his neoconservative advisors go down in history as philosopher-kings who, however unwittingly, set the wrecking ball in motion against the entire edifice of tyranny – rather than just targeting the tyrants not on our payroll?

To answer these questions, pundits are digging into history to find the most appropriate parallel to the current uprisings: the "springtime of nations" in 1848 when popular revolts spread throughout Europe and as far away as Brazil; the transformations in World War I's wake, the Russian revolution, and Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points; and the victories for self-determination during the decolonization that followed World War II.

Perhaps the best comparison is the end of last century’s cataclysmic change. The late 1980s and early 1990s saw the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, authoritarianism in South Korea, and apartheid in South Africa. "In 1991 alone, over 30 African countries were rocked by pro-democracy revolts," writes Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) contributor Francis Njubi Nesbitt in A Middle Eastern Dream Deferred? "Millions turned out for peaceful pro-democracy demonstrations.  Military dictatorships fell like dominos. Between 1985 and 1989 only five countries held competitive elections – Botswana, Gambia, Mauritius, Senegal, and Zimbabwe. From 1990-1994, more than 38 countries held truly competitive elections of which 29 openly challenged dictators." 

So far, the uprisings haven't been quite as influential. Nor are they achieving systemic change. Egypt's and Tunisia's military brass and political elite remain in charge. But it's early in the game. If public protests persist – as they have in Tunisia, resulting in the departure of the prime minister and two other ministers from the previous regime – some form of democracy might prevail, with real political parties and contested elections.

One conventional explanation for why democracy will eventually win out is that, whatever its virtues or flaws, it's the political system perfectly matched to the technology of our times. Tyrants can't compete against Twitter, WikiLeaks, and blogging. One-person rule requires control of the mass media. North Korea's Kim Il Sung, by using films as a principal mode of propaganda, understood the importance of controlling the message. But YouTube and DVDs of South Korean soap operas have eroded that monopoly. These technologies are the equivalent of arming the population. It equips them with the means of linking and friending movements into existence.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations have supported the use of these technologies as public diplomacy tools for promoting democracy. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently noted that: "We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their rights of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship. We are providing funds to groups around the world to make sure that those tools get to the people who need them in local languages, and with the training they need to access the internet safely." But this contention that technology is the mother of revolution – and the United States the midwife of this revolution – doesn't fully explain why we're experiencing the twilight of tyranny.

Here's why advocates of democracy promotion may well be right about tyranny's end – but not about how we will get there.

First, the events taking place in the Middle East aren't happening because of U.S. policy but despite it. Washington favors stability above all, because the status quois both predictable and favorable to the United States. This explains the double standard of supporting democracy in Iraq but not Saudi Arabia – a position many conservatives uphold in their lamentations over Mubarak's fall, as FPIF contributor M. Junaid Levesque-Alam points out in Focal Points. It also explains why the Obama administration hesitated to support the uprisings until it became clear that the status quo was no longer tenable. Even then, as FPIF contributor Fouad Pervez explains in Democracy Doesn't Equal Instability, "the Obama administration backed a transition to Omar Suleiman in the interests of preserving 'stability,' or more appropriately, existing conditions. If the army opts to implement some reforms but still tries to maintain much of the status quo, will Washington protest?"

Second, neocons assumed that new democracies would be pro-American, much as Eastern Europe backed U.S. foreign policy during the Bush years when "old Europe" equivocated. But new democracies like Indonesia and South Africa have proven rather independent in their global perspectives and favor a more equitable distribution of power in the international system. A democratic Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran will likely make geopolitics harder – not easier – for the United States (at least for those who hang on to the notion of U.S. economic and military supremacy). Democracy is more unpredictable than the House of Saud.

Finally, the uprisings were a response to economic injustice: the rise in food prices, exasperation over corruption, and the lack of jobs for 20-somethings. This injustice isn't merely a function of local conditions. As the UN University's World Institute for Development Economics Research discovered several years ago, the richest 10 percent of the world own 85 percent of all global assets, while the poorest 50 percent own a mere one percent. This gap is growing. The division of the world into rich and poor, what Citigroup describes as a “plutonomy and everyone else,” worries even big financial services companies like Allianz.

The tyrants are gone or on their way out the door. The bankers and plutocrats are worried that their turn is next. Whether in Egypt or in Wisconsin, democracy is not an end in itself – but a means to challenge economic tyranny. Those protesting in the Arab world don't just want to live in truth, like Vaclav Havel: they want to live in justice. Perhaps one day soon, Congress will debate a bill called the ADVANCE Economic Democracy Act that promotes fair trade, strong protections for workers and the environment, a financial transactions tax, and other ways of bridging the ruinous, destabilizing, and fundamentally undemocratic gap between rich and poor. Only then will night fall on tyranny.