Devildogg4ever
07-13-03, 04:23 AM
Five Days on the Continent, Five African Commentaries
Sunday, July 13, 2003; Page B01
UGANDA New Vision
If a question were put to many a Ugandan as to what four countries one would love to live in, it would not be far-fetched to get an answer saying: (a) USA. (b) USA. (c) USA. (d) USA.
Such a reply would only confirm the zeal with which people all over the world desire to share in the so-called American dream. As U.S. President George W. Bush, a.k.a. Baby Bush, visits Uganda today only ostriches are not excited.
When world citizens -- young and old -- crave for things American, from Colas to dollars, some call it cultural imperialism, etc. But because the American magic pleases the body and soul, we swallow it with relish. Moreover, for Africans, calling Americans imperialists is rather ironic. History has it clearly that Americans, having suffered the British colonial yoke, were with Africans in kicking out the crown.
Well, someone could be quick to add that it was Americans who enslaved Africans in the first place. Granted. But we should not also forget that it was mainly under American masters that African slaves at least survived and eventually took their place under the sun. African slaves were equally taken in huge numbers to the Arab world, but where are they today? Wouldn't black people in the Arab world be in millions? Where are the Arab Colin Powells, Condoleezza Rices . . .? (Onapito Ekomoloit, July 11)
ZAMBIA The Post
President Bush's visit to Africa is not about appraising himself with the levels of poverty on the continent. President Bush has all the statistics on this score, he knows very well the levels of our poverty. We know that his visit is aimed at laying the basis for thorough-going and enduring U.S. military and economic hegemony all over the world.
We would have loved President Bush to visit our country so that we could have the opportunity to send a firm message that we shall not tolerate [U.S] imperialism. . . . (Editorial, July 10)
UGANDAThe Monitor
President George W. Bush arrives in Uganda today. He comes with pledges of a commitment to help Africa in the areas of HIV/Aids, good governance, trade and war on terrorism.
. . . We should, however, look beyond the words. Before September 11, Mr Bush never saw the relevance of Africa to the American State. In fact, our continent had no place in the foreign policy designs of the Republican government because Africa ranked rather low on the scale of America's "strategic interests". . . .
The hope is that Bush would successfully persuade [Ugandan] President Yoweri Museveni to adhere to the minimum and strict standards of democracy and good governance that are pre-conditions for receiving a portion of such aid over three years. We, however, will need to hear some form of commitment to remove farm subsidies in the United States (approximately $200 billion per year), which are frustrating well-intentioned trade programmes such as those under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. . . .
Welcome to Uganda, Mr Bush, but our suspicions remain. (Editorial, July 11)
ZIMBABWE
The Financial Gazette
Bush, the unofficial Planet Earth President, is set to visit South Africa, Botswana, Uganda, Nigeria and Senegal and hop over Africa's trouble spots such as strife-ridden Liberia, and embattled Zimbabwe. . . .
It's folly for Bush to think that he can solve Zimbabwe's problems via South Africa. [South African] President Thabo Mbeki's position on that one is very clear -- leave Zimbabweans to solve their own problems, period!. . .
The problem is that there is nothing at stake for the U.S. in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is not Iraq. It does not have oil, in fact this country is experiencing the worst fuel crisis in living memory. There is, therefore, not a chance in hell for Zimbabwe to tempt the Americans' insatiable taste for oil . . . . (Taungana Ndoro, July 10)
SOUTH AFRICA The Star
The visit this week by President George W. Bush was a major diplomatic coup for President Thabo Mbeki, who gained support for his stance on the Zimbabwe crisis.
Those who were hoping that Bush would coerce Mbeki into changing his softly-softly approach in dealing with President Robert Mugabe would have been disappointed. . . . We do not know what Mbeki told Bush behind closed doors, but the outcome of their meeting indicates the two leaders have failed to appreciate the urgency of the situation in Zimbabwe.
This leads us to draw an inference. There must have been a trade-off between the two men. Bush came to Africa primarily to mobilise support for his war on terror. So it is not unlikely that he was prepared to accept Mbeki's position on Zimbabwe in exchange for assurance of Mbeki's support. . . .
But there were issues that the two leaders avoided in order to find common ground. One is the protectionist trade policy of the U.S., which has kept South African producers out of the U.S. market. Another is the lack of respect for multi-lateralism displayed by the U.S., which has openly said it would not subject itself to the International Criminal Court. The U.S. has even imposed punitive measures against countries, including South Africa, that refuse to grant U.S. citizens immunity against ICC prosecution.
[T]he reality is that we were dealing with the only super-power in the world. The U.S. cannot be wished away and has to be engaged . . . . (Editorial, July 11)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46179-2003Jul11.html
Sunday, July 13, 2003; Page B01
UGANDA New Vision
If a question were put to many a Ugandan as to what four countries one would love to live in, it would not be far-fetched to get an answer saying: (a) USA. (b) USA. (c) USA. (d) USA.
Such a reply would only confirm the zeal with which people all over the world desire to share in the so-called American dream. As U.S. President George W. Bush, a.k.a. Baby Bush, visits Uganda today only ostriches are not excited.
When world citizens -- young and old -- crave for things American, from Colas to dollars, some call it cultural imperialism, etc. But because the American magic pleases the body and soul, we swallow it with relish. Moreover, for Africans, calling Americans imperialists is rather ironic. History has it clearly that Americans, having suffered the British colonial yoke, were with Africans in kicking out the crown.
Well, someone could be quick to add that it was Americans who enslaved Africans in the first place. Granted. But we should not also forget that it was mainly under American masters that African slaves at least survived and eventually took their place under the sun. African slaves were equally taken in huge numbers to the Arab world, but where are they today? Wouldn't black people in the Arab world be in millions? Where are the Arab Colin Powells, Condoleezza Rices . . .? (Onapito Ekomoloit, July 11)
ZAMBIA The Post
President Bush's visit to Africa is not about appraising himself with the levels of poverty on the continent. President Bush has all the statistics on this score, he knows very well the levels of our poverty. We know that his visit is aimed at laying the basis for thorough-going and enduring U.S. military and economic hegemony all over the world.
We would have loved President Bush to visit our country so that we could have the opportunity to send a firm message that we shall not tolerate [U.S] imperialism. . . . (Editorial, July 10)
UGANDAThe Monitor
President George W. Bush arrives in Uganda today. He comes with pledges of a commitment to help Africa in the areas of HIV/Aids, good governance, trade and war on terrorism.
. . . We should, however, look beyond the words. Before September 11, Mr Bush never saw the relevance of Africa to the American State. In fact, our continent had no place in the foreign policy designs of the Republican government because Africa ranked rather low on the scale of America's "strategic interests". . . .
The hope is that Bush would successfully persuade [Ugandan] President Yoweri Museveni to adhere to the minimum and strict standards of democracy and good governance that are pre-conditions for receiving a portion of such aid over three years. We, however, will need to hear some form of commitment to remove farm subsidies in the United States (approximately $200 billion per year), which are frustrating well-intentioned trade programmes such as those under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. . . .
Welcome to Uganda, Mr Bush, but our suspicions remain. (Editorial, July 11)
ZIMBABWE
The Financial Gazette
Bush, the unofficial Planet Earth President, is set to visit South Africa, Botswana, Uganda, Nigeria and Senegal and hop over Africa's trouble spots such as strife-ridden Liberia, and embattled Zimbabwe. . . .
It's folly for Bush to think that he can solve Zimbabwe's problems via South Africa. [South African] President Thabo Mbeki's position on that one is very clear -- leave Zimbabweans to solve their own problems, period!. . .
The problem is that there is nothing at stake for the U.S. in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is not Iraq. It does not have oil, in fact this country is experiencing the worst fuel crisis in living memory. There is, therefore, not a chance in hell for Zimbabwe to tempt the Americans' insatiable taste for oil . . . . (Taungana Ndoro, July 10)
SOUTH AFRICA The Star
The visit this week by President George W. Bush was a major diplomatic coup for President Thabo Mbeki, who gained support for his stance on the Zimbabwe crisis.
Those who were hoping that Bush would coerce Mbeki into changing his softly-softly approach in dealing with President Robert Mugabe would have been disappointed. . . . We do not know what Mbeki told Bush behind closed doors, but the outcome of their meeting indicates the two leaders have failed to appreciate the urgency of the situation in Zimbabwe.
This leads us to draw an inference. There must have been a trade-off between the two men. Bush came to Africa primarily to mobilise support for his war on terror. So it is not unlikely that he was prepared to accept Mbeki's position on Zimbabwe in exchange for assurance of Mbeki's support. . . .
But there were issues that the two leaders avoided in order to find common ground. One is the protectionist trade policy of the U.S., which has kept South African producers out of the U.S. market. Another is the lack of respect for multi-lateralism displayed by the U.S., which has openly said it would not subject itself to the International Criminal Court. The U.S. has even imposed punitive measures against countries, including South Africa, that refuse to grant U.S. citizens immunity against ICC prosecution.
[T]he reality is that we were dealing with the only super-power in the world. The U.S. cannot be wished away and has to be engaged . . . . (Editorial, July 11)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46179-2003Jul11.html