Showing posts with label UBUNTU PLATFORM is not responsible for the content of external websites. Inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UBUNTU PLATFORM is not responsible for the content of external websites. Inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement.. Show all posts

Wednesday, 25 February 2009

Next week is National Consumer Protection Week (NCPW). This year's theme, "Nuts and Bolts: Tools for Today's Economy" was chosen to help people get the most for their money- whether you are trying to improve your credit history, tell the difference between a real deal or a rip-off, or protect your mortgage from foreclosure or foreclosure rescue scams.
The NCPW website includes pages on a range of consumer topics like banking, credit, consumer rights, identity theft & fraud, investments, money, and mortgages.
For a consumer reference guide, pre-order the 2009 Consumer Action Handbook. This free publication, available in April, includes tips on how to handle consumer issues, as well as a sample complaint letter to help you express consumer problems via mail, fax, or e-mail.
Check out all the sponsors of NCPW to learn how to protect yourself and your money
NASA Announces Winners of 2008 George M. Low Award for QualityTue, 24 Feb 2009 23:00:00 -0600
NASA has presented its premier honor for quality and performance, the George M. Low Award, to three companies that share a commitment to teamwork, technical and managerial excellence, safety, and customer service.



TOPIC: NEW DIRECTION FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2009, 2:00 P.M. EST


MODERATOR: First, I would like to say welcome to the Foreign Press Center again. And we ask that you turn your cell phones off and put them on vibrate, please. And we’re going to start with the program.

Today, we have U.S. Congressman John Lewis, who was elected to Congress in November of 1986, and he has served as U.S. Representative of Georgia until present time. Congressman Lewis is often called one of the most courageous persons of the Civil Rights Movement ever produced. He has dedicated his life to protecting human rights, secure civil liberty, and building what is – he calls, “the beloved community in America.” His dedication to the high ethical standards and moral principles has won him the admiration of many of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the United States Congress.

I present to you today, Congressman Lewis.

MR. LEWIS: Thank you. Thank you very much for those kind words of introduction. Let me just say that I’m delighted, very happy, and very pleased to be here at the Foreign Press Center.

As you heard, during my early life I was very much involved in the Civil Rights Movement in America. I grew up in rural Alabama, about 50 miles from Montgomery, outside of a little place called Troy. My father was a sharecropper, a tenant farmer. I grew up very poor. But in 1944, when I was four-years-old, and I do remember when I was four, my father had saved $300, and with the $300 he bought 110 acres of land. And on this farm we raised a lot of cotton and corn, peanuts, hogs, cows, and chickens. And I won’t bore you with the chicken story.

But it was my responsibility, as a young child, to care for the chickens. And I fell in love with raising chickens, like no one else could raise chickens. As a little child, I wanted to be a minister, so from time to time, with the help of my brothers and sisters and my first cousins, we would gather all of our chickens together in the chicken yard, like you would gather here in this room, and we would have church. And sometimes I would speak or preach with my brothers and sisters and the chickens making up the congregation or the audience. And when I look back on it, some of these chickens would bow their heads, some of these chickens would shake their heads. They never quite said “amen.” But I’m convinced that some of those chickens that I preached to during the ‘40s and the ‘50s tended to listen to me much better than some of my colleagues listen to me today in the Congress. Don’t tell any of them I said that. But some of these chickens were just a little more productive, at least they produced eggs.

But growing up there outside of Troy, and we would visit Troy, visit Montgomery or Birmingham, a community – a little town called Tuskegee – I saw those signs that said white men, colored men, white women, colored women, white waiting, colored waiting. And I would ask my mother, my father, my grandparents, my great-grandparents, why segregation? Why racial discrimination? And they would say that’s the way it is. Don’t get in the way. Don’t get in trouble.

But in 1955 at the age of 15, I heard the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., on an old radio and the words of Dr. King inspired me. I had heard about Rosa Parks in Montgomery – inspired me to find a way to get in the way. I was so inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That in 1956 at the age of 16, with some of my brothers and sisters and first cousins, we went down to the public library in a little town of Troy, Alabama, trying to check out some books, trying to get library cards. And we were told by the librarian that the library was for whites only and not for coloreds. I never went back to that library until July 5, 1998 – by this time I’m in the Congress – for a book signing of my book “Walking with the Wind.” It was like a big family reunion – blacks and whites showed up, had a wonderful program, we had food. At the end of the program, after I signed a lot of books, they gave me a library card. It says something about the distance we have come and the progress we’ve made in America in laying down the burden of race.

In 1958 at the age of 18, I met Martin Luther King, Jr., for the first time. I had met Mrs. King in 1957, Rosa Parks back in 1957, but 1958 I met Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and I got involved in America’s Civil Rights Movement. Came to Washington, D.C., the first time, after being involved in sit-ins, to go to something called a Freedom Ride. Back in 1961, it was almost impossible for blacks and whites to board a bus, to be seated together in Washington, D.C. and travel together into Virginia, through North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi into New Orleans without the possibility of being arrested or jailed or beaten. That’s what happened to us in 1961. 1961 is the same year that Barack Obama was born, the summer of the Freedom Ride, end of segregation and racial discrimination in public transportation all across the South. Those signs came tumbling down. And the only place you’re going to see those signs in America today will be in a museum, in a book, on a video. Back in 1961, ’62, ’63, ’64, ’65 it was almost impossible for people of color to be able to register to vote in many of the southern states of the old Confederacy from Virginia to Texas.

I came back here in 1963 at the age of 23. We had a meeting with President Kennedy in the Oval Office of the White House which chaired something called the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, better known as SNCC. By this time, all across the South, hundreds and thousands of people have been arrested and jailed for sitting in, for marching. Police Commissioner Bull Connor in the city of Birmingham had used dogs and fire hoses on people. So we came to meet with President Kennedy in June of 1963, and told him that there was a great deal of discontent, people were restless, and we needed to do something. We told him we were going to march on Washington.

And after meeting with him, we met as a group, the leaders of the movement, and organized a march on Washington. And I was the youngest speaker on August 28, 1963 – 23 years old – when Dr. King stood and said, I have a dream today, a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. Dr. King spoke number ten, out of the ten people that spoke. I spoke number six. And out of the ten people that spoke that day, I’m the only one still around.

I remember working on my march on Washington speech. When I was working on that speech, I saw a photograph in The New York Times of a group of black women in Southern Africa, carrying signs, saying, “One man, one vote.” So in my march on Washington speech, I said something like: “One man, one vote is the African cry. It is ours, too. It must be ours.” And that became the rallying cry of the young people in my old organization called SNCC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. And all across the south, we started mobilizing people around the right to vote.

So these many years later after the march from Selma to Montgomery and after the march on Washington, we have witnessed what I call in America a nonviolent revolution – a revolution of values, a revolution of ideas. People are registered and they are voting. And as I said a few days ago, I just returned from a trip in India commemorating the 50th anniversary of Dr. King and Mrs. King’s trip to walk the steps of Gandhi. And a group of members just returned last night from India. And I said there in India as we traveled, if it hadn’t been for Gandhi, hadn’t been for Martin Luther King, Jr., there would be no Barack Obama.

The teaching of Gandhi, the philosophy of passive resistance and nonviolence, and also taught by Martin Luther King, Jr., and inspired hundreds and thousands and millions of citizens in America helped to free and liberate not just a people, but a nation. And it’s gratifying, really, to go and travel abroad and go to New Delhi and Mumbai and other parts of India, and see people who are still adhering to the philosophy and to the discipline of nonviolence: the message of passive resistance, the message of peace, the message of love, the message of nonviolence.

And many of the people that we came in contact, young people, people in government, really admire what Dr. King did here. And they are very hopeful about the new President and his Administration. So I’ve gone on for a while, so why don’t I just open it up for some questions.

MODERATOR: Okay. Please remember to wait for the microphone and identify your organization and your name, please.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Congressman, and thank you very much for giving us – to ask you questions. My name is Hiroki Sugita. I’m with Kyodo News, Japanese newswire service. Recently, Attorney General Mr. Holder talked about the race issue in this country and he used the word – phrase “nation of cowards.” And would you comment what do you think of this, what he said?

MR. LEWIS: Well, I believe the attorney general was trying to suggest that in America, in spite of all of the changes, in spite of all of the progress that we’ve made as a nation and as a people, we still have some reservation to talk about the issue of race. But we need to discuss it. We need to engage in dialogue. That’s why during a non-election year, some of us in the Congress take members of the House and the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, back to visit some of these historic sites.

So the first weekend in March, we will be taking a coalition of Democrats, Republicans, African American members, white members, Latinos, Asian American members back to Birmingham, to Montgomery and to Selma. And as a matter of fact, the attorney general will be making the trip. It’s March 6th, 7th, and 8th. And he will be in Selma on the 8th of March to speak at the – from the same pulpit that Dr. King and myself spoke from many, many times during 1965, during the march from Selma to Montgomery.

QUESTION: Thank you, Congressman Lewis. And I thank you so much for your dedication to civil right and promoting human rights around the globe. My name is Nike Ching from Voice of America, Mandarin service. Last Congress, you have introduced resolution to urge the United States take a – it should become an international human rights leader. And also you sponsored – you have sponsored resolutions that – to urge China to play a more constructive role in Darfur crisis. My question for you is: What is your position, the U.S. becomes a United Nations Human Rights Council? Do you support that? And then, also, I would like to know, like, do you support the human rights continue to be the core value of U.S. foreign policy? And after that, if I may, I would like to have a follow-up after that. Thank you.

MR. LEWIS: Well, I think it’s important. I think it is a must that the issue of human rights continues to be a core – a standard and the heart and soul of our foreign policy. We cannot have – preach human rights here at home and not preach human rights abroad. When it comes to the matter of our foreign policy, whether it’s dealing with trade or bilateral concern, the issue of human rights must be involved.

QUESTION: Do you support United States to become a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council?

MR. LEWIS: I do support it. I think it’s very important for the United States to be a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

QUESTION: May I have a follow-up, please? I’m sorry. Secretary Clinton was just over East Asia last week, and then she said something like she will not emphasize so much on human rights with China, because there is more – a lot more important issues like global warming and things like that. I wonder if you have any comment on that?

MR. LEWIS: Well, when we were abroad in India, I did hear about the statement. I have not seen – I heard it on CNN, and I have not seen it written and I did not see it coming from the lips of the Secretary of State. But I do know the Secretary of State, who is a good friend and known her for many, many years, is deeply committed to the question of human rights.

QUESTION: Thank you, Congressman. It’s a privilege to be with you today. My name is Paolo Valentino. I’m the U.S. correspondent for Corriere Della Sera. The election of President Obama marks the end of a journey, in a way, in the evolution of the role of the Afro American community. Now – and yet the candidate Obama and President Obama had during the campaign, for instance, criticized certain attitudes of the black, or the Afro American community, like the lack of commitment of certain Afro American fathers toward the family or toward the kids. Do you hear those criticism, and if you could elaborate on that?

MR. LEWIS: Well, I share the concern raised by then-candidate Barack Obama. I think he was speaking to something that others have spoken to. During the lifetime of Martin Luther King, Jr., and many other leaders, people suggested and stated there are certain things that we can do and must do for ourselves, and we cannot depend on others to do it, nor federal government. And I think Barack Obama, as candidate and as President, was right in what he said.

QUESTION: Hello, sir. Thank you very much for being here. My name is Natalia Mozogovaya. I’m the Washington correspondent of Haartez, the Israeli newspaper. I have two questions.

First of all, I would be happy to hear your position on the possible participation of the United States in the Durban conference. And the second one: We’ve heard here some voices saying that during the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, maybe United States should have put more pressure on Israel to stop it earlier because so many people were killed. Thank you.

MR. LEWIS: Well, I think it’s important for the United States Government and for the American people to be represented in international conferences. We need to be at the table. We do – we need to be inside the tent and not outside. We need to be part of the debate and not be spectators. I think it’s important. I know there’s some concern about what may be done or what may be said during this conference, but I think that is very important.

I would leave it up to the Barack Obama Administration to take a lead, to take the initiative in saying what we should be doing as it relate to what is going on in the Middle East at this time.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Genocide topic is also connected to human rights. That’s why I am asking – Mr. Barack Obama, while running as candidate for president, he pledged to affirm Armenian genocide. And many other candidates during the last decades also made such kind of promises, but unfortunately did not keep it while being in White House, and the last president, George W. Bush, was one of them. What do you think about now times – how much realistic is it to expect that Mr. Obama will keep the promise and genocide will be accepted? Thank you very much.

MR. LEWIS: Well, it is – it is my hope and my prayer, and I think it’s the hope and the prayers of the American people and people of good will all over the world that President Barack Obama would keep his commitment, keep his word as it relate to what is going on, on the whole question of Darfur, as someone raised earlier. I think it was former Secretary of State Colin Powell who suggested that what is going on there is genocide, and if – we should call it what it is, and we should use everything possible to put an end to genocide in Darfur, and get China to use its influence and bring it to bear on the leaders in Sudan.

QUESTION: Congressman, there was a big controversy on the political caricature on the New York Post, and I would like to ask you, what do you think that – racial prejudice is still there in the U.S. media or American media? This kind of racial prejudice is the – it seems to me somewhat stronger in the media than the – out of – in the rest of the world.

MR. LEWIS: Well, in America, because of our long history, going back to the days of slavery and to the present, we live in a race-conscious society. We’re very conscious. And there have been a long history of stereotypes. I don’t know what has been the reaction of some of the people in the Administration, but apparently, in some parts of the American community, the cartoon in the New York Post struck a raw nerve. I’ve only seen it abroad, when I was abroad. I just got back last night, late last night, and I saw it on television abroad. I think people have to be sensitive, whether you’re writing an editorial or writing a story, whether it’s a cartoonist who is trying to make a point for some type of editorial.

No one, but no one in the country such as – want to deny members of the media freedom of the press. People have a right to draw and print. That’s in keeping with our basic constitutional rights, our Bill of Rights in America. But a large number of people saw this as offensive, and whether it was a reference to the President or not, we don’t know what was in the mind of the cartoonist.

QUESTION: Thank you, Congressman Lewis. My name is Harima from Tokyo Broadcasting, Japanese major networks. I believe you have witnessed the various process of – various stage of the long Civil Rights Movement history. And now we see the first black President. But on the other hand, is still the racist issue in this society to be discussed, to be overcome. And how do you define this moment in the history of civil rights movement, as well as the history of the United States?

MR. LEWIS: Well, the moment that we witnessed, with the election of Barack Obama last November and the swearing-in of him just last month, must be looked upon as an unbelievable moment in the history of America, and maybe in the history of a people. To me, it is almost unreal.

I remember the night that he was declared the winner. I jumped and I shouted, and I felt like I was having an out-of-body experience. I started crying. I didn’t think my feet were ever going to touch the floor again. And a member of the media asked me and said, you’re crying so much tonight, what are you going to do when he takes the Oath of Office? I said, if I have any tears left, I’m going to cry some more. And that’s exactly what I did.

It says something about America. It says something that we’re still struggling in this country, in this democracy, to create a more perfect union. We’re not there yet. We have not yet created the beloved community. We have not yet created or fulfilled the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. But I’ll tell you one thing. It is a down payment, it’s a major down payment, on the fulfillment of this dream.

Just think, a few short years ago, less than 44 years ago, in many parts of the American South, people of color could not register to vote, not until after the voting rights that was passed by the Congress, and finally into law by President Lyndon Johnson on August 6th, 1965. There was hundreds and thousands and millions of people, and now some of these same people, or their grandchildren or their great-grandchildren, are now voting and participating with hundreds and thousands and million of others to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States.

So we on our way toward the creation of a truly multiracial, democratic society in America. There may be some setbacks. There may be some disappointments. But as a nation and as a people, we on our way.

MODERATOR: Congressman Lewis, we have a center in New York. New York, you have a question? Go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, I have two questions. My name is Martin Gelin. I’m from a Swedish newspaper. First question is: What specific policies do you think the President can implement to improve things for the African American community? And the second question is: The Republican Party have, for the first time, an African American chairman, Michael Steele, and the African American support for the Republicans has been pretty steady, at like 4 or 5 percent for the last ten years. Why do think it’s been so low? And do you think that Michael Steele is going to be able change that?

MR. LEWIS: Well, the President and his Administration, working with members of the Congress on both sides of the House, must continue to do what is necessary to improve the lives of all Americans. There’s still too many of our people that have been left out and left behind. We have a healthcare disparity. We’ve got to close the gap in education. We got to find a way to put, at the top of the American agenda, the concern and the need of the least among us, the very poor.

People have been doing very well until recent months. But in spite of the level of improvement, the growing number of African American and other minorities that are entering the middle class, there’s too many people that are left out and left behind. It’s not only African Americans, but there are low income whites, and Latinos and Asian American and Native American. So we all got to be caught up and brought into the mainstream of the American way of life.

Now, when it comes to the like of African Americans supporting the Republican Party, I think African American, like other American, have a keen sense of their friends. The Republican Party must become very sensitive to the needs of all American and not just those at the top, but all American.

I think Michael Steele is going to have a very difficult road to hoe and a difficult job to bring African American to the fore. Simply because a person is black and head of a party, it doesn’t mean that the great majority of blacks, African Americans, are going to follow him. He ran for the Senate in the state of Maryland, and the great majority of black America in Maryland did not vote for him.

MODERATOR: We take another one from New York.

QUESTION: Thank you so much for speaking to us, sir. My name is Andreas Bondevik. I’m a correspondent from the Norwegian News Agency. I’d like to take the opportunity to ask you, the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo and your friend Mr. Gleditsch, has invited you to the 50th anniversary this year. I just wanted to ask you if you know if you have time to come and speak here in Oslo, and if so, when that will be? Thank you.

MR. LEWIS: We have received an invitation. And we will give the invitation very careful consideration. I would love to come and spend some time. In 1966, when I was chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the students in the Scandinavian countries invited me to come and I spent several weeks traveling, and I would love to do it again.

But this time, you know, I’m a member of the Congress and I don’t like missing votes. I like to try to represent the people that sent me to Washington. But if we can find the time to do it, we will come.

MODERATOR: Okay. We’ll take one more question from New York.

QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Jacquelien Nienhuis. I work for a Dutch newspaper, Algemeen Dagblad. You just said that we are there – not there yet, but Obama’s victory is a major down payment for Mr. Martin Luther King’s dream. What do you feel is now the biggest priority for American Civil Rights Movement to fulfill this dream?

MR. LEWIS: Well, if you’re going to see meaningful changes in the days, months, and years to come in America, it’s not just going to be about civil rights, but more about human rights. And there must be a coalition, similar to the coalition of the ‘60s, a coalition of conscience. In a real sense, we must pick up where Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy left off in 1968.

At the time that Martin Luther King., Jr., was assassinated in April 1968, he was organizing something called the Poor People’s Campaign, where he was trying to bring to Washington to put on the American agenda the concerns and needs of all segments of the American society. We have to find a way to say to those of us in the Congress, and say to the new Administration, and say to our business leaders, our religious leaders, the media, and people in the academic community, that we’re all in this thing together and we got to look out for each other, that in a sense, we’re one America, we’re one people, we’re one family, we’re one house, the American family, the American house. And we all live in this world together.

That’s what I tried to say in India during the past week, that we got to create a society at peace with itself, here in America and around the world, that we got to spend our limited resources on taking care of those that are in need. We have a right to know in America, and we have a right to know in the world, what is in the food we eat, what is in the air we breathe, what is in the water we drink, and make this little piece of real estate that we call the earth, this little planet look greener and to look cleaner and to look peaceful for all of us who dwell among our fellow human beings.

MODERATOR: Okay, we have time for one more question, and we’ll go to the back.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MODERATOR: Wait for the mike.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Congressman Lewis. My name is Shogo Kawakita with Kyodo News, Japanese news wire service. I have two questions, if I may. One is, you just mentioned the United States has not achieved a perfect union. Could you briefly tell us the definition of a perfect union? That’s my first question. Then secondly, President Obama is now trying to rebuild a moral leadership in the world, which was undermined under Bush Administration. But he has faced – he is facing challenges, that is, the threat of terrorism. How should the United States reconcile the security and civil liberty?

MR. LEWIS: Well, I may not be able to give you the best definition for a more perfect union. But an all-inclusive community – we must include everybody. No one, but no one, must be left out or left behind. But I think we will know when it’s perfect, maybe will not become – be perfect. But when we come to that moment, come to that state in America or in this world, where we recognize the dignity – respected dignity and the worth of every human being, and that we do not violate the human rights of people, and we guarantee people to meet that basic need, that is important in any society. And in America, we could serve as a model for the rest of the world.

When it comes to the issue of terrorism, there is not any room in our society for terrorism. And wherever it exists, there must be effort to combat it, but not with just bombs and missiles and guns. There must be in our country and in the world more people-to-people diplomacy, people getting to know each other. I would love to see our country spend millions and billions of dollars for more Peace Corps volunteers, sending people all over the world to meet and work with other people, that we do more cultural exchanges, having young people from other parts of the world come to America, and have American young people travel to other parts of the world to engage in educational exchanges, cultural exchanges.

One of the things that I’ve been thinking about since coming back from India, that we can have some type of – not – fellowships where young people from India come to America to study the way of Martin Luther King, Jr., to study the Civil Rights Movement, and having young people from America to go to India to study the way of Gandhi and pass it on to generation and generation, and you create a sea of humanity all over the world, not just in India but in the other part of Asia and Europe and in Central and South America.

Thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you so much, Congressman for coming today. We’re happy to have you. You were very informative, and thank you for coming.

MR. LEWIS: Thank you.










Joint Press Release
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve SystemFederal Deposit Insurance CorporationDepartment of the TreasuryOffice of the Comptroller of the CurrencyOffice of Thrift Supervision

February 23, 2009
Joint Statement by the Treasury, FDIC, OCC, OTS, and the Federal Reserve
The U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Reserve Board today issued the following joint statement:
"A strong, resilient financial system is necessary to facilitate a broad and sustainable economic recovery. The U.S. government stands firmly behind the banking system during this period of financial strain to ensure it will be able to perform its key function of providing credit to households and businesses. The government will ensure that banks have the capital and liquidity they need to provide the credit necessary to restore economic growth. Moreover, we reiterate our determination to preserve the viability of systemically important financial institutions so that they are able to meet their commitments.
"We announced on February 10, 2009, a Capital Assistance Program to ensure that our banking institutions are appropriately capitalized, with high-quality capital. Under this program, which will be initiated on February 25, the capital needs of the major U.S. banking institutions will be evaluated under a more challenging economic environment. Should that assessment indicate that an additional capital buffer is warranted, institutions will have an opportunity to turn first to private sources of capital. Otherwise, the temporary capital buffer will be made available from the government. This additional capital does not imply a new capital standard and it is not expected to be maintained on an ongoing basis. Instead, it is available to provide a cushion against larger than expected future losses, should they occur due to a more severe economic environment, and to support lending to creditworthy borrowers. Any government capital will be in the form of mandatory convertible preferred shares, which would be converted into common equity shares only as needed over time to keep banks in a well-capitalized position and can be retired under improved financial conditions before the conversion becomes mandatory. Previous capital injections under the Troubled Asset Relief Program will also be eligible to be exchanged for the mandatory convertible preferred shares. The conversion feature will enable institutions to maintain or enhance the quality of their capital.
"Currently, the major U.S. banking institutions have capital in excess of the amounts required to be considered well capitalized. This program is designed to ensure that these major banking institutions have sufficient capital to perform their critical role in our financial system on an ongoing basis and can support economic recovery, even under an economic environment that is more challenging than is currently anticipated. The customers and the providers of capital and funding can be assured that as a result of this program participating banks will be able to move forward to provide the credit necessary for the stabilization and recovery of the U.S. economy. Because our economy functions better when financial institutions are well managed in the private sector, the strong presumption of the Capital Assistance Program is that banks should remain in private hands."
2009 Banking and Consumer Regulatory Policy



World Security Network reporting from Berlin, February 21, 2009
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
"During the Cold War and the arms race of the superpowers, the world stood on the brink of a nuclear catastrophe on several ocasions."The ending of the Cold War between 1989 and 1991 re-activated regional rivalries and lifted the restraints on latent mercenary entrepreneurs, and forced participants in existing low intensity, privatized or civil conflicts around the world to seek new financial backers. The proliferation of such conflicts has prompted many commentators, recognizing also that states have lost their monopoly on military force, to discover a new type of war with each 'new war'. But, apart from it being too soon to tell if these new wars are only a temporary phenomenon, or restricted to certain parts of the world, what is much more important and even essential is the political and moral framework through which we interpret these developments.
In an attempt to capture the unexpected forms taken by excessive violence since the epochal years 1989-91, Robert Kaplan has argued, that these developments are indicating a coming anarchy, which has of course to be prevented. In Yugoslavia, Kaplan saw the impending collapse of nation states and the rise of a Hobbesian jungle of gang wars, tribal slaughter, and ideological jihads.
His statement is based on the assumption that the level at which wars are being fought has shifted from the level of the state to a "lower" level. It is argued that in most of these conflicts, non-state actors are involved on at least one side. This is seen to lead to the conclusion that the motivation and goals of these non-state actors no longer follow political or ideological imperatives but have other sources which may be ethnic, economic, or the fact that violence has become an autonomous force. This view leads directly to recent concepts such as the idea of a liberal American empire, because this is seen to be the only principle that can guarantee a minimum of order as a defence against the approaching anarchy.
Things would look different, however, if this diffusion onto the level of conflict "below" that of the state were no more than a transitional phase, or if this development (which cannot be disputed in general terms, because there is a lot of evidence for it), were restricted to certain parts of the world - such as Sub-Saharan Africa and the traditional lines of conflict on the fringes of the former empires. Additionally one may take into account the possibility that some aspects of future conflicts will be politically determined even though the parties involved are non-state actors (as Hezbollah, Hamas). The paradigm of these wars would not be determined by the order/anarchy antithesis, but by the antithesis between different conceptions of order in the minds both of the actors themselves as well as of "interested third parties", public opinion, to which the various conflict parties refer and appeal. Ideas of a "liberal empire", which may still be relevant to an antithesis between order and anarchy, would be especially likely to aggravate conflicts over the politics of order.
...more











Medical Justice has published an: 'On-line handbook for visiting independent doctors'.View the handbook at:http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/content/view/325/51/The Metropolitan Support Trust/Refugee Support's Research Consultancy Unit has commissioned research on housing and homelessness issues specific to Lesbian, gay, Bisexual and transgender (LGBT) asylum seekers living in and returning back to London.If you would like any more information about this research project, or would like to contribute, please contact the Research Consultancy Manager, Charlotte Keeble: http://us.mc516.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Charlotte.Keeble@mst-online.org.uk The International Commission of Jurists has published: 'Assessing Damage, Urging Action: Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights'.Download the full report at:http://www.icj.org/IMG/EJPReport.pdf (pdf file, 1.9mb)Or download the summary at:http://www.icj.org/IMG/EJPExecutiveSummary.pdf (pdf file, 640kb)HOUSE OF LORDS JUDGEMENTSThe House of Lords has published a judgement on the deportation of Abu Qatada and two Algerian men. View and download the judgement at:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090218/rbalge-1.htm

Friday, 6 February 2009

Namibia calls on the CPA

YES WE CAN:
Do you want to be part of history?Do you want a copy of all OBAMA'S speeches both Audio and video ?
The speeches range from the 2004 DNC Keynote address ,July 27,2004 (15:48)
to President -elect victory speech ,November 4, 2008(10:29)
For inquiries please call tel 07960811614 or email kha2944t@yahoo.co.uk









The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) consists of the national, provincial, state and territorial Parliaments and Legislatures of the countries of the Commonwealth.Today the Secretary General Dr William Shija was able to meet a delegation of Parliamentarians and Council Members from The Republic of Namibia at his Westminister offices.
Below is what happened in Pictorial form :





The secretary general was able to speak to the guests about the the Importance of Parliamentary democracy in the commonwealth



























































PRESS RELEASE . . . PRESS RELEASE . . . PRESS RELEASE . . .
Global Women’s Strike Press Office: 07958152171

Rediscovering Tanzania ’s Ujamaa –
Tribute to the Great Ntimbanjayo Millinga and
the Ruvuma Development AssociationSunday 8 February 2009 1.30 – 5.30 pm

Bolivar Hall, Venezuelan Embassy, 54 Grafton Way , London W1 5AJ

In the 1960s, a great anti-imperialist movement swept the world. President Julius Nyerere urged Tanzanians to reject capitalist exploitation, and build a society based on African communalism. This was at the heart of his development policies. Ntimbanjayo Millinga with a few others and hardly any funding put these views into practice and built an extraordinary rural society based on equity between women and men, young and old, with and without disabilities. They achieved a harmony most people have never known and which, we’re always told, ‘human nature’ prevents us from achieving.

Few know what rural people in Tanzania in the 1960s collectively created, despite lack of material resources. By 1969, 17 ujamaa villages had formed the Ruvuma Development Association (RDA). But the governing party was so hostile to grassroots power that, against Nyerere’s will, they closed it down. Tragically, Millinga died in 2008. But the RDA he led is a beacon today for grassroots struggles to change the world.

Participants include:

o Conrada Millinga, widow of Ntimbanjayo Millinga, and now involved in local self-help projects initiated by her husband in the years after the RDA’s closure.
o Suleman Toroka, head teacher of the remarkable RDA school at Litowa, where the RDA started, from which young people and all concerned with education can learn a great deal.
o Ralph and Noreen Ibbott, British colleagues, living with their children in an ujamaa village, who helped and gave technical advice to the RDA, at the invitation of Ntimbanjayo Millinga,. Noreen Ibbott worked with the women. Ralph Ibbott was a dedicated and skilled engineer, whose unique account of what the RDA achieved and how, and its destruction, will be published.
o Selma James, co-ordinator of the Global Women’s Strike, introduced the Strike’s 2006 re-publication of President Nyerere’s Arusha Declaration, and helps reclaim RDA for the movement today.
Part of an INTERNATIONAL GATHERING of the GLOBAL WOMEN’S STRIKE & INTERNATIONAL WOMEN COUNT NETWORK: THE STRUGGLE AGAINST POVERTY, WAR AND OCCUPATION, 31 Jan uary to 8 February 2009.

For more information: Global Women’s Strike http://www.globalwomenstrike.net/
Press office: 0207 482 2496; 07958 152 171

Wednesday, 21 January 2009

'British handcuffs, the handcuffs of freedom'
By Jeremy Seabrook

We publish the extraordinary testimony of an asylum seeker from the Congo Republic 'Laurent Mpinde' who is fighting to stay in the UK and cannot give his real name.
Laurent Mpinde, who was studying sports science in Brazzaville and teaching in schools and colleges, was interviewed last year by Jeremy Seabrook researching the book, The Refuge and the Fortress: Britain and the Flight from Tyranny commissioned for the Council for Assisting Refugee Academics. The interview has been edited by Amanda Sebesteyen.
'Democracy was confiscated'
'The Congo Republic ought to be rich. It is rich. We have oil and timber. But it is a police state. The administration polices the people - hard. There is an elaborate system of surveillance and control. Although per capita income is around $15,000 a year, about 70 per cent of the people are poor. There is no justice.
The two main companies which extract oil are Elf, which is French and Agip, which is Italian. There are British companies also. The President's son had his office in London, although it is closed now. They work through networks of sub-contractors. Our country is the private hunting-ground of France.
There was a series of coups after Independence, but this erupted into ethnic fighting after the 1992 elections, which were disputed. The southern-based president Pascal Lissouba was in power from '92-'97, a brief period of democracy. But he was toppled by Sassou in 1997; the opposition was disqualified and a third party, that of Andre Milongo, pulled out alleging irregularities. This led to five years of civil war - petrol wars actually.
France had begun to lose its influence, so supported the war and sold arms to both belligerents. Many died. It seems almost every family lost a relative. People had to flee into the forests. It was the coup de grace for democracy.
I belonged to Lissouba's Union Pan Africaine pour la Democratie Sociale. We organised the people, that was our crime. There were elections in 2002, and I set up a meeting at the university. We should have won; we were the largest party across the country. But our president was in England. He had been judged and condemned in his absence. We declined to take part because we knew the election outcome was a foregone conclusion.
The elections were a masquerade, although Europe saw fit to say the result was fair. Sassou's party won almost 90 per cent of the vote. Whoever wins 90 per cent in a democracy? Democracy was confiscated.
When we lost power, everyone fled. We were arrested at the university. We were beaten unconscious. When I woke up, I was in prison, where I remained for seven months. We often had to drink our own urine. I was physically violated. The country was in a state of war.'
'You are too young to die'
After seven months in a Brazzaville jail, Laurent was woken early one morning.
'I was taken with other prisoners in a military truck to the southern region of Congo, where rebels had their headquarters. The intention was to shoot us, and then say that rebels had killed us.
Our life was saved by an officer. He said, "You are too young to die," and released us. We begged to be killed, not shot in the back as we were running away. He said we should run. Sometimes, soldiers fire in the air, sometimes they miss deliberately.
These regimes do not command the loyalty even of the people they privilege - the police and army. They see the arbitrariness, the injustice of it, and do their bit to subvert the regime.
We were free. We came to deserted villages that had been emptied of all the population following a government ultimatum. There were just a few old and sick people who had been unable to leave. All the young people had gone. If anyone had caught us, we would have been killed.
I don't know why the officer saved us. As teachers, many thousands of children pass through our hands. Our pupils and students often become soldiers, who knows? Maybe someone recognised us. Long afterwards I met a former pupil of mine in Manchester. He lived in France, and was in Britain visiting his family. You meet your pupils in the most unexpected places.
I took a pirogue canoe across the Congo River, the boundary between the Congo Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I understood some of the language of the piroguiers - the people who ply the canoes. They took me across to the DRC. I came to a village with a big church, a place of large-scale pilgrimage. I was sick. In prison I had been violated and beaten. I bled a lot. At the church, I met someone on a pilgrimage from Brazzaville. I asked her to contact my cousin-sister at home, who would help me.
My cousin-sister contacted some people-smugglers, and paid to have some false papers made. I was taken to Kinshasa by truck. Photographs and travel documents were prepared. I embarked with the smuggler and a woman on an Ethiopian Airlines flight to Addis Ababa. He held my passport. We flew on to London, passing through customs and immigration.
Once we got to London, he said he had to go. He gave us instructions, telling me I should ask for asylum. I slept in a flat where the woman was staying. It was a weekend so I could do nothing until Monday, when I asked for asylum at Lunar House in Croydon. There was such a throng of people, they said, "Come back tomorrow". I requested asylum.
I stayed in the flat for three or four months. Little by little, I made connections, linked up with people. I looked for a lawyer, and had to find a doctor, because my health was still not good. I had to leave the place where I was staying; I was placed by the Home Office in a hotel for a week, then sent to Stoke-on-Trent.
'Do the people who run the Home Office have any idea?'
My efforts to obtain asylum have been degrading.
At my first interview with the Home Office my request for asylum was refused. I wonder if the people who run the place have any idea of the political situation in our country? Do they know what the army and police do to their opponents?
At the appeal hearing I complained of the superficiality of the first interview. I didn't know the system. I had an interpreter, and spoke only to him. I never even saw my lawyer. My English was poor. If you cannot speak the language, people think you are stupid. My lawyer abandoned me.
I got a good lawyer from the Refugee Legal Centre, but Stoke-on-Trent was too far away, so I was advised to find another. Then my file was lost. I had to make copies of such papers as I had, but because I had not signed my first declaration when I asked for refugee status, it was invalid. I had to go before the appeal tribunal, although I did not understand what was said. My appeal was refused.
I found a fourth lawyer, who urged me to make a fresh claim. I had no house, no support; I was taken in by some people who were kind to me. But my health deteriorated. At a football field I met someone who told me he could help get me work. He found me some papers, and took my photo. I started work. It was packing goods in a warehouse. I felt better. I was earning some money. I could pay for my lodging. It was not a quiet life, but it was better. That went on for some months. I was still waiting for a reply from the Home Office to my new claim. Then one day at work, the police and immigration authorities came. They arrested me.
"We have been looking for you." "Why?" "Your case is over."
I had been studying English at Crewe, and I went to my teacher who took me to another lawyer. I would have to pay £135 an hour. I had tried to save some money.
I was taken to a detention centre near Oxford. They said I was to be deported. They knew nothing. I was ill in the bus. I couldn't walk. They took me to Harmondsworth, near Heathrow. I was badly treated there. Immigration was going to deport me. "Co-operate", they said, "and tell us everything." I told them I had made a new claim. They had no knowledge of it.
'Ten days later, a letter came, saying my claim had been refused. I was issued with a removal order. I was taken to the airport with nothing, no bag, no luggage. The escort company put me in handcuffs and threatened me. They took me there so they could say I was uncooperative and could be held in indefinite detention.
'I have never seen such misery as in detention here'
I was seven month in detention, which is the same amount of time I spent in prison in Brazzaville. I was arrested there, and I have been arrested here. You can see the marks of handcuffs on my wrists. These are British handcuffs, the handcuffs of freedom.
A cousin in London had offered me £500 to make a fresh claim. I gave it to the lawyer. He said, "I can do nothing". But he wouldn't give back the money. Then I was on my fifth lawyer. I was helped by the London Detainee Support Group who put me in contact with CARA, the Council for Assisting Refugee Academics. It was CARA who helped me with money for travel and studying and basic necessities.
Another removal order came. I got a guarantee from CARA and from my teacher. At the next tribunal, Immigration said I had been aggressive and fought with their officers. I said, "No, they threatened me". They said the deportation would take place in one or two weeks. I was to go via Paris. But there was no flight to Brazzaville that day. My name was not on the passenger list.
Immigration said the escort would have to be strengthened. I was taken onto the aircraft in handcuffs, not on the route taken by passengers but a back way. I could see the luggage being loaded. Mine was left outside. They threatened me. I was so angry, I fought. They hurt me. They sat me in the plane. I caused such a disturbance the pilot said he would not fly. I was taken out, insulted and sworn at.'
Laurent later discovered that the Secretary of CARA had contacted the Chief Removals Officer, and asked him whether his remit included sending people to their death, threatening to use his political contacts to publicise the case. Laurent was taken to Colnbrook , the high security detention centre near Heathrow.
'CARA got me my sixth lawyer. A fresh removal order was made. A lawyer CARA had engaged from the Refugee Legal Centre took out an injunction and won the right to a judicial review.
By this time it was November 2005. I went before a judge. Immigration lied. They said I had no right of appeal. They said I was violent. The judge told them, "You are immigration officers, you are not the court. You have no right to prevent an appeal." The judge saw no reason why I should be kept in detention.
It was such a relief. I could not accept being detained again. I have never seen such a concentration of misery, sadness and hatred as I saw there. I was in Harmondsworth when the July bombings took place in London in 2005. When they heard the news, there was jubilation among some detainees. Although the bombing was a barbaric act, I think I can understand the level of alienation they must have felt. Whenever the British teams were playing on TV, whatever sport, the people in detention always supported their opponents.
'This country has destroyed me'
This country has destroyed me. I can no longer think or remember. I had lived difficult moments before, but at least you could believe in something. You believed that people over here would treat you with fairness. I have always worked. I have always studied. I love my work passionately. I am trying to learn English, but have now lost all chance of finding a place at university. I thought I would be protected here. Instead, I have been subjected to violent abuse, rejection and have been called a liar. If I see a policeman or immigration officer now I feel ill.
The more intellectual one is, the more the authorities seem to complicate your life. Whenever the authorities have interviewed me, they said, "You have no ties here." It is as though they are pushing us to make relationships here and father children to support our claim. I don't want to do that. I have a family I love. I am wondering if I will ever see them again. All I want is to be with them. I told my psychiatrist the only thing that has kept me from suicide has been my children.'
Laurent is an asylum seeker of undetermined status. He lives on Asda 'gift card' vouchers worth £35 per week, which are supposed to cover all food, clothing and transport.
'In Stoke-on-Trent, people from the church have given me support and friendship. CARA has shown me that there is also compassion and understanding which has nothing to do with the State or the government. But I think the stories that deportees take away with them will do terrible long-term damage to your country and its interests.'
Jeremy Seabrook's The Refuge and the Fortress: Britain and the Flight from Tyranny 1933-2008 is published by Palgrave Macmillan at £14.99 and can be ordered from the links below.
The Institute of Race Relations is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

Tuesday, 13 January 2009

Uganda child soldiers

Harry Should be Sacked From The British ArmyBy Elaine Sihera
Why Prince *(Author of "Managing the Diversity Maze" and founder of the British Diversity Awards)Prince Harry made a couple of racist remarks on tape and they were shocking. There have been many people trying to excuse his behaviour, trying to blame 'pc' culture for any negative reaction against him and trying their best to pretend it is not important, just a storm in a teacup. But it is extremely important what the Royal Family does, if it is to enjoy the respect of the people the Queen presides over. The Queen is head of the Commonwealth and if her family is not going to have the respect for every country within that diverse circle, especially people of colour, what on earth is it saying about their role at the head of such diversity?Prince Harry cannot afford to be a law unto himself just because he has a title and enjoys a privileged life. That comes with specific responsibilities in the way he behaves, in valuing others and setting a good example as a role model for the taxpayers money. If he just wants to be a yob, to treat people how he likes and to say what he wants, what's he doing as a prince? Furthermore, he said those things in the Army - an army which has been a bastion of institutional racism up to a few years ago and has gone to lengths to clean up its act, to make its forces more diverse and its image more appealing, especially in recruitment. How are Harry's comments supposed to promote such diversity? Most important, how on earth can one have a commanding officer who uses such racist terms so freely within a diverse team, who clearly ingratiates himself to his troops for acceptance and approval and so easily, in a cavalier manner, crosses the line of maintaining discipline and respect? It is not just the issue of racism here which is of major concern to service people in this country, it was the clear threat to discipline through disrespect that came out on the tape, in a force that depends on the troops strictly obeying orders to protect their lives. Prince Harry was trying desperately hard to be one of the lads from a position as team-leader which would not have encouraged that and without the respect to enforce his position. Such behaviour demeans the role of officer and puts discipline at risk.Make no mistake about it, Prince Harry has racist tendencies due to his own ignorance. One act of racism (dressing up in a Nazi uniform) might be excused as youthful mirth but calling a 'friend' a Paki, which is a known derogatory and hate-filled word, then following it up with 'Raghead' is no accident. That is someone with little regard and respect for others. A Palace comment says the reference to Raghead refers to the Taliban. That's even worse. It explains why we are not winning the war in Afghanistan. Perhaps if we treated the Taliban with a bit more respect, for who they are and are proud to be, we could get the upper hand by being shown some respect ourselves.Moreover, the language we use is not accidental. It defines who we are, it shows how we see ourselves and we will only ever use words we are completely comfortable with, the ones that come easily to us without thinking; the ones our family and friends use; the ones that tell where we are coming from and where we are going. So language is the essence of our identity. If we keep using hate-filled words it tells others who we are and how we perceive others. If a member of the BNP called someone a Paki would we dismiss it so easily? Would we excuse their behaviour? Would we blame it on 'pc'? Of course not. So why are people trying to excuse it in Harry? The fact that Prince Harry seems to be comfortable with racists words and acts is very disturbing and should not be condoned by decent people who cherish their own traditions and heritage.Respect is at the heart of how we treat others and we cannot say we truly respect and value someone if we are not sensitive to how they might feel, if we do not accept who they are and if we do not value their heritage. Yet unless we value ourselves too and what we stand for we cannot appreciate others or hope to get respect from them either. Respect is nothing without sensitivity and if we are willing to use hate-filled discriminatory words in our routine dealings with others, what does that say about us?Prince Harry needs to grow up. There are all kinds of ways of enjoying one's self, but not at the expense of others, and not when one is in a privileged position of authority to know better. From his drinking binges to racist language, he needs to learn some responsibility and he won't do that by people excusing his actions - yet again! This incident is unacceptable in 21st century multicultural Britain, unacceptable to members of the Commonwealth and, most important, unacceptable to the army representing Britons and the inclusive message they are trying to give, especially from a Royal Prince. He should be sacked forthwith. Perhaps he might begin to appreciate just what his accident of birth really means in exercising personal responsibility.An apology, and business, as usual just won't do this time.

Sunday, 28 December 2008

M7 at the 9th sssession of the AU


Young , black and talented




little Britain









Speech by
H.E. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni President of the Republic of Uganda
At the
9th Ordinary Session of The African Union Summit
Theme: Grand Debate on the Union Government
Accra, Ghana 2nd July, 2007

1
"
Your Excellency, President John Kufour;
. , ; ,j
Your Excellencies, Distinguished Heads of Stctte and
, ';<. Government; Your Excellency, Mr. Alpha Konare; ',. Ladies and Gentlemen. " " Africa is both the cradle of Man (human kind) and the cradle , ~ of civilization. Archeology is continuing to confirm that for five million years or more all human beings were Africans and were living only in Africa. According to John Reader's book- "The Biography of Africa", it is only since 100,000 years ago that groups of human beings started leaving Africa to populate other continents. For instance, between pages 99 and 102 of this book: he writes as follows: “Several strands of evidence – fossil- genetic and. linguistic - point persuasively to the conclusion that every person alive today is descended from a population of anatomically modern humans that existed only in Africa until about 10~OOO years ago”. Therefore, when you see Europeans, Asians, Arabs, and such groups, you should know that all those are former Africans. They lost their melanin on account of living in areas with little sunshine. Melanin is for filtering out the harmful sun rays. It is the melanin that gives us our black colour. Secondly, Africa was the cradle of human civilization. The Egyptian civilization was an. African civilization. It started about 3500-3200 BC following the fusion of smaller states in both Upper Egypt, around Abgdos as well as on the Delta around Memphis (close to present-day Cairo). This African civilization thrived for about 2000 years until about 1025 BC that Egypt started being invaded by outsiders: Sea peoples from the Aegean Sea, the Libyans, the Persians, the Assyrians, the Greeks and, finally, in 30BC, the Romans. 2 Although the Egyptian civilization declined because of the invasion and, of course, some internal weaknesses, its influence endured and was copied by others - the Greeks, the Romans, the Babylonians, etc. The Great Pyramids, built 5000 years ago, are the only Wonders of the ancient World still standing. This is not to talk of the literature, the art, the hieroglyphics, the State system, the mythology, the religion, the Calendar system, weights and measures as well as quite a lot of the Science. However, the emigrants out of Africa multiplied more than the in-Africa population. According to John Reader's book, "The African Biography" on page 254, 100,000 years ago the African population was 1 million inhabitants. That is when a few hundred persons left for Asia and Europe. By AD 200, the African population was 20 million. 3 By 1500 AD, the African population was about 47 million. Yet, the out-of-Africa population had grown to 300 million. Why did the population in Africa grow slowly? It was because of the tropical diseases and the vectors that spread them: mosquitoes, tsetse flies, etc. Even by 1900, the in-Africa population was 133 Million while that out of Africa was 1,517 Million. The slow growth of the population of Africa had a negative impact on the evolution of durable centralized states. The small kingdoms, chiefdoms or segmentary societies of Africa were all conquered by 1900 except for Ethiopia. The Colonization was the culmination of the protracted attrition against Africa by the foreigners. It had started with the looting of resources, slave trade. and, eventually, colonization. We were colonized because we were organized in small tribal, clan or segmentary units. 4 The argument that we were colonized because of lagging behind in technology is not entirely correct. China and Japan were backward technologically when they confronted the European colonizers. Nevertheless, they managed to preserve their independence their technological backwardness notwithstanding. Therefore, in my opinion, their sub-optimal political organization was the main source of the weakness that caused the ignominious, eventual subjugation of our people. The colonization of Africa by foreigners was a Vote of no Confidence in the traditional, tribal, clan and segmentary systems. Africans were, however, lucky. In spite of the slave trade, in spite of the colonization, unlike the Red Indians, the Incas or the Aztecs, we survived extermination. In time, our elders (Kenyatta, Nkrumah, Nyerere, Sekou TouFe, Namdi Azikiwe, and others) regrouped and launched the anti-colonial movement. 5 Along with the anti-Colonial movements in Asia, supported by the Socialist Countries, the African Peoples, eventually, triumphed - we regained our Sovereignty. The first independent African Country was Ghana in 1957. The Imperialists had also rendered us a service with their intra­imperialists mega conflicts of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. The imperialist-on-imperialist conflicts (so-called World wars -meaning intra-imperialist wars) weakened them. This hemorrhage among the imperialist countries contributed to our victory. What is amazing is that 50 years after Ghana's independence and with the independence of all the African Countries, the causes of the African tragedy that engulfed our Continent since the collapse of the Egyptian Civilization 3000 years ago and the eventual Colonization of the whole continent by 1935, have not been addressed. 6 The major cause of the eventual collapse of all the African civilization was political balkanization on too small a scale to guarantee the survival and the sovereignty of the African people. Who is the guarantor of the freedom and survival of the Black race as well as other African Peoples? The Western system is underwritten by the United States of America. It is the USA and the USSR that saved Europe from fascism. The USA shielded Europe when they were in the contradiction with Communism. Who is our guarantor? Can Uganda guarantee the survival and sovereignty of African countries? Can South Africa do it? Can these countries stimulate growth and transformation of our economies and societies? ~ Huge China and India have had to work closely with the big Western economies to achieve the transformation they have. How can our individual countries achieve the transformation they need? How can our individual countries achieve this socio-economic transformation? Fifty years since independence, none of the African Countries achieved the transformation from the Third World to the First World like the Asian economies have done. This is regardless of whether these African Countries have been peaceful or violent, multi-party or dictatorship, free market or controlled economy. Only South Africa, currently, has a GDP of US$ 220 billion. This half a Century stagnation is because almost all the African countries lack the strategic stimuli that normally cause sustained growth and transformation in economies and society. Some of these strategic stimuli are: a big market that consumes what entrepreneurs' produce as is the case in China and India: an attractive investment destination by the very fact of big population size; rationalized and integrated resources (natural and 8 infrastructural) unlike many of the African Countries that are land-locked (Chad, Mali, Uganda, Rwanda, Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, Lesotho and Zambia in Africa) or do not have adequate access to the hinterland on top of divided rivers, lakes, mountain ranges, etc; we do not negotiate together when it comes to trade matters with outsiders; and, as already pointed out, the inability to guarantee our independence in decision-making because we are not strong enough by ourselves individually, we are not organized collectively to do so or we do not have one of our own as a guarantor for our freedom. We were able to fight the White racists and the Portuguese Colonialists with the support of the Russian and Chinese Communists. Did any serious African leader imagine that the antagonism between West and East was a permanent phenomenon? In fact certain hegemonistic interests in the World are. always working to achieve a Condominium arrangement with other emerging powers. 9 In any case, why should a people like the Africans, so well endowed historically, culturally and natural resources-wise, pin their hopes on outsiders? Why do the Africans get mesmerized by the strength of others but are always reluctant to build their own. power? Are present generations of African leaders going to repeat the mistakes of the post­independence leaders as well as those of the African chiefs whose myopia, greed and rivalry so enfeebled Africa that it was colonized by outsiders? It was on account of the points raised above that the Pan­African leaders: Nkrumah, Nasser, Nyerere, Kenyatta started talking about African integration. By the time of the Organization of the African Union (OAU) in 1963, there were three positions among the African leaders; 10 - the ones who wanted to form an all African Government led by Nkrumah; - the one who wanted to form regional federations like Nyerere and - the so-called conservatives that wanted to maintain the status quo i.e. maintain the present weaknesses of a politically, strategically balkanized continent. By now the mistakes of the so-called Conservatives are clear. Africa to-day has been left behind by the Asian countries that are not as endowed as Africa in terms of natural resources. The small Asian Countries like South Korea, Singapore and others that have transitioned from the Third World to the First World were, for Cold War purposes, linked to the USA market. The degree of access to the USA market could not be compared to the merely symbolic Lome arrangements between Africa and EU. 11 The conservatives, therefore, by working for the maintenance of the status quo were, in effect, working for the present state of perpetual weakness. Some of the countries in Africa that were being held up as models by the West have since collapsed. These include Uganda, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Congo ORC, etc. In the case of Uganda, we have reconstructed her on the basis of new revolutionary principles. We hope to deepen and accelerate our achievements through integration in the East African region as well as the rest of Africa. Now that the position of the conservatives has been discredited, we remain with the two Pan-African positions: Continental Government now or regional political federations where possible, in addition to continental economic integration as envisaged in the Abuja Treaty . 12 In Uganda, we are not in favour of forming a Continental Government now on account of a number of reasons. First, while economically I support integration with everybody, politically we should only integrate with people who are either similar or compatible with us. The whole of Africa has got some obvious incompatibilities when it comes to political integration. In East Africa we have, for long, talked about a political federation. It is part of our treaty ­Article 5(2). In fact, recently, we have been talking about fast-tracking that federating process in East Africa. 13 Why do we think that East Africa is similar or compatible? It is because all the people of East Africa are Bantu, Nilo­Hamitic, Hamitic, Nilotic or Sudanic. Their languages and dialects fall into two broad categories: the Nilo-Saharan group of languages and the Niger-Congo group of languages. In fact East Africa and Congo is where these two groups met many thousands of years ago. Their languages are linked. Above all, since about 1200 years ago, the People of the East African coast distilled a non-tribal dialect out of the languages of the area - Swahili. This dialect is spoken, in different degrees, in the whole of East Africa (Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi), in the whole of Eastern Congo, Northern Mozambique, some parts. of Northern Zambia and Northern Malawi. This is a population of about 150 million people. East Africa alone has got about 120 million people. These can and should integrate, not only 14 economically, but politically also. Other areas of Africa that feel that they have got a comparative degree of similarity or compatibility could also work for political integration. Insisting on political integration at the continental level will bring together incompatible linkages that may create tension rather than cohesion. This will, especially, be so if you bring together groups which want to impose their identity on others. I cannot give up my identity for anything. Even the European slave traders and colonialists failed to destroy our heritage-languages and way of Ufe. In my language we say ''Ija tuturane niyo ija twangane" – “when you invite somebody different to stay too closely with you/ it tantamounts to invite him to hating each other". In Uganda, we have a three language policy: . Local dialects in their respective areas; Swahili for regional communication; and English for international linkages. 15 Our wish is to continue enriching Swahili drawing from the hinterland dialects. In decades and centuries to come, the tribal dialects may merge with a much richer Swahili. I do not want this to happen in Africa. Therefore, our recommendation is that we take a functions-based, rational approach. We ask ourselves the question: "What function can most rationally be done at what level - village, district within Uganda, national, regional or continental?" There are definitely functions that can best be done at the Continental level. I can think of the following: . the environment, . Trade negotiations, . Managing a Defence Pact, and later on . Managing and promoting African Common Market. 16 If the African Commission could concentrate on these four, instead of being everywhere and nowhere, we would start moving forward. We are wasting too much time pushing unresearched positions. Some people have been disparaging OAU. Actually, OAU achieved a lot compared to the African Union. Precisely, because OAU was realistic and limited itself to what was feasible, i.e. co-ordinating support to the anti Colonial Liberation Movements in Southern Africa, Sao Tome and Guinea Bissau, we were able to liberate the whole of Africa in exactly 30 years (majority rule in South Africa in 1994). This was a remarkable achievement. Of Course, the Communist Countries helped us in that. The regional powers we build wherever possible could replace the Communist Countries in underwriting the freedom and continued forward march of Africa. 17 18 I salute the enthusiasm of those who advocate for Continental Government now. I, however, do not want us to move from one mistake - balkanization - to another mistake of oversimplification of very complex situations. I thank you. July 2/ 2007

M7 at the 9th sssession of the AU

Speech by
H.E. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni President of the Republic of Uganda
At the
9th Ordinary Session of The African Union Summit
Theme: Grand Debate on the Union Government
Accra, Ghana 2nd July, 2007

1
"
Your Excellency, President John Kufour;
. , ; ,j
Your Excellencies, Distinguished Heads of Stctte and
, ';<.
Government;
Your Excellency, Mr. Alpha Konare;
',.
Ladies and Gentlemen.
"
"
Africa is both the cradle of Man (human kind) and the cradle
, ~
of civilization. Archeology is continuing to confirm that for
five million years or more all human beings were Africans and were living only in Africa. According to John Reader's book- "The Biography of Africa", it is only since 100,000 years ago that groups of human beings started leaving
Africa to populate other continents. For instance, between pages 99 and 102 of this book: he writes as follows:
“Several strands of evidence – fossil- genetic and. linguistic - point persuasively to the conclusion that every person alive today is descended from a
population of anatomically modern humans that existed only in Africa until about 10~OOO years ago”.

Therefore, when you see Europeans, Asians, Arabs, and such groups, you should know that all those are former Africans. They lost their melanin on account of living in areas with little sunshine. Melanin is for filtering out the harmful sun rays. It is the melanin that gives us our black colour.
Secondly, Africa was the cradle of human civilization. The Egyptian civilization was an. African civilization. It started about 3500-3200 BC following the fusion of smaller states in both Upper Egypt, around Abgdos as well as on the Delta around Memphis (close to present-day Cairo). This African civilization thrived for about 2000 years until about 1025 BC that Egypt started being invaded by outsiders: Sea peoples from the Aegean Sea, the Libyans, the Persians, the Assyrians, the Greeks and, finally, in 30BC, the Romans.
2

Although the Egyptian civilization declined because of the invasion and, of course, some internal weaknesses, its
influence endured and was copied by others - the Greeks, the Romans, the Babylonians, etc. The Great Pyramids, built 5000 years ago, are the only Wonders of the ancient World still standing. This is not to talk of the literature, the art, the hieroglyphics, the State system, the mythology, the religion, the Calendar system, weights and measures as well as quite a lot of the Science.
However, the emigrants out of Africa multiplied more than the in-Africa population. According to John Reader's book, "The African Biography" on page 254, 100,000 years ago the African population was 1 million inhabitants. That is when a few hundred persons left for Asia and Europe. By AD 200, the African population was 20 million.
3

By 1500 AD, the African population was about 47 million. Yet, the out-of-Africa population had grown to 300 million. Why did the population in Africa grow slowly? It was because of the tropical diseases and the vectors that spread them: mosquitoes, tsetse flies, etc.
Even by 1900, the in-Africa population was 133 Million while that out of Africa was 1,517 Million.
The slow growth of the population of Africa had a negative impact on the evolution of durable centralized states. The small kingdoms, chiefdoms or segmentary societies of Africa were all conquered by 1900 except for Ethiopia. The Colonization was the culmination of the protracted attrition against Africa by the foreigners. It had started with the looting of resources, slave trade. and, eventually, colonization. We were colonized because we were organized in small tribal, clan or segmentary units.
4

The argument that we were colonized because of lagging behind in technology is not entirely correct. China and Japan were backward technologically when they confronted the European colonizers. Nevertheless, they managed to preserve their independence their technological backwardness notwithstanding. Therefore, in my opinion, their sub-optimal political organization was the main source of the weakness that caused the ignominious, eventual subjugation of our people. The colonization of Africa by foreigners was a Vote of no Confidence in the traditional, tribal, clan and segmentary systems.
Africans were, however, lucky. In spite of the slave trade, in spite of the colonization, unlike the Red Indians, the Incas or the Aztecs, we survived extermination. In time, our elders (Kenyatta, Nkrumah, Nyerere, Sekou TouFe, Namdi Azikiwe, and others) regrouped and launched the anti-colonial movement.
5

Along with the anti-Colonial movements in Asia, supported by the Socialist Countries, the African Peoples, eventually, triumphed - we regained our Sovereignty. The first independent African Country was Ghana in 1957. The Imperialists had also rendered us a service with their intra­imperialists mega conflicts of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. The imperialist-on-imperialist conflicts (so-called World wars -meaning intra-imperialist wars) weakened them. This hemorrhage among the imperialist countries contributed to our victory.
What is amazing is that 50 years after Ghana's independence and with the independence of all the African Countries, the causes of the African tragedy that engulfed our Continent since the collapse of the Egyptian Civilization 3000 years ago and the eventual Colonization of the whole continent by 1935, have not been addressed.
6

The major cause of the eventual collapse of all the African civilization was political balkanization on too small a scale to guarantee the survival and the sovereignty of the African people.
Who is the guarantor of the freedom and survival of the Black race as well as other African Peoples? The Western system is underwritten by the United States of America. It is the USA and the USSR that saved Europe from fascism. The USA shielded Europe when they were in the contradiction with Communism. Who is our guarantor? Can Uganda guarantee the survival and sovereignty of African countries? Can South Africa do it? Can these countries stimulate growth and transformation of our economies and societies?
~
Huge China and India have had to work closely with the big
Western economies to achieve the transformation they have. How can our individual countries achieve the transformation they need?

How can our individual countries achieve this socio-economic transformation? Fifty years since independence, none of the African Countries achieved the transformation from the Third
World to the First World like the Asian economies have done. This is regardless of whether these African Countries have been peaceful or violent, multi-party or dictatorship, free market or controlled economy. Only South Africa, currently, has a GDP of US$ 220 billion.
This half a Century stagnation is because almost all the African countries lack the strategic stimuli that normally cause sustained growth and transformation in economies and society. Some of these strategic stimuli are: a big market that consumes what entrepreneurs' produce as is the case in China and India: an attractive investment destination by the very fact of big population size; rationalized and integrated resources (natural and
8

infrastructural) unlike many of the African Countries that are land-locked (Chad, Mali, Uganda, Rwanda, Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, Lesotho and Zambia in Africa) or do not have adequate access to the hinterland on top of divided rivers, lakes, mountain ranges, etc; we do not negotiate together when it comes to trade matters with outsiders; and, as already pointed out, the inability to guarantee our independence in decision-making because we are not strong enough by ourselves individually, we are not organized collectively to do so or we do not have one of our own as a guarantor for our freedom. We were able to fight the White racists and the Portuguese Colonialists with the support of the Russian and Chinese Communists. Did any serious African leader imagine that the antagonism between West and East was a permanent phenomenon? In fact certain hegemonistic interests in the World are. always working to achieve a Condominium arrangement with other emerging
powers.
9

In any case, why should a people like the Africans, so well endowed historically, culturally and natural resources-wise, pin their hopes on outsiders? Why do the Africans get mesmerized by the strength of others but are always reluctant to build their own. power? Are present generations of African leaders going to repeat the mistakes of the post­independence leaders as well as those of the African chiefs whose myopia, greed and rivalry so enfeebled Africa that it was colonized by outsiders?
It was on account of the points raised above that the Pan­African leaders: Nkrumah, Nasser, Nyerere, Kenyatta started talking about African integration. By the time of the Organization of the African Union (OAU) in 1963, there were three positions among the African leaders;
10

- the ones who wanted to form an all African
Government led by Nkrumah;
- the one who wanted to form regional federations like
Nyerere and
- the so-called conservatives that wanted to maintain the
status quo i.e. maintain the present weaknesses of a politically, strategically balkanized continent.
By now the mistakes of the so-called Conservatives are clear. Africa to-day has been left behind by the Asian
countries that are not as endowed as Africa in terms of
natural resources.
The small Asian Countries like South
Korea, Singapore and others that have transitioned from the Third World to the First World were, for Cold War purposes, linked to the USA market. The degree of access to the USA market could not be compared to the merely symbolic Lome arrangements between Africa and EU.
11

The conservatives, therefore, by working for the maintenance of the status quo were, in effect, working for the present state of perpetual weakness. Some of the countries in Africa that were being held up as models by the West have since collapsed. These include Uganda, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Congo ORC, etc. In the case of Uganda, we have reconstructed her on the basis of new revolutionary principles. We hope to deepen and accelerate our achievements through integration in the East African region as well as the rest of Africa.
Now that the position of the conservatives has been discredited, we remain with the two Pan-African positions: Continental Government now or regional political federations where possible, in addition to continental economic integration as envisaged in the Abuja Treaty .
12

In Uganda, we are not in favour of forming a Continental Government now on account of a number of reasons.
First, while economically I support integration with everybody, politically we should only integrate with people who are either similar or compatible with us. The whole of Africa has got some obvious incompatibilities when it comes to political integration. In East Africa we have, for long, talked about a political federation. It is part of our treaty ­Article 5(2). In fact, recently, we have been talking about fast-tracking that federating process in East Africa.
13

Why do we think that East Africa is similar or compatible? It is because all the people of East Africa are Bantu, Nilo­Hamitic, Hamitic, Nilotic or Sudanic. Their languages and dialects fall into two broad categories: the Nilo-Saharan
group of languages and the Niger-Congo group of languages.
In fact East Africa and Congo is where these two groups met
many thousands of years ago. Their languages are linked. Above all, since about 1200 years ago, the People of the East African coast distilled a non-tribal dialect out of the languages of the area - Swahili. This dialect is spoken, in different degrees, in the whole of East Africa (Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi), in the whole of Eastern Congo, Northern Mozambique, some parts. of Northern Zambia and Northern Malawi. This is a population of about 150 million people. East Africa alone has got about 120 million people. These can and should integrate, not only
14

economically, but politically also. Other areas of Africa that feel that they have got a comparative degree of similarity or compatibility could also work for political integration.
Insisting on political integration at the continental level will bring together incompatible linkages that may create tension rather than cohesion. This will, especially, be so if you bring together groups which want to impose their identity on others. I cannot give up my identity for anything. Even the European slave traders and colonialists failed to destroy our heritage-languages and way of Ufe. In my language we say ''Ija tuturane niyo ija twangane" – “when you invite somebody different to stay too closely with you/ it tantamounts to invite him to hating each other". In Uganda, we have a three language policy:
. Local dialects in their respective areas; Swahili for regional communication; and English for international linkages.
15

Our wish is to continue enriching Swahili drawing from the hinterland dialects. In decades and centuries to come, the tribal dialects may merge with a much richer Swahili. I do not want this to happen in Africa.
Therefore, our recommendation is that we take a functions-based, rational approach. We ask ourselves the question: "What function can most rationally be done at what level - village, district within Uganda, national, regional or continental?" There are definitely functions that can best be done at the Continental level. I can think of the following:
. the environment,
. Trade negotiations,
. Managing a Defence Pact, and later on
. Managing and promoting African Common Market.
16

If the African Commission could concentrate on these four, instead of being everywhere and nowhere, we would start moving forward. We are wasting too much time pushing unresearched positions.
Some people have been disparaging OAU. Actually, OAU achieved a lot compared to the African Union. Precisely, because OAU was realistic and limited itself to what was feasible, i.e. co-ordinating support to the anti Colonial Liberation Movements in Southern Africa, Sao Tome and Guinea Bissau, we were able to liberate the whole of Africa in exactly 30 years (majority rule in South Africa in 1994).
This was a remarkable achievement. Of Course, the
Communist Countries helped us in that. The regional powers we build wherever possible could replace the Communist Countries in underwriting the freedom and continued forward march of Africa.
17
18

I salute the enthusiasm of those who advocate for Continental Government now. I, however, do not want us to move from one mistake - balkanization - to another mistake
of oversimplification of very complex situations.
I thank you.
July 2/ 2007