Discussion in 'Guinea' started by panafrica, Nov 24, 2005.
It amazes me that Western nations can freeze the assets of African officials like Robert Mugabe's administration for "hindering democratic reform". Yet they fully support tyranical and oppressive regimes like Obiang Nguema's disgraceful farce of a government in Equatorial Guinea. Why are they never called on the contradiction? What seperates a Robert Mugabe from a Teodoro Obiang Nguema? Clearly the only difference between the two is that Nguema lives in a oil rich country which he lets the US and France freely exploit. Indeed the US has quitely invested more money on this tiny African nation than they have have in any other country on the continent!
Only 15 years ago the US closed down their embassy on Equatorial Guinea because the human rights violations were deemed to be too harsh to maintain diplomatic relations. Yet the discovery of vast amounts of oil deposits was all the US needed to change its mind, despite the fact that human rights conditions had not only failed to be improved, but had worsened. The desire to exploit the countries resources are the primary reason the US and France is supporting a president who is so corrupt and oppressive he needs to hire soldiers from other countries to protect him from his own people! However as long as he has the support of the West, the many attempts to remove him will continue to fail. Indeed he is so secure in his position, that he is attempting to establish an illegal monarchy be naming his son as succesor to the throne!
Anyone who wants proof of how Europe & the US plays a determining role in African politics need look no further than this country!
"Clearly the only difference between the two is that Nguema lives in a oil rich country which he lets the US and France freely exploit"?
The ONLY difference?
Mugabe came to power as a result of armed struggle and was "democratically elected" and Mugabe initially embraced socialism?
How did Nguema come to power? And if your statement is correct does that mean you also view Mugabe as a "dictator"?
Obiang Nguema came to power by killing his uncle, and has boasted that he can only be removed the same way! Does my statement mean that I view Mugabe as a dictator? No I'm not saying Mugabe is a dictator...the US is saying he is a dictator. So my question is if Mugabe is a dictator who should be opposed, how is Obiang Nguema (who the US supports) not considered a dictator? The Nguema regimes (both Uncle and Nephew) have been more genocidal, oppressive, and restrictive than Mugabe could ever be.
Obiang Nguema obviously IS a dictator in the same manner of his predecessor Bokassa.
Has the US state department stated that he is NOT a dictator?
Obviously, the difference would be the fact that the US supported the Ian Smith regime in Zimbabwe and never has recogized Muagbe's party, ZANU as legitimate, while it has supporte the Nguema government. This is not a moral issue of what is wrong or righ. It's all about POWER relationships and who is most subservient to the interests of US neo-colonialism.
Obiang Nguema's predecessor was his uncle, Macias Nguema. The same Macias Nguema who murdered or exiled 1/3 of the country's population, which included many members of my wife's family (and my children's ancestors). Jean-Bédel Bokassa was president of the Central African Republic. He might be considered Obiang Nguema's colleague, but he was not his predecessor.
As I stated in my 1st response, the US opinion of Obiang Nguema's administration was so negative, that they closed down their embassy in the country (because of its many human rights violations). At that time Equatorial Guinea was one of the poorest countries in the world, which only resource was cocoa. The embassy was reopened and diplomatic relations renewed not when human rights violations ceased, but when oil was discovered in the country roughly 10 years ago.
This is obviously not about right or wrong, but about power relationships. That is what I've been pointing out. Those who are subservient to the interest of US & European colonialism are supported, while those who aren't (like Mugabe) are renounced. Brother Omowalejabali, you appear to be trying to correct me...but it isn't clear what you are disputing, or what I have said that is incorrect.
I am not trying to dispute anything nor am I trying to correct you. I know by now that appears to be the sole priviledge of "moderators".
I merely was trying to obtain some clarity regarding your questions.
I shall refrain from any other responses to your posts so as to not have my intent confused.
I don't know what you are getting at with your comment about the "moderators". Since you responded to me, it would appear that it was my intent that was confused, not yours. However, If I have misunderstood you I apologize. I had just as much desire for you to clarify your questions of me, as you had for me to clarify my statements.
Separate names with a comma.