However, the Labor party eventually evolved to the party of Appeasement. It was taken over by people who were willing to put Israel’s security at risk in the false hope of peace. Among them was Amos Oz who believes that an enemy Palestinian state that’s dedicated to Israel’s destruction is better than for Israel to defend itself, as seen from the following claim:

Militarily and morally, it will be easier for Israel to face an enemy state than to continue fighting a cluster of armed gangs.

At the forefront of the appeasement movement in Israel is a group called Peace Now, which even exaggerates the amount of privately-owned Palestinian land that is used for Israeli settlements. For example, here’s what the Haaretz reported on one settlement that is accused by Peace Now of using privately-owned Palestinian land:

The Peace Now report did indicate, however, that contrary to numbers released by the movement in November, little private land was seized from Palestinians to build Ma’aleh Adumim, the largest settlement in the West Bank.

The new numbers are vastly smaller than numbers Peace Now issued in an earlier report based on leaked information.

The group claimed in November that 86 percent of Ma’aleh Adumim, which has more than 30,000 residents, was built on private Palestinian land.

After successfully petitioning the court to see the database, the group reported Wednesday that data show only 0.5 percent of the settlement is built on private land.

Oslo is the best illustration of how much of an appeasement party that Labor turned into. During the Oslo “peace”process, when Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak were Prime Minister, the Israeli government kept on promoting Yasser Arafat as a partner for peace, despite his constant violations like his support of terrorism and his incitement that calls for Israel’s destruction, and portrayed their opponents including the Likud party as being as bad as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, since like those two groups, Likud supposedly wanted to derail the “peace” process. In 1995, Amos Oz even called the Likud party “the best collaborator that Hamas could hope for”.

Despite Arafat’s constant violations, in 2000, Barak offered Arafat a state on most of what the Palestinians claim they want. Barak’s offer, if implemented, would include serious security risks to Israel from a government that essentially did the exact opposite of what the Oslo accords called for. Since it included giving the Arab neighborhoods of east Jerusalem, thusly resulting in giving up most of the eastern half of Israel’s historic capital to a government that violated the Oslo accords. Not only that, but at least many of Arabs in east Jerusalem preferred to live under Israeli rule instead of being in control of the PA. For example, Zohair Hamdan, who Yasser Arafat later made an assassination attempt on, got a signature of 10,000 Arabs in east Jerusalem on a petition stating that they want to live under Israeli rule. Arafat not only rejected the offer and left, but planned the second intifada. After the second intifada started, Barak made the same offer again. Arafat did the same thing. Ariel Sharon later became Prime Minister. In 2005, Sharon carried out the disengagement from Gaza in the hope of achieving peace. He dismantled the Israeli settlements and forced all the Israelis back into Israel. It was painful for at least many of the Jewish settlers and for at least many IDF soldiers who carried it out. The extremists among the Jewish settlers called the IDF soldiers who carried it them “Nazis”. Sharon’s disengagement was opposed by the Likud party. As a result, Sharon formed his own party called “Kadima”. It included those in the Likud who supported the disengagement from Gaza and some from the Labor party. among those who left the Likud party and came out in support of the disengagement plan was Ehud Olmert, who later became Prime Minister of Israel after Sharon had a stroke. As a result of the disengagement form Gaza, Israel did not get more peace. On the contrary, Gaza turned into a base for terrorist groups and rocket attacks on Israel increased. So the Kadima party was founded based on an action that gave Gaza to rejectionist terrorists. Two years later, Hamas took over Gaza. In Gaza, Hamas imposed Sharia law, brutally kills and/or tortures their opponents and continued with the terrorist rocket attacks on Israel. At the same time, unlike from 1995-1996 and the second intifada, suicide bombers did not increase. Suicide bombings were decreasing. It had nothing to do with the disengagement from Gaza. In fact, it had to do with the security fence that Israel is building. It successfully stopped the suicide bombings even more so than the checkpoints, which did prevent some suicide bombings. Palestinian terror groups did not give up suicide bombing. Israel is better at stopping them, especially with the security fence.

Then came the Annapolis “peace” talks, when Ehud Olmert was Prime Minister At the end of 2008, Israel offered 93% of the west Bank and to make 7% of Israel into Gaza in order to compensate for the 7% of the west Bank that Israel was going to retain. It also offered to give up east Jerusalem. And yet, Mahmoud Abbas continued with Arafat’s course of promoting terrorism and a culture of violence.Mahmoud Abbas is still doing that today, even saying that the doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Olmert offered to give a state that would potentially be a security threat to Israel, to Mahmoud Abbas, a man who promoted Holocaust denial with his book “The Other Side”. Abbas rejected that offer.

In Israeli politics, I support the Likud, which I consider to be heroic. The Likud party is a heroic party that is dedicated to the defense of Israel. Israel is a valuable ally to America regardless of whether the Prime Minister is from Labor, Kadima, or Likud. But Israel is especially a great ally when someone from the Likud is Prime Minister.

Apparently, at least much of the Labor and Kadima parties are for appeasement policies that strengthen Palestinian terrorists. The Labor party has been in the forefront of appeasement policies. Guys like Amos Oz are in the forefront for appeasement policies that strengthen Palestinian terrorists. To be fair, it was the Kadima-led government of Ehud Olmert that carried out the heroic Operation Cast Lead bombings against Hamas and other rejectionist terrorist groups. Still, Kadima was founded, as seen from this column, based on an action that resulted in Gaza turning into a terrorist base. 

There are Palestinian people who want peace with Israel and who are willing to accept Israel as a Jewish state. They’re not the ones in control of the political situation. They certainly are not the ones who would take control from Israeli withdrawals. The facts are that Israeli withdrawals result in rejectionist terrorists taking control of the territories and in an increase of terrorist attacks on Israel. After all, not all Germans were Nazis. But the free world had a duty to stop Hitler and his genocidal and anti-freedom global goals.

I think that peace with the Palestinians is a nice idea. But at the same time, I oppose premature Israeli withdrawals. The Likud is more concerned about Israel’s security, wheras Labor and Kadima are more focused on Israeli withdrawals. I strongly support the Likud party. Menachem Begin and Bibi Netanyahu are very big heroes.

A friend of mine encouraged me to prepare this book and put down my thoughts on the development of Namibia and immediately I knew the above words should start off the book. I also knew the following words of Karl Marx, written in a letter to his father, would be fitting:

“There are moments in one’s life which are like frontier posts marking the completion of a period but at the same time clearly indicating a new direction.

At such a moment of transition we feel compelled to view the past and the present with the eagle eye of thought in order to become conscious of our real position. Indeed, world history itself likes to look back in this way and take stock, which often gives it the appearance of retrogression or stagnation, whereas it is merely, as it were, sitting back in an armchair in order to understand itself and mentally grasp its own activity, that of the mind.”[i]

I am Milton Louw, and these are my ideas on making a better future for Namibia.

Brotherhood among us (1987)

Can’t we all come and meet each other

And no matter what colour we may be

Be able to show we love one another

And then together we’ll stand, you and me

The leaders of Tomorrow,

Planning for what is to come

Otherwise there will be lots of needless sorrow

Over killing which are quite dumb.

So come closer now and grab my hand

And we’ll accept each other as brothers

And then together we’ll be able to stand

To show our Father and Mothers

We want to plan for a common future

No matter what our race, colour or culture.

References:

[i] Letter from Karl Marx to his Father In Trier (1837)

Nick Griffin – Leader of the BNP (Image via Wikipedia)

Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman described this result as “terrible” and lamented that the UK is now being represented in Europe by “a party that is a racist party” and that has “played on people’s fears”.  She said that mainstream politicians would have to work hard to tackle the fear that lead to people voting for the BNP.

Liam Fox, defence secretary for the Conservative Party asked a very pertinent question: “How did we allow this to happen?”

Indeed.  How did mainstream politics allow this to happen when the threat of growing support for the BNP has been clearly in evidence for years now, culminating in the party winning three local council seats in recent regional elections?

One of these seats is in the north-west town of Burnley, which in the summer of 2001 was the scene of some of the worst race riots Britain has ever seen. A report into this racially-motivated violence, which was repeated in the nearby towns of Bradford and Oldham the same year, stated that people in Britain were leading ‘parallel’ and ‘polarised’ lives where those from different backgrounds did not mix, and that this deep-rooted segregation had been left unaddressed by authorities for generations.

And yet, somehow, despite fears and dire predictions in the wake of these events, the BNP did not manage to win seats in local council elections held in November of that same year.

So what is different now?

Britain has welcomed immigrants from all over the world for centuries, especially from former commonwealth countries.  Towns such as Burnley, Bradford and many others are home to large Asian communities whose parents and grandparents came to England from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh many years ago.

The Famous ‘Curry Mile’, Manchester

More recently, EU expansion has seen many thousands of migrants from Eastern European countries arriving in Britain in search of work. 

But now we have an economic crisis.  And in times of crisis people are inclined to pull their heads in and work to protect ‘their own’.  Newspapers in Eastern Europe have been running stories for a while about migrant workers returning to their homes as work in Western Europe has dried up.  As money becomes tight and jobs become insecure, people start to lean towards protectionism and look with suspicion on anyone who might be gaining an advantage at their expense.

BNP policies are designed to play into these fears and insecurities.  They advocate the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets, which they claim will bring unemployment in Britain to an end.  They say they will crack down on crime, introducing corporal and capital punishment.  “The liberal fixation with the ‘rights’ of the criminals,” they say, “must be replaced by concern for the rights of victims.”  Whether the mainstream politicians like it or not, this is a view that is often repeated on the streets of urban Britain.

In short, BNP policies seem to be tailored to the worries of Britain’s ‘average Joe’ right at the time when the so-called ‘expenses scandal’ has portrayed MPs, who already earn several times the average salary, as greedy liars milking the system for all they can get.

The BNP’s policies on immigration are undoubtedly racist, and most would agree that they are absurd and disgusting.  They claim that “native British people will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years,” and that all immigration should be halted immediately and immigrants encouraged to leave the country through a system of “voluntary resettlement”, with cash incentives.

The absurdity of these policies becomes apparent with just a few seconds’ thought.  How do we define “native British people” when successive waves of immigration have enriched our country for centuries?  How far back will we go?  Twenty years?  Thirty?  Back to the Norman conquest?  Yeah, those Normans coming over here taking our jobs!  No, the BNP means that anybody with certain physical racial characteristics or a strong accent will be politely asked to get out.

Appalling.  So why have hundreds of thousands of people voted for these racists?

Maybe it’s because they are at least talking about the issue.  Regardless of personal views, immigration is an issue in this country.  Racial tension is an issue.  Social segregation is an issue.  Classrooms where eight or nine different first languages are being spoken – this is an issue.  And yet all too often, people are afraid to address these issues for fear of being branded racist and intolerant.

It is difficult to have a rational debate on this emotive issue

If mainstream politicians would perhaps look up from the gravy train for a few moments and enter into a constructive debate that addressed the real concerns and fears of ordinary people of every racial background instead of brushing aside their concerns with politically correct soundbites, then maybe voters wouldn’t feel like they have to lodge a protest by voting for a party that has more than a whiff of Hitler’s Germany about it.

As a ‘native British person’ (inasmuch as anyone can claim that) and a former resident of one of the regions now represented by the BNP I appeal to Westminster politicians to wake up and pay attention to what has been said in these elections.  The European country where I now live has welcomed me with open arms, and I would be ashamed if my neighbours here thought that Britain was a country of racists.

To tease everyone’s attention, I list down here five shameful instances involving our revered leaders. These incidents transpired in the month of February 2009.

1. Pak Lah of Malaysia Trapped in an Elevator

   Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi of Malaysia was stuck in an elevator for 30 minutes at a government-owned Putrajaya International Convention Center while he was on his way to make a speech.

   Together with some VIP’s, Pak Lah, as he is affectionately called by the Malaysians, was “set free” after firefighters pried open the door with a crowbar.

   This is said to be the latest mishap on account of the defects and shoddy workmanship in the Malaysian government buildings. In recent years, the Parliament’s roof was leaking resulting to the collapse of the ceilings of two government offices and the flooding of another one.

2. Arroyo of Philippines Snubbed (for the third time!) by Obama

   US President Obama is very elusive for Arroyo. Arroyo was actually eager to phone Obama after his winning over McCain, but to her disappointment the first black US president did not return her call. Was he simply busy? Nope, he was talking to more important world leaders. In another occasion, as Arroyo was from APEC meeting, she passed by the US to meet Obama. Already in his country, Arroyo still failed to come up with a personal meeting with Obama. Lately, from Davos, Arroyo made a last-minute hastily arranged trip to the US as she was supposedly invited to attend the National Prayer Breakfast where she could possible have a chat or even shake the hands of Obama. But, after making his speech, Obama immediately left; and Arroyo just settled for a meeting with Hillary Clinton.

   Of course, the Malacanan PR men and women are obviously aghast whenever their boss is portrayed as being snubbed by Obama.

   But, what is embarrassing in this case is not only that Arroyo appears insignificant for Obama. What is more embarrassing here is that for this seven-day trip alone, Arroyo spent more than one hundred million pesos!!! And this huge amount of money came from the pockets of the taxpayers. Shameful, indeed!!!

3. Erdogan versus Peres in Davos

   This happened in Davos. Everyone in the room was in open-mouthed astonishment.

   The premier of Turkey, Tayyip Erdogan called Israel’s president Shimon Peres a “KILLER!” to his face. Likewise, he called on the US government to list Israel as a terrorist state for its alleged atrocities against civilians in Gaza.

   This in turn made the Israeli President, who was by the way a Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1994, thundered and fulminated at the top of his voice for the next twenty-five minutes defending Israel’s military activities in Gaza and blaming the Hamas for the misfortunate besetting the Palestinians.

   UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon was observed to be in an embarrassed silence as at most times he was simply looking at his shoes.

   Because of this incident, Erdogan was heard saying “I will never come back to Davos.”

4. Pope’s Paternal Gesture Offensive to the Jews

   There were reports that the Pope was going to welcome back to the Catholic fold Bishop Richard Williamson last month. Williamson is a known conservative bishop, and a denier of Shoah. Definitely, such a move would result to angry protests especially from people who have learned correctly their history. The Chief Rabbinate of Israel has cut its diplomatic ties as protest, leading British parliamentarians were voicing their vehement disapproval, even Catholic leaders say a mistake must have been done, and the German Chancellor, Merkel, issued her own criticism over the pope’s move.

   The Vatican’s reasoning? The 1988 excommunication was for an unrelated matter – namely, the bishop’s participation in his own unauthorized consecration against the explicit ruling of John Paul II.

   In the past since his elevation as Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI’s committed a number of diplomatic “missteps” – such as when he tried to quote a dated Medieval scholar about his own thinking on Muslims that angered the Islamists and caused the death of a nun in Africa, and when he said that people in Mesoamerica were eagerly waiting for the evangelization that was accomplished by the Conquistadores from Spain and Portugal – which was tantamount to covering up the so many instances of human rights violations committed against the Mesoamericans in the name of introducing to them the Christ.

5. Finally, Thai’s PM Owned Up

   After instances of consistent denials that his troops manhandled the Myanmar’s Rohingya boat people, Abhisit Vejjajiva in an interview with CNN finally admitted that there were some instances in which Thai authorities towed the boat people out to sea. This is – at long last – a frank admission of the Thai practice that has so far drawn worldwide condemnation.

The SLM operate from the southern Sudan they stand for Liberation they wish for a free democratic state of Sudan they are fighting for civil rights and a rule of law and a fair market economy support grows for this group all throughout of Sudan by the thousands. The SLM was set up in a college in Sudan by eighteen students made up of both men and women in the early nineties it remained in a peaceful group but gained lots of support of the neighbouring colleges and the people of Khartoum in southern Sudan. As time went on it grew into an army and continues to grow to this day. In 2003 they created a military defence unit and started to enter Sudan They were hearing of the devastation going on in the area and went into intercept. This is where the bloodshed an massacre started that you read about in the newspapers today. They didn’t go in alone they had another party teamed up with them.

The JEM are from the eastern front of Sudan along the Eritrean border after this group signed a peace deal with the Sudanese Government then in 2000 Eritrea cut off its funding the had in Eritrea‘s borders. So the JEM joined up with the SLM to combat the Sudanese Government.

The two of these groups started fighting back defending villages in southern and eastern Sudan where the militia’s such as the JANJAWID that teamed up with the Sudanese Government were invading killing everyone in sight. The JANJAWID are responsible for the killing some of the 200,000 refugees that fled into eastern Chad to flee the violence in Darfur. The JANJAWID are also responsible for attacks on Chad villages and slaughtering their people.

The JANJAWID are a Sudanese backed Arab tribe militia who inhabited western Sudan which have long been fighting the Darfur African Farmers that I touched on earlier. The farmers were in conflict because of the scarce water in Darfur and land resources, where their farm land is turning to desert. JANJAWID got more aggressive in 2003 when they saw that the JEM and the SLM were advancing from the south and joined up with the Sudanese Army. The JANJAWID militia went on a rampage through villages that were backing the movement from the south killing everybody fleeing from the violence and the villagers themselves, leaving nothing but scorched ground and the smell of dead bodies. They have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, it’s a lot easier when they have no way of defending themselves.

Darfur has a population of in or around 4 million and most of these are farmers just over 57% of them. That’s over half the population that are open to such attacks by their government and their mental helpers the JAJAWID. Darfur is dying the land is dying water is drying up the people are dying of starvation. All they wanted was a fair market and a water supply wouldn’t go a stray either that’s it no more. You have to remember these JANJAWID have been fighting for decades over farmland and religion as it was and now getting attacked by its own government. As the JEM and the SLM advance from the south conflict in Darfur intensifies.

The ethnic majority are Fur giving Darfur its name the rest of them were either nomadic or semi nomadic herders. The Fur mostly pheasant farmers occupied the middle belt in Darfur in this belt were other non Arab peoples. They were mostly sedentary farmers. Arab nomads farmed the eastern and southern parts of Darfur. The problem area farming wise in Darfur is in the north western side down to the south western side, these areas have suffered reoccurring drought over the years and they are loosing their land to the desert. Darfur’s labour force have fled leaving women and children behind with the elderly and hope they make it out as a refugee. The JANJAWID have closed off the route to Chad preventing them from getting out. Chad’s Army has vowed to help the people of Darfur by attacking the JANJAWID and free up the route and now Chad is caught up in the conflict with the militia.

There was full scale war from April 2003 in Darfur the SLA and the JEM had met up with the African Farmers and were launching attacks at the Sudanese Government backed by Eritrean and helped by the JANJAWID. The Government of Sudan stepped up its military and started to wipe out neighbouring villages in Darfur. By the 25th of April the SLM/A had reported it had seized the capital and airport belonged to the Government destroying its helicopters and equipment and taking their supplies. The government denied this and the SLM/A issued statements saying it doesn’t seek independence and it doesn’t want to overthrow the government that the SLM/A just seeks political autonomy and a share of the resources. The Government claim they are bandits and armed militia gangs terrorising Sudan. The SLM/A said that the government was pursuing a policy of Arab law and just letting the JANJAWID take their land and resources. The Sudanese Government strongly denies these claims and said it has no part of the JANJAWID or any thing to do with it, but still wont help the people from the south.

It was later discovered that the Government sent the JANJAWID to attack villages for them, all along the western border.

Over a quarter of the population have been displaced fleeing the violence in 2003 alone the rest of them were either fighting or couldn’t get out when the JANJAWID cut off their path into Chad. They have been prevented from harvesting crops, humanitarian aid cant get in because of the Governments denial to permits and the state of uncertainty would just be too dangerous. The U.N and UNICHEIF fear that the humanitarian aid could already be too late to save children dying from malnutrition, lack of sanitation and fresh water. Not only were the U.N and UNICHEIF dealing with the problem inside Darfur they had to deal wit the JANJAWID on the far side attacking the refugees with mortar fire inside Chad. The U.N and UNICHEIF went through the UNHCR The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to get clearance from Chad to move the refugees deeper into Chad out of the range of the JANJAWID.

In April 2004 there was a 45 day cease fire agreed by all parties to allow aid into the country and tend to the several hundreds of thousands effected by the conflict reports showed of people starved to death and people that resembled skeletons but were still alive, for some of them it was to late to help them. During this time a truce was signed by the Government and the SLM/A to put a stop to the conflict. The deal included an agreement to realise prisoners of war and to stop laying mines and acts of sabotage and a pledge to allow free movement of food and resources. And for those responsible for the sabotage and ethnic cleansing to be held accountable for their actions. The SLA/M and the Sudanese signed a power sharing agreement on May 26th 2004 in Kenya.

India has always been a land of lovers where epic poems of Gods and Goddesses involved in the affairs of man, where young men are madly in love with fair maidens and the civilization that wrote the earliest guide of sex and all known, and even impossible, sexual positions. Indian writers have written countless literary works such as Shakuntala and Dushyant or of Roopmati and Baz Bahadur on love and traditional Indian-Hindu architecture is marked by scores of naked statues Gods, Goddesses and holy people – often adoring the Hindu temples. So how can one explain the recent culture shock in India against Valentine’s Day?

Hardcore fundamentalists and religious hindu zealots such as Pramod Muthalik have begun an organized and often compulsive drive to oppose Valentine’s Day. The reason is that Valentine’s Day is a bad western influence on the moral standing of the Indian society and thus must be banned. So Pramod Muthalik and his group called Sri Ram Sena (Army of Lord Ram – a Hindu God) has come to the forefront of spearheading the public repulsion of Western culture.

On the other side, the new young generation of India has begun to break every social codes, castes, religious and sexual barriers. The pro-western activists, mostly headed up the Facebook group “Consortium of Pub-going, Loose and Forward Women” has been outraged over the activities of Sri Ram Sena. After a woman in India was attacked for going to a bar, the Facebook group has decided to send pink underwear to the fundamentalist group Sri ram Sena on Valentine’s Day on Saturday. Mr. Pramod Muthalik said he and his group will protest that day and women should not be allowed to enter bars. The Facebook group “Consortium of Pub-going, Loose and Forward Women” has called on women to defy Sri Ram Sena and go to the nearest bar and order drinks on Saturday for Valentine’s Day.

The activities of Mr. Pramod Muthalik and his group Sri Ram Sena was described by the Indian Women’s Minister Renuka Chaudhury as an “attempt to impose Taleban-style values” in India. The nation was shocked when around 30 people in Mr. Muthalik’s group was filmed chasing women and beating them up and even stepping on the women that fell on the street in Mangalore. Shortly thereafter, 30 members of Sri Ram Sena and Mr. Muthalik were arrested for the violence by Police but Mr. Muthalik has promised to carry out his plans for Valentine’s Day.

India has been gripped by strong Anti-terrorist, Anti-Islamic, Anti-Western and even more recently, an Anti-Christian epidemic. Most of the fundamentalist groups are a branch of Hinduism or the BJP party. However, a large party of India is strongly pro-western and pro-American and Christianity has been growing at the 2nd fastest rate in India for the past decade. Despite hardliner efforts, India will move to establish closer Western ties, Pro-Israeli agenda, Anti-Islamic terrorism and a growing Christian population. The fight for Valentine’s Day is an indicator for the direction India is to head in the years to come.

There are many positives that Mr. Chiranjeevi offers that many other parties do not come even close to. For example, many years before deciding to become a politician, he had set up blood and eye donation centers. Utilizing the tremendous goodwill of his fans in this productive and positive way is certainly commendable.

Mr. Chiranjeevi also brings a few alternative ideas in comparison to the tired old ideas of the established parties. For example, he requested his fans to plant 1 crore trees as a gesture of celebrating his birthday. For too long, handicapped people in India have been neglected by many. Mr. Chiranjeevi has given due prominence to them by making a handicapped fan the first party member of the Praja Rajyam party. During the terrible ordeal of the ongoing terrorist attacks in Bombay, it was a refreshing sign to see him speak with a sane voice of coming together as one irrespective of party and agenda. That he offered to send blood from his blood banks and asked his fans in Bombay to donate blood to help the victims, does bring out the caring side of him.

Mr. Chiranjeevi has been setting the agenda which other parties have been trying to play catch-up and in many cases, eagerly co-opting them as their own. Highlighting the plight of the weavers in Siricilla, reviving the memory of Mahatma Jyothirao Phule, giving prominence to women and youngsters and acquiring land justly for Special Economic Zones (SEZs), are a few examples of this.

However, even though he has talked about his party focusing mostly on positive messages instead of retaliatory mudslinging, there are some within the Praja Rajyam party who have been unable to maintain that disciplined message. Mr. Chiranjeevi also has been making a lot of irresponsible promises during his recent speeches, quite akin to seasoned politicians promising the moon (and who have failed to deliver even a sliver).

There are other disturbing signs. Early on, supporters of the Praja Rajyam party founder were turning violent in response to criticism, forgetting the free speech guaranteed in our democracy. Some seasoned politicians joining him have raised questions about the effectiveness of the party in reducing corruption. In all fairness, Mr. Chiranjeevi has answered this during his Vizag tour by promising that they can do this because he will be setting a powerful example (“yadha raja, tadha praja” translating to “like king, so are his subjects”). That his party members participate in “dharnas”, which cause a lot of inconvenience to people, is unfortunate.

Maybe it is naïve, but it would have been truly game-changing if Mr. Chiranjeevi, instead of highlighting caste by promising large representation for backward castes, instead promised the same for poor people irrespective of their caste. Since he has promised to restore dignity to politics, it would behoove Mr. Chiranjeevi to ignore the taunts and the slander and instead maintain disciplined focus on his positive messages. Many of his ideas and ideals are already a departure from the filth of current day politics in India. People are intelligent enough to recognize that. He should continue setting the agenda instead of allowing others to drag him into distracting arguments. There are two interesting questions that remain:

• The Lok Satta party and the Praja Rajyam party have some overlapping agendas – corruption being the most important of them. Each can benefit from the other since the Lok Satta party does not seem to have the star power to make people listen and the Praja Rajyam party can only benefit from the clean image of the Lok Satta party. So why are the two not joining hands?
• When elections come, will the hundreds of thousands of people thronging to see and listen to Mr. Chiranjeevi vote for him?

Time will only tell. Until then, we wait expectantly, because there is a chance of bringing change to our society by a new generation of politics – politicians who actually care about our well-being.

As a result there were several Brazilian-born players appearing for European nations. Marco Senna, of the winning Spanish team, Deco of Portugal and Roger Gurereirro of Poland were all born in Brazil. Gurereirro is not the only person with an exotic name who has starred for Poland. A few years ago the Polish forward line was lead by Nigerian native Emmanuel Olisadebe. Germany.

It made me realize that the term Nigerian needs to be redefined. When I was growing up being a Nigerian meant that you were a citizen of that country. But half a decade of emigration has changed that concept. The political and economic turmoil in Nigeria has lead to a widespread diaspora of Nigeria’s best and brightest. Many of these émigrés have settled for several decades in foreign lands, and as result their children identify with the countries of their birth.

In 1970s Britain it was rare to see a Nigerian name, but now Nigerian names are a dime a dozen in Britain. They are in the arts, politics, music and sports.

Nigerians are a talented people and often excel in any career field they choose, be it science, literature, sports or music. Mass emigration has a created a second wave of talented Nigerians, who are often citizens of other countries. The term Nigerian doesn’t only mean a citizen of Nigeria, it now means a person who is a product of Nigerian culture.

The concept of home has also changed. People of my father’s generation believed home was the soil you were born on, and no matter how long you lived abroad you had to return to be a “son of the soil.” Children of my generation, second-generation Nigerians, raised on a mix of Western pop culture and African tradition, tend to view home as where you feel most comfortable. We tend to believe that Africans carry their culture with them, wherever they go.

Some of these “ethnic Nigerians” include rapper Chamillionaire, singers Seal and Sade, actors Chiwetel Ejiofor and Adewale Akinouye Agbaje, and soccer stars Emmanuel Adebayor, Shola Ameobi and Gabriel Agbonlohor.

First- and second-generation Nigerians are well known in the United States for their academic success. A large segment of the medical profession is made up of Nigerian doctors. A study by the United States Census bureau indicated that Africans have the highest degree attainment among all immigrant groups, even higher than Asians, who have been labeled the “ideal minority.”

One positive aspect of the Nigerian Diaspora is that it has refuted the false idea that Africans are intellectually inferior. The fact that Nigerian communities in the West have produced great scholars, musicians and athletes shows that given the right environment and encouragement Africans can succeed. The million-dollar question is if they can make it work abroad, why can’t Nigerians succeed at home?

Thirty years ago, when I was just knee high, sons and daughters of Nigeria were expected to go forth, gain a decent education and return to build the country. Economic chaos, crime and corruption soon killed those dreams and many foreign-educated Nigerians decided to head back to the West and sell their skills to the highest bidder. Many Nigerian intellectuals worried about this brain drain and they fretted there would be a loss of Nigerian identity.

It turns out that Nigerian culture proved to be very resistant. It thrived and prospered in foreign lands, even though now the offspring of Nigerian émigrés represent other countries.

On December 11, 2003 President Bush said, “The taxpayers understand why it makes sense for countries that risk lives to participate in the contracts in Iraq, it’s very simple. Our people risk their lives, friendly coalition folks risk their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that.” Source

Little did we know at the time, to what extent this was true, and how difficult it was for those “participants of the contract” to produce an answer about the 23 billion US dollars still unaccounted for. (Please check at the bottom of the page for all sources used in writing this article).

Here is a list of some of the people we could ask to account for all that missing cash. Don’t hold your breath for any answers at this time though because there is a gagging law in America which prevents any of this from being discussed in-depth, at least while the current administration is still in power.

Parsons

What is Parsons: A Californian based firm which specialises in industrial manufacturing, infrastructure, telecommunications, engineering (and other areas). They work with government and private industries on a worldwide basis in rebuilding and reconstructing areas affected by war and natural disasters.

Parsons was paid $186 million to build 150 hospitals and have so far delivered a handful of clinics. They’re also implicated (along with Halliburton – based in Texas) in the yet unproven allegation that the four-year delay in fixing simple security measures in the oil fields is deliberate. This continuing breach means that oil is being diverted from the rightful owners and converted into benefits for foreign contractors.

Their defence: Not enough time was given to finish the project in a war zone, and what they’ve already delivered is the best that could be done under the circumstances in appallingly difficult working conditions.

KBR

What is the KBR:Kellogg Brown & Root, a former subsidiary (until recently) of Halliburton’s Corp. They are war contractors, who provide expertise in global engineering and general contracting services. Vice President Dick Cheney used to be Halliburton’s (parent company of KBR at the time) chief executive from 1995 to 2000.

The KBR is the proud holder of $16 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure plus a multi billion dollar contract to provide support services for the troops. All this was secured without having to bid for the contract, as it was the only company to put in a tender for the job.

KBR allegedly avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Medicare and Social Security taxes by hiring workers through shell companies which they set up and based in the Cayman Islands. About 22,000 people work for KBR in Iraq but they’re listed as employees of these shell companies. Where are these companies’ offices? In a file on the fourth floor of an office building in the Caribbean island. Most of the workers weren’t aware that they were employed by a foreign company until they returned to America and realised (when they applied) that they weren’t entitled to any unemployment benefits.

KBR is also alleged to have run empty trucks across Iraq then overcharging by an estimated 108 million dollars, for deliveries not made and meals not provided

Their defence: the companies were set up in order to allow them to reduce certain tax obligations, but not with the aim to avoid taxes altogether. All allegations of profit padding were unfounded.

CACI

What is CACI: An Information technology company with its headquarters in Arlington, Virginia and London. CACI provides national security and intelligence to the American government.

It is widely claimed but not proven, that most of this company’s recruits are not properly trained yet they were allowed to conduct unsupervised sensitive interrogation in Iraq. It has been claimed, (yet not proven), that they have set dogs on prisoners, and taken pictures of them naked. Their soldiers however, cannot be charged because of a law which is securely padlocked in place banning any private security agents from being charged for “crimes of war.”

CACI’s budget for their operations is US $ 40 billion and they’ve made profits of up to 50%

Their defence: They’re doing what they were contracted to do, and none of the alleged atrocities happened. They are in the process of suing multiple persons and agencies for defamation of character.

Hunt Oil

What is Hunt oil: A privately owned oil company based in Texas. Its founder Ray Hunt is closely linked with Vice President Dick Cheney, and the family have donated huge sums of money to President Bush’s campaign.

In addition to this, Hunt gave $1million towards the inaugural festivities for President Bush in 2001, and $35 million to the presidential library, among other “donations”.

Hunt won the contract to sign a deal with Iraq’s Kurdistan government to explore for oil in Iraq, a deal at an estimated $5.4 trillion potential profit.

Their Defence: Their contract to sign the oil deal had nothing whatsoever with their relationship to Bush’s administration. They went through all the right channels and everything was conducted fairly.

Ever Flowing Spring

What is ever flowing spring: A company set up by an American-appointed Iraqi government official and his associates.

They allegedly stole $1.2 billion out of the Ministry when they bought obsolete war equipment from Poland. After the helicopters, bulldozers etc, were shipped to Iraq, the team claimed for brand new, top of the range ones. This stolen money was then diverted through a company called Ever Flowing Springs and into their very own accounts.

Their Defence: None so far.

Al-Qaeda

What is Al-Qaeda: A large terrorist organisation which donates money, training and logistical support to several radical Islamic terrorist groups. They have connections in more than 50 different countries.

A report was issued in the “Annual Military Balance” by the International Institute for Strategic Studies which indicate that Al-Qaeda has always grasped at different reasons (to use as ammunition) to exact their revenge on the West. These “reasons” are heavily used in their recruitment tactics, so the Iraq war has worked in their favour by helping them to recruit more soldiers.

They did not have to present false evidence. The pictures of wounded and dead babies, naked prisoners and weeping mothers were there in colour pictures for all the world to see.

According to “America Blog,” Bush was warned before the war that,- “Al-Qaeda would see the invasion as a chance to accelerate its attacks, and the lines between al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups could become blurred.”

This has proven to be the case, and as a result of the Iraq war, Al-Qaeda can now work behind the dust, smoke and the trauma of the Iraqi people to grow stronger, while the rest of the world grows weaker and looks on.

Their Defence: Do they look bothered enough to find one?

Halliburton

What is Halliburton: It is a technological firm which offers among other services, expertise on oil reservoirs (they were also awarded some of the first Katrina contracts).

Halliburton is based in Texas but operates in more than 120 countries. The company won a “cost-plus” deal which basically means that the more you spend, the more you make, because profits are paid as a percentage of what you claimed to have spent.

Halliburton’s former boss (this is after he was Defence Secretary and before he became Vice president) is Vice President Dick Cheney.

This company got its first oil contract ($10.8 billion) in Iraq after being the only company to bid for the job.

Halliburton’s tax payments to the U.S. government went from $302 million in 1998 to zero in 1999, and they also received a refund of $85 million from the Internal Revenue Service. In addition to this massive saving, they are also alleged to have inflated their food and gas prices, claiming for millions more than they would’ve spent.

Dick Cheney was paid $44 million for working with them for five years, but has since sold a significant amount of his Halliburton shares worth millions to give to charity.

Their Defence: none of these false allegations is true. Vice President had no financial ties with this firm after he joined the Bush administration.

I’ve used several sources to write this article. Some of the ones I can link to are listed below. Here I will list the ones which would be difficult to link to because I’ve used several pages from them. Boston.com, Wikipedia, Alternet.org, BBC1 (TV), Alter Gutenberg, Net News Publisher, and Tom Paign.common sense.

Sources

Global Policy Forum

BBC News Channel

Sanders Research Associates

America Blog

Guerrilla News

Common Dreams.org Newscentre

The Raw Story

New York Times

Newser

The United States of Monsters Blogspot

Taking all the defences as honest, true statements still leaves us convinced that if it was not for the Iraq war, the shares of these companies would not stand at the inflated rate at which they now appear. In addition to this, the profits made (even if they were honest down to the last penny) are preposterous at a time when the world’s poor and not so poor are feeling the financial strain of this ongoing war.

“When will this crazy war end?” We ask. However, I have a feeling that not everyone wants it to.

Her comments prompted an outraged Zimbabwean ambassador to the United States, Machivenyika Mapuranga, to declare that her comments were the result of “ignorance” or “malice.” Ironically, the indignant ambassador is quite correct in one important respect; it is absurd to compare the political process in the United States to that of Zimbabwe. Elections in Zimbabwe are bloody events involving intimidation, torture, and murder. The ruling party of Robert Mugabe, the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), deploys disaffected youths to harass and beat supporters of the opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). These brutal militias use a variety of barbaric techniques including kidnapping, rape, arson, stabbing, beating with clubs, and bicycle chains heated in fires. Anyone having the temerity to run against the ruling party is subject to arrest, torture, and assassination.

On May 5, 2008, the inhabitants of a small rural community would learn what it meant to go against the president, Robert Mugabe. Chaona, a village 65 miles north of Harare and traditional stronghold for Mugabe, did an about turn and voted for Morgan Tsvangirai in the March presidential elections. The villagers would pay a terrible price. Dozens of armed men, led by a ZANU-PF official, appeared and without warning began beating opposition activists with clubs, guns, and rocks. By the time they were finished, seven people had been bludgeoned to death, and a 79-year-old woman brutally whipped with barbwire. The lesson for the country was clear; vote for anyone other Robert Mugabe and be prepared to suffer a similar fate.

By way of contrast, political contests in the United States are highly civilized affairs where debates and speeches are the primary means of persuasion. Once the race is over, despite all the mud slinging, the rival parties accept the outcome and life goes on. Who can forget Al Gore’s gracious concession speech after the Supreme Court awarded the presidency to George W. Bush? In many other countries, however, close elections lead to violence, as was the case in Kenya following the presidential elections in December 2007. Political violence left over 1500 people dead and hundreds of thousands displaced from their homes.

It is an occupational hazard that American presidential candidates have to endure verbal assaults and dreaded epithets such as “flip flopper,” “soft on crime,” “inexperienced,” “tax and spend liberal,” and the always fatal, “out of touch.” On the other hand, Zimbabwean opposition presidential candidates fear for their very lives. Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the MDC has been arrested several times, and even charged with treason. On March 11, 2007, he was taken into police custody and beaten until he lost consciousness.

Senator Clinton, like many politicians, engaged in hyperbole to reinforce her argument, but comparing the situation in Florida to disenfranchised voters in Zimbabwe is more than just a reach. The comparison is not only ludicrous, but also diminishes the prolonged suffering of the Zimbabwean people. Unemployment is at about 80%, AIDS is rampant, and hyperinflation is symptomatic of a shattered economy. Aside from political violence, ZANU-PF does everything imaginable to stifle the opposition. There are instances of civil servants, police officers, and even soldiers acting as election officials. In addition, in the presidential elections of March 2002, voters in Harare, the capitol of Zimbabwe, stood in line for three days waiting to cast their vote.

The ruling party, realizing that the opposition party was strong in urban areas, cut the number of polling stations in Harare and Bulawayo (the second largest city) by fifty percent from the 2000 elections. The impact was mass confusion, as people did not know where to go to vote, (it was reported that even Robert Mugabe showed up at the wrong polling station and had to be redirected to another venue). For those hapless voters who finally found the appropriate place to vote, they faced seemingly endless lines because the number of polling stations was woefully insufficient. Many patiently stood in line for three days with relatives and friends bringing them food and blankets, only to be told to go home, as the election was over.

In Florida there is discontent over hanging chads, butterfly ballots, and now sanctions imposed by the Democratic Party for holding an early primary. These should all be legitimate concerns, but to liken any one of them to the life and death struggles in Zimbabwe, as Senator Clinton did, demonstrates a lack of perspective and smacks of desperation.