oa,
The truth is that nations mind their own internal political affairs. No country should dictate to the other what type of government. Let the citizens of any country find ways to resolve their problems. Throwing in the towel by ignoring the bully tactics of the West is to say the least defeatist and a minus for our humanity.
Steve Nwabuzor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ogugua Anunoby" AnunobyO@lincolnu.edu
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 4:38:09 PM
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya &Gaddafi: A Must Read
"But TRUTH cannot be sacrificed on the altar of colonialism and imperial demagoguery."
What is the truth? Whose truth? What/where is the certainty that what you believe to be the truth is indeed the truth? What is the distinction between reality and the truth? How would you choose between reality and the "truth"? Could your truth and somebody else's truth be the truth but also different? I could go on and on.
I am not aware that foreign policy has to be honest, sincere, fair and just to be foreign policy. Foreign policy is not required to pass the rationality of even the common sense test to be foreign policy. Foreign policy is not required to meet the expectations or standards of its critics to be foreign policy. Foreign policy is what it is conceived and intended to be. It does not have to be good or bad. All it needs to be is effective namely help a country achieve its intended objectives in the short, medium, and /or long term.
oa
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of wabuz@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 1:57 PM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya &Gaddafi: A Must Read
Therefore foreign policy entails selective intervention in others internal affairs under the guise of protecting civilians? One is not oblivious of the lack
of morality in International politics. However, it would have been appropriate to see a clear demarcation about peoples right to self determination, Ghadafi's tenure and
the hasty intervention of the Westerrn forces in Libya. Why have Russia, China etc not jumped into the wagon? Are we not by our superficial criticism of Gadhafi
not failing in our duty to caution the 'big bullies' of this world? The fact that selfish national interests often supercede morality does not make the latest intervention proper.
Yes, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are good contemporary examples of the nauseating foolishness of the US, Britain and France. Let each country take care of its own. I wonder how the US would react if the KKK were to rise up against the 'White House because a black man is the president', as noted by Louis Farrakhan?
We cannot allow this impunity of the West to go on without drawing their attention to the double standards. Whether this would make any difference is another
matter. But TRUTH cannot be sacrificed on the altar of colonialism and imperial demagoguery.
Steve Nwabuzor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ogugua Anunoby" <AnunobyO@lincolnu.edu>
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 12:36:59 PM
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya &Gaddafi: A Must Read
Every one paying attention knows that foreign policy is about protecting a country's national interest. The foreign policies of the major western countries (western powers) have therefore always been informed by the countries' conceived or perceived national interest. If this is recognized and understood, there will be no need to waste valuable time alleging inconsistency in the policies. There is no inconsistency because foreign policy that is informed "national interest" cannot be expected to be consistent. Foreign policy is for the most part is situational. The debates and disagreements in major western countries' on whether or not there should be should interference or intervention in the affairs of other countries is usually about whether "our interest is sufficiently threatened for us to interfere or intervene, and what would it cost to interfere or intervene". In other words "can we get away with it?" Saudi Arabia's security forces rolled into Bahrain last week and crushed the protesters in Bahrain without consequence so far for Saudi Arabia. The protests in Bahrain were mostly by a Shia Muslim majority. It was in Saudi Arabia's "national" interest that the protests in Bahrain be crushed and so it was. Saudi Arabia's intervention was not altruistic even though it was claimed to be. The world is the world and the world has its ways.
International relations are about each country defining, articulating, protecting, and advancing her national interest in her dealings with other countries. One country cannot be rightly and reasonably be held responsible for another country working against the latter country's interest. The world of international relations is a jungle. There are predators and prey in this jungle. It is for each country to choose whether or not to be to be a predator or a prey. Everyone knows what predators think of and inevitably do to their prey.
Realists know that that morality is oftentimes an inconvenience and/or encumbrance in foreign policy development and implementation. They also know that what usually happens is to protect your national interest and answer any questions later, especially when you can get away with it.
oa
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abdul Karim Bangura
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 12:11 AM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com; usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya &Gaddafi: A Must Read
Yours comprise a concise and excellent take and poignant questions, Mwalimu Nwabuzor. They may not know that those of us who fight for our Afrikan people and against neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism comprise the majority on this forum, albeit some of our comrades decide to keep silent to avoid being disrespected by a few folks who think it is their right to do so.
-----Original Message-----
From: wabuz@comcast.net
Sent: Mar 23, 2011 11:37 AM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya &Gaddafi: A Must ReadWell, the Gadhafi phenomenon is by no means the best. However, in condemning his long stay in office, it is important to take a closer look at the monarchical culture of the Arabs. The later cannot be divorced from the raison d'etre of Arab leaders' proclivity to stay in office for life.
The main question that should be of concern to all men and women of justice is the double standard of the imperial/colonialist nations of the world in quickly jumping into bombing Libya with the sole defense that they are protecting the so-called revolutionaries, who did not deem it fit to properly organize themselves to overthrow the 'oppressive regime' of Gadhafi?
At times some compatriots on this listserve appear to sound politically correct with their lenses tinted to blur the fact that 'oil' is the basis of the recent intervention? Where were they when Saro Wiwa was murdered by the Abacha regime? Where are they now when Israel is busy bombing the Palestinians of Gaza? It is really sickening that our critical thinking at times is submerged to pandering to neo-colonial expansionist tendency!
Steve Nwabuzor
----- Original Message -----
From: ogbegbe@yahoo.com
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com, kenyaonline@yahoogroups.com, africa-oped@yahoogroups.com, info@africaaction.org, info@aim4obama.com, info@blackpressusa.com, info@democracy-africa.org, info@friendsofthecongo.org, info@thenewghanaian.com, unionews@yahoogroups.com
Cc: foreign@washpost.com, mwananchi@yahoogroups.com, nigerianworldforum@yahoogroups.com, nigerianid@yahoogroups.com, washingtonbureau@naacpnet.org, zimsite@yahoogroups.com, "Africans Without Borders" <Africans_Without_Borders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:42:13 AM
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya &Gaddafi: A Must Read
And by that the life president of Uganda means let Gadaffi be allowed to slaughter his own people and brutally suppress the popular uprising? Given that he has overwhelming fire power on his side which he has shown every willingness to use and abuse?
What is it with this brand of 'professional revolutionaries' that they assume that because they were once revolutionaries, they remain revolutionaries for life even if they have become transformed into the dialectical or polar opposite in the course of time?
What is it with their brand of revolutionary transformation that they assume that without them the revolution is lost? Without their absolute leadership the cause is defeated?
How is this different from the 'civilising missionary motive of colonialism and imperialism?
So we should accept this brand of ideology which assumes that we are children incapable of knowing our right from our left simply because it is homegrown?
Regards,
JayeSent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
From: MsJoe21St@aol.com
Sender: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:24:28 EDT
To: <kenyaonline@yahoogroups.com>; <africa-oped@yahoogroups.com>; <USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com>; <info@africaaction.org>; <info@aim4obama.com>; <info@blackpressusa.com>; <info@democracy-africa.org>; <info@friendsofthecongo.org>; <info@thenewghanaian.com>; <unionews@yahoogroups.com>
ReplyTo: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Cc: <foreign@washpost.com>; <mwananchi@yahoogroups.com>; <nigerianworldforum@yahoogroups.com>; <nigerianid@yahoogroups.com>; <washingtonbureau@naacpnet.org>; <zimsite@yahoogroups.com>; <Africans_Without_Borders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - President Museveni Discusses Libya & Gaddafi: A Must Read
Let Libyans Solve Their Own problems
By President YOWERI KAGUTA MUSEVENI of Uganda
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the time Muammar Gaddafi came to power in 1969, I was a Third Year university student at Dar es Salaam. We welcomed him because he was in the tradition of Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt who had a nationalist and pan-Arabist position.Soon, however, problems cropped up with Gaddafi as far as Uganda and Black Africa are concerned:1. Idi Amin came to power with the support of Britain and Israel because they thought he was uneducated enough to be used by them. Amin, however, turned against his sponsors when they refused to sell him guns to fight Tanzania.
Unfortunately, Gaddafi, without getting enough information about Uganda, jumped in to support Amin presumably because Amin was a 'Muslim' and Uganda was a 'Muslim country' where Muslims were being "oppressed"' by Christians.
Amin executed a lot of people and Gaddafi was identified with these mistakes. In 1972 and 1979, Gaddafi sent Libyan troops to defend Amin when we attacked him.
2. The second big mistake was Gaddafi's position vis-à-vis the African Union. Since 1999, he has been pushing for a United States of Africa. We tried to politely point out to Gaddafi that this was difficult in the short and medium term. We should, instead, aim at the Economic Community of Africa and, where possible, also aim at regional federations.
Gaddafi would not relent. He would not respect the rules of the AU. He would resurrect something that has been covered by previous meetings. He would 'overrule' a decision taken by all other African Heads of State. Some of us were forced to come out and oppose his wrong position and, working with others, we repeatedly defeated his illogical position.
3. The third mistake has been the tendency by Gaddafi to interfere in the internal affairs of many African countries using the little money Libya has compared to those countries.
One blatant example was his involvement with cultural leaders of Black Africa — kings, chiefs, etc. Since the political leaders of Africa had refused to back his project of an African government, Gaddafi, incredibly, thought that he could by-pass them and work with these kings to implement his wishes.
I warned Gaddafi in Addis Ababa that action would be taken against any Ugandan king who involved himself in politics because it was against our Constitution. I moved a motion in Addis Ababa to expunge from the records of the AU all references to kings who had made speeches in our forum because they had been invited there illegally by Gaddafi.
4. The fourth big mistake was by most of the Arab leaders, including Gaddafi, to some extent. This was in connection with the long suffering people of Southern Sudan.
Many of the Arab leaders either supported or ignored the suffering of the Black people in that country. This unfairness always created tension and friction between us and the Arabs, including Gaddafi to some extent.
However, I must salute him and former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for travelling to Khartoum just before the Referendum in Sudan and advising President Omar el-Bashir to respect the results of that exercise.
5. Sometimes, Gaddafi and other Middle Eastern radicals do not distance themselves sufficiently from terrorism even when they are fighting for a just cause. Terrorism is the use of indiscriminate violence — not distinguishing between military and non-military targets.
The Middle Eastern radicals, quite different from the revolutionaries of Black Africa, seem to say that any means is acceptable as long as you are fighting the enemy. That is why they hijack planes, use assassinations, and plant bombs in bars.
Why bomb bars? People who go to bars are normally merry-makers, not politically minded people.
We were together with the Arabs in the anti-colonial struggle.
The Black African liberation movements, however, developed differently from the Arab ones. Where we used arms, we fought soldiers or sabotaged infrastructure, but never targeted non-combatants.
These indiscriminate methods tend to isolate the struggles of the Middle East and the Arab world. It would be good if the radicals in these areas could streamline their work methods in this area of using violence indiscriminately.
These five points above are some of the negatives associated with Gaddafi. The positions have been unfortunate and unnecessary.
Nevertheless, Gaddafi has also had many positive points, objectively speaking. These have been in favour of Africa, Libya and the Third World. I will deal with them point by point:
1. Gaddafi has been having an independent foreign policy and, of course, also independent internal policies. I am not able to understand the position of Western countries, which appear to resent independent-minded leaders and seem to prefer puppets.
Puppets are not good for any country. Most of the countries that have transitioned from Third World to First World status since 1945 have had independent-minded leaders: South Korea (Park Chung-hee), Singapore (Lee Kuan Yew), China People's Republic (Mao Zedong, Chou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, Marshal Yang Shangkun, Li Peng, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jing Tao, etc), Malaysia (Dr Mahthir Mohamad), Brazil (Lula Da Silva), Iran (the Ayatollahs).
In Africa, we have benefited from a number of independent-minded leaders: Col. Nasser of Egypt, Mwalimu Nyerere of Tanzania, and Samora Machel of Mozambique. That is how Southern Africa was liberated. That is how we got rid of Amin. The stopping of genocide in Rwanda and the overthrow of Mobutu were as a result of efforts of independent-minded African leaders.
Gaddafi, whatever his faults, is a true nationalist. I prefer nationalists to puppets of foreign interests.
Where have the puppets caused the transformation of countries? I need some assistance with information on this from those who are familiar with puppetry.
Therefore, the independent-minded Gaddafi had some positive contribution to Libya, I believe, as well as Africa and the Third World.
I will take one little example. At the time we were fighting the criminal dictatorships in Uganda, we had a problem arising from a complication caused by our failure to capture enough guns at Kabamba on the 6th of February, 1981.
Gaddafi gave us a small consignment of 96 rifles, 100 anti-tank mines, etc., that was very useful. He did not consult Washington or Moscow before he did this. This was good for Libya, for Africa and for the Middle East.
2. Before Gaddafi came to power in 1969, a barrel of oil was 40 American cents. He launched a campaign to withhold Arab oil unless the West paid more for it. I think the price went up to US$20 per barrel. When the Arab-Israel war of 1973 broke out, the barrel of oil went up to US$40.
I am, therefore, surprised to hear that many oil producers in the world, including the Gulf countries, do not appreciate the historical role played by Gaddafi on this issue. The huge wealth many of these oil producers are enjoying was, at least in part, due to Gaddafi's efforts.
The Western countries have continued to develop in spite of paying more for oil. It, therefore, means that the pre-Gaddafi oil situation was characterised by super exploitation by Western countries.3. I have never taken time to investigate socio-economic conditions within Libya. When I was last there, I could see good roads even from the air. From the TV pictures, you can even see the rebels zooming up and down in pick-up vehicles on very good roads accompanied by Western journalists.
Who built these good roads? Who built the oil refineries in Brega and those other places where the fighting has been taking place recently? Were these facilities built during the time of the king and his American as well as British allies or were they built by Gaddafi?
In Tunisia and Egypt, some youths immolated themselves because they had failed to get jobs. Are the Libyans without jobs also? If so, why, then, are there hundreds of thousands of foreign workers? Is Libya's policy of providing so many jobs to Third World workers bad?
Are all the children going to school in Libya? Was that the case before Gaddafi? Is the conflict in Libya economic or purely political?
Possibly Libya could have transitioned more if they encouraged the private sector more. However, this is something the Libyans are better placed to judge.
As it is, Libya is a middle income country with GDP standing at US$89.03 billion. This is about the same as the GDP of South Africa at the time Mandela took over leadership in 1994 and it about the current size of GDP in Spain.
4. Gaddafi is one of the few secular leaders in the Arab world. He does not believe in Islamic fundamentalism, which is why women have been able to go to school, to join the Army, etc. This is a positive point on Gaddafi's side.
Coming to the present crisis, therefore, we need to point out some issues:
1. The first is to distinguish between demonstrations and insurrections. Peaceful demonstrations should not be fired on with live bullets. Of course, even peaceful demonstrations should co-ordinate with the police to ensure that they do not interfere with the rights of her citizens.
When rioters are, however, attacking Police stations and Army barracks with the aim of taking power, then, they are no longer demonstrators; they are insurrectionists. They will have to be treated as such. A responsible government would have to use reasonable force to neutralise them.
Of course, the ideal responsible government should also be an elected one by the people at periodic intervals. If there is a doubt about the legitimacy of a government and the people decide to launch an insurrection, that should be the decision of the internal forces. It should not be for external forces to arrogate themselves that role, for often, they do not have enough knowledge to decide rightly.
Excessive external involvement always brings terrible distortions. Why should external forces involve themselves? That is a vote of no confidence in the people themselves.
A legitimate internal insurrection, if that is the strategy chosen by the leaders of that effort, can succeed. The Shah of Iran was defeated by an internal insurrection; the Russian Revolution in 1917 was an internal insurrection; the Revolution in Zanzibar was an internal insurrection; the changes in Ukraine, Georgia, etc., all were internal insurrections. It should be for the leaders of the resistance in that country to decide their strategy, not for foreigners to do so.
I am totally allergic to foreign, political and military involvement in sovereign countries, especially the African countries.
If foreign intervention is good, then, African countries should be the most prosperous countries in the world because we have had the greatest dosages of that: slave trade, colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism, etc.
All those foreign imposed phenomena have, however, been disastrous.
It is only recently that Africa is beginning to come up partly because of rejecting external meddling. This, and the acquiescence by Africans into that meddling, have been responsible for the stagnation in Africa.
The wrong priorities in many African countries are, in many cases, imposed by external groups. Failure to prioritise infrastructure, for instance, especially energy, is, in part, due to some of these pressures. Instead, consumption is promoted.
I have witnessed this wrong definition of priorities in Uganda. External interests linked, for instance, with internal bogus groups to oppose energy projects for false reasons. How will an economy develop without energy? Quislings and their external backers do not care about this.
If you promote foreign backed insurrections in small countries like Libya, what will you do with the big ones like China, which has got a different system from the West? Are you going to impose a no-fly-zone over China in case of some internal insurrections as happened in Tiananmen Square or in Tibet?
The Western countries always use double standards. In Libya, they are very eager to impose a no-fly-zone. In Bahrain and other areas where there are pro-Western regimes, they turn a blind eye to the very same conditions or even worse conditions.
We have been appealing to the UN to impose a no-fly-zone over Somalia so as to impede the free movement of terrorists linked to Al-Qaeda who killed Americans on 9/11, killed Ugandans last July and have caused so much damage to the Somalis, without success.
Why? Are there no human beings in Somalia similar to the ones in Benghazi? Or is it because Somalia does not have oil which is not fully controlled by western companies on account of Gaddafi's nationalist posture?
The West is always very prompt in commenting on every problem in the Third World — Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc. Yet, some of these countries were the ones impeding growth in those countries.
There was a military coup d'état that slowly became a revolution in backward Egypt in 1952. The new leader, Nasser, had ambition to cause transformation in Egypt. He wanted to build a dam not only to generate electricity but also to help with the ancient irrigation system of Egypt.
The West denied him money because they did not believe that Egyptians needed electricity. Nasser decided to raise that money by nationalising the Suez Canal. Israel, France and Britain attacked him.
Another negative point is going to arise out of the habit of the Western countries overusing their superiority in technology to impose war on less developed societies without impeachable logic. This will be the igniting of an arms race in the world. The actions of the Western countries in Iraq and now Libya are emphasising that might is "right."
I am quite sure that many countries that are able will scale up their military research and in a few decades, we may have a more armed world.
All this notwithstanding, Mr Gaddafi should be ready to sit down with the opposition, through the mediation of the AU, with the opposition cluster of groups which now includes individuals well known to us — Ambassador Abdalla, Dr Zubeda, etc. I know Gaddafi has his system of elected committees that end up in a National People's Conference.
There is now, apparently, a significant number of Libyans that think that there is a problem in terms of governance. Since there has not been internationally observed elections in Libya, not even by the AU, we cannot know what is correct and what is wrong. Therefore, dialogue is the correct way forward.
The AU mission could not get to Libya because the Western countries started bombing Libya the day before they were supposed to arrive. However, the mission will continue. My opinion is that, in addition, to what the AU mission is doing, it may be important to call an extraordinary Summit of the AU in Addis Ababa to discuss this grave situation.
Regarding the Libyan opposition, I would feel embarrassed to be backed by Western war planes because quislings of foreign interests have never helped Africa. We have had a copious supply of them in the last 50 years — Mobutu, Houphet-Boigny, Kamuzu Banda, etc.
Recently, there has been some improvement in the arrogant attitudes of some of these Western countries. Certainly, with Black Africa and, particularly, Uganda, the relations are good following their fair stand on the Black people of Southern Sudan.
With the democratisation of South Africa and the freedom of the Black people in Southern Sudan, the difference between the patriots of Uganda and the Western Governments had disappeared. Unfortunately, these rash actions on Libya are beginning to raise new problems. They should be resolved quickly.
Therefore, if the Libyan opposition groups are patriots, they should fight their war by themselves and conduct their affairs by themselves. To be puppets is not good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the writer: Yoweri Kaguta Museveni is the President of Uganda
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__._,_.___
To Subscribe to kenyaonline, visit: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kenyaonline/join
or send a message to
kenyaonline-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
You can also send a message for the following services:
To Post a message: kenyaonline@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: kenyaonline-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To The List owner: kenyaonline-owner@yahoogroups.com
URL to this page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kenyaonline
For articles on Kenyan issues, check out our Library at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kenyaonline/files/MARKETPLACE
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment