Showing posts with label BARACK OBAMA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BARACK OBAMA. Show all posts

24 May 2012




Uamuzi mgumu na ujasiri wa kisiasa

Evarist Chahali
Toleo la 240
23 May 2012
WIKI iliyopita, Rais wa Marekani, Barack Obama, aliingia kwenye vitabu vya historia ya taifa hilo kwa kuwa kiongozi wa kwanza kuunga mkono ndoa za watu wa jinsia moja. Kwa muda mrefu Obama alikuwa aidha akipinga suala hilo nyeti au kuchelea kuweka wazi msimamo wake.
Tayari suala hilo la ndoa za jinsia moja limezua mgawanyiko mkubwa wa kimtizamo ingawa kura mbalimbali za maoni zinaonyesha kuwa msimamo huo ‘mpya’ wa Obama hautoathiri kwa kiasi kikubwa maamuzi ya wapigakura katika uchaguzi mkuu wa Marekani unaotarajiwa kufanyika Novemba mwaka huu.
Kwa mujibu wa kura za maoni za hivi karibuni, takriban asilimia 60 ya Wamarekani wanasema kitendo cha Obama kuunga mkono ndoa za mashoga hakitowashawishi kumpigia au kutompigia kura.
Lakini moja ya makundi ambayo yanaonyesha kuguswa na suala hilo ni Wamarekani Weusi. Kama ilivyo kwetu Waafrika, Wamarekani Weusi wamekuwa wapinzani wakubwa si tu wa ndoa, bali hata uhusiano wa kawaida wa watu wa jinsia moja. Mara kadhaa wasanii wengi wa muziki wa kufokafoka (hip-hop/rap), ambao ni maarufu kwa Wamarekani Weusi, wamekuwa wakilaumiwa kwa tungo zao zenye kuonyesha bayana upinzani dhidi ya ushoga.
Kwa mujibu wa gazeti la New York Times, baadhi ya viongozi wa makanisa ya Wamarekani Weusi wameeleza bayana kuwa hawamuuingi mkono Obama katika suala hilo, huku wengine wakitishia kutompigia kura katika uchaguzi mkuu ujao.
Japo Obama anaendelea kuungwa mkono na kundi hilo (la Wamarekani Weusi) huku akionekana kuwa ni ‘mwenzao’, kura za maoni zinaonyesha kuwa asilimia 49 inampinga katika msimamo wake kuhusu ndoa za mashoga kulinganisha na asilimia 43 ya Wamarekani Weupe.
Obama mwenyewe amekiri kuwa anafahamu bayana msimamo wake huo utawaudhi baadhi ya wanaomuunga mkono. Lakini akizungumza katika mahojiano maalumu na kituo cha luninga cha ABC cha Marekani, Rais huyo alieleza kuwa inamwia vigumu kuendelea na ‘sintofahaumu’ katika ‘ubaguzi’ dhidi ya mashoga ilhali Wamarekani kadhaa anaowaongoza wamo kwenye kundi hilo.
Alifafanua kuwa kama mzazi, alikuwa anapata wakati mgumu kutokuunga mkono ndoa za mashoga ilhali wanae Sasha na Malia wana  baadhi ya marafiki zao ambao wazazi wao ni mashoga.
Kadhalika, alieleza kuwa ilikuwa inamsumbua pia kuendelea kutokuunga mkono ndoa za mashoga huku baadhi ya makundi muhimu katika nchi hiyo, kwa mfano, wanajeshi wanaolitumikia taifa hilo kwa uadilifu mkubwa, yakijumuisha mashoga.
Lengo la makala hii si kumuunga mkono au kumpinga Obama katika msimamo wake huo kwa ndoa za mashoga bali kupigia mstari nafasi ya ujasiri katika uongozi.
Kama alivyokiri mwenyewe kuwa anafahamu bayana uamuzi wake wa kutangaza hadharani msimamo wake kuhusu ndoa za mashoga utawakera wengi, na pengine kumgharimu katika uchaguzi mkuu ujao, lakini Obama ameweza kufanya ujasiri wa kusimamia kile anachokiamini.
Japokuwa kuna baadhi ya wachambuzi wa siasa wanaotafsiri hatua hiyo ya Obama kama kigeugeu-kwa maana alishawahi kuwa mpinzani wa ushoga- huku wengine wakidai hatua hiyo ni ‘janja yake’ tu kusaka kura za mashoga, jambo la msingi hapa ni ukweli kwamba amediriki kuweka kando uoga (huku akijua madhara) na kuweka wazi wapi anasimamia katika suala hilo.
Kwa upande fulani, uamuzi huo unaweza kumnufaisha dhidi ya mpinzani wake mtarajiwa kutoka chama cha Republicans, Mitt Romney, ambaye kama ilivyo kwa wahafidhina wengi, suala la ushoga ni kama laana.
Sasa, kwa vile moja ya misingi muhimu ya taifa la Marekani ni uhuru wa mtu kufanya apendacho alimradi havunji sheria, sambamba na kupinga ubaguzi wa aina yoyote ile, Obama na wanaomuunga mkono wanaweza kuutumia upinzani wa Romney dhidi ya ndoa za mashoga kama mfano hai wa jinsi mgombea huyo (mtarajiwa) na chama chake cha Republicans walivyobobea kwenye ‘ubaguzi na kuminya uhuru’  wa Wamarekani.
Kwa mtizamo wangu, ujasiri alionyesha Obama (bila kujali kama naafikiana au ninapingana naye katika suala la ndoa za mashoga) ninaulinganisha na kauli za hivi karibuni za aliyekuwa Waziri Mkuu na Mbunge wa sasa wa Monduli (CCM), Edward Lowassa. Naomba niweke wazi kuwa ninaamini wasomaji wengi wa makala hizi wanafahamu fika msimamo wangu dhidi ya Lowassa, hususan kuhusiana na tuhuma za ufisadi. Lakini msimamo huo haumaanishi nichelee kumuunga mkono pale anapoonyesha ujasiri wa kisiasa.
Kwa muda mrefu sasa, Lowassa amejitokeza kuwa mmoja wa wanasiasa wachache ndani ya CCM wanaoeleza waziwazi mapungufu ya chama hicho na jinsi yanavyoliathiri taifa kwa ujumla. Lakini kama ilivyozoeleka, msimamo huo (ambao hapa ninauita ujasiri) umemfanya mwanasiasa huyo aonekane kama kiumbe hatari kabisa kwa ustawi na uhai wa chama hicho tawala.
Majuzi, Katibu Mkuu wa CCM, Wilson Mukama, alinukuliwa akimpinga Lowassa kutokana na kauli yake katika mkutano wa hadhara huko Mto wa Mbu, Arusha, kuwa tatizo la CCM ni uongozi kuacha kusimamia misingi. Katika majibu yake kwa Lowassa, Mukama alimtaka mbunge huyo wa Monduli kushughulikia matatizo jimboni kwake kwanza.
Kuna wanaotafsiri kuwa msimamo wa Lowassa kukikosoa chama chake ni sehemu tu ya mikakati yake ya kuwania urais mwaka 2015. Lakini wanaofikiria hivyo wanapaswa kumtendea haki mwanasiasa huyo hasa kwa vile hajatangaza kuwa atagombea urais katika uchaguzi mkuu ujao. Kadhalika, ni muhimu kutanua upeo wetu na kuzichambua kauli za Lowassa pasipo kuzihusisha zaidi na malengo yake ya baadaye ya kisiasa.
Kimsingi, tukiweka kando hisia za ‘unafiki wa kisiasa’, anayoongea Lowassa kuhusu CCM ni ya kawaida sana kwa maana kwamba kila Mtanzania mwenye uwezo wa kufikiri anaelewa ‘mchango wa CCM katika kukwaza maendeleo ya nchi yetu.’
Kama chama tawala, CCM haiwezi kujinusuru dhidi ya shutuma kwamba inachangia sana kukwaza jitihada za kulikwamua taifa kutoka kwenye lindi la umasikini unaochangiwa zaidi na vitendo vya ufisadi.
Kwamba Lowassa ni mmoja wa wana-CCM wanaotuhumiwa kwa ufisadi si sababu ya kumfanya mwanasiasa huyo kutozungumzia suala hilo. Na hata hizo tuhuma dhidi yake zinaweza kukosa nguvu kwa vile CCM yenyewe imeshindwa kuchukua hatua zozote dhidi yake.
Makala hii haina maneno ya kuitia moyo CCM katika msimamo wa baadhi ya viongozi wake wanaokerwa na kauli za Lowassa, hasa ikizingatiwa kuwa anachofanya mwanasiasa huyo ni kuwakilisha tu mtizamo wa Watanzania wengi (ikiwa ni pamoja na wana-CCM) dhidi ya chama hicho tawala. CCM inaweza hata kumtimua Lowassa lakini isipojirekebisha, kuna kila dalili kuwa itang’olewa madarakani huko mbeleni.
Japo ninaelewa msimamo wa Mukama kwamba kama kiongozi wa CCM Lowassa anapaswa kuongelea matatizo ya chama hicho kwenye vikao vya ndani, kimsingi hilo ni moja ya vyanzo vya matatizo yanayosababisha watu kama Lowassa kuamua kuweka hadharani matatizo hayo.
Ni hivi, kama chama hicho kina matatizo, kisha yanazungumzwa kwenye vikao vya ndani na hayapatiwi ufumbuzi, kwa nini basi kiongozi asishawishike kuyaongelea matatizo hayo hadharani?
Halafu kuna suala la maslahi ya taifa dhidi ya maslahi ya chama. Kwa vile CCM ni chama tawala, kila inachofanya au kuzembea kufanya kinaligusa taifa moja kwa moja. Kwa mantiki hiyo, wakati Mukama anaweza kuyaona matatizo ya CCM kuwa ni suala la kichama, kiuhalisi matatizo hayo si tu yanaligusa taifa bali pia ni suala la kitaifa. Na kwa vile Tanzania ni yetu sote, basi ni sahihi na halali kwa kila Mtanzania, ikiwa ni pamoja na Lowassa, kuyaongelea matatizo yanayolisumbua taifa letu pasi uoga wa kumuudhi mtu flani.
Naomba kuhitimisha makala hii kwa kurejea kuweka bayana msimamo wangu kuwa lengo halikuwa kuunga mkono msimamo wa Obama kuhusu ndoa za mashoga wala kugeuka muungaji mkono wa Lowassa (japo vyote si dhambi).
Makala hii imelenga kuwapongeza wanasiasa hao kwa ujasiri wa kuweka wazi misimamo yao hata pale kufanya hivyo kunapoweza kuwaingiza matatizoni. Kinyume cha ujasiri ni uoga na unafiki, na sote tunafahamu kuwa kiongozi mwoga na/au mnafiki si tu hawezi kusimamia yale anayoamini lakini pia ni kikwazo katika jitihada za kuleta mabadiliko muhimu kwa anaowaongoza.


25 Apr 2012


Predict the 2012 election with our interactive tool!

 at 09:17 AM ET, 04/24/2012

Predict Obama's odds in the 2012 election

Click the image to use the interactive tool.



“To see what’s in front of one’s nose requires a constant struggle,” George Orwell wrote. But the problem for those of us paying attention to the 2012 election is rather the opposite: To ignore what keeps being thrust in front of one’s face requires its own sort of struggle.
Here is a partial list of “scandals” that have grabbed hold of the news cycle in past weeks: “Rosengate,” in which a Democratic operative and CNN contributor named Hilary Rosen said something dismissive about Ann Romney’s work history; “Dog-gate,” in which conservatives pretended to be outraged that President Obama, as a 7-year-old living in Indonesia, had been fed dog meat; and “Cookiegate,” in which Mitt Romney asked if cookies he was offered were from 7-Eleven and inadvertently insulted a local baker.
I could go on. But I won’t. It’s too depressing. The good news, however, is that the tornado of idiocy that seems to accompany modern presidential campaigns — remember “lipstick on a pig”? — doesn’t much matter.
Political scientists have long known that you can predict most of what will happen in a presidential election with just a few key pieces of information: how the economy does, for instance, and the incumbent’s approval ratings in the summer. If you have those two numbers — even before you know the opponent, the campaign strategies or the issues — you can usually call the winner.
What these models suggest, in other words, is that the ephemera of elections aren’t that important. Not that this stuff doesn’t matter at all: Elections are often close, and a few percentage points can mean the difference between defeat and victory. But these micro-scandals mostly serve to distract us from the things that really do matter. And I don’t want to spend the next seven months distracted.
So I asked three political scientists — Seth Hill of Yale, John Sides of George Washington University and Lynn Vavreck of UCLA — to help me create an election forecasting model. And when I say “help me,” I mean that they did all the work and then sat me down and explained, slowly and using small words, what they had done.
The final model uses just three pieces of information that have been found to be particularly predictive: economic growth in the year of the election, as measured by the change in gross domestic product during the first three quarters; the president’s approval rating in June; and whether one of the candidates is the incumbent.
That may seem a bit thin. But it calls 12 of the past 16 elections right. The average error in its prediction of the two-party vote share is less than three percentage points.
Then I started playing with the model. And frankly, it just looked wrong. If GDP is flat — that is to say, if the economy doesn’t grow at all this year — and Obama’s approval rating is 45 percent, he wins 49 percent of the time. If you boost growth to a still-anemic 1.5 percentage points, he wins 74 percent of the time. That seems a little unlikely.
That, the political scientists said, is the point of a model such as this one.
“There’s this moment where you go, ‘Whoa, that’s a high number,’ ” Vavreck says. “ ‘Something must be wrong.’ But what it forces you to do is . . . to divorce yourself from contemporary context. You can’t go in thinking, ‘But, oh, this president is black,’ or ‘Gas prices are high,’ or ‘We just had the tea party.’ You have to strip all that away and say: ‘Incumbent parties, in growing economies, almost always win in contemporary American history.’ ”
She’s right. Since 1948, only three incumbent presidents have lost reelection campaigns: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Carter and Bush both ran in very bad economies. Ford was a bit of an odd case, as he took office after Richard Nixon resigned over Watergate, and even so, the election was extremely close. This is the way models discipline your thinking: They force you to see relationships and patterns that conflict with your intuition.
The question is what happens when you add contemporary context back in. The model, for instance, assumes that voters will have the same reaction to slow economic growth in 2012 that they would have had in 1996 or 1964. But the past four years have seen the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Voters might be much less willing to forgive slow growth. Or, since many place the bulk of the blame for the crisis on George W. Bush, perhaps they’ll grade Obama on a kind of curve. The model can’t tell us.
And, sadly, neither can the past. Since 1948, there have been only 16 presidential elections. Which is another limit of models like this one: a relatively thin data set spread over a relatively long time. It would be nice to have more examples of presidential elections conducted during once-in-a-generation crises, in the Internet era, with serious third parties, with African American incumbents, with Mormon challengers, etc. And as Nate Silver, a statistician and blogger at the New York Times, points out, these models often do much worse when tested against new elections that are not in the original sample.
The three contests that the model was worst at calling were the 2008 race, where it predicted that Obama would get an additional 3.7 percentage points; the 1992 election, where it forecast that the elder Bush would win easily; and the 1972 election, where it foretold an even larger victory for Nixon. Perhaps race depressed Obama’s numbers, Ross Perot hurt Bush, and Nixon hurt Nixon. But those are just hypotheses. We have no way of knowing whether they’re right. We can’t rerun the elections under different conditions.
So sure, perhaps this year will be different — that’s what my gut tells me, and the model has me thinking about the ways in which that could be true. But the reality is, everyone always thinks “this year” will be different, and they’re usually wrong. That’s what the model tells me.
I am, however, confident that if this year really is different, it won’t be because of “Dog-gate.”
There’s no reason we should have all the fun. So we’ve opened the model for you to play around with athttp://wapo.st/election-predictor. Put in your best guess for economic growth this year and Obama’s approval rating in June. Or rerun previous elections and see how the model performs. At the very least, it’ll be a nice distraction from, well, all the distractions.

28 Jan 2012


Rais Barack Obama akiwa na wageni wake,Rais Mstaafu George H.W. Bush  na mwanae Gavana wa zamani wa Florida  Jeb Bush,walipomtembelea Ikulu ya Marekani Ijumaa iliyopita

CHANZO (na kwa habari kamili): Politico

14 Dec 2011

Whoever wrote the political rulebook needs to start rewriting it. It used to be an iron maxim that voters' most vital organ was neither their head nor their heart, but their wallet. If they were suffering economically, they'd throw the incumbents out. Yet in Britain a coalition presiding over barely-there growth, rising unemployment and forecasts of gloom stretching to the horizon is holding steady in the opinion polls, while in the US Barack Obama is mired in horrible numbers – except for the ones showing him beating all-comers in the election now less than 11 months away. Even though the US economy is slumped in the doldrums, some of the country's shrewdest commentators make a serious case that Obama could be heading for a landslide victory in 2012.

How to explain such a turnaround? In the United States, at least, there is one compellingly simple, two-word answer: Fox News.

By any normal standards, Obama should be extremely vulnerable. Not only is the economy in bad shape, he has proved to be a much more hesitant, less commanding White House presence than his supporters longed for. And yet, most surveys put him comfortably ahead of his would-be rivals. That's not a positive judgment on the president – whose approval rating stands at a meagre 44% – but an indictment of the dire quality of a Republican field almost comically packed with the scandal-plagued, gaffe-prone and downright flaky. And the finger of blame for this state of affairs points squarely at the studios of Fox News.

It's not just usual-suspect lefties and professional Murdoch-haters who say it, mischievously exaggerating the cable TV network's influence. Dick Morris, veteran political operative and Fox regular, noted the phenomenon himself the other day while sitting on the Fox sofa. "This is a phenomenon of this year's election," he said. "You don't win Iowa in Iowa. You win it on this couch. You win it on Fox News." In other words, it is Fox – with the largest cable news audience, representing a huge chunk of the Republican base – that is, in effect, picking the party's nominee to face Obama next November.

This doesn't work crudely – not that crudely, anyway. Roger Ailes, the Fox boss, does not deliver a newspaper-style endorsement of a single, anointed candidate. Rather, some are put in the sunlight, and others left to moulder in the shade. The Media Matters organisation keeps tabs on what it calls the Fox Primary, measuring by the minute who gets the most airtime. It has charted a striking correlation, with an increase in a candidate's Fox appearances regularly followed by a surge in the opinion polls. Herman Cain and Rick Perry both benefited from that Fox effect, with Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker, the latest: in the days before he broke from the pack, Gingrich topped the Fox airtime chart. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney cannot seem to break through a 20-to-25% ceiling in the polls – hardly surprising considering, as the league table shows, he has never been a Fox favourite.

But it works in a subtler way than the mere degree of exposure. Fox, serving up constant outrage and fury, favours bluster over policy coherence. Its ideal contributor is a motormouth not a wonk, someone who makes good TV rather than good policy. Little wonder it fell for Cain and is swooning now for Gingrich – one of whom has never held elected office while the other messed up when he did, but who can talk and talk – while it has little interest in Romney and even less in Jon Huntsman, even though both have impressive records as state governors. The self-described conservative journalist Andrew Sullivan says that the dominant public figures on the right are no longer serving politicians, but "provocative, polarising media stars" who serve up enough controversy and conflict to keep the ratings high. "In that atmosphere, you need talk-show hosts as president, not governors or legislators."

Fox News and what Sullivan calls the wider "Media Industrial Complex" have not only determined the style of the viable Republican presidential candidate, but the content too. If one is to flourish rather than wither in the Fox spotlight, there are several articles of faith to which one must subscribe – from refusing to believe in human-made climate change, and insisting that Christians are an embattled minority in the US, persecuted by a liberal, secular, bi-coastal elite, to believing that government regulation is always wrong, and that any attempt to tax the wealthiest people is immoral. Those who deviate are rapidly branded foreign, socialist or otherwise un-American.

Some wonder if it was fear of this ultra-conservative catechism that pushed a series of Republican heavyweights to sit out 2012. "The talent pool got constricted," says David Frum, the former George W Bush speechwriter who has been boldest in speaking out against the Foxification of his party. Fox sets a series of litmus tests that not every Republican can or wants to pass.

This affects those who run as well as those who step aside, setting the parameters within which a Republican candidate must operate. What troubles Frum is that it pushes Republicans to adopt positions that will make them far less appealing to the national electorate in November, with Romney's forced march rightward typical. Even if Romney somehow wins the nomination, he won't be "the pragmatic, problem-solving Mitt Romney" of yore, says Frum, but a new Foxified version. It was this process that led the former speechwriter to declare last year: "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us – and now we're discovering we work for Fox."

So far, so bad for the Republicans. Why should anyone else care? Because the Fox insistence on unbending ideological correctness turns every compromise – a necessary staple of governance – into an act of treachery. The Republican refusal, cheered on by a Fox News chorus, to raise the US debt ceiling this summer, thereby prompting the downgrading of America's credit rating, is only the most vivid example. The larger pattern is one of stubborn, forced gridlock, paralysing the republic even now, at a moment of global economic crisis.


The problem is compounded by a wilful blindness towards the facts. Ari Rabin-Havt of Media Matters says Fox has created a "post-truth politics", which is happy to ignore and distort basic empirical evidence. To take one example, Fox pundits constantly repeat that "53% of Americans pay all the tax". In fact, 53% pay all the federal income tax – but many, many more pay so-called payroll taxes. It's hard for a nation to make the right policy decisions if the public is misled on the basic facts. And misled they certainly are. A series of surveys has proven that Fox viewers are woefully ignorant of current affairs, the latest study revealing that it is actually better to consume no news than to watch Fox: you end up better informed.

The extremism, anger, paranoia and sense of victimhood that Fox incubates are all unhealthy for the United States. But it's inflicting particular damage on the Republican party, which could well lose a winnable election because of its supine relationship to a TV network. It turns out it is not liberals who should fear the Fox – it's conservatives.

SOURCE: The Guardian

5 May 2011


Makala yangu katika toleo la wiki hii la jarida maridhawa la Raia Mwema inafanya uchambuzi linganifu kuhusu,kwa upande mmoja,tuhuma zilizomwandama Rais Obama kuwa sio raia wa Marekani,na hatimaye uamuzi wake kutoa cheti chake cha kuzaliwa,na kwa upande mwingine ni tuhuma za ufisadi zinazomwandama Rais Kikwete,na jinsi kutochukua hatua kadhaa kunazifanya tuhuma hizo kuwa na uzito.

Kadhalika,makala hiyo inawagusa jamaa zangu wa Usalama wa Taifa,kwa kuangalia wnavyofanikisha upatikanaji wa taarifa zinazowahusu wanasiasa wa CCM wanaotajwa kama magamba.Lakini ninaibua maswali kadhaa huku nikiwatahadharisha kuhusu uwezekano wa kuzua skandali kama ile ya Watergate ya nchini Marekani ambapo Rais Nixon,pamoja na mambo mengine alitumia nafasi yake kuamrisha ukusanyaji wa taarifa za kiintelijensia dhidi ya wapinzani wake wa kisiasa.

Pamoja na makala hiyo unayowaza kuisoma kwa KUBONYEZA HAPA,jarida hili la Raia Mwema limesheheni habari na chambuzi za kiwango cha juu kabisa. 


3 May 2011

Rais Obama,Makamu wake wa Rais Joe Bden (wa kwanza kushoto),Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje Hillary Clinotn (aliyeweka mkono mdomoni),Waziri wa Ulinzi Robert Gates (wa kwanza kulia),pamoja na timu ya usalama wa taifa wakifuatilia shambulizi la askari wa kikosi maalum (SEALs) nchini Pakistan lililopelekea kuuawa kwa Osama Bin Laden.Hapo ni katika ukumbi wa kutathimini mwenendo wa mambo (Situation Room),Ikulu ya Marekani

Rais Obama akisisitiza pointi huku Mshauri wake wa usalama wa taifa Tom Donilon (kulia) akisikiliza.





Rais Obama na timu yake ya usalama wa taifa huku Makamu  Mnadhimu Mkuu wa Majeshi ya Marekani,Jenerali James Cartwright akonekana kwenye screen




Rais Obama akisikiliza kwa makini mwenendo wa operesheni ya kumuua Osama Bin Laden

Rais Obama akiongea kwenye simu katika moja ya simu mbalimbali muhimu alizopiga kufahamisha mafanikio ya operesheni ya kumuua Osama,ikiwa ni pamoja na simu kwa Maraisi wa zamani wa nchi hiyo Bill Clinton na George W. Bush




Rais Obama akipitia hotuba yake kabla hajalihutubia taifa kufahamisha kuwa Osama ameuawa




Viongozi waandamizi katika utawala wa Rais Obama wakifuatilia hotuba yake kwa taifa kuhusu kuuwawa kwa Osama.Kutoka Kulia kwenda Kushoto ni Makamu wa Rais Joe Baden,Waziri wa Nje Hillary Clinton,Mkuu wa Majeshi ya Marekani Jenerali Mike Mullen,Mkurugenzi Mkuu wa Shirika la Ujasusi la Marekani (CIA) Leon Panetta,Mshauri wa Rais katika usalama wa taifa Tom Donilon,na Mkurugenzi wa Usalama wa Taifa James Clapper.




Rais Obama akiwahutubia Wamarekani na dunia kutangaza kuuawa kwa Osama Bin Laden




Rais Obama akipena mkono na Mkuu wa Majeshi ya Marekani Jenerali Mullen baada ya hotuba yake.Wengine pichani ni Hillary Clinton na Mkurugenzi Mkuu wa CIA Panetta.
CHANZO: Picha za Ikulu ya Marekani katika tovuti ya picha ya Flickr

2 May 2011



Ed Pilkington
guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 May 2011 10.52 BST

How sweet it was on Saturday night for Barack Obama to be able to take to the stage at the White House correspondents dinner in Washington and mock his nemesis Donald Trump for having embraced the birther conspiracy that the president scotched only last week with the production of his birth certificate.

That was nothing compared with the sweetness of the moment that came 24 hours later when Obama took to the national stage, announcing from the East Wing of the White House that he had successfully ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden.

That address, delivered sombrely but with evident relish by Obama, will almost certainly dash any remaining hopes on Trump's part that his wife Melania will be choosing new curtains for the White House in 2013. It may also sweep away the aspirations of several other potential Republican candidates hoping to limit Obama to one term.

Rarely has an incumbent president been handed such a gift in the runup to an election year. As the huge crowd that assembled outside the White House testified, "getting Osama" is grounds for national jubilation, free from party affiliation.

Obama was at pains in his announcement to emphasise the personal role he had played as commander-in-chief. He underlined that he had ordered the CIA to make the killing or capture of Bin Laden its top priority, that he had met repeatedly with the national security team when the al-Qaida leader's whereabouts had become known, and that it was "at my direction" that the operation to assassinate him was launched.

The accent on his firmness in the face of the terrorist threat is unlikely, in the case of Bin Laden, to displease even the most liberal of Democratic voters who have grown increasingly despondent about the president's refusal to break with the central features of George Bush's "war on terror", such as the maintenance of the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay. It is likely to play very well with independent voters upon whom his re-election depends.

In his wording, it was clear that Obama was seeking to put to rest the comparison with Jimmy Carter, the last Democrat to be thrown out of the White House after just one term, that has dogged his presidency.

Obama stressed that none of the US special forces had been harmed in the operation to kill Bin Laden, an allusion to Carter's disastrous attempt in 1980 to rescue the Iranian hostages that cost American lives.

Obama will be hoping that the feelgood fallout from the news of Bin Laden's death will lead to a bounce in his popularity ratings that have remained worryingly low for many months. In the latest Rasmussen poll, 49% of voters said they disapproved of his leadership, 37% strongly, although that was before this weekend's events in Pakistan.

On the other hand, the polls show consistently that the top priority for voters is no longer national security – that has waned as a preoccupation almost 10 years after 9/11 – but the economy.

With petrol prices at a historic high, and unemployment still at 9.2%, Obama will know that even the death of Bin Laden will not secure him a second term unless the economy improves.

At least, for now, he has the pleasure of watching his opponents squirm. The announcement saw Republican 2012 hopefuls reaching for the superlatives, including Mitt Romney who called the news "a great victory for lovers of freedom and justice everywhere".

The gloves won't stay off for long, but for now Obama can enjoy being on top.


1 May 2011



Opinion by Jerome McCollom
(8 Hours Ago) in Society

President Obama, in far beyond what he is legally required to do, released his long-form birth certifiate from the state of Hawaii. He had already released the short-form certificate, the one that Hawaii gives to those born there, and which was already good enough to get issued a U.S. passport.

Who takes credit, well Donald Trump. See, Trump wants attention, and he says he is going to run for the presidency, and to do so he is trying to attract birther support. Well, Trump had stated before Obama released the long form in an interview with Meredith Vieira.

DONALD TRUMP:

" …You are not allowed to be a President if you are not born in this country. He may not have been born in this country, and I tell you what: three weeks ago I thought he was born in this country — right now I have some real doubts. I have people that actually have been studying it, and they cannot believe what they’re finding."

MEREDITH VIEIRA:
"You have people now, down there, searching, I mean in Hawaii?"

DONALD TRUMP:
"Absolutely. Absolutely, and they cannot believe what they’re finding."

When George Stephanopoulos asked him about these supposed investigators, after Obama's release of the original birth certificate, The Donald responded, "That’s none of your business right now.”

What?! The Donald runs for the presidency by saying he has investigators who "cannot believe what they are finding', and now that isn't a concern? Who are these incompetent investigators on Trump's payroll? Because he sure needs to say you're fired to them, if anyone. Look at the ego on a man who gets angry that anyone dare question or point out that either he has incompetents/liars on his payroll or that he was lying himsef. Actually, it is pretty clear that Trump lied about this.

Or, maybe he was just believing the blather of one of those birthers writing books attacking Obama as a non-citizen, the Jerome Corsis and Joseph Farahs of the birther movement The Donald is actually taking credit for his absurd crusade to get Obama to release a certificate that wasn't necessary to prove he was a citizen, because Obama already released the short form version that the state of Hawaii releases to everyone. We don't need an energy solution in America, we need just to power our electronics and lights from the hot air that is Donald Trump.



Donald Trump -- star of NBC's birther movement "Celebrity Apprentice" -- decided to show his hair, er, face at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner on Saturday.

Trump, who began the week taking credit for the White House's decision to release President Obama's birth certificate, was promptly booed on arrival.

Trump arrived on the red carpet at Washington’s Hilton Hotel with his wife, Melania, shortly at 7:00 p.m. (ET). After giving a brief interview with a group of several of media outlets, Trump -- who was invited to the event as a guest of the Washington Post -- walked away to a chorus of audible boos from the media members on the press line. (And it wasn't because they wanted to hear Trump talk more.)

Trump's entrance briefly took the spotlight away from the other celebrity arrivals, including Mila Kunis, Scarlett Johansson, Sean Penn, David Arquette, Elizabeth Banks, Erin Andrews, Mira Sorvino, Jeremy Piven and at least one of the Wayans Brothers.

Obama and his wife are scheduled to arrive at the 8 p.m. (ET).

I didn't see New Yorker editor David Remnick -- who earlier this week called Trump a "race-baiting, irrepressible jackass" [4] -- but Zach Galifianakis, Jon Hamm and the Coen Brothers were among the guests invited to sit alongside him at the magazine's table.

There was some question whether Trump would attend the dinner at all -- though not because of the "birther" controversy. Trump was also scheduled to attend the wedding of fellow real estate mogul (and noted Obama hater) Steve Wynn in Las Vegas on Saturday, and delivered an expletive-filled speech [5] there on Thursday.

Guessing there may be more than a few of those muttered at tonight's so-called "nerd prom" -- and plenty of firesworks in store.


27 Apr 2011


Hatimaye Rais Barack Obama wa Marekani ameamua kuweka hadharani cheti chake cha kuzaliwa baada ya kuandamwa muda mrefu na wapinzani wake wanaomtuhumu kuwa si mzaliwa wa nchi hiyo.

Kasi ya mashambulizi dhidi ya Obama ilishika moto baada ya mfanyabiashara tajiri anayetarajiwa kuwania nafasi ya Urais wa nchi hiyo kwenye uchaguzi mkuu hapo mwakani,Donald Trump,kuungana na kundi la wahafidhina wanaodadisi u-Marekani wa Obama.Kundi hilo linalojulikana kama Birthers,limekuwa likipiga kelele kwa nguvu kuwa Obama ni Mkenya na si Mmarekani,madai ambayo Rais huyo aliyapuuza kwa muda mrefu lakini hatimaye amaeamua kuyakabili.

Akiongea na waandishi wa habari leo asubuhi,Obama alitanabaisha kuwa "ana mambo ya msingi zaidi ya kushughulikia kuliko upuuzi huo (kuhusu uhalisi wa uraia wake)".

"Hatutoweza kufanikiwa iwapo tutayumbishwa,hatuwezi kufanikiwa iwapo tutatumia muda wetu kuchafuana...kama tunazua tu mambo na kujifanya kuwa ukweli ni uongo,hatutoweza kutatua matatizo yetu kama tutawaendekeza wazushi",alisema Obama ambaye alizaliwa Agosti 4 mwaka 1961 huko Honolulu,Hawaii kwa baba Mkenya na Mama Mmarekani Mweupe.

Hata hivyo,dakika chache baada ya cheti hicho cha kuzaliwa kuwekwa hadharani,Trump aliendeleza mashambulizi yake kwa Obama akidai cheti hicho-ambacho bado anakitilia mashaka-kisingwekwa hadharani bila mashambulizi yake kwa Rais huyo.Kadhalika,kundi la Birther limeendelea kuonyesha wasiwasi wake huko baadhi ya wanakundi wakidai cheti hicho ni cha kufoji.

Lakini pengine kwa kugundua kuwa suala la uraia wa Obama halina msingi,Trump alisharukia ajenda nyingine akihoji elimu ya Rais huyo.Tajiri huyo mpenda sifa anamtuhumu Obama kuwa alikuwa "mwanafunzi kilaza" (asiyejimudu kitaaluma) na hakustahili kujiunga na Vyuo Vikuu vye hadhi na heshima kubwa (Ivy League) vya Columbia na Shule ya Sheria ya Harvard.

“Inakuwaje mwanafunzi mbovu anakwenda Columbia kisha Harvard?"Trump alimuuliza mwandishi wa habari wa Associated Press. “Natafakari kuhusu suala hili,na kwa hakika nitalichunguza.Atuonyeshe rekodi zake.” Aliendelea kudai, "kuna maswali kadhaa ambayo hayajajibiwa kuhusu rais wetu".

Baadhi ya wachambuzi wa mambo wanadai kuwa inawezekana Tump ana sukumwa na hisia za ubaguzi wa rangi katika mashambulizi yake dhidi ya Obama,huku kebehi zake dhidi ya elimu ya Obama zikitafsiriwa kama "watu weusi hawastahili kwenda vyuo bora nchi Marekani.



VYANZO: Habari hii imetokana na vyanzo mbalimbali mtandaoni hususan jarida la mtandaoni la Huffington Post.

13 Feb 2011



Kumekuwa na tetesi za muda mrefu kuwa hali ya uchumi wa Tanzania ni mbaya.Hata hivyo,kama ilivyozoeleka,wahusika serikalini wameendelea kuwanyima Watanzania haki yao ya msingi ya kufahamishwa hali ya uchumi wa taifa lao. 

Hivi karibuni Gavana wa Benki Kuu,Profesa Benno Ndulu,alizungumza na waandishi wa habari kuhusu ubora wa noti mpya.Licha ya kuonekana kufahamu kuwa wananchi hawaridhishwi na kiwango duni cha noti hizo,Gavana Ndulu alizitetea kwa nguvu zote.Akemee ili ifahamike kuwa 'zimechakachuliwa'?

Akiichambua hali ya uchumi, gavana huyo alisema kwa sasa hali ya uchumi ni nzuri na kwamba nchi ina uwezo wa kulipa huduma kwa miezi sita bila kutegemea sehemu yoyote.Lakini katika kile kinachoweza kiashirikia kiwa kauli hiyo ilikuwa ya kisiasa zaidi kuliko ya kitaalamu,Gavana alidai kuwa mwenye dhamana ya kueleza athari za mgao wa umeme kwa uchumi ni Waziri wa Nishati na Madini.Huku sio tu kukwepa majukumu bali mwendelezo wa danadana za kibabaishaji zinazoeleka kuunda mfumo wa utendaji wa viongozi wengi wa taasisi za umma.Na kwa vile 'Mteuzi Mkuu' Serikalini,yaani Rais,anaonekana kama yupo usingizini kubaini mapungufu ya baadhi ya watendaji aliowateua,ni dhahiri utendaji kwa mfumo wa 'bora liende' utaendelea kuwepo kwa muda mrefu.

Kwa hapa Uingereza,Benki Kuu imekuwa ikitoa taarifa kuhusu viwango vya riba kila mwezi.Taarifa hiyo huambatana na maelezo ya kutosha kuhusu mwenendo wa uchumi wa nchi hii.Na kila baada ya miezi michache,ofisi ya takwimu nayo hutoa taarifa yenye takwimu zinzoashiria kupanda,kutuama au kushuka kwa uchumi.Kadhalika,vielekezo muhimu kuhusu uchumi wa nchi kama vile idadi ya wasio na ajira,mfumuko wa bei,wastani wa thamani ya sarafu,nk vimekuwa vikiwekwa wazi kwa umma.

Na huko nchini Marekani,Serikali ya Rais Barack Obama,imekuwa ikitoa taarifa za hali ya uchumi wa nchi hiyo mara kwa mara,hata kama kufanya hivyo kufanya hivyo kunaathiri namna wananchi wanavyoridhishwa au kutoridhishwa na serikali hiyo.Huku sio tu kutambua haki ya wananchi kuhabarishwa bali pia kuelewa kuwa kuficha ukweli kuhusu hali ya uchumi hakuwezi kuufanya uchumi husika kuboreka.

Na ndio maana licha ya kuwaficha Watanzania kuhusu hali ya uchumi wa nchi yao,sambamba na kauli mbalimbali za kisiasa kuwa 'hali cha uchumi ni poa' gazeti la Mwananchi katika toleo lake la leo linaripoti kuwa Serikali imelazimika kufumua bajeti yake ya mwaka wa fedha 2010/11 kwa kupunguza matumizi ya Wizara ili kufidia upungufu wa Sh670.4 bilioni zilizotegemewa kupatikana kutokana na makusanyo ya kodi katika mwaka huu wa fedha.

Hata hivyo,gazeti hilo lilipomtaka Waziri wa Fedha na Uchumi, Mustaffa Mkullo, kuihusina na hali hiyo alisema taarifa ya hali ya uchumi wa nchi alishaitoa hivi karibuni kwenye chombo kimoja nchini, hivyo hahitaji kuitoa tena."Nilitoa taarifa kwa wenzenu wa gazeti (sio Mwananchi) sasa siwezi tena kuirudia," alisema.Ni dhahiri kuwa laiti hali ingekuwa nzuri,Mkulo asingefanya dharau hiyo hasa kwa vile viongozi dhaifu huwa wepesi sana kumwaga hadharani habari njema wakiamini zitawaletea sifa.

Wakati Watanzania wanasubiri 'waletewe' Katiba mpya,ni muhimu kuangalia tatizo hili la ukandamizwaji wa makusudi wa haki ya kuhabarishwa.Nchi mbalimbali zina sheria zinazoilazimisha Serikali na taasisi za umma kutoa au kuruhusu upatikanaji wa taarifa.Japo tunafahamu kuwa taarifa nyingi nchini 'zinachakachuliwa' kwa minajli ya kufisadi,kudanganya wapiga kura,kughilibu wafadhili,au sehemu tu ya utamaduni wa kutowajibika,uwepo wa sheria ya Haki ya Habari (Freedom of Information act) utakomesha tabia kama hiyo ya dharau Waziri Mkulo kupuuza kuwaeleza Watanzania kuhusu hali ya uchumi wa nchi yao

22 Mar 2010


Kiongozi shurti awe na msimamo na kisha asimamie kile anachoamini.Kwa mara nyingine,Rais Barak Obama ameithibitishia dunia kuwa ni 'mwanaume wa shoka' linapokuja sula la kuamini anachosimamia.Hatimaye jana Obama alifanikiwa kupitisha sera yake ya mabadiliko katika mfumo wa afya ya jamii nchini Marekani.Hiyo ni baada ya safari ndefu na ngumu pengine zaidi ya kampeni yake ya kuingia Jumbe Jeupe (White House).Pamoja na kuhatarisha nafasi yake na ya chama chake kisiasa,Obama alipigana kiume kuhakikisha kuwa lazima mabadiliko hayo yafanyike,kwa gharama yoyote ile.Na kama inavyofahamika,mara nyingi maamuzi ya kihistoria huwa na tabia ya kutokuwa maarufu. Ushindi wa Obama katika suala hili unapaswa kuwa fundisho muhimu kwa Rais wetu Jakaya Kikwete ambaye miezi michache ijayo atahitimisha miaka yake mitano tangu aingie madarakani.Sote tunafahamu,with exception ya wale wanaopenda habari nzuri tu hata kama ni za uongo,kwamba kwa kiasi kikubwa ahadi za Kikwete kuikomboa Tanzania kutoka kwenye lindi na umasikini imebaki kuwa hadithi tu huku ufisadi ukishamiri na kuitafuna Tanzania kwa kasi ya ajabu.Yayumkinika kusema kwamba utawala wa Kikwete utakumbukwa zaidi kwa skandali kuliko ufanisi wa kuwatumikia Watanzania.Kibaya zaidi,Kikwete alitoa lundo la ahadi kuhusu namna atakavyoboresha maisha ya Watanzania,hence kauli-mbiu MAISHA BORA KWA KILA MTANZANIA.

Kuna wanaodhani kuwa kilichomsukuma Kikwete kuogmbea urais mwaka 2005 ni kukamilisha ndoto yake ya mwaka 1995 'iliyokwazwa' na Baba wa Tiafa Mwalimu Julius Nyerere.Wenye mtizamo huo wanaamini kuwa Kikwete alitumia miaka 10 iliyofuata akikusanya nguvu,sio katika namna gani atawatumikia Watanzania,bali atakavyoweza kuingia Ikulu.Ni katika 'piga ua' hii ndipo alijikuta akishirikiana na 'viumbe hatari' waliojipenyeza kwa kivuli cha 'wanamtandao' wakiwa na matarajio makubwa kuwa Kikwete akiingia Ikulu basi nao 'wameula'And they were not wrong.Kusuasua kwa Rais wetu katika kuchukua maamuzi mazito kumechangiwa zaidi na ushirika wake na watu hao.Na hii haiwezi kuwa excuse kwake kwa sababu alikuwa na kila sababu na uwezo wa 'kuwasaliti' laiti angekuwa na nia.Angeweza kabisa kuwaita Ikulu na kuwaambia 'nathamini sana mchango wenu kuniingiza madarakani,lakini mimi sasa ni Rais wa Watanzania wote ninayeongozwa kwa misingi ya Katiba.I'm sorry,atakayekwenda kinyume na sheria na taratibu za nchi basi sheria itachukua mkondo wake.Tubaki marafiki lakini sio kwa urafiki wa kukwamisha utawala wangu'.Simple and clear!

Tupo wengine tunaoamini kuwa licha ya ndoto hiyo iliyoanza 1995,Kikwete pia alisukumwa na dhamira ya kuwatumikia Watanzania.Na kututhibitishia kuwa tuko sahihi,alipoingia tu madarakani alitoa hotuba zilizoonyesha kuwa anafahamu kwa kina vikwazo vya maendeleo ya taifa letu.Aliweka wazi kuwa rushwa ni tatizo kubwa na angefanya kila awezalo kupambana nayo.Kama ilivyokuwa kwenye hotuba zake za wakati wa kampeni,Kikwete alipoingia madarakani alirejea kuahidi makubwa kwa Watanzania,na wengi tulimwamini kwa vile alikuwa akiongea lugha tunayoielewa (tofauti na Mkapa aliyezowea kutoa hotuba 'ngumu' kana kwamba ni mihadhara ya kitaaluma chuo kikuu).

Dalili ya kwanza kuwa Kikwete 'hana jipya' ni kauli yake kuwa 'anawafahamu wala rushwa bali anawapa muda wa kujirekebisha'.Nadhani kauli hiyo itaingia kwenye vitabu vya historia kama ya aina yake kwa mkuu wa nchi kutoa deadline kwa wahalifu.Lakini baadhi yetu tulijipa matumaini kwamba labda Rais alikuwa serious katika kauli hiyo,na kwamba baada ya deadline hiyo ku-expire angechukua hatua flani.Miaka mitano baadaye,sote tunafahamu sasa kuwa kauli hiyo ilikuwa mithili ya 'kumtishia mtu mzima nyau'.Na si kwenye kauli hiyo tu,bali tuliambiwa wakati flani kuwa amekabidhiwa orodha ya wauza madawa ya kulevya (na aliyekuwa waziri wa mambo ya ndani Bakari Mwapachu) na baadaye tena akatuambia kuwa anawafahamu wala rushwa pale Bandari Dar es Salaam,na majina anayo.So far,hajachukua hatua kwa wauza madawa ya kulevya (wa orodha ya Mwapachu) na hajawasilisha majina ya wala rushwa wa Bandari!Sasa kama Rais hataki kutoa majina ya wala rushwa anaodai anawafahamu,tutegemee nini kutoka kwa mwananchi wa kawaida?

Kama nilivyosema mwanzoni mwa makala hii,uongozi ni kusimamia katika kile unachomini hata kama kitakupunguzia umaarufu.Kikwete alipaswa kufahamu kuwa ili urais wake uwe na manufaa kwa Watanzania ni lazima 'akosane' na baadhi ya marafiki zake.Na kwa hakika hilo lingekuwa na maana zaidi kwani ni bora zaidi mara milioni kupendwa na Watanzania walio wengi na 'kuchukiwa na mafisadi wachache' kuliko kupendwa na 'kigenge kidogo cha mafisadi' na kulaumiwa na mamilioni ya Watanzania.Kama Kikwete alikuwa na dhamira ya dhati ya kuwaletea Watanzania maisha bora alipaswa asimame kidete kuhakikisha hilo linatimia kwa udi na uvumba.

Lakini kwa vile bado kuna miezi kadhaa kabla ya uchaguzi,na kwa vile Obama ametioa darasa zuri kwa viongozi ya type ya Kikwete,basi tunabaki with our fingers crossed kuwa huenda rais wetu nae akajitutumua na kurekebisha mambo katika muda huu uliosalia.Uzuri ni kwamba hata kama ufisadi umetuumiza kwa muda wote huu,uamuzi wa kuukalia kooni katika dakika hizi za majeruhi utafanikiwa kufuta machungu yote tuliyopitia.Ni kama katika fainali ya soka ambapo bao la ushindi linapatikana katika dakika za majeruhi.Shamrashamra zitakazoambatana na ushindi huo hazitajali kuwa bao la ushindi limepatikana dakika za lala salama.What matters ni ushindi.

Basi Rais Kikwete tunatarajia sasa utafanya kweli.Utatamka bayana kuwa ile deadline uliyotoa kwa wala rushwa unaowafahamu ime-expire na kuamuru vyombo vya dola viingie ulingoni (yes,vimekuwa vikiwajibika baada ya ruhusa yako).Utakabidhi ile orodha ya mafisadi ya pale Bandarini ambayo watendaji wanaisubiri ili wachukue hatua zinazostahili.Utaifanyia kazi pia ile orodha ya 'wauza unga' ulokabidhiwa na Mwapachu.Utaamuru wamiliki wa Kagoda wawekwe hadharani na kuchukuliwa hatua zinazostahili.Ukiwa mwenyekiti wa CCM,utatambua kuwa uwepo wa Mzee wa Vijisenti kwenye Kamati ya Maadili ya chama hicho licha ya tuhuma zinazomkabili ni mzaha usiokubalika,na utashauri awekwe kando hadi taratibu za kisheria zitapochukua mkondo wake.Utaamua kuwa suala la Richmond haliwezi kumalizwa 'kishkaji' bali wahusika wote watachukuliwa hatua ili iwe funzo kwa wanaotumia madaraka yao vibaya.Na mwisho,utaanza kutafsiri kwa vitendo ahadi zako lukuki ulizotoa wakati wa uchaguzi na kuendelea kuzitoa kwa muda wote uliokuwa madarakani.Rejesha ari,kasi na nguvu mpya katika kuleta MAISHA BORA KWA KILA MTANZANIA.

Kama Obama ameweza,wewe unaweza pia.It's all about kuamini unachosimamia na kusimamia unachoamini.

19 Nov 2009



Associated Press
guardian.co.uk,
Friday 30 October 2009 18.09 GMT

Barack Obama said today that a US travel ban against people infected with the HIV virus will be overturned early next year.

The order will be completed on Monday, Obama said, finishing a process begun during the administration of George Bush.

The United States is one of about a dozen countries that bar entry to travellers based on their HIV status. The ban has been in place for more than 20 years. Obama said it will be lifted just after the new year, after a waiting period of about 60 days.

"If we want to be a global leader in combating HIV/Aids, we need to act like it," Obama said at the White House before signing a bill to extend the Ryan White HIV/Aids programme. Begun in 1990, the program provides medical care, medication and support services to about half a million Americans with HIV or Aids, mostly low-income people...
READ MORE

11 Jul 2009






In his first visit to Africa since taking office, Barack Obama said today that the continent of his ancestors must overcome tyranny and corruption if it is to flourish.

Speaking in Ghana's parliament, Obama said the key to Africa's future prosperity was democratic and accountable government.

"Development depends upon good governance. That is the ingredient which has been missing in far too many places, for far too long. That is the change that can unlock Africa's potential," he said.

In an tough speech aimed at politicians across the continent, he gave an unsentimental account of squandered opportunities since the end of colonial rule. "No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers," he said.

"No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20% off the top ... No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end.

"Africa doesn't need strongmen, it needs strong institutions."

Obama conceded that colonialism had left a legacy of conflicts and arbitrary borders. "But the west is not to blame for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants.

"Africa is not the crude caricature of a continent at war," he said. "But for far too many Africans conflict is a part of life, as constant as the sun. There are wars over land and wars over resources. And it is still far too easy for those without conscience to manipulate whole communities into fighting among faiths and tribes."

Earlier, after meeting Ghana's president, John Atta Mills, Obama praised the country's record of democracy and economic growth as a rare success in a continent beset by corruption and poor governance.

"We think that Ghana can be an extraordinary model for success throughout the continent."

This morning, Obama was given a hero's welcome in the country's capital, Accra. Thousands of people wearing Obama T-shirts thronged the streets, cheering and waving as his motorcade swept past.

Walls and utility poles were plastered with posters of Obama and Mills, as well as the word "change" – the mantra of Obama's presidential election campaign. Other posters showed the president and his wife, Michelle, with the greeting "Ghana loves you".

Obama and his family arrived late last night from the G8 summit in Italy, where the world's richest nations agreed on a $20bn (£12.4bn) food security plan to help poor nations feed themselves during the global recession.

Speaking in Italy before he left, Obama said: "There is no reason why Africa cannot be self-sufficient when it comes to food."


The Obamas will visit Gold Coast Castle, a former British slave trading post. Michelle Obama is a great-great granddaughter of slaves.

The visit comes as the US plans a much more assertive policy in Africa, using both diplomacy and the threat of force to end the protracted conflicts in Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nigeria, which are seen as two of the main obstacles to the continent's progress.

"This is both a special and an important visit for him personally as president, but also for our country to articulate a vision for Africa," said Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman.

Despite the enthusiastic reception from ordinary Ghanians, no major public events have been planned during Obama's 21-hour visit, for fear it could cause a celebratory stampede, as almost happened during a 1998 stop by Bill Clinton.


SOURCE: The Guardian

Categories

Blog Archive

© Evarist Chahali 2006-2022

Search Engine Optimization SEO

Powered by Blogger.