By Rashid Suleiman

The founding father of Guinea-Conakry, Ahmed Sekou Toure, had one major difference with other despots of his time. While majority rose from military ranks, Toure was a civilian with no background in killings or coups.

Yet during his time, he was the undisputed ‘father of coups‘ in Africa and a top brain when it came to innovative methods of murder.

The firing squad, hangman’s noose, hackings and torture were the common methods employed by bloody dictators. But out of these, the most inventive were basically three.

He reportedly encouraged intermarriage within his Faranah clan to exclude outsiders.

There was the sledgehammer of death discovered by the great engineer of mass murder, Idi Amin Dada (Uganda), to save on bullets. In Ethiopia, the architect of death — Mengistu Haile Mariam — preferred the garrotte. He sometimes personally did the honours. But in Guinea-Conakry, death merchant Toure discovered a less violent but most painful method.

He killed his opponents, real or perceived, by feeding them on copious amounts of ‘black diet‘ — complete deprivation of food and water.

Its most prominent victims included army boss Gen Keita Noumandian followed by Minister of Development, Rural Economy and Labour Fodeba Keita and lawyer Diallo Telli, first Secretary-General of the defunct Organisation of African Unity. At the time of his arrest and detention in 1976, Telli was Guinea’s Justice Minister.

For better enjoyment of the ‘black diet‘, Toure set up exclusive prisons for political dissents, the most notorious being Boiro Camp in the capital Conakry.

Besides being a leading brain in the death industry, Toure was a master in unearthing coups against him though most existed in his fertile imagination.

Sadly for Guineans, the real or imagined coups provided a perfect opportunity for ‘father of nation‘ to go on killing and torturing sprees.

Almost a deity

By the time he died on the operating table in Cleveland, Ohio in the US (March 1984) after a cardiac arrest, over one million of Guinea’s then six million people had fled to exile.

Most Guineans did not believe news about his death, as they equated him to a deity.

After the discovery of each and every coup, Toure would deal with the plotters ruthlessly. He executed several people after he announced the first attempted coup in early 1960.

   [Enlarge]
PICTURE — The former President of Guinea, Ahmed Sékou Touré surrounded by his wife, Hadja Andrée, Mohamed, his son and Koureissy Sekou Conde, former Minister of Security, then a student at Universté of IPEGAN.

The bloodshed was repeated five years later when another putsch was discovered. More bloody purges followed in 1967 and 1969.

Despite the many coups against him, he effectively neutralised the Guinean military throughout his reign.

To prevent his overthrow by the soldiers he trusted, he personally controlled the supply of arms and ammunition to the military and put all armouries under his direct control. As a surety, he kept the keys to all the armouries.

He intentionally declined to expand the army and ensured a majority of the troops came from his Malinke tribe.

Spies in barracks

He reshuffled senior commanders and purged the military frequently — often without warning — and this instilled fear in soldiers.

He adopted the Russian style of appointing political officers but added another dimension because the appointments were made covertly so that political officers could act as spies in the barracks. The spies were often junior officers.

Many senior officers were caught by the intricate network of spies and died slow and painful deaths in prison, courtesy of the ‘black diet‘ or execution.

The spies came from his Malinke tribe, especially his Faranah clan or were related to him by marriage.

He ruled the country like a personal household.

Toure was given a rude awakening in 1966 when his only friend in Africa, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, was overthrown in a military coup. He immediately stepped up his anti-coup strategies.

He formed a people’s militia whose members were mainly drawn exclusively from the most loyal civilian members of the country’s sole political party.

In less than two years, the militia had grown to 25,000 men while the regular armed forces had a mere 6,000 soldiers.

The militia received high-level military training, equalling or even surpassing that of the armed forces. Each district in Guinea had a militia brigade.

The roles of the militia were many and often unclear. Toure said the force was meant to protect Guinea from external enemies and internal economic saboteurs like smugglers; to safeguard the country against putchists and internal enemies of the revolution; and to guard strategic points like the radio station, airports, banks and power installations.

Usually, when Toure unearthed a coup, the foreign masters behind it were invariably France, the defunct Soviet Union, the then West Germany or white-ruled Zimbabwe.

The dictator boxed himself into a tight corner right from Guinea’s independence in 1958 when he humiliated the French in a referendum to decide the future of Francophone colonies in Africa.

There were two choices in the referendum — total independence or limited autonomy within the French Commonwealth. The rest of French colonies voted for autonomy while Guineans under the hypnotic influence and persuasion of Toure overwhelmingly voted for total independence.

His slogan ‘We prefer poverty in liberty than slavery in riches‘ was effective in getting the 95 per cent ‘No‘ vote.

Lone Ranger

Thus a year after Ghana became the first sub-Saharan country to gain independence, Guinea became the first French colony in the continent to gain its freedom.

Immediately after independence, the irate French still smarting from the referendum humiliation went on the offensive against Toure and his newly independent state.

France recalled all its professionals in Guinea, which the former colony heavily relied on. To make matters worse, the departing professionals deliberately left the country in a shambles. They carted off as much property as they could and destroyed what remained.

They went as far as vandalising equipment and facilities, ripping off telephone lines from offices. Then France cut off all aid to the young nation while French businessmen withdrew their commercial and industrial investments in the country.

A number of countries came to Guinea’s aid, with the most notable being Ghana, which forked out a £10 million loan; Soviet Union arrived with technicians, a sports stadium, bulldozers and semi-luxurious goods while China provided agricultural experts.

Throughout his rule, Toure maintained what came to be known as positive or practical neutrality in dealing with the Cold War. He was no pawn of the East or West and accepted help from any quarter.

He was fiercely protective of Guinea’s independence and never accepted aid or any help that interfered with the sovereignty of his country.

He was rabidly anti-imperialists and hated Gaullism (the conservative policies of Gen Charles de Gaulle, France leader after World War II) with a passion.

Foreign Sojourns

Toure’s positive neutrality was practised at the global and African level and this earned him several foes in the continent. Apart from Nkrumah his other friend in Africa was, Modibo Keita, Mali’s founding President.

Otherwise in West Africa, he was largely on his own especially after the overthrow of Keita and Nkrumah.

For years, he had sour relations with his staunchly pro-French neighbours, Ivory Coast and Senegal. In Africa, many countries were opposed to his rule and lone ranger antics. His hard line opposition to France and other colonial masters saw him clash with several African leaders.

For years, he gave the OAU a wide berth after the overthrow of Nkrumah. For a quarter of a century, he never visited France until 1982. Later, he opened a new chapter of rapprochement both in Africa and the world.

He embarked on foreign sojourns and other leaders reciprocated by visiting Guinea, the most prominent of which was then French President Valerie Giscard d’Estaing. He was grouped with Keita of Mali and Nkrumah as the avant-garde of African politics. When Nkrumah was overthrown, he offered him asylum and bestowed on him the title of co-president till he died in 1972.

Vast Resources

Like his peer, Hastings Kamuzu Banda in Malawi, Toure has been hailed in some quarters as a hero or condemned as a paranoid and ruthless dictator who murdered his people at will and impoverished his country.

Guinea is a poor country yet it is abundantly endowed with mineral resources like diamonds, iron ore and bauxite.

Under Toure, the country was reputed to hold at least half of the world’s known high-grade bauxite reserves. But by the time of his death, the country was in economic ruin.

With independence approaching, he became Vice-President of the Government Council of Guinea — a position equivalent to that of a prime minister. In 1958, the country gained full independence after elections won by PDG with Toure as president.

Hardline Socialist

Being a master organiser, he made Guinean Democratic Party or Parti Democratique de Guinee (PDG) and himself the ultimate arbiters of power. The party, under his command, directed all national activities and had an elaborate organisation right from the grassroots.

The Guinean dictator was a hard line African socialist and a political organiser par excellence. He was a charismatic and colourful professional politician endowed with supreme self-confidence and an indomitable spirit.

He was an accomplished orator and demagogue with a common touch who could keep an audience mesmerised for hours. But he had little patience and dealt with his opponents ruthlessly.

Popularity: 2% [?]

An LA Times Editorial
Published: September 28, 2008

As the Bush administration attempts to stabilize the nation’s economy, we are witness to the final chapter of a period of perverse and dishonest leadership that has used its own crises to justify the expansion of its own power. This was a president who came to office on promises of modesty — who championed a “humble nation,” scorned nation building and promised a more limited role for government in the lives of its citizens. Then he presided over a six-year attempt to tear down and rebuild the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now has embarked on the most profound expansion of the federal government’s role in the private economy since the Depression.

In both cases, the pattern is the same. Ineptitude led to crisis; crisis then became the argument for the radical expansion of executive power. The administration insisted that it exercise its new authority with a minimum of scrutiny by Congress, the courts or the public.

In the so-called war on terror, that has meant the abdication of our most basic American principles. We have forfeited privacy and honor — the administration has monitored phones and e-mails without warrants and has secreted prisoners in foreign lands, arguing that they deserved none of our protections even while in our custody. As a nation, we have stooped to torture (while debating the meaning of the word) and refused to recognize one of our most basic Anglo-American notions, the principle of habeas corpus (thankfully, the Supreme Court, seven of whose members are Republicans, drew the line at that abomination). We have held prisoners in detention without trial, without charge, without end. In so doing, we have antagonized the world and debased America’s moral authority to lead.

The same administration responsible for these catastrophes has over the last month nationalized the largest source of funding for mortgages and the largest insurance company on the planet. And it proposed to intervene even more dramatically in the nation’s economy by having the Treasury Department — with no court, congressional or public oversight — relieve financial institutions of the troubled mortgages and related securities that have locked up the lending system.

There is no doubt about the depth and range of the crisis that provokes these calls for government action. The gyrations of the stock market have been dismaying, and the threat to the country’s financial institutions — and everyone who borrows from or invests in them — is real. Still, the audacity of this administration demanding expanded powers and curtailed accountability is a wonder to behold. The bitter irony is that this crisis warrants dramatic intervention, but President Bush’s record makes him difficult to trust even when he’s right.

These troubles are about more than a president who is unfaithful to his word. Bush has transformed the balance of power in our government. We are seeing the erection of an imperial presidency, immune from oversight when it fights terrorists and when it rescues banks.

Politically, these developments raise two questions: Which candidate to succeed Bush benefits most by the events of recent weeks? And which candidate, if either, would have the strength to roll back these expansions of presidential power if elected?

To the first question, the answer seems to be Barack Obama, though only modestly. Obama’s poll numbers have inched up in recent days as voters have taken stock of a frighteningly complex economic meltdown and been left to wonder what to think of John McCain’s abrupt, halting responses — as McCain saw it, the “fundamentals” of the economy were sound one moment, at risk the next.

Questions about McCain’s judgment in recent days have only been deepened by the performances of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. She has struggled in her rare public appearances, and her selection risks appearing all the more reckless and cynical when held against the seriousness of this financial crisis. Even McCain’s campaign “suspension” seemed like gamesmanship. He said he was rushing to Washington, but took his time, and the talks derailed soon after he arrived. He proclaimed that the situation was so dire he would not return to the stump until an agreement was reached, then did precisely what he said he wouldn’t. It was not an impressive week for the Straight Talk Express.

Still, Obama has hardly run away with this issue, and the economic news exposes his weaknesses as well. He is, after all, untested by executive crisis and a freshman senator of limited achievement in government. Voters may well blanch at his relative inexperience, given the gravity of these times. Indeed, it is telling that in a week when his opponent flailed, Obama made scant headway in the polls.

On the matter of which candidate could be trusted to roll back the excessive powers that Bush has aggregated, Obama is vague and McCain is exasperating. McCain has properly condemned the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and said he would close it, but when the court granted detainees there the rights of habeas corpus, McCain denounced the ruling as “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” He condemned torture, but then, with the campaign underway, voted against legislation to limit the CIA’s use of coercive interrogation. Those oscillations do not reassure.

Obama, meanwhile, is more consistent and encouraging but offers few specifics. He pledges to close Guantanamo, restore habeas corpus and end the invasions of privacy undertaken in the name of fighting terrorism. Those are welcome positions and provide some hope that he would roll back Bush’s excesses. But while he pledges allegiance to the separation of powers, Obama has said little about how to honor that pledge. Rare is the politician who willingly cedes authority, and we have not heard enough from Obama to be convinced he’s that rare person.

These are not abstractions. They are the legacy of this grim epoch, one that should be equally offensive to conservatives and liberals. George Bush promised humility and delivered arrogance. The next president must not.

The United States of Arrogance

The hypocrisy of U.S. democracy and self-righteous foreign policy is troubling the world. The U.S. Dept of Defense, the world’s largest landlord, operates 737 military bases in 63 countries with military personnel in 156 nations. America is ready to strike any country to procure natural resources to extend its empire, keep the dollar afloat, and ensure its utopia. The military-industrial complex has put over 80,000 innocent Iraqis and 4,000 U.S. troops in an early grave, while putting itself in $9 trillion in debt. Alienating humanity and creating new terrorists daily, American foreign policy is a nightmare! Sexually abusing and raping in Abu Ghraib, using chemical white phosphorus (its own WMD) in Fallujah, destroying homes, ransacking mosques, and killing innocents across Iraq–America is winning the war of terror. Unprecedented soldier suicides attest to a disenchanted military. At home the FBI violates civil liberties, while the FDA approves deadly drugs, and CIA concocts phony “slam dunk” intel for war.

Popularity: 4% [?]

For months Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has been harping on Sen. Barack Obama’s alleged youth and inexperience.

If McCain places such a high premium on experience why did he pass over Mitt Romney, and select a virtual unknown as his vice-presidential running mate.

John McCain’s most significant action as a presidential candidate displays his hypocrisy and poor judgement. How can McCain, with a straight face, allege that Obama is too inexperience to serve as president?

Who is Sarah Palin? That’s what even pundits and political junkies are exclaiming today. Who is this woman who will be one heartbeat away from the presidency if John McCain wins the general election?

Usually the electorate doesn’t pay much attention to the VP selection, but John McCain is 72-years-old with a body ravaged by torture and cancer. There’s an excellent chance that McCain will not survive his term in office.

It’s incumbent upon voters, the press and pundits to go over this woman’s record (such as it is) with a fine-tooth comb.

John Fournier of the Associated Press points out that Palin is a risky choice:

“John McCain’s risky choice of Gov. Sarah Palin gives him a running mate who doubles down on his maverick image, may appeal to ‘hockey moms’ and other women, and counters Barack Obama’s aura of new-generation change. But he may have undercut his best attack on the Democrat.

If Obama is an empty suit, as McCain has suggested, is Palin suited for the Oval Office herself?

She is younger and less experienced than the first-term Illinois senator, and brings an ethical shadow to the ticket.” — AP

McCain’s pick is blatant pandering to disappointed Hillary voters. The choice will backfire because Hillary’s legion of angry voters won’t be thrilled with the selection of an anti-abortion vice-presidential candidate with extreme conservative social values.

McCain has perpetuated the Republican culture of corruption by choosing a Veep who is ethically-challenged.

“She (Palin) has an ethical issue as well. Alaska lawmakers are investigating whether Palin abused her power in firing a public safety commissioner. Lawmakers say they want to know whether Palin was mad at the commissioner for not firing an Alaska state trooper who went through a messy divorce and ongoing child custody battles with Palin’s sister.” — AP

As a responsible editorialist, in the coming days and weeks, I will do my best to fill in the blanks of this empty suit. But I already know enough to declare that Palin is a horrible choice, and Hillary voters will not be hoodwinked into voting for a woman who is an inconsequential as an Alaskan snowflake.

Popularity: 8% [?]

 Columnist - John Sammon
The controversy over Reverend Wright and his torpedoing of the campaign of his parishioner Barack Obama proves how childish and paranoid the American people have become.

If this happened in Europe, Europeans being more sophisticated and somewhat more intelligent on average than Americans, there would be no controversy. Europeans wouldn’t hold Obama accountable for the statements of his pastor.

We’re operating under the allusion that if Wright says it, Obama believes it too. Guilt by association. It’s amusing to hear McCain call Wright’s remarks extremist, a few months after he sang a Beach Boys song, “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran (sung to the tune of Barbara Ann).

Nobody called McCain’s sick joke extremist.

What has Wright said? Wright has the right to say it. He said instead of God bless America, God should damn America. In fairness. If the truth be known. Some of America should be damned. Such as the below.

1. America annihilated its Indian population and stole their land.

2. Americans kept others in slavery and then after a war to end it, kept African Americans in virtual servitude for the next hundred years with racist segregation.

3. Other crimes including Agent Orange for which there is not space here.

Wright called America an “imperialist” power. Well. We are. At times. We have a tendency to invade poor little countries much smaller than ours in an attempt to make them see it our way. We’ve invaded Nicaragua a half dozen times. Maybe instead of calling it “imperialist,” we should call it “concern” for Nicaraguan affairs.

President Bush wants the right to torture prisoners, and that’s not called “extremist.”

Wright’s statement that AIDS is a government plot to get rid of black Americans is a little bit far fetched and I can’t go along with that one.

That Obama’s campaign will go down the tubes because of statements made by someone over whom he (Obama) has no control is an abject lesson that to play the political game, you have to be foolishly optimistic and upbeat and never tell Americans very much of the unpleasant truths about their country. Thus, we can always feel superior, that we’re better people.

God only blesses America. God must be American and Republican.

Clearly, there is a price to be paid when you’re too candid.

It’s also another example of how the American people want to fixate on personality rather than issues. It has a long history from the Willie Horton episode that sank Michael Dukakis’s presidential hopes, to Thomas Eagleton, the vice presidential candidate who had prior mental problems, was replaced, but helped to terminate George McGovern’s campaign, or the Swift Boat right wing smear campaign against John Kerry.

You simply can’t be too truthful with the American people, if the truth is unpleasant. This is not new either. They forced Socrates to take poison.

I don’t believe America has sole ownership of morality, that we’re above reproach, that we’re God’s chosen people (especially white Republicans). Does that make me unpatriotic?

Wright is voicing frustration with a system that he thinks (with good reason) has treated he and his flock unfairly. He doesn’t speak for Obama just because Obama attends his church any more than commentator Bill O’Reilly speaks for McCain because McCain appears on his TV show.

The lesson here is clear. If you want to win office, don’t associate with big-mouth preachers, and don’t be too honest with the American people.

Copyright 2008 Sammonsays.

Popularity: 32% [?]