Este artículo, en Ingles, de Ken Silverstein dice, sencilla y claramente, la verdad: Obiang es el dictador y criminal número uno de África.
Algo tan evidente no es visible a los ojos y el entendimiento de estos políticos españoles, irresponsables y frívolos, que han sucumbido a los ¿encantos? de nuestro monstruo particular.
Es escandaloso el enjuague que hay entre la política española, de la que no se libra ni el Partido Popular del cuestionado Mariano Rajoy, con el sátrapa guineano . En el extremo opuesto están otros paises que no dudan en manifestar su repugnancia por los métodos toscos, primitivos, tribales y enajenados de Teodoro Obiang Nguema.
Muchos exiliados estamos ansiosos por conocer cuántas voluntades ha comprado el dinero guineano. Tarde o temprano conoceremos los sobres que se han entregado bajo la mesa y a quién , es cuestión de tiempo. ¿Que conocido parlamentario editó y comercializó libros a cuenta del dinerito de Obiang? ¿Que prestigioso empresario se hizo rico con las inversiones de Obiang en España? ¿Cual es el intachable juez que ha caido seducido ante el poder de los billetes y ha cometido actos repugnantes de difícil justificación? ¿Cual es el precio que paga Obiang a "España" para que no se le cuestione internacionalmente?... Será muy interesante hacer una lista de la "pandilla basurilla", los amiguitos españoles de Obiang.
Echamos de menos, en el artículo, alguna referencia al exilio. Somos tantos fuera como dentro y además, en España, está encarcelado el principal lider de la oposición, Severo Moto que en el colmo de la impotencia ha comenzado una huelga de hambre para reclamar un trato , al menos, proporcional a las penas que pudieran derivarse de su hipotética responsabilidad de un más que estrambótico "tráfico de armas de guerra" ( dos viejos fusiles y una pistola en el maletero de un coche de desgüace).
Severo Moto sufre prisión, privado absolútamente de libertad, en el Centro Penitenciario de Navalcarnero (Madrid) y tiene restringidas hasta las visitas de su esposa e hijos.
The situation in Zimbabwe is an outrage and I can understand why the Bush Administration, and the entire Western world, is appalled by President Robert Mugabe’s anti-democratic depredations. As has been widely reported by the American media, opposition parties won control of the national assembly in a March balloting, and Mugabe finished second behind an opposition leader in presidential voting, triggering a run-off as neither candidate won an absolute majority. The opposition is threatening to boycott the run-off, since it says that its candidate won the first-round election outright and “has ended Mugabe’s 28-year rule over the once prosperous country whose economy is in ruins.”
Does the world really think that President Bush will stand for this assault on democracy? Even now, Washington Post columnist Jackson Diehl is surely recruiting a pundits’ brigade to bombard the nation’s op-ed pages with stirring denunciations of Mugabe’s assault on the administration’s “freedom agenda.”
Meanwhile, you probably haven’t heard much about the weekend voting in Equatorial Guinea, the pro-American, oil-rich nation led for the past 29 years by Brigadier General Teodoro Obiang Nguema. “The West African state voted Sunday in parliamentary and local elections whose outcome was a foregone conclusion for observers, amid opposition charges of voting irregularities and harassment,” reports AFP. “According to first partial official results, the president’s [party] won 100 percent of the vote in some constituencies in the election to parliament.”
The best result by the “major” opposition party came in the Luba district, where it won 0.7 percent of the vote. (Incidentally, that party’s leader, Placido Miko has been repeatedly arrested and tortured by Obiang’s security forces.) Maybe I missed it but so far I haven’t heard any wailing and gnashing of teeth about the results in Equatorial Guinea from Bush or from the nation’s op-ed pages.
Gary Busch writes of the weekend voting in Equatorial Guinea:
Strangely enough there were no protests from a cowed and beaten population nor street demonstrations. Apathy and disgust were the rules. There was also no protest or demonstrations by the ‘international community’ against this travesty of the political process. No UN Security Council protests were made… Poor Zimbabwe doesn’t have oil, ergo it can be a target for the ‘international community’. Equatorial Guinea has masses of oil and this buys them immunity from scrutiny and protest. The ‘international community’ is corrupt and morally bankrupt. It is unlikely to change.
Does the world really think that President Bush will stand for this assault on democracy? Even now, Washington Post columnist Jackson Diehl is surely recruiting a pundits’ brigade to bombard the nation’s op-ed pages with stirring denunciations of Mugabe’s assault on the administration’s “freedom agenda.”
Meanwhile, you probably haven’t heard much about the weekend voting in Equatorial Guinea, the pro-American, oil-rich nation led for the past 29 years by Brigadier General Teodoro Obiang Nguema. “The West African state voted Sunday in parliamentary and local elections whose outcome was a foregone conclusion for observers, amid opposition charges of voting irregularities and harassment,” reports AFP. “According to first partial official results, the president’s [party] won 100 percent of the vote in some constituencies in the election to parliament.”
The best result by the “major” opposition party came in the Luba district, where it won 0.7 percent of the vote. (Incidentally, that party’s leader, Placido Miko has been repeatedly arrested and tortured by Obiang’s security forces.) Maybe I missed it but so far I haven’t heard any wailing and gnashing of teeth about the results in Equatorial Guinea from Bush or from the nation’s op-ed pages.
Gary Busch writes of the weekend voting in Equatorial Guinea:
Strangely enough there were no protests from a cowed and beaten population nor street demonstrations. Apathy and disgust were the rules. There was also no protest or demonstrations by the ‘international community’ against this travesty of the political process. No UN Security Council protests were made… Poor Zimbabwe doesn’t have oil, ergo it can be a target for the ‘international community’. Equatorial Guinea has masses of oil and this buys them immunity from scrutiny and protest. The ‘international community’ is corrupt and morally bankrupt. It is unlikely to change.
Autor: Ken Silverstein is the Washington Editor for Harper's Magazine and writes Washington Babylon for Harper's online.
