The liberation of China went along way to liberate the world from Imperialist exploitation hence the fatal weakening of imperialist schemes, Africa is next.
Many when it is said that Africa must and will be liberated think it is just utopian and idealistic, yet even the thought that Africa would get some measure of independence was idealistic before independence was achieved.
This is where I have huge differences and don’t agree with President Museveni’s assessment of Nkrumah, when President Museveni sat down and was asked by Kenyan security officers about Nkrumah’s approach and why the continent should unify immediately under one government, he referred to Kwame Nkrumah as an idealist.
To me these answers the question of why President Museveni turned against Gaddafi, it is true he may have been hysterical about Arab domination or Islamization but this position from my view speaks to betrayal or lack of appreciation of the challenges out continent faces especially from external pressures.
For this, Nkrumah is still ahead of both the dead and the living heads of state in Africa.
It is also important to note that a position is only idealistic as long as it has not materialized. Such is Museveni starting his journey in the bush with only 27 guns, how in the world would you suppose that a man with 27 guns can overthrow a government unless you are idealistic?
But this ideal materialised into reality.
With the AU in its imperfection already established on the ideals of a Unified African Government, the Pan-African Parliament where all African countries have MPs as I speak now, with the African Continental Free trade area (AfCFTA), with the African Court of justice established, all on the so called ideal of a Unified African Government as relentlessly and tirelessly pursued by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, why would someone continue to think that Nkrumah was an idealist?
Isn’t that strange and don’t we deserve some answers from President Museveni regarding his approach and brand of Pan-Africanism?
