omowalejabali said:Obiang Nguema obviously IS a dictator in the same manner of his predecessor Bokassa.
Obiang Nguema's predecessor was his uncle, Macias Nguema. The same Macias Nguema who murdered or exiled 1/3 of the country's population, which included many members of my wife's family (and my children's ancestors). Jean-Bédel Bokassa was president of the Central African Republic. He might be considered Obiang Nguema's colleague, but he was not his predecessor.
omowalejabali said:Has the US state department stated that he is NOT a dictator? Obviously, the difference would be the fact that the US supported the Ian Smith regime in Zimbabwe and never has recogized Muagbe's party, ZANU as legitimate, while it has supporte the Nguema government. This is not a moral issue of what is wrong or righ. It's all about POWER relationships and who is most subservient to the interests of US neo-colonialism.
As I stated in my 1st response, the US opinion of Obiang Nguema's administration was so negative, that they closed down their embassy in the country (because of its many human rights violations). At that time Equatorial Guinea was one of the poorest countries in the world, which only resource was cocoa. The embassy was reopened and diplomatic relations renewed not when human rights violations ceased, but when oil was discovered in the country roughly 10 years ago.
This is obviously not about right or wrong, but about power relationships. That is what I've been pointing out. Those who are subservient to the interest of US & European colonialism are supported, while those who aren't (like Mugabe) are renounced. Brother Omowalejabali, you appear to be trying to correct me...but it isn't clear what you are disputing, or what I have said that is incorrect.