HADAA: Unafiki Marekani, Ugaidi Duniani

Damu ya makumi ya maelfu ya wanadamu wasio na hatia ilimwagika katika kipindi cha miaka kumi tangu 2001 hadi 2011 kwa kile kinachodaiwa kuwa ni ‘ugaidi’ na VITA DHIDI YA UGAIDI. Katika mwaka wa kumi wa vita hivyo, Marekani ikadai kuwa imemuua kiongozi wa mtandao wa kigaidi wa al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, ambaye wanadai kuwa ndiye aliyeandaa ugaidi dhidi ya Marekani Septemba 11, 2001. Ukweli ni kwamba waliohusika na ‘ugaidi’ huo hawakutajwa, na waliotajwa hawakuhusika. Osama bin Laden hakuhusika kwa vyovyote na ugaidi huo dhidi ya Marekani. Hata hivyo, kifo chake nacho kina utata mwingi. Mengi yaliyosemwa ni ya kutungwa kwa kusudi la kuihadaa dunia. Mengi, au yote, yaliyodaiwa kuithibitishia dunia kuwa Osama bin Laden alikuwa na hatia ya kufanya ugaidi huo ni ushahidi wa bandia. Mwandishi wa Hadaa ameweka wazi uchambuzi wa tafiti zilizofanywa kuhusu ugaidi huo ulioitikisa dunia na udanganyifu uliotawala tukio hilo na mazingira ya ‘kifo’ cha Osama bin Laden.

Ikiwa msomaji atavumilia na kukisoma kitabu hiki hata ukurasa wa mwisho, huenda imani yake katika mambo mengi kuhusu tukio la Septemba 11, 2001 na ‘kuuawa’ kwa Osama bin Laden Mei 2011 ikabadilika moja kwa moja.

Kitabu hicho kimechapishwa mwishoni mwa Julai 2011

Wanaotaka kuona yaliyofichika

WANAOTAKA KUONA YALIYOFICHIKA WATAYAONA

William Shao

NILIPOANDIKA makala niliyoiita “Ukweli Kuhusu Septemba 11” na kutaja ‘muujiza’ wa Septemba 11, au namba 11, au 911 (nine-eleven), kuna walionipigia simu wakisema niliyoandika hayakuwa na umuhimu wowote kwa sababu mambo mengi yanayotokea duniani hutokana na historia kujirudia.

Kuna usemi usemao “historia hujirudia yenyewe”. Ni kweli kwamba historia huwa ikijirudia yenyewe? Ukweli ni kwamba kuna matukio yanayofanana na yale yaliyowahi kutukia siku za nyuma.

Hata hivyo, matukio mengi hayatokei kwa njia ile ile. Kutukia tena kwa jambo fulani hakumaanishi kwamba historia imejirudia, bali ni jambo lingine linalofanana na lililowahi kutukia awali.

Historia ni elimu maalum inayohusiana na matukio na mambo yaliyopita. Kwa hiyo ni vigumu—na pengine haiwezekani—kutabiri kwa uhakika mambo ya wakati ujao kwa kutegemea mambo yaliyopita.

Kutokana na ukweli huo, ikiwa kuna jambo lolote tunaloweza kujifunza kutokana na historia ni kwamba hakuna jambo lolote tunaloweza kujifunza kutokana na historia. Ni vigumu kutabiri yatakayotokea kwa kutegemea historia.

Je, tunakubali kwa urahisi tu kwamba kwa vile ujenzi wa jengo la The Pentagon la Marekani (makao makuu ya Jeshi la Dunia?) ulianza rasmi Septemba 11, 1941 na hatimaye jengo hilo hilo ‘likashambuliwa na magaidi’ Septemba 11, 2001 ni historia ilijirudia?

Tukubali kwamba wakati Richard Nixon aliyekuwa Rais wa Marekani (1969-1974) Septemba 11, 1972 alipounda jopo la watu wa kuunda mikakati ya kuilinda Marekani dhidi ya ugaidi na hatimaye tarehe kama hiyo hiyo, Septemba 11, 2001, ‘magaidi’ wakaipiga Marekani hiyo hiyo ni historia ilijirudia? Au ni jambo la bahati mbaya?

Tuseme ni jambo la bahati mbaya, au ni kujirudia kwa historia, kwamba kampuni ya ulinzi ya STRATESEC inayoongozwa na Marvin Bush (ndugu wa Rais Bush) kutangazwa rasmi Septemba 11, 1997 na kupewa ‘tenda’ ya kulinda majengo ya WTC na kisha majengo hayo hayo inayoyalinda yakapigwa na ‘magaidi’ Septemba 11, 2001? Hakuna umuhimu wa kuandika mambo kama hayo?

Kuna mwingine akasema maswali ninayouliza ni ya kitoto. Niliwaandikia wasomaji wa RAI walio tayari kupokea mawazo au mashauri mapya, watumie akili na busara zao kuitazama changamoto hii.

Tukubaliane kwamba maswali ni mengi sana kuliko majibu katika mambo haya. Kwa watakaofuatilia kwa karibu zaidi mambo yanayotendeka watagundua kuwa ukweli wa mambo ni tofauti sana na jinsi tunavyoambiwa na kutakiwa tuamini.

Duniani kuna mambo yanayotokea kwa bahati mbaya, lakini mengi tunayodhani ni ya bahati mbaya—au ni kujirudia kwa historia—ni mambo yaliyopangwa kutukia. Na mengine yanaruhusiwa yatokee, kama ilivyo kwa tukio la Septemba 11, 2001, au matukio mengine mengi ya Septemba ambayo orodha yake haiwezi kutosha katika toleo moja la gazeti la RAI.

Niliandika nilichoandika katika toleo la RAI toleo la 686 kuonyesha kuwa kuna kinachoendelea duniani, hasa Marekani, na kisha nimewaachia wasomaji wangu waamue wakitumia udadisi zaidi.

Kwamba napotosha au la si hoja. Tutazame hoja, tusimtazame aliyetoa hoja. Wasomaji wengine wakasema tarehe nilizotaja ni mambo yaliyotukia kulingana na matukio mengine. Waswahili husema ni sadfa.

Wakati mmoja mwanasafu wa gazeti hili, Joseph Mihangwa, alisema “Zanzibar ni shamba la waandishi wa habari.” Nami nilikubaliana naye. Mavuno katika shamba hilo ni mengi, lakini wavunaji ni wachache.

Ukigeukia Marekani si tu shamba la habari kwa waandishi, bali pia ni bahari ya habari. Kama niliyoandika yanatia mashaka, tazama na haya mengine, kisha uamue mwenyewe kama ni bahati mbaya, au ni kujirudia kwa historia, au vinginevyo.

Mambo mengi (si yote) yanayotendeka Marekani yamepangwa na, huenda, yamepangwa karne kadhaa zilizopita na yanaendeshwa na watu maalum. Hawa watu maalum ni pamoja na wale walioanzisha mabenki na mashirika makubwa ya dunia.

Mashirika yao yana alama zao wanazozijua wao kwa wao, na dunia inaambiwa kuwa mashirika hayo ni kwa ajili ya mustakabali mwema wa dunia. Watu hawa, kwa nyakati tofauti, walitofautiana na Marais wawili wa Marekani, John Kennedy na Abraham Lincoln, na baada ya kutofautiana huko, mwisho wa maisha ya Marais hao ulikuja haraka kuliko ulimwengu ulivyotarajia.

Huenda wasomaji wasikubaliane na hilo wakidai kuwa utafiti umepotoka, au umetegemea vyanzo visivyojitosheleza. Lakini tutazame lile tunaloweza kukubaliana, ambalo tunaweza kudai kuwa ni ama sadfa, bahati mbaya au kujirudia kwa historia juu ya Abraham Lincoln na John Kennedy.

Abraham Lincoln alichaguliwa kuingia katika Bunge la Marekani mwaka 1846. John F. Kennedy naye alichaguliwa kuingia katika Bunge hilo mwaka 1946. Hiyo ni tofauti ya miaka 100, au tuseme karne moja tangu kutokea kwa tukio moja hadi lingine. Pengine ni historia ilijirudia. Lakini kuna mengi zaidi ya hilo.

Mwaka 1856 Lincoln hakupata kura za kumtosha kupendekezwa kuwa mgombea Urais. Mwaka 1956 Kennedy naye alishindwa kuteuliwa kugombea umakamu wa Rais 1956. Hiyo ni miaka 100 barabara.

Abraham Lincoln alichaguliwa kuwa Rais wa Marekani mwaka 1860. John Kennedy akachaguliwa kuwa Rais 1960. Katika mbio za uchaguzi, Lincoln alimshinda Stephen Douglas aliyezaliwa mwaka 1813. Kennedy naye alimshinda Richard Nixon aliyezaliwa 1913.

Wote wawili—Lincoln na Kennedy—walijishughulisha na haki za kiraia, na wote walisomea sheria. Wake zao—Mary Todd Lincoln na Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy—walifiwa na watoto wakati waume zao wakiwa Ikulu. Mtoto wa Lincoln aliitwa Edward Baker Lincoln aliyefariki mwaka 1846 akiwa na umri wa miaka minme.

Mtoto wa Kennedy, Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, alifariki dunia mwaka 1963 katika muda wa saa 48 tangu alipozaliwa. Watoto wote hao walikuwa wakitumia majina ya koo za mama zao—Bouvier (Kennedy) na Baker (Lincoln).

Wote wawili, Abraham Lincoln na John Kennedy, waliuawa kwa kupigwa risasi siku ya Ijumaa na walipigwa risasi kichwani. Tofauti ni idadi tu ya risasi zilizopigwa.

Katibu wa Abraham Lincoln aliitwa Kennedy, na katibu wa John Kennedy aliitwa Lincoln. Marais wote wawili waliuawa na watu waliotoka kusini mwa nchi hiyo, na wote, baada ya kuuawa, walirithiwa na watu waliotoka kusini mwa Marekani.

Marais wote wawili, Kennedy na Lincoln, walikuwa na Makamu wa Rais waliokuwa na majina ya ‘Johnson’. Makamu wa Rais wa Lincoln aliitwa Andrew Johnson ambaye alikuwa mjumbe wa Baraza la Wawakilishi mwaka 1847. Makamu wa Rais wa Kennedy aliitwa Lyndon Johnson ambaye alikuwa mjumbe wa Baraza la Wawakilishi mwaka 1947.

Warithi wao wote (Makamu wao wa Rais) waliitwa Johnson. Andrew Johnson, ambaye alimrithi Lincoln, alizaliwa mwaka 1808. Lyndon Johnson, aliyemrithi Kennedy, alizaliwa mwaka 1908.

John Wilkes Booth, ambaye ndiye muuaji wa Lincoln, alizaliwa mwaka 1838. (si mwaka 1839 kama ilivyodaiwa na masimulizi fulani ya historia). Lee Harvey Oswald, ambaye ‘alimuua’ Kennedy, alizaliwa mwaka 1939. Ni tofauti tu ya mwaka mmoja.

Wauaji wote wawili walijulikana kwa majina yao yote matatu, na majina yao kila mmoja yana herufi 15.

Lincoln alipigwa risasi akiwa katika ukumbi ulioitwa “Ford” kwa heshima ya aliyekuwa mtengenezaji maarufu wa magari duniani aliyeitwa Henry Ford. John Kennedy alipigwa risasi akiwa katika gari lililoitwa "Lincoln" lililotengenezwa na kampuni ya Ford Motor Company iliyomilikiwa na Henry Ford.

Muuaji Booth, baada ya kumuua Lincoln, alikimbia kutoka ukumbini alimofanya mauaji na akakamatiwa katika bohari. Tofauti kidogo na huyo, ‘muuaji’ Oswald alikimbia kutoka katika bohari na kukamatiwa ukumbini. Wauaji wote wawili, Booth na Oswald, waliuawa kabla kesi dhidi yao hazijaanza.

Rais Lincoln alizaliwa Februari 12, 1809 na kufariki Aprili 15, 1865 akiwa na umri wa miaka 56. Rais Kennedy alizaliwa Mei 29, 1917 na kufariki dunia Novemba 22, 1963 akiwa na umri wa miaka 46.

Mwezi mmoja kabla Lincoln hajauawa alikuwa katika eneo linalojulikana kama Monroe lililoko Maryland, Marekani. Kwa upande mwingine, mwezi mmoja kabla John Kennedy hajauawa alionekana akiwa na mchezaji sinema maarufu aliyeitwa Marilyn Monroe, ambaye waandishi wengine wanadai kuwa alikuwa hawara yake.

Sinema peke yake iliyokamilika ambayo inaonyesha mauaji ya John Kennedy ilitengenezwa na mtu aliyeitwa Abraham Zapruder, na maelezo yaliyokamilika yanayoelezea mauaji ya Abraham Lincoln yaliandikwa na mtu aliyeitwa John Zelfindorfer.

Mtoto wa Lincoln aliyeitwa Tad alizikwa Julai 16, 1871. Baadaye maiti ya mtoto huyo ilichimbuliwa kutoka katika kaburi alimozikwa na kupelekwa kuzikwa katika eneo lingine la makaburi.

Mtoto wa John Kennedy, JFK Jr., akirusha angani ndege yake, alitoweka bila kujulikana alikokuwa na hatimaye kukutwa amekufa pamoja na abiria wake wawili waliokuwa katika ndege hiyo. Mmoja wao alikuwa mchumba wake. JFK Jr., alifariki Julai 16, 1999 (tazama hizo tarehe). Baada ya kupatikana maiti yake ilichukuliwa na kuzikwa upya.

John Kennedy na Abraham Lincoln, wote, kwa nyakati tofauti, walisoma sheria na wote waliwahi kufanya kazi jeshini.

Kennedy alichaguliwa kuwa Rais Novemba 8. Lincoln alichaguliwa kuwa Rais Novemba 8. Kennedy alikuwa mtoto wa pili katika familia yake. Lincoln naye alikuwa mtoto wa pili katika familia yake.

Wote wawili walitumia majina ya babu zao. Kennedy alikuwa na watoto walioitwa Robert na Edward, kadhalika Lincoln alikuwa na watoto walioitwa Robert na Edward. Kennedy alizaa watoto wanne, na Lincoln alizaa watoto wanne.

Lincoln alikuwa na daktari wake aliyeitwa Charles Taft. Kennedy naye alikuwa na daktari wake aliyeitwa Charles Taft. Lincoln alikuwa na rafiki na mshauri aliyeitwa William Graham. John Kennedy alikuwa na rafiki na mshauri aliyeitwa Billy Graham. Inasemekana kuwa Billy na William ni majina mawili yanayotofautiana katika kuandikwa lakini si katika maana.

Chanzo kimoja cha habari kinasema kuwa mwaka mmoja kabla Lincoln hajauawa alipokea barua 80 zilizotishia maisha yake. Kadhalika, chanzo hicho hicho kinasema, mwaka mmoja kabla ya kuuawa Kennedy alipokea barua 800 za kutishia uhai wake. Barua za kennedy ni mara kumi ya zile za Lincoln, lakini namba yake ni nane.

Lincoln aliuawa mbele ya mkewe na Kennedy aliuawa mbele ya mkewe. Wake zao hawakudhurika wakati wa mauaji ya waume zao. Orodha hiyo inaweza kuendelea hadi tukajaza kurasa nyingi za gazeti hili.

Kwa kutazama hilo, tunaweza kusema kuwa hiyo ni ama sadfa, bahati au kujirudia kwa historia. Ni rahisi kuamua haraka kiasi hicho. Haijulikani kama ni historia ilijirudia ama vinginevyo, lakini angalau tunaweza kukubaliana kuwa hiyo ndiyo hali halisi na ya wazi.

Kwa kuitazama vyema historia ya Marekani, utagundua kuwa Marais wote wa nchi hiyo waliochaguliwa katika miaka inayoishia na ‘0’, ukiondoa mwaka 1840, ama waliuawa au walikufa wakiwa madarakani kutokana na kile kilichoonekana kuwa ni kifo cha kawaida.

Mwaka 1840 Marekani ilikuwa na Rais wa nane, Martin Van Buren, aliyetawala kuanzia 1837-1841. Kinachotia shauku zaidi ni kwamba matukio hayo hutokea, au tuseme yalikuwa yakitukia, kila baada ya miaka 20 kwa miongo mingi iliyopita.

Robert Ripley aliyekuwa mchoraji maarufu wa katuni na mtunzi wa kitabu cha vichekesho chenye jina Ripley's Believe It or Not katika jalada lake, aliwahi kutaja mtindo wa kila miaka 20 ya vifo vya Marais wa Marekani kati ya mwaka 1840 na 1920 kisha, katika sentensi moja iliyo chini ya katuni moja, akaandika “…1940!?”

Aliweka alama ya ulizo kwa kuwa hakujua kile ambacho kingetokea mwaka 1940 kwa sababu kilichapishwa mwaka 1935, miaka mitano kabla ya mwaka aliouwekea alama ya ulizo (?).

Ripley alikuwa akifikisha ujumbe kamili kwa wasomaji wake, lakini kwa kuwa wengi walimchukulia kama mchekeshaji tu, walipuuza, lakini alijua yaliyokuwa yakitendeka. Alikuwa akipitisha ujumbe wake kwa njia ya vichekesho, na watu hawakuupokea.

“…1940!?” ilidokeza kwamba Rais wa Marekani aliyechaguliwa mwaka huo angekufa angali akiwa Rais wa nchi. Je, Ripley alikuwa akichekesha tu? Lilikuwa jambo la bahati mbaya au kujirudia kwa historia hata Ripley akajua kwa hakika kile ambacho kingetukia? Rais huyo hakufa akiwa madarakani? Haya ni maswali ya kitoto?

Tangu alipokuja duniani Jumatatu ya Januari 30, 1882, kupitia kwa baba na mama yake, James Roosevelt na Sara Delano Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt hakujua kuwa Jumanne ya Aprili 4, 1933 ndipo angekuwa Rais wa 32 wa Marekani. Na hata baada ya kujua hivyo, hakujua kuwa kuna mengine ambayo hakuyajua.

Wamarekani walimchagua tena mwaka 1936 dhidi ya mpinzani wake, Alfred M. Landon. Tofauti na marais wengi wa nchi hiyo, Roosevelt alitumikia zaidi ya vipindi vitatu. Lakini hilo si muhimu kwa maana ya Robert Ripley.

Alipochaguliwa kwa kipindi cha tatu mwaka 1940 dhidi ya Wendell Willkie, akatimiza kile kilichotazamiwa. Ikajulikana kwa watu wachache sana wa ulimwengu huu waliojua siri kuwa angekufa akiwa madarakani.

Hata hivyo alisonga mbele. Ukaja uchaguzi mwingine mwaka 1944, Roosevelt akamshinda Thomas E. Dewey. Lakini hilo halikuondoa ukweli kuwa alichaguliwa mwaka 1940. Alhamisi ya Aprili 12, 1945, Roosevelt, akiwa katika kipindi cha nne cha kutawala kwake, akafa angali akiwa Rais.

Hiyo ni bahati mbaya? Au ni kujirudia kwa historia? Kama twafikiri hivyo, tuwe makini zaidi. Mwanzoni mwa karne ya 20 mwanamke mmoja wa Australia aliyeitwa Foster Turner, akiwasiliana kwa njia ya ‘upepo’ na mtu aliyeitwa Arthur Conan Doyle, walitabiri kuzuka kwa Vita Kuu I na matokeo yake. Vyote alivyotabiri vikatokea. Je, alitabiri au alijua mipango iliyokuwapo? (Soma kitabu cha Max Freedom Long kiitwacho The Secret Science Behind Miracles).

Kitabu kiitwacho How to Succeed cha Brian Adams © 2004 (uk. 5) kinasema hivi katika aya ya pili: “Mauaji ya John F. Kennedy yalitabiriwa na mbashiri anayejulikana zaidi Marekani (mwanamke ambaye hakutajwa jina). Alitaja kwa usahihi kabisa wakati, mahali na tarehe ambayo mauaji hayo yangefanyika. Kwa bahati mbaya, onyo lake halikusikilizwa.”

Huo tutauita utabiri? Huyu ni Rais aliyechaguliwa mwaka 1960, mwaka unaoishia na ‘0’, na huyo aliyetabiri ni Mmarekani. Tunajuaje kama huyo ambaye mwandishi Brian Adams anamwita mbashiri alijua mipango ya kuwaua watu hawa hata akajua wakati, tarehe na mahali ambapo mauaji ya Kennedy yangefanyika?

Mwanamke huyo mbashiri ambaye kitabu hicho hakikumtaja jina, siye peke yake ‘aliyetabiri’ kuuawa kwa Kennedy. Mbona Robert Ripley mwaka 1935 alitabiri kifo cha Roosevelt miaka kumi baadaye ambaye pia alifariki akiwa madarakani? Je, hakuuawa? Au tuseme hakuuawa kwa njia ile ile aliyouawa John Kennedy au Abraham Lincoln?

Kwa kutazama vile vipindi vya kila miaka 20, wanajimu wengi, au wale waliojiita wanajimu, walibashiri kifo cha Rais John Kennedy mara alipochaguliwa kuwa Rais mwaka 1960. kikatokea hatimaye.

Kwa njia hiyo hiyo ilitazamiwa pia kwamba hata Rais Ronald Wilson Reagan angeuawa au kufa ‘kifo cha kawaida’ angali Rais, jambo ambalo lilikaribia kabisa kutimia.

Jumatatu ya Machi 30, 1981, akiwa na umri wa miaka 70 na baada ya kukaa ofisini kwa siku 69 tu tangu aapishwe, Rais Reagan alijeruhiwa kwa risasi tano au sita zilizofyatuliwa na John Hinckley (25) na kukimbizwa katika Hospitali ya Chuo Kikuu ya George Washington kufanyiwa upasuaji.

Cha kusubiri na kutazama ni kuona kama Rais wa sasa, George W. Bush, ambaye “alichaguliwa” mwaka 2000 na kuchaguliwa tena mwaka 2004 atakumbwa na mzimu huu wa kipindi cha miaka 20. Wanaobashiri wako wapi? Kwanini wasibashiri tena?

Inasemekana kuwa huenda hilo lisimpate kwa sababu yeye na familia yote ya Bush tangu vizazi vingi vilivyopita wanajua na kushiriki mambo mengi huko Marekani. Hata George (Baba) Bush alijua, na pengine (aliandika mwandishi mmoja) alikuwa na mkono katika tukio la Reagan wakati yeye akiwa Makamu wake wa Rais.

Kwa kushangaza, marais waliochaguliwa katika miaka iliyoishia na ‘0’ wote walifariki wangali madarakani na walikufa katika miaka inayoishia na ‘1’, ‘3’ na ‘5’. Kwa hiyo, mwaka 2005 ulikuwa ndio wa George W. Bush. Lakini huo umepita.

Katika hili kuna mambo ya kutazama pia. Rais wa 12 wa Marekani, Zachary Taylor (1849-1850), alifariki dunia akiwa madarakani. Lakini hakuchaguliwa mwaka unaoishia ‘0’. Alichaguliwa mwaka 1848 na akafariki dunia mwaka 1850 kutokana na maumivu ya tumbo.

Ilisemwa kuwa ni kifo cha kawaida, lakini uchunguzi unaodokezwa na vielelezo vingi vya kihistoria ni kwamba bila kutambua Rais huyo alilishwa sumu iliyochanganywa na kemikali nyingi.

Haikuwa lazima Taylor achaguliwe mwaka ule wa ‘0’. Mwaka 1991, ikiwa ni miaka 141 tangu kifo chake, mwili wake ulifukuliwa kwa ajili ya kufanyiwa uchunguzi upya kuthibitisha madai hayo.

Lakini, baada ya ‘uchunguzi’, serikali ya Marekani ilisema madai hayo ni ya uongo. Hakuna aliyetazamia serikali ingesema madai hayo ni ya kweli, kwani kwa kufanya hivyo ingekuwa serikali ndiyo iliyomuua Rais wao na hivyo kuharibu rekodi ya Marekani.

Tazama orodha ya marais hao ilivyo (miaka ya kuchaguliwa kwao ikiwa katika mabano). Thomas Jefferson (1800), alinusurika jaribio la mauaji dhidi yake, hatimaye alifariki dunia Julai 4, 1826. James Monroe (1820) naye alinusurika. Alifariki Julai 4, 1831.

William Henry Harrison (1840), alifariki akiwa Rais Aprili 4, 1841 kutokana na kichomi(?). Abraham Lincoln (1860), kama ilivyotajwa mara nyingi katika makala hii, aliuawa Ijumaa ya Aprili 15, 1865.

Wengine ni James A. Garfield (1880) aliuawa Julai 2, 1881. William McKinley (1900), aliuawa Septemba 19, 1901. Warren G. Harding (1920), aliuawa Agosti 2, 1923 kwa kulishwa sumu iliyowekwa katika chakula. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1940), alifariki Aprili 12, 1945 kutokana na kile kilichoitwa ‘kiharusi’, lakini kumbukumbu nyingi za matibabu yake hazijawahi kupatikana. John F. Kennedy (1960) aliuawa kwa risasi Novemba 22, 1963 na Ronald Reagan alikoswa koswa Machi 30, 1981, hata hivyo hatimaye akafariki dunia Juni 5, 2004.

Kuna marais wengine wa Marekani ambao waliwahi kunusurika. Lakini hii inaonekana kuwa ajali zaidi kuliko makusudi kama inavyoonekana kwa wengine waliotajwa hapo juu.

Hiki ndicho kile tunachokiita “historia imejirudia”, kwamba mauaji ya Lincoln na yale ya Kennedy ni historia iliyojirudia. Kuna haja ya kuyatazama mambo kwa makini zaidi ili kuona kilichofichika kuliko kuridhika na mtazamo wa juu juu.

Huenda haya niliyoandika ni ya kijinga au ya kitoto kama msomaji mmoja alivyosema, lakini kwa wanaotaka kuyaona watayaona, ila kwa wasiotaka kuyaona kamwe hawatayaona kwa kuwa tumefunikwa na kasumba ya kuona tunachoambiwa ndicho tunachopaswa kukiamini.


**************************************
William Shao ni mwandishi wa habari na mwandishi wa kitabu cha MIAKA 2000 YA UKRISTO: HISTORIA ILIYOPOTOSHWA. Anapatikana kwa simu 0754-989837, E-mail: shao2020@yahoo.co.uk.
**************************************

Rudi Mwanzoni

Who Should We Trust

WHO SHOULD WE TRUST? Debate goes on…

By William Shao

SOME studies indicate that the insecticide DDT was—and is—one a chief contributor to some potential ecological disaster. Because of the danger it poses, its uses, and then its production, DDT was banned from one country to another. But Ugandan scientists say it has no effects on the environment and human health.

A Makerere University report released last Wednesday has said that the use of DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) in fighting malaria has no effect on the environment and human health. Dr Gabriel Bimenya, a University lecturer in the Faculty of Medicine, represented these findings to scientists, policy makers and academicians.

The report said: “Spraying DDT does not create impotence, infertility, and abnormalities especially among women as it was recently alleged by antagonists and environmentalists.”

According to The African newspaper (Nov. 7, 2005), the research team included Professor Wilson Byarugaba, Dr Baterana Byarugaba, Andrew Okwii (all of Medical School) and Dr Myers Lugemwa of Mulango Hospital. Should they be believed?

From historical point of view, DDT, a colorless chemical pesticide, was used to eradicate disease-carrying and crop-eating insects. It was first isolated in Germany in 1874, but not until 1939 did the Swiss Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul Müller recognize it as a potent nerve poison on insects.

First used heavily in World War II for pre-invasion spraying, DDT was disseminated in great quantities thereafter throughout the world to combat yellow fever, typhus, elephantiasis, and other insect-vectored diseases.

In India, DDT reduced malaria from 75 million cases to fewer than 5 million cases in a decade. Crops and livestock sprayed with DDT sometimes as much as doubled their yields.

With the publication of the American marine biologist Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962, suspicion grew that DDT, by entering the food chain and eventually concentrating in higher animals, caused reproductive dysfunctions, such as thin eggshells in some birds.

Some insect pests also gradually developed DDT-resistant strains whose populations grew unchecked while their natural predators, such as wasps, were being eradicated by spraying. In 1973 DDT was banned in the U.S. except for use in extreme health emergencies. Many other nations have also banned it or placed it under strict control.

Should it now be used? Has its dangerous effect disappeared, or at least diminished? If the scientists who found it harmful years ago were right, then those reports their findings now that it is safe are wrong, and vice versa.

It caused an alarm when it was known that some of the long-lasting pesticides such as DDT were finding their way into humans. Newsweek of January 26, 1970, stated: “American women carry in their breasts milk that has anywhere from three to ten times more of the pesticide DDT than the Federal government allows in dairy milk meant for human consumption.”

Thus, even government officials and scientists were worried. Dr. Charles F. Wurster, biologist at the State University of New York, quoted by the magazine, said: “The danger is no longer debatable; it’s established, scientific fact.” Another scientist who examined the evidence remarked: “I’m scared.”

In 1974, Dr Lorenzo Tomatis of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in France stated: “There is no animal, no water, no soil on this earth which at present is not contaminated with DDT.” In some cases DDT contamination had built up in animals and birds to the point of killing them. Were his findings wrong? If yes, then Dr Gabriel Bimenya and his colleagues are right.

In 1971, Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Robert H. Finch of the United States was worried that If the pesticide DDT were outlawed tomorrow, “…it would take 10 years or longer” to cleanse the nation of effects already caused by the insect killer.”

Early in 1960s, DDT and other pesticides were at first heralded as ‘saviors,’ freeing man from dreaded diseases such as malaria and yellow fever. These pesticides also initially tended to increase crop yields by destroying insects. But in 1970s many governments decided to phase out the use of some of these chemicals. Why?

Because it has been found that they are destroying much animal life, some species being pushed toward extinction. Contamination from DDT has spread earth wide. Traces have been found even in Antarctic animals. Indeed, it has been said that there is no water or land, or life of any kind that has not been affected by DDT. This includes man. And in experiments, heavy doses of pesticides caused serious damage to animals.

These bad effects of what was thought to be for man’s benefit have alarmed authorities. What then can be said of scientific inventions that are deliberately designed to exterminate human life?

Chemicals for warfare have been developed that are so lethal that only a tiny droplet on the skin will cause death. And some of the bacteria that science has cultivated can annihilate entire populations.

Medical World News of February 27, 1970, reported on an experiment where twenty-five fertilized eggs were injected with small amounts of a chemical defoliant widely used in the United States (and in Vietnam). Only fifteen chicks survived. Eleven of the fifteen were crippled and had other defects. In the unhatched chicks serious disorders and deformities were found.

What makes the problem grave is that DDT, and some other pesticides, are not soluble in water. So they accumulate in the organisms that are exposed to them. In time the animal may contain far more pesticide residues in its system than are in the environment. Indeed, it is said that some animals may contain more than a million times as much as their environment!

Pesticides have disturbed what is called “the balance of nature.” An example of this was reported by Dr. Lamont C. Cole of Cornell University, as noted by U.S. News & World Report of November 24, 1969:

“The World Health Organization sent DDT to Borneo to kill mosquitoes. It worked fine. But it didn’t kill roaches, which accumulated DDT in their bodies. Lizards, which lived in the thatched huts, ate the roaches.

“The DDT slowed the lizards. Cats then easily caught the lizards. But the cats died …With the cats gone, rats came, carrying a threat of plague. And, with the lizards gone, caterpillars multiplied in the huts, where they fed on the roof thatching. Then the roofs started caving in.”

What is ironic is that while pesticides have killed insects, these same types of insects have produced strains that are resistant to those pesticides. Thus, more powerful poisons are needed to kill them. But it is said that there is no pesticide that insects cannot eventually handle.

The Makerere scientists do not deny the danger the DDT poses, but the danger, they say, is only at “low levels.” Whether they are right or wrong is not the point I am trying to make. But how and why these scientists contradicts themselves leaves the world intricately puzzled. Which scientists should we trust or not to trust?

“DDT, a pesticide which has been banned in Europe and the US for nearly 30 years, is likely to escape worldwide prohibition because of its effectiveness in eliminating the mosquitoes responsible for one of the world’s biggest killers—malaria,” reported the magazine BBC Wildlife recently.

“Though DDT is a highly toxic compound proven to have a negative impact on wildlife, health campaigners say it is still one of the most important weapons against malaria, a disease which kills more than 2.7 million people a year and leaves up to 500 million chronically ill.”

While supporting a ban on DDT for agricultural purposes, the World Health Organization argues that it should be used for malaria control until a safe and effective alternative can be developed.

Go to Content Page

Who Should We Trust

WHO SHOULD WE TRUST? Debate goes on…

By William Shao

SOME studies indicate that the insecticide DDT was—and is—one a chief contributor to some potential ecological disaster. Because of the danger it poses, its uses, and then its production, DDT was banned from one country to another. But Ugandan scientists say it has no effects on the environment and human health.

A Makerere University report released last Wednesday has said that the use of DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) in fighting malaria has no effect on the environment and human health. Dr Gabriel Bimenya, a University lecturer in the Faculty of Medicine, represented these findings to scientists, policy makers and academicians.

The report said: “Spraying DDT does not create impotence, infertility, and abnormalities especially among women as it was recently alleged by antagonists and environmentalists.”

According to The African newspaper (Nov. 7, 2005), the research team included Professor Wilson Byarugaba, Dr Baterana Byarugaba, Andrew Okwii (all of Medical School) and Dr Myers Lugemwa of Mulango Hospital. Should they be believed?

From historical point of view, DDT, a colorless chemical pesticide, was used to eradicate disease-carrying and crop-eating insects. It was first isolated in Germany in 1874, but not until 1939 did the Swiss Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul Müller recognize it as a potent nerve poison on insects.

First used heavily in World War II for pre-invasion spraying, DDT was disseminated in great quantities thereafter throughout the world to combat yellow fever, typhus, elephantiasis, and other insect-vectored diseases.

In India, DDT reduced malaria from 75 million cases to fewer than 5 million cases in a decade. Crops and livestock sprayed with DDT sometimes as much as doubled their yields.

With the publication of the American marine biologist Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962, suspicion grew that DDT, by entering the food chain and eventually concentrating in higher animals, caused reproductive dysfunctions, such as thin eggshells in some birds.

Some insect pests also gradually developed DDT-resistant strains whose populations grew unchecked while their natural predators, such as wasps, were being eradicated by spraying. In 1973 DDT was banned in the U.S. except for use in extreme health emergencies. Many other nations have also banned it or placed it under strict control.

Should it now be used? Has its dangerous effect disappeared, or at least diminished? If the scientists who found it harmful years ago were right, then those reports their findings now that it is safe are wrong, and vice versa.

It caused an alarm when it was known that some of the long-lasting pesticides such as DDT were finding their way into humans. Newsweek of January 26, 1970, stated: “American women carry in their breasts milk that has anywhere from three to ten times more of the pesticide DDT than the Federal government allows in dairy milk meant for human consumption.”

Thus, even government officials and scientists were worried. Dr. Charles F. Wurster, biologist at the State University of New York, quoted by the magazine, said: “The danger is no longer debatable; it’s established, scientific fact.” Another scientist who examined the evidence remarked: “I’m scared.”

In 1974, Dr Lorenzo Tomatis of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in France stated: “There is no animal, no water, no soil on this earth which at present is not contaminated with DDT.” In some cases DDT contamination had built up in animals and birds to the point of killing them. Were his findings wrong? If yes, then Dr Gabriel Bimenya and his colleagues are right.

In 1971, Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Robert H. Finch of the United States was worried that If the pesticide DDT were outlawed tomorrow, “…it would take 10 years or longer” to cleanse the nation of effects already caused by the insect killer.”

Early in 1960s, DDT and other pesticides were at first heralded as ‘saviors,’ freeing man from dreaded diseases such as malaria and yellow fever. These pesticides also initially tended to increase crop yields by destroying insects. But in 1970s many governments decided to phase out the use of some of these chemicals. Why?

Because it has been found that they are destroying much animal life, some species being pushed toward extinction. Contamination from DDT has spread earth wide. Traces have been found even in Antarctic animals. Indeed, it has been said that there is no water or land, or life of any kind that has not been affected by DDT. This includes man. And in experiments, heavy doses of pesticides caused serious damage to animals.

These bad effects of what was thought to be for man’s benefit have alarmed authorities. What then can be said of scientific inventions that are deliberately designed to exterminate human life?

Chemicals for warfare have been developed that are so lethal that only a tiny droplet on the skin will cause death. And some of the bacteria that science has cultivated can annihilate entire populations.

Medical World News of February 27, 1970, reported on an experiment where twenty-five fertilized eggs were injected with small amounts of a chemical defoliant widely used in the United States (and in Vietnam). Only fifteen chicks survived. Eleven of the fifteen were crippled and had other defects. In the unhatched chicks serious disorders and deformities were found.

What makes the problem grave is that DDT, and some other pesticides, are not soluble in water. So they accumulate in the organisms that are exposed to them. In time the animal may contain far more pesticide residues in its system than are in the environment. Indeed, it is said that some animals may contain more than a million times as much as their environment!

Pesticides have disturbed what is called “the balance of nature.” An example of this was reported by Dr. Lamont C. Cole of Cornell University, as noted by U.S. News & World Report of November 24, 1969:

“The World Health Organization sent DDT to Borneo to kill mosquitoes. It worked fine. But it didn’t kill roaches, which accumulated DDT in their bodies. Lizards, which lived in the thatched huts, ate the roaches.

“The DDT slowed the lizards. Cats then easily caught the lizards. But the cats died …With the cats gone, rats came, carrying a threat of plague. And, with the lizards gone, caterpillars multiplied in the huts, where they fed on the roof thatching. Then the roofs started caving in.”

What is ironic is that while pesticides have killed insects, these same types of insects have produced strains that are resistant to those pesticides. Thus, more powerful poisons are needed to kill them. But it is said that there is no pesticide that insects cannot eventually handle.

The Makerere scientists do not deny the danger the DDT poses, but the danger, they say, is only at “low levels.” Whether they are right or wrong is not the point I am trying to make. But how and why these scientists contradicts themselves leaves the world intricately puzzled. Which scientists should we trust or not to trust?

“DDT, a pesticide which has been banned in Europe and the US for nearly 30 years, is likely to escape worldwide prohibition because of its effectiveness in eliminating the mosquitoes responsible for one of the world’s biggest killers—malaria,” reported the magazine BBC Wildlife recently.

“Though DDT is a highly toxic compound proven to have a negative impact on wildlife, health campaigners say it is still one of the most important weapons against malaria, a disease which kills more than 2.7 million people a year and leaves up to 500 million chronically ill.”

While supporting a ban on DDT for agricultural purposes, the World Health Organization argues that it should be used for malaria control until a safe and effective alternative can be developed.

Go to Content Page

Kitabu

KITABU—MIAKA 2000 YA UKRISTO: HISTORIA ILIYOPOTOSHWA—kimezungumzia mambo mengi kuanzia upotoshaji wa Krismasi, Desemba 25 na siku ya kuzaliwa Yesu Kristo. Hata useja wa ukasisi wa Kikatoliki umetiliwa mashaka makubwa kwa sababu unatokana na upagani na wala si Ukristo. Ukweli umewekwa bayana katika kitabu hiki. Kuna watu ambao hawatakipenda, lakini ni vyema wakakisoma chote na kisha kuamua kuitafakari changamoto hii. Ni katika mijadala ya aina hii ndipo mtu anapoitwa mwendawazimu kwa sababu ya kuandika mambo tofauti na mazoea.

Tarehe ya kuzaliwa kwa Yesu Kristo haijulikani. Biblia hunyamaza kimya unapokuja wakati wa kuzungumzia tarehe ya kuzaliwa Yesu. Haitaji tarehe yoyote ya kuzaliwa kwake. Hoja yangu si katika ukweli wa kwamba tarehe ya kuzaliwa kwa Yesu Kristo haitajwi popote katika Maandiko Matakatifu, bali ni katika ukweli kwamba chanzo cha tarehe hiyo ni Upagani.

Wataalam wa kupima ufasaha, ukweli na uhafifu wa vitabu wanaweza wasikubaliane na maelezo ya kitabu hiki, wakabaki wakitafuta-tafuta makosa katika hoja na vielelezo vilivyotumiwa. Lakini vyovyote itakavyokuwa, wanaotaka kupinga wanaweza kufanya hivyo kwa kuwa ni watu wanaoweza kubishania hoja yenye hali ya kuwa na maana nyingi. Ingawa wanaweza kujitahidi kupinga mengi, kamwe hawataweza kupinga yote. Watajikuta wakikubaliana na jambo moja la uhakika, kwamba Maandiko Matakatifu hayaonyeshi tarehe ya kuzaliwa kwa Yesu, na Biblia haina msamiati unaoitwa ‘Krismasi’, wala Yesu Kristo hakuwahi kusherehekea siku yake ya kuzaliwa.

Ingawa wao wanaweza kusema kuwa hakuna ushahidi wowote unaotosha kupinga kwamba Yesu hakuzaliwa Desemba 25, vivyo hivyo naweza kuwaambia kuwa hawana ushahidi wowote unaotosha kuthibitisha kwamba alizaliwa Desemba 25. Wakosoaji wanaweza kusema ni vigumu kukana kwamba Yesu alizaliwa Desemba 25, au siku ya Krismasi, lakini ikiwa ni vigumu kukana kuwa alizaliwa Desemba 25, ni vigumu hata zaidi kwa yeyote kuthibitisha kwamba alizaliwa Desemba 25. Kwa sababu tarehe ya kuzaliwa kwake haijulikani, inawezekana ikawa kweli kwamba alizaliwa Desemba 25, lakini ni nani anayeweza kuthibitisha? Ni rahisi zaidi kukanusha kuwa alizaliwa Desemba 25 kuliko ilivyo rahisi kuthibitisha kuwa alizaliwa Desemba 25. Msingi wa dini ya Kikristo, yaani Biblia, hauonyeshi uhusiano wowote wa Desemba 25 na Krismasi, au uhusiano wa tarehe nyingine yoyote na siku aliyozaliwa Yesu Kristo kwa kuwa siku ya kuzaliwa kwake “haiwezi kuthibitishwa na Agano Jipya, au, kwa kweli haiwezi kuthibitishwa na chanzo kingine chochote,” kinasema kitabu Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature.

Kinachodokezwa na Biblia katika kitabu cha Yeremia 52:31, ambacho kinaweza kudaiwa kuwa ni Desemba 25, ni “...mwezi wa kumi na mbili, siku ya ishirini na tano ya mwezi...” Kwa kuiweka sentensi hiyo katika tarakimu, hiyo inaweza kusomeka kama Desemba 25 kwa mujibu wa kalenda inayotumika sasa. Lakini mstari huo hautaji kuzaliwa kwa Yesu, wala kwa yeyote anayehusiana na Yesu, wala tarehe ya kuzaliwa kwa mtu yeyote anayehusiana na masimulizi ya Biblia. Hata kama ingekuwa hivyo, hiyo ni kalenda ya Kiyahudi na wala siyo kalenda ya Kirumi (Gregorian Calendar) inayotumika hivi sasa duniani kote.

Mstari huo wa Biblia unasema hivi: “Hata ikawa, katika mwaka wa thelathini na saba wa kuhamishwa kwake Yehoyakini, mfalme wa Yuda, katika mwezi wa kumi na mbili, siku ya ishirini na tano ya mwezi, Evil-merodaki, mfalme wa Babeli, katika mwaka wa kwanza wa kumiliki kwake, akamwinua kichwa chake Yehoyakini, mfalme wa Yuda, akamtoa gerezani.”

Biblia inawaambia Wakristo hivi: “Hatimaye, ndugu zangu, mambo yoyote yaliyo ya kweli, yoyote yaliyo ya staha, yoyote yaliyo ya haki, yoyote yaliyo safi, yoyote yenye kupendeza, yoyote yenye sifa njema; ukiwapo wema wo wote, ikiwapo sifa nzuri yoyote, yatafakarini mambo hayo.” (Wafilipi 4:8). Mstari wa tisa unaofuata unasema hivi: “Mambo mliyojifunza kwangu na kuyapokea, na kuyasikia na kuyaona kwangu, yatendeni hayo; na Mungu wa amani atakuwa pamoja nanyi.”

Je, mafundisho yanayotolewa na makanisa ni mambo ya kweli? Yaliyo ya staha? Yaliyo ya haki? Yaliyo safi? Yenye kupendeza? Yenye sifa njema? Yana wema wo wote, sifa nzuri yo yote? Je, wameyatafakari mambo hayo? (Wafilipi 4:8). Je, mafundisho hayo ni “Mambo mliyojifunza kwangu na kuyapokea, na kuyasikia na kuyaona kwangu...; na Mungu wa amani atakuwa pamoja nanyi”? (Wafilipi 4:9).

Ingawa kusudi la uchambuzi wa kitabu hiki si kuondoa wingu la kihistoria lililowekwa na makanisa—au baadhi ya makanisa—bali ni kujaribu kutazama kwa macho ya kawaida kupitia wingu hilo ili kuonyesha tu jinsi hali ilivyo, kwa watu wengi ni vigumu siku zote kuchukua msimamo tofauti na ule unaochukuliwa na halaiki ya watu duniani kote. Lakini wanaojaribu kuipinga mambo mengi yaliyopotoshwa wanatetewa na Biblia inapowaelekeza kutofuata ya wengi hata kama msongo unakuwa mkali kadiri gani, na hata kama jambo fulani laonekana kufuatwa na kila mtu duniani kote.

Ingawa ni wengi ambao hukubaliana, bila kuhoji, mafundisho mengi ya makanisa, na kuyaamini kwa moyo wote, wachache zaidi wanao msimamo tofauti, wakisema kuwa msingi wa imani ya Kikristo, Biblia, hupinga mambo mengi yanayofundishwa na makanisa makanisani. Ingawa wanaoamini hivyo ni wachache zaidi wakizidiwa na wale wengi zaidi, wao wanasadiki kuwa wana sababu ya kuwafanya wawe na msimamo huo.

Hufarijika wasomapo aya hii: “Ingieni kwa kupitia mlango ulio mwembamba; maana mlango ni mpana, na njia ni pana iendayo upotevuni, nao ni wengi waingiao katika mlango huo. Bali mlango ni mwembamba, na njia imesonga iendayo uzimani, nao waionayo ni wachache.” (Mathayo 7:13-14). Njia pana hupitisha watu wengi, tena kwa urahisi, lakini njia nyembamba hupitisha watu wachache sana, tena kwa shida. Kwa kuwa jambo linafuatwa na kuheshimiwa na kila mtu duniani halimaanishi kwamba ni jambo jema. Huenda likamaanisha njia pana iendayo upotevuni. Na nyakati nyingi mambo mabaya na yasiyo sawasawa hufuatwa na wengi, na mara nyingi wakifanya hivyo bila kutambua, wakidhani kwamba kwa kuwa kila mtu anacheka, basi kicheko ni chema, na kwa kuwa watu wachache sana wanalia, basi kilio chao ni kiovu. Lakini, kama ilivyokuwa mwanzo ndivyo itakavyokuwa mwisho.

Nakukaribisha usome kitabu hiki.

William Shao.

Rudi Mwanzoni

DDT

Which scientist to be trusted? Debate goes on…

By William Shao

SOME studies indicate that the insecticide DDT was—and is—one a chief contributor to some potential ecological disaster. Because of the danger it poses, its uses, and then its production, DDT was banned from one country to another. But Ugandan scientists say it has no effects on the environment and human health.
A Makerere University report released last Wednesday has said that the use of DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) in fighting malaria has no effect on the environment and human health. Dr Gabriel Bimenya, a University lecturer in the Faculty of Medicine, represented these findings to scientists, policy makers and academicians.
The report said: “Spraying DDT does not create impotence, infertility, and abnormalities especially among women as it was recently alleged by antagonists and environmentalists.”
According to The African newspaper (Nov. 7, 2005), the research team included Professor Wilson Byarugaba, Dr Baterana Byarugaba, Andrew Okwii (all of Medical School) and Dr Myers Lugemwa of Mulango Hospital. Should they be believed?
From historical point of view, DDT, a colorless chemical pesticide, was used to eradicate disease-carrying and crop-eating insects. It was first isolated in Germany in 1874, but not until 1939 did the Swiss Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul Müller recognize it as a potent nerve poison on insects.
First used heavily in World War II for pre-invasion spraying, DDT was disseminated in great quantities thereafter throughout the world to combat yellow fever, typhus, elephantiasis, and other insect-vectored diseases.
In India, DDT reduced malaria from 75 million cases to fewer than 5 million cases in a decade. Crops and livestock sprayed with DDT sometimes as much as doubled their yields.
With the publication of the American marine biologist Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962, suspicion grew that DDT, by entering the food chain and eventually concentrating in higher animals, caused reproductive dysfunctions, such as thin eggshells in some birds.
Some insect pests also gradually developed DDT-resistant strains whose populations grew unchecked while their natural predators, such as wasps, were being eradicated by spraying. In 1973 DDT was banned in the U.S. except for use in extreme health emergencies. Many other nations have also banned it or placed it under strict control.
Should it now be used? Has its dangerous effect disappeared, or at least diminished? If the scientists who found it harmful years ago were right, then those reports their findings now that it is safe are wrong, and vice versa.
It caused an alarm when it was known that some of the long-lasting pesticides such as DDT were finding their way into humans. Newsweek of January 26, 1970, stated: “American women carry in their breasts milk that has anywhere from three to ten times more of the pesticide DDT than the Federal government allows in dairy milk meant for human consumption.”
Thus, even government officials and scientists were worried. Dr. Charles F. Wurster, biologist at the State University of New York, quoted by the magazine, said: “The danger is no longer debatable; it’s established, scientific fact.” Another scientist who examined the evidence remarked: “I’m scared.”
In 1974, Dr Lorenzo Tomatis of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in France stated: “There is no animal, no water, no soil on this earth which at present is not contaminated with DDT.” In some cases DDT contamination had built up in animals and birds to the point of killing them. Were his findings wrong? If yes, then Dr Gabriel Bimenya and his colleagues are right.
In 1971, Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Robert H. Finch of the United States was worried that If the pesticide DDT were outlawed tomorrow, “…it would take 10 years or longer” to cleanse the nation of effects already caused by the insect killer.”
Early in 1960s, DDT and other pesticides were at first heralded as ‘saviors,’ freeing man from dreaded diseases such as malaria and yellow fever. These pesticides also initially tended to increase crop yields by destroying insects. But in 1970s many governments decided to phase out the use of some of these chemicals. Why?
Because it has been found that they are destroying much animal life, some species being pushed toward extinction. Contamination from DDT has spread earth wide. Traces have been found even in Antarctic animals. Indeed, it has been said that there is no water or land, or life of any kind that has not been affected by DDT. This includes man. And in experiments, heavy doses of pesticides caused serious damage to animals.
These bad effects of what was thought to be for man’s benefit have alarmed authorities. What then can be said of scientific inventions that are deliberately designed to exterminate human life?
Chemicals for warfare have been developed that are so lethal that only a tiny droplet on the skin will cause death. And some of the bacteria that science has cultivated can annihilate entire populations.
Medical World News of February 27, 1970, reported on an experiment where twenty-five fertilized eggs were injected with small amounts of a chemical defoliant widely used in the United States (and in Vietnam). Only fifteen chicks survived. Eleven of the fifteen were crippled and had other defects. In the unhatched chicks serious disorders and deformities were found.
What makes the problem grave is that DDT, and some other pesticides, are not soluble in water. So they accumulate in the organisms that are exposed to them. In time the animal may contain far more pesticide residues in its system than are in the environment. Indeed, it is said that some animals may contain more than a million times as much as their environment!
Pesticides have disturbed what is called “the balance of nature.” An example of this was reported by Dr. Lamont C. Cole of Cornell University, as noted by U.S. News & World Report of November 24, 1969:
“The World Health Organization sent DDT to Borneo to kill mosquitoes. It worked fine. But it didn’t kill roaches, which accumulated DDT in their bodies. Lizards, which lived in the thatched huts, ate the roaches.
“The DDT slowed the lizards. Cats then easily caught the lizards. But the cats died …With the cats gone, rats came, carrying a threat of plague. And, with the lizards gone, caterpillars multiplied in the huts, where they fed on the roof thatching. Then the roofs started caving in.”
What is ironic is that while pesticides have killed insects, these same types of insects have produced strains that are resistant to those pesticides. Thus, more powerful poisons are needed to kill them. But it is said that there is no pesticide that insects cannot eventually handle.
The Makerere scientists do not deny the danger the DDT poses, but the danger, they say, is only at “low levels.” Whether they are right or wrong is not the point I am trying to make. But how and why these scientists contradicts themselves leaves the world intricately puzzled. Which scientists should we trust or not to trust?
“DDT, a pesticide which has been banned in Europe and the US for nearly 30 years, is likely to escape worldwide prohibition because of its effectiveness in eliminating the mosquitoes responsible for one of the world’s biggest killers—malaria,” reported the magazine BBC Wildlife recently.
“Though DDT is a highly toxic compound proven to have a negative impact on wildlife, health campaigners say it is still one of the most important weapons against malaria, a disease which kills more than 2.7 million people a year and leaves up to 500 million chronically ill.”
While supporting a ban on DDT for agricultural purposes, the World Health Organization argues that it should be used for malaria control until a safe and effective alternative can be developed.

Go to Content Page

USIRIDHIKE NA MTAZAMO WA JUU-JUU TU

TURIDHIKE NA MTAZAMO WA KIJUU-JUU TU?





Na William Shao

NILIPOSOMA makala katika gazeti RAI toleo la 689 yenye kichwa cha habari: PRINCESS DIANA ALIFARIKI DUNIA KWA AJALI YA MUNGU YUPI? Nilisukumwa na hitimisho la mwandishi lililosema: “Kwa vyovyote kifo cha Princess Diana ni ajali iliyotokana na Mungu.”

Mwandishi aliyesema makala hayo yaliandikwa kwa msaada wa “mashirika ya habari”, aliridhika na ripoti ya kurasa 832 ya Lord (Sir John) Stevens iliyoonyesha kuwa Princess Diana alikufa katika ajali ya kawaida “na si kwamba aliuawa na Serikali ya Uingereza ama ukoo wa kifalme.”

Sisemi ripoti ilidanganya, nasema tutazame matukio ya uhakika bila kugusa au kuridhika na ripoti hiyo. Hiyo ni ripoti ya serikali na serikali ingejitahidi isijishutumu yenyewe.

Hata hivyo, udadisi hautoshi kuishia katika ripoti tu. Habari peke yake hazitoshi kutufunua akili bila kwanza kutazama utondoti na mambo mengine madogo madogo yaliyotengeneza habari au ripoti hiyo. Ni kweli Diana alikufa katika ajali ya gari, lakini tunajuaje kuwa ajali hiyo ni “iliyotokana na Mungu” au iliyopangwa na mwanadamu?

Ikiwa wale wanaodai Princess Diana aliuawa ni ‘wenda-wazimu’, Diana mwenyewe alikuwa ‘mwenda-wazimu’ wa kwanza na kiongozi wa Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, alikuwa wa pili.

Miezi kumi kabla ya kifo chake Diana aliandika barua iliyosomeka: “Kipindi hiki cha maisha yangu ni cha hatari sana kwangu” na kudai Ufalme wa Uingereza unamwandalia kifo cha ajali ya gari. (Mirror la Uingereza Okt. 20, 2003).

Jumanne ya Septemba 2, 1997—siku mbili baada ya kifo cha Diana—Gaddafi alidai kuwa Serikali ya Uingereza na washirika wake walimuua Diana. Walimwengu tulimchukulia kiongozi huyo kama ‘mpayukaji’.

Ukitazama kwa makini mazingira yanayozunguka kifo cha Diana utaona mambo mawili: Moja ni ‘mazingira ya kisiasa’ na la pili ni ‘mazingira ya ibada za kishetani’. Kwa kuwa nafasi ni finyu, najadili hili la ‘mazingira ya kisiasa’, na hilo la pili naliacha kiporo. Katika mijadala inayokuna kama hii ndipo mtu anapoonekana mwenda-wazimu.

Princess Diana na Dodi Fayed walitumbukia rasmi katika mapenzi Jumanne ya Juni 3, 1997. Siku 38 baadaye, Ijumaa ya Julai 11, 1997, Princess Diana aliwasili kwenye nyumba ya shamba la Mzee Al Fayed yenye bustani kubwa eneo la San Tropez, kusini mwa Paris, Ufaransa, akiwa na watoto wake, William na Harry.

Wakati huo Dodi Fayed alikuwa chumbani kwake na mchumba wake, Kelly Fisher, mwanamitindo wa Mmarekani. Dodi hakuwakutanisha Kelly na Diana. Wakati Baadaye Diana akiwa katika boti, ndege binafsi ilitumwa kwa ajili ya Kelly. Diana na Kelly hawakujuana.

Kelly alikasirika sana alipogundua kuwa Dodi alimzubaisha ili apate nafasi ya kumtongoza Diana. Hatimaye Diana alirejea Uingereza na watoto wake. Ndipo siku 20 baadaye, Alhamisi ya Julai 31, Diana akarejea tena San Tropez, wakati huu akiwa bila watoto wake. Bado hakujua Dodi alikuwa na uhusiano na Kelly hadi aliposikia katika vyombo vya habari.

Siku hiyo, Julai 31, Kelly Fisher alikuwa Los Angeles, Marekani, akijiandaa kwa ajili ya harusi kati yake na Dodi Fayed iliyokuwa imepangwa kufanyika Jumamosi ya Agosti 9, 1997. Lakini siku mbili kabla ya hapo akavisikia vyombo vya habari duniani vikitangaza mapenzi kati ya Dodi na Diana. Huo ukawa mwisho wa Dodi na Kelly.

Jumba hilo la kifahari lilikuwa limefungwa vinasa sauti kufuatilia mazungumzo ya Diana. Kila alichozungumza Diana hakikuwa siri kwa wale waliomfuatilia. “Ulikuwa ni utendaji wa aina ya peke yake,” akasema Henry Porter, mhariri wa jarida Vanity Fair, akimkariri Bob Loftus aliyewahi kuwa mkuu wa usalama wa Mohamed Al Fayed.

Kwanini alikuwa akifuatiliwa kiasi hicho? Ni nani walikuwa wakimfuatilia. Ni siri gani walihitaji kutoka kwake?

Wakati Diana anaanza masaa matatu ya mwisho ya uhai wake, saa 3.47, ulizuka uvumi kwamba alikuwa na mpango wa kufunga ndoa na Dodi. Kisha uvumi huo ukawavuta hata mapaparazi (wapiga picha) kupata picha za wapenzi hao.

Dakika za mwisho za maisha yake zilianzia Hotel Ritz Paris inayomilikuwa na Al Fayed. Ulinzi aliokuwa nao—gari aina ya Range Rover iliyokuwa na watu wa kumlinda ikifuata nyuma ya gari alimokuwamo—uliondolewa. Kwa hiyo ulinzi wake ulipunguzwa.

Kwanini ulinzi ulipunguzwa ikiwa tayari ilijulikana kulikuwa na mapaparazi waliokuwa wakimwandama? Kama ilivyokuwa kwa Diana, hata wakati Rais John Kennedy alipouawa, ulinzi wake ulipunguzwa.

Gari la Kennedy halikuwa na walinzi, lakini lililokuwa nyuma yake lilikuwa na ulinzi mkali. Inasemekana hiyo ndiyo mbinu inayotumika katika mauaji ya aina hiyo. Kennedy alikuwa amepanda gari lililokuwa wazi katika mji uliokuwa hatari bila walinzi.

Wakati mtetezi wa haki za binadamu, Martin Luther King, alipouawa eneo la Memphis, Tennessee, Marekani Alhamisi ya Aprili 4, 1968, polisi mwenye asili ya Kiafrika aliyekuwa akimlinda bila kupenda alilazimishwa kuondoka kazini saa chache kabla King hajapigwa risasi.

Zimamoto wawili wenye asili ya Kiafrika waliokuwa katika kituo karibu na Lorraine Motel alimouawa Luther walihamishiwa kituo kingine cha saa chache kabla ya tukio.

Baada ya mauaji dunia ikaambiwa kuwa James Earl Ray (40) ndiye muuaji wa Luther. Lakini hata familia ya Luther haikuamini kama James Ray alihusika na kifo cha Luther. Hadi leo matokeo ya chunguzi nyingi za kifo hicho zinatatanisha.

James Ray alipofariki dunia Alhamisi ya Aprili 23, 1998, baadhi ya wanafamilia wa Martin Luther waliohudhuria mazishi yake walimlilia Ray, wengine wakisema hawana imani kwamba alihusika na kifo cha Luther.

Wakati mwanasiasa na mwanasheria wa mazingira wa Marekani Robert (Bobby) Kennedy alipouawa Jumanne ya Juni 4, 1968, mara baada ya hotuba yake katika Ambassadors Hotel mjini Los Angeles, Marekani, mpangilio wa ulinzi wake ulivurugwa—ndipo akauawa.

Mipango ilikuwa kwamba baada ya hotuba yake angetoka ukumbini kwenda nje kupita katikati ya kundi la watu, lakini alipomaliza hotuba ‘wasaidizi’ (wauaji!?) wake, hususan Frank Mankiewicz, alisisitiza kuwa ilikuwa ni salama kwake kutoka ukumbini kwa kupitia jiko la hoteli badala ya katikati ya umati wa watu.

Kennedy alipofika jikoni ndipo alipokutana na “muuaji” wake, Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, akiwa na bunduki mkononi. Hata hivyo, upelelezi binafsi unadai kuwa Robert Kennedy aliuawa na walinzi wake, hususan Thane Eugine Caesar.

Wapelelezi wengine wanasema Thane Caesar, ambaye alipaswa kumlinda Kennedy, ndiye aliyemfyatulia risasi tatu zilizohitimisha uhai wake. Upelelezi mwingine ulipoanza kugundua mambo mengine, vielelezo vingi vilifichwa.

Frank Mankiewicz, ambaye alimwongoza Robert Kennedy kwenda jikoni alikouawa, awali alikuwa msemaji wa tawi la Shirika la Kijasusi la Israel (Mossad) nchini Marekani lijulikanalo kama Anti Defamation League.

Wakati Waziri Mkuu wa Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, alipouawa Jumamosi ya Novemba 4, 1995 mjini Tel Aviv, ilidaiwa, kwa mujibu wa filamu ya tukio hilo, ulinzi wake ulisogezwa nyuma kuruhusu muuaji—au wauaji—kumpata mlengwa wao.

Hayo ndiyo yalitokea katika zile dakika, au saa, muhimu sana katika maisha ya Diana. Ama ulinzi uliondolewa au haukuondolewa, lakini hakuwa na ule ulinzi kama wa siku zote alipokuwa Paris. Ulinzi huo ulikwenda wapi? Nani aliuondoa? Kwanini?

Kwa siku nzima ya Agosti 31 alipokuwa jijini Paris, tangu Julai 31, Diana alisafiri katika gari hilo hilo, Mercedes Benz, likisindikizwa kwa nyuma na gari lingine aina ya Range Rover lililokuwa na walinzi. Walinzi hao walikwenda wapi Diana alipoikaribia mauti yake? Kwanini wasiwepo wakati wa kufa kwake?

Mercedes Benz aliyokuwa akisafiria kwa siku nzima siyo Mercedes Benz ile ile aliyopata nayo ajali. Kwanini ilibadilishwa? Jibu la swali hili linaweza kueleza mambo mengi muhimu.

Badala ya Mercedes Benz ambayo Diana alikuwa akiitumia na Dodi hadi mchana wa siku hiyo, lililetwa gari lingine (Mercedes) muda mfupi kabla mauti haijapiga hodi.

Tofauti na lile la mwanzo lililoegeshwa lango la mbele, hili la pili lilipelekwa lango la nyuma la hoteli. Gari hilo ni la kampuni ya kukodisha magari inayojulikana kama Etoile Limousines (inadaiwa inamilikiwa na Al Fayed).

Hili gari lililoletwa baadaye, Mercedes Benz S-280, lilikuwa na vioo vya giza tofauti na Mercedes Benz S-600 waliliokuwa wakitumia tangu alipowasili Paris Julai 31 ambalo halikuwa na vioo vya giza. Magari mengine yangeweza kupatikana kutoka katika kampuni hiyo, lakini hili lilifaa zaidi. Kwanini?

Akihojiwa na wapelelezi wa kifo cha Diana, Mkurugenzi wa Etoile, Niels Siegel, alisema yeye ndiye aliyelipeleka gari hilo lango la nyuma la hoteli ya Ritz badala ya lango la mbele, lakini wapelelezi wengine waligundua kuwa alikuwa akidanganya. Kisha wakaanza kuwa na wasiwasi.

Iligundulika kuwa aliyelipeleka gari hilo siyo Siegel, bali ni dereva aliyeitwa Frederic Lucard. Ilijulikana hivyo baada ya kuonekana katika kamera za hoteli hiyo siku ya tukio. Kama hakukuwa na jambo la kuficha, kwanini mkurugenzi wa Etoile alidanganya?

Lucard alipobanwa na mmoja wa wapelelezi alionyesha kushangazwa sana kwa kampuni “makini” kama Etoile kumruhusu mtu kama Henri Paul (dereva aliyewaendesha Diana na Dodi hadi vifo vyao) kuendesha magari ya kampuni hiyo kwa sababu “hakuwa amefuzu kama dereva...”

Gari hilo likiendeshwa na Henri Paul, likiwa na Diana na Dodi (wakiwa kiti cha nyuma) pamoja na mlinzi wao, Trevor Rees-Jones, liliondoka lango la nyuma la Ritz saa 6:20 usiku.

Kufika katika taa za barabara ya Place de la Concorde, inasemekana kuwa paparazzi mmoja, Romuald Rat, akiwa katika pikipiki, aliiona gari ikisimama kidogo na kisha kupita kwa kasi kwenye taa nyekundu kuelekea barabara ya Cours la Reine kandokando ya Mto Seine. (rejea kiungo hiki cha tovuti: http://www.wethepeople.la/diana13.htm )

Baadaye kidogo gari ilipoteza mwelekeo kisha ikagonga nguzo ya 13 ya barabara ya chini kwa chini ya Ponte de L’Alma. Henri Paul na Dodi Fayed walifariki dunia papo hapo. Diana alifariki dakika kadhaa baadaye.

Ingawa wengi wanaamini kwamba ‘wapenzi’ hawa walikuwa wakielekea katika nyumba ya Dodi iliyoko karibu na Arc de Triomphe wakitokea Hotel Ritz, ukitazama ramani ya Paris (Paris Guide Map) ukweli ni kwamba hawakuwa wakielekea kwa Dodi bali walikuwa wakienda upande ulio kinyume na huo.

Mara baada ya ajali hiyo, mambo mengi yalitendeka hadi Diana alipotangazwa rasmi kwamba amefariki dunia. Upelelezi fulani fulani unaonyesha kuwa alikuwa akiongea hata dakika kadhaa baada ya ajali, lakini haijaelezwa alichozungumza.

Ingawa Diana na Dodi walipata ajali katika gari moja, mwili wa Diana ulifanyiwa uchunguzi lakini ule wa Dodi haukufanyiwa. Hii inatuleta kwenye swali lingine. Kwanini Dodi hakufanyiwa uchunguzi kama Diana ikiwa wote wawili walihusika katika ajali ile ile moja? Uchunguzi aliofanyiwa Diana lakini asifanyiwe Dodi ulikuwa wa nini?

Kuna wanaodai kuwa Diana alikuwa na mimba ya Dodi. Huenda hili si la kweli kwa sababu ni Diana peke yake, na pengine Dodi, angeweza kukiri au kukanusha. Lakini namna gani ikiwa watatokea “wenda-wazimu” wengine wakasema kuwa uchunguzi aliofanyiwa Diana ni kuhakikisha kuwa mimba aliyokuwa nayo inaondolewa ili kupoteza ushahidi wa kwamba alikuwa nayo? Hawa tutawaita “wehu”?

Ni vigumu kujua kama Diana alikuwa na mimba. Lakini Ijumaa ya Septemba 19, 1997, jarida TIME lililikariri shirika la habari la Ufaransa Agence France-Presse (AFP) likisema kwamba hadi siku ya ajali “huenda Diana alikuwa na mimba ya wiki sita.” Gazeti The Chicago Tribune (Julai 15, 1997) lilimripoti Diana akiwaambia waandishi hivi:

“Mtapata mshangao. Mtaona. Mtashangaa mtakapoona jambo nitakalofanya.” Alikuwa akizungumza kuhusu ujauzito wake? Alikuwa akigusia kuoana na Dodi? Jibu lolote kwa maswali hayo ni la kubuni.

Jarida TIME (Sept. 8, 1997) lilimkariri Frederic Maillez, tabibu wa dharura aliyekuwa wa kwanza kufika eneo la ajali, akisema kuwa wakati fulani (wakati hajakata roho) Diana alitamka kuwa alikuwa na mimba ya wiki tatu huku akishika tumbo lake. Inawezekana kuna mambo mengi alisema, lakini hatutaambiwa aliyosema.

Mmoja wa watu waliofanya upelelezi juu ya ajali hiyo ni polisi mstaafu aliyeitwa John Stalker. Aliposokia watu wakisema Serikali ya Ufaransa imekula njama ya kumuua Princess Diana, aliingiwa na swali moja la msingi:

“Kwanini Serikali ya Ufaransa imuue mwanamke wa Uingereza?” Stalker alianza kwa kuukataa uwezekano wa njama. Lakini kadiri muda ulivyopita aliingiwa na mashaka zaidi.

“Kwanini usalama wote wa Fayed aliopewa Diana ulipunguzwa hadi kufikia mlinzi mmoja asiyeaminika (Rees-Jones) na bila gari ya kusindikiza? Kwanini polisi haikuomba msaada kutoka kwa umma? Kwanini mwili wa Dodi Fayed haukufanyiwa uchunguzi?” Nilisoma maswali aliyokuwa akiuliza, lakini sijui kama aliwahi kupata majibu.

Baada ya ajali hiyo, wataalamu wa magari ya Mercedes Benz waliiomba serikali ya Ufaransa walifanyie uchunguzi gari hilo, lakini maofisa wa serikali walikataa. Kwanini? Lilikuwa na kasoro gani? Kitu gani kilikuwa kinafichwa hapo? Kama walitaka mambo yawe wazi kwanini walikataa ombi hilo?

Kama ilivyo katika mambo mengine yanayofanana na hili, kisingizio, au ‘kisababishi’, kilipatikana. Jambo la kwanza kufanyika ni kutuhumu watu.

Ikasemwa kuwa dereva Pauli Henri ni chanzo kwa sababu alikuwa amelewa kupita kiwango kinachoruhusiwa kisheria nchini Ufaransa. Lakini uchunguzi ukaonyesha hakuwa amevuka kiwango cha ulevi. Baadaye kidogo wimbo ukabadilika. Paparazzi ndio chanzo.

Kuna zaidi ya hayo. Inasemekana kuwa katika Jiji la Paris, moja ya miji sita mikubwa zaidi duniani, kuna kamera nyingi zilizoko maeneo yote ya barabara jijini humo—hasa eneo la Ponte de L’Alma ilipotokea ajali.

Ikiwa kamera hizo zingekuwa zinafanya kazi usiku huo ingekuwa ni rahisi kumaliza ubishi wote kwa sababu picha zake zingeonyesha kilichotokea na namna kilivyotokea.

Kamera moja inayotazama chini katika lango la kuingia katika barabara hiyo ya ardhini ingeweza kuona gari aina ya FIAT UNO inayodaiwa kusababisha ajali (kisingizio cha tatu), au watu waliokuwa katika pikipiki zinazodaiwa zilimfanya Henri Paul ashindwe kudhibiti gari lake.

“Lakini kamera hiyo, kama zilivyokuwa nyingine zote, ilikuwa imezimwa katika wakati huo muhimu sana,” kinasema kitabu Who Killed Diana kilichoandikwa na Simon Regan ambaye amekuwa mwandishi wa habari za uchunguzi kwa miaka 35.

Kitabu The Biggest Secret © 1999 kinasema: “Hakuna wakati mwingine wowote katika historia ya Paris ambao mfumo huu wa kamera umekuwa na hitilafu kwa wakati mmoja na polisi wakakataa kueleza kilichotokea.”

Mfumo huo wa kamera hutumia umeme unaojitegemea na unaendeshwa na polisi na, “hasa hasa,” kinasema The Biggest Secret, “mawakala wa Shirika la Kijasusi la Ufaransa, kwa sababu kamera hizo zimewekwa maeneo hayo kwa ajili ya mambo mengi zaidi ya kutazama magari tu.”

Wakati huo huo ambao mfumo huo wa kamera ulipofeli, mawasiliano yote ya redio za polisi katika maeneo ya kati ya Paris yalizimika. Kwanini mambo hayo yatokee kwa wakati mmoja, hasa katika dakika chache kuelekea kifo cha mwanamke maarufu zaidi duniani?

Swali linaweza kuzuka. Kama Diana aliuawa, nani aliyeandaa mauaji hayo? Anayetoa amri ya kuua si lazima awe muuaji. Katika mtandao—au tuseme utando, buibui anaweza kuandaa mipango, lakini mipango hiyo ikatekelezwa na nzi, pengine bila nzi huyo kutambua.

Wanaoandaa kile kinachoitwa ‘nadharia ya kigwena’ wana mambo mengi zaidi ya kuzungumza, na ni mambo ambayo dunia inahitaji kujua.

Kwa mfano, kuna ushahidi kwamba Rais John Kennedy hakuuawa na Lee Harvey Oswald kama ilivyodaiwa awali, bali aliuawa na mtu kutoka Kikosi cha Jeshi la Siri (OAS) la Ujasusi la Ufaransa na, ushahidi mwingine unadai, wauaji hao walipata mafunzo kutoka kwa “muuaji mkuu” wa Mossad (Israel) katika Bara la Ulaya aliyeitwa Yitzhak Shamir.

Kwa mujibu wa Encyclopedia of Terrorism © 2002, miaka 20 baada ya mauaji ya Kennedy Novemba 1963, Shamir akawa Waziri Mkuu wa Israel (1983-1984 na 1986-1992) hadi aliposhindwa na Yitzhak Rabin katika uchaguzi wa 1992. Alikuwa mpinzani wa Rabin, je, alishiriki katika kumuua? Ni vigumu kujua!

Sven Olof Joachim Palme, aliyekuwa Waziri Mkuu wa Sweden, inadaiwa—hii haijathibitishwa—wauaji wake walipokea amri ya mauaji kutoka kwa Baba George Bush. Mauaji hayo yalitekelezwa na majasusi wa Afrika Kusini wanaojulikana kama BOSS (South African Bureau Of State Security).

Wizara ya Mambo ya Nje ya Uingereza ina kikosi chake cha siri (cha mauaji) kinachojulikana kama Group 13. Ujasusi wa Uingereza una vikosi kama MI5 (Military Intelligence 5) ambacho kinashughulikia ‘usalama’ wa ndani na MI6 (Military Intelligence 6) kinachoshughulikia mambo ya nje.

Mwaka 1998 MI5 kilidai kuwa hakiui watu. Lakini haiwezekani inatuma wengine waue badala yake? Kauli hiyo ilikuja baada ya ofisa wa MI5, David Shayler, kufichua siri kwamba MI6 ilikula njama za kumuua Kanali Gaddafi wa Libya.

Jaribio hilo lilishindwa kwa sababu bomu lililokusudiwa lilitegwa kwenye gari tofauti na alilopanda Gaddafi. Hii ilikuwa Februari 1996. Gaddafi alinusurika, lakini watu kadhaa waliuawa.
Miaka kumi kabla ya hapo, Jumanne ya Aprili 15, 1986, Gaddafi alinusurika wakati ndege za Marekani, zikitokea Uingereza, zilipokusudia kumuua yeye na familia yake. Ingawa hakuuawa, raia 55 wasio na hatia mjini Tripoli, pamoja na binti mmoja wa Gaddafi, waliuawa katika shambulio hilo.

Shayler aliiambia BBC kwamba MI6 ilipenyeza dola 160,000 za Marekani kwa Waislamu wenye msimamo mkali wamuue Gaddafi. Shayler alipotaka kuzungumza katika TV kuhusu ukweli wa ‘ajali’ ya Princess Diana, aliyekuwa Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje wa Uingereza, Robin Cook, alimzuia. Baadaye Shayler alikamatwa mjini Paris na kupelekwa London, Uingereza.

Chanzo kingine kinadai kuwa MI6 ilipanga kumuua aliyekuwa Rais wa Jamhuri ya Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, mwaka 1992 kwa ajali ya gari. Waliposhindwa, walitumia mabomu ya NATO mwaka 1999. Kama ni kweli walipanga mauaji ya wakuu wa nchi, sembuse Diana?

Chanzo muhimu cha Serikali ya Ufaransa kililiambia jarida The People (Nov. 9 1997) kwamba kulikuwa na “…angalau maofisa (majasusi) sita wa MI6 katika Ubalozi wa Uingereza mjini Paris mwisho wa juma lile la kifo cha Diana …angalau ofisa mmoja kati ya hao alionekana akiwafuatilia Diana na Dodi baada ya kuwasili kutoka katika mapumziko huko Sardinia.”

Gazeti Daily Mail (Des. 4, 2004) la Uingereza lilifichua kuwa dereva Henri Paul, ambaye naye alifariki katika ajali, alikuwa akilipwa na MI6. Upo hapo? Hii ilijulikana wakati wa upelelezi wa kamishina wa Scotland Yard, Sir John Stevens. Lakini Stevens alikumbana na vikwazo kwa sababu kuhoji maofisa wa MI6 kulihitaji kwanza ridhaa ya mkuu wa MI6, John Scarlett.

Mwaka 2003, Paul Burrell, aliyekuwa mtumishi wa Princess Diana na rafiki yake mkubwa, alisema miezi kumi kabla ya ‘ajali’ hiyo alipata barua kutoka kwa Diana ikisema kuwa kulikuwa na njama za kumuua kwa ajali ya gari.

“Kipindi hiki cha maisha yangu ni cha hatari sana kwangu,” barua hiyo ilisema na kudai kuwa hatari kubwa ni kwamba “Prince Charles anaandaa ‘ajali’ katika gari langu, …”

Kama MI6 walimuua Diana, basi walitumwa, na kama ndivyo, waliwashirikisha wenzao wa Ufaransa. Lakini ikiwa walikula njama ya kumuua Diana, wangepata faida gani kutokana na kifo chake? Yako mengi, lakini tazama haya mawili tu.

Kwanza, Princess Diana alikuwa tayari ameanza kuwa mtu hatari kwa familia ya Ufalme wa Uingereza kwa sababu alijua siri nyingi sana za familia hiyo na alikuwa ameshaanza kuzianika.

Pili, “Serikali ya Uingereza haikuweza kuvumilia wazo la kwamba Diana—akiwa katika mapenzi na Mwislamu wa Misri—angeweza kubadili dini na kuwa Mwislamu, kwa hiyo ilibidi aondoke…” (Independent on Sunday, Okt. 12, 1997).

Pengine haya si mambo muhimu ya kuandika, lakini tunajua kuwa yanatuathiri sote. Pengine tungezingatia hoja na mambo mengi kuhusu kifo cha Diana, hitimisho letu lisingekuwa hivi: “Kwa vyovyote kifo cha Princess Diana ni ajali iliyotokana na Mungu.”

Rudi Mwanzoni