Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jnr., Ph.D.

Addressing a group of students and Islamic scholars at the Islamic University College in Accra, Dr. Ahmadinejad was reported to have asserted that rather than being apocalyptically engaged in a struggle against the West, Tehran had actually taken an immutable or uncompromising stance against “oppressors of the world.”

There are a few observations that I would like to make here, vis-a-vis both the “golden” visit and the pronouncements of President Ahmadinejad, as widely reported by the Ghanaian media. For starters, while Ghanaian Muslims have a right to the establishment and attendance of a tertiary institution that primarily and exclusively caters to their especial religious and doctrinal needs, nevertheless, I would rather have the establishment of such an institution, or even institutions, undertaken by Ghanaian Muslims themselves, with remarkable material assistance from the Government of Ghana, rather than its/their being supported by a totalitarian pseudo-religious regime such as presently exists in Iran.

It also clearly appears to me that the Iranian leader visited Ghana, Benin and Niger to primarily inspect propaganda projects and ideological beachheads tactically established by the revolutionary regime of the bloody Ayatollahs. Otherwise, the prime podium for addressing Ghanaian students and scholars ought to have been the country’s flagship academy, the University of Ghana. In brief, I personally find Dr. Ahmadinejad’s hosting at the Islamic University College in Accra to be immitigably offensive and an unpardonable affront to the intelligence of the Ghanaian citizenry at large.

I find it to be deeply offensive because it is also divisive, and I think the Mahama-led National Democratic Congress government owes Ghanaians an immediate and unreserved apology. Needless to say, while, indeed, Ghana is a sovereign nation with an inalinable right to determine the choice of its friends, as well as enemies, nonetheless, it goes without saying that national sovereignty does not operate in a vacuum; and the decisions that the leaders of economically vulnerable emergent democracies like Ghana make, in terms of political alliances, have repercussions and perennial and far-reaching consequences.

For instance, I don’t particularly care very much for the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; nonetheless, I also don’t believe that it makes strategic sense – socioeconomically, politically and culturally – for Ghana to so brazenly thumb its nose at both the United States and Israel, and the rest of their Western allies who have had and continue to have far greater socioeconomic, political and cultural impact on Ghana and much of the developing world than Iran.

But even more importantly, as I had occasion to point out recently, any Ghanaian aged 50 years or more, and is politically enlightened knows fully well that the so-called Iranian revolution of the Ayatollahs of the late 1970s and ’80s was about anything but a “positive stance against oppressors of the world.” Indeed, the sort of violently stage-managed electoral process that returned Dr. Ahmadinejad to power a couple of years ago, with the hermetic support of the Ayatollahs, is definitely not one that Ghanaians ought to emulate, although it bears striking resemblance to the patent travesty that was Ghanan’s Election 2012. And, in retrospect, the latter may well have endeared the Iranian pseudo-theocracy to the democratically illegitimate Mahama regime.

Indeed, it is rather curious for a man who piggishly insists on the complete absence of homosexuality or non-heterosexual cultural practices in Iran to be grand-standing about oppressive Western regimes. Indeed, the wanton and vengeful bloodbath that epitomized the Iranian revolution was about anything but liberty and justice of the individual; and so it is not clear precisely what he means when President Ahmadinejad pontificates about his intransigent stance against “oppressors of the world.”

If the preceding is the kind of collaborative inter-governmental affinity that the Mahama-led government of the National Democratic Congress seeks to forge with Iran, then Ghanaians had better brace up for a very bleak future, one that possibly includes acts of terror and cross-border confrontation of apocalyptic proportions. This may well be what Prof. Keith Bluwey meant when he, reportedly, warned Ghana against the risk of “offending the sensibilities” of our Western partners (See “Ghana Warned Ahead of Ahmadinejad’s Visit” Ghanaweb.com 4/15/13).

Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D. Department of English Nassau Community College of SUNY Garden City, New York

E-mail: okoampaahoofe@optimum.net

The opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views or have the endorsement of the Editorial Board of www.africanewsanalysis.com, www.africa-forum.net and www.wapsfeatures.wordpress.com

“If we act within a long-term vision of sustainable development, we can reduce debt burdens, we can consolidate development gains and we can generate new dynamism and growth,” Mr. Ban said in his closing <"http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=1541">remarks to the General Assembly’s high-level thematic debate on The State of the World Economy and Finance and its Impact on Development.

“The current difficulties are a reason to recommit, not to shrink from it [sustainable development],” said the Secretary-General. “We will not kick-start the global economy with slash-and-burn policies.”

He also voiced his deep concern over the slow recovery of the global economy and the possibility of another worldwide recession.

“If this happens, it may be even more devastating since we have less resources and fiscal capacity to respond. Furthermore, many countries are reeling under heavy debt burdens,” Mr. Ban said. “Many face political uncertainties. If there is another global recession, many hard-won gains will be put at risk.”

The UN chief said the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in Brazil next month will be an opportunity “to galvanize global support for a transformative agenda for change.”

“People are making their voices heard on the streets and in the ballot boxes. Let us listen and move forward in a sustainable and inclusive way,” he added.

UN News

Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D.

You, ordinarily, would have thought that a “Virginity Test” would be performed by the family members of a prospective husband on a prospective bride to ascertain the chastity or personal morality of the latter. Naturally, in many a patriarchal society, such as pertained to much of Islam-dominated West Africa, nobody asked any questions about the sexual discipline and personal ethics of the man, the prospective husband, that is.
Actually, many intelligent women who recognized such flagrant sexism asked questions but were promptly ignored; needless to say, these women critics were often rudely silenced, maligned and invariably had their chastity and moral integrity caustically impugned.

Of course, in a polygynous society, it was widely known and even often expected that the man would be worldly wise and experienced about the proverbial facts of life. And so naturally, a few men questioned how a society that placed such a high premium on the chastity of women expected to preserve the same, when its men folk were virtually afforded a coital carte blanche.

Anyway, vise-á-vise the Egyptian “Virginity Tests” being presently discussed, we are informed that the main stated objective was to protect security forces against (rampant?) charges of rape and sexual molestation. Paradoxically, however, it was on the latter score that affairs got rather murky. For the logical implication here was that the female arrestee who was discovered not to be a virgin during the course of the test of virginity, was decidedly fair game for any security agent poised to having his way with her.

In essence, regardless of the scientific accuracy of such tests of a woman’s virginity, or the lack thereof, any woman caught in the tentacles of Egyptian civic law and clinically determined to be knowledgeable about the facts of life, as it were, automatically got labeled as a prostitute. And being labeled a prostitute invariably implied that the non-virgin woman could simply not claim to have been raped by a security agent, even if, indeed, she had experienced the same. And if she did claim to have been raped, in the eyes of the security forces, she simply was a liar; and in a worst case scenario, the victim simply asked for it. Needless to say, there is absolutely no way of knowing exactly how many of such vulnerable women who found themselves in the callous grips of the law were criminally taken advantage of, until the recent court order put a definitive end to such lurid practice.

In the test case that witnessed the effective banning of the “Virginity Tests,” the victims/plaintiffs bitterly complained about the nauseating fact of being stripped naked before tens of other security personnel in order to determine the status of their sexual experience. If such flagrant invasion of privacy, in order to ascertain something that the security agents had absolutely no right, whatsoever, to ascertain did not constitute an unpardonable act of state-sponsored criminality, then one is hard put to determine just what such an act is. It is also rather risibly annoying, to speak much less about the outright ironic, for decidedly primitive cultures like contemporary Egypt and much of North Africa to be geopolitically classified and actually taught in the history books as integral to a putatively civilized and/or culturally advanced Europe.

Needless to say, the preceding goes to show the critical reader and thinker how inordinately racialized, far more than either scientific and/or objective, such self-glorifying categories of humanity are, for the most part.

Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D., is Associate Professor of English, Journalism and Creative Writing at Nassau Community College of the State University of New York, Garden City. He is Director of The Sintim-Aboagye Center for Politics and Culture and author of “Ghanaian Politics Today” (Lulu.com, 2008).

E-mail: okoampaahoofe@optimum.net

The opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views or have the endorsement of the Editorial Board of www.africanewsanalysis.com

Many Egyptians have lost their jobs since the February 2011 popular uprising. This man sells sweets to earn a living/Photo: Amr Emam/IRIN

“The revolution has brought people like me nothing but loss and poverty,” Ibrahim, 36, told IRIN. “I wish it had never happened.”

Almost 10 months after the euphoria that followed the ousting of Hosni Mubarak, large sections of the population find themselves close to total economic ruin.

The people who had initially hailed the popular uprising that ended Mubarak’s 30-year rule as opening the way for their political well-being and economic welfare, are now blaming the revolution for their deteriorating economic conditions, having seen it bring nothing but job losses, higher commodity prices and political turbulence.

The ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces recently said Egypt’s foreign reserves would plunge by a third to US$15 billion by the end of January and the budget deficit would grow, possibly leading to a review of sensitive subsidies.

The Central Bank put reserves at $22 billion at the end of October, down $2 billion from a month earlier and showing a faster decline than in previous months. Economists say even that level leaves limited firepower to cope with a looming currency crisis.

“Tourists have stopped coming, factories are closing down, and hundreds of thousands of people have already lost their jobs,” said Rashad Abdou, an economics professor at Cairo University. “The indicators just reveal the very sensitive economic crisis this country has started to slip into after the revolution.”

These indicators have already turned into painful reality for ordinary Egyptians such as Ibrahim. This time last year, the father of six could not find space on this busy street near several ministries to seat his many customers.

Now, however, the turbulence in the vicinity of Tahrir Square is cutting the numbers of people showing up at government offices, destroying Ibrahim’s business and making him anxious about the future.

“Before the revolution, I earned enough money to pay the rent for the flat, feed my children, and send them to school,” Ibrahim said. “Day after day I find all these things impossible to do. Matters might even get worse.”

Tough realities

Away from Tahrir Square, the post-revolutionary economic deterioration is equally palpable. About 337,000 Egyptians lost their jobs in 2011, according to the state-run Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (Arabic). The unemployment rate has risen to 11.9 percent from 8.9 percent in the third quarter of the last fiscal year (Arabic).

“Egypt’s current political and security conditions are not conducive to any economic growth,” said Yumn Al Hamaky, an economics professor at Egypt’s second-largest state university, Ain Shams. “Arab and foreign investors are leaving and this could result in more job losses.”

The Central Bank of Egypt referred on 24 November to a 20 percent decrease in the flow of investments to Egypt in the first half of the current fiscal year.

Most of the cuts were in the tourism sector where millions of Egyptians work, according to Abdou, while some tourism workers had to accept a halving of their salaries.

“Occupancy rates in the nation’s hotels are less than 8 percent at present and things can get worse if security and political conditions do not improve,” Abdou said. “Some countries are even asking their citizens not to come to Egypt.”

On the edge

About 64 million Egyptians – out of a population of 85 million – receive subsidized rice, lentils, cooking oil, sugar and tea, using ration cards (Arabic) but the Social Solidarity Ministry cannot extend the use of such cards for subsidized food, despite rising food prices, say ministry officials.

According to James Rawley, the UN Resident Coordinator in Egypt, 20 per cent of Egyptians are classified as below the poverty line and another 20 per cent are just above it.

“Investment has pretty much frozen up, Egypt is using up much of its foreign exchange, and there is pressure on the exchange rate,” said Rawley. “If we have a devaluation, then prices for commodities, including food, may well rise. And higher food prices would increase vulnerability, which can show up in many forms, including increased malnutrition, which is already a serious problem in Egypt.”

And the people are rebelling. On 5 November, the residents of Al Badrasheen village in the south of Giza stopped a cargo train carrying two tonnes of wheat and stole its contents, an act billed by some as the early signs of the “revolution of the hungry”.

Ahmed Khorshid, an adviser to the Minister of Agriculture for food research, says deteriorating economic conditions can be seen throughout Egypt, but more particularly in the south, where the government has neglected development for decades, resulting in “unbelievable” poverty and malnutrition rates.

“Just go there and you will see for yourself how people are not able to satisfy the most basic of their needs,” Korshid said.

IRIN News

ae/mw/oa

Theme (s): Economy, Food Security, Governance, Security,

[This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations]

The writer, Dr Michael J.K. Bokor

The Council’s decision, however, seems not to meet the expectation of the Libyan authorities who have pleaded for an extension of the military mission in view of the current security situation or until such time that the Gaddafi menace would have been completely neutralized. The NTC has already declared Libya as “liberated” but seems to be apprehensive of something; hence, its plea for the UN/NATO to stay on in Libya. That plea has fallen on the deaf ears of the UN. Will it be so for NATO too?

This move by the Security Council raises intriguing issues, especially coming a few days after the dreaded Gaddafi had been murdered and tucked away in an unmarked grave in the Libyan desert—an indication that the UN and its allies in this Libyan military campaign had achieved their overarching objective of “Gaddafi must go.”

But it seems Gaddafi’s “going” doesn’t mean an end to the trouble that the NTC leadership fear; hence, their plea for their outside backers not to leave them in the lurch at this time.

Just as the UN’s entry into the Libyan conflict through the backdoor (of NATO and the Arab League) stoked fires, so also does its all-too-soon exit seem to be doing. What makes the Security Council so cocksure of stability being restored to Libya at this time to warrant this hasty exit? Will NATO fold up and leave the Mediterranean region too? Or will the UN look on for NATO to extend its campaign despite the expiration of the Security Council’s mandate that authorized its intrusion into the Libyan conflict to fight the war on behalf of the rebels?

Yet, another aspect of the UN’s credibility problem hangs around. It has to do with Sudan’s al-Bashir’s role in the Libyan crisis, which al-Bashir himself has just revealed, but which the UN can’t claim not to have been privy to until now that it has come from the horse’s own mouth. According to him, the fighting force that entered Tripoli to overthrow Gaddafi was made up of Sudanese soldiers—and they used armaments provided by the Sudanese government!

The UN knew that al-Bashir (the man its International Criminal Court is after) was deeply involved in the Libyan crisis but turned a blind eye to him because he was acting in conformity with the UN’s own agenda against Gaddafi. As al-Bashir himself has disclosed, his decision to support the Libyan rebels was a means to pay back Gaddafi for his role in anti-Sudan activities by the dissident JEM. So, it’s clear that when it came to concerted action to deal with a common enemy, both the UN and Sudan’s al-Bashir had no problem putting their resources together. Yet, everyone knows that al-Bashir isn’t a saint nor is he less guilty than Gaddafi in the atrocities for which the UN used NATO to undermine Gaddafi and hunt him to death.

The crocodile tears being shed by the leadership of the UN and its analogous institutions over the extra-judicial killing of Gaddafi won’t absolve them of blame or complicity in that dastardly act. After all, eliminating Gaddafi was the main agenda behind which the UN, NATO, the Arab League, and the Benghazi based rebels and their leaders hid to launch the fratricidal war in Libya under the banner of a “revolution” to liberate Libya from Gaddafi’s 42 years of dictatorship. Now that the UN and its allies have succeeded in killing him, why should they turn round to cry for him as if he was not slated to be either killed or captured alive to face the kind of justice that the ICC had lined up for him?

We shouldn’t be surprised at the turn of events. After all, the main mission has been accomplished and these people have no other allurement to remain on Libyan soil. They will hurriedly depart, leaving behind them tales of horrendous crimes and a country ruined beyond repair in the immediate future.

Meantime, the vampire system of the West will not leave Libya alone. Its economic and military institutions and organs will quickly flood Libya with one common objective—to dig deep into that country’s oil resources as the inevitable outcome of the war against Gaddafi. Libya’s oil is too precious for them to neglect and they will benefit from it as the most prized of the spoils of that war.

But the grand masters of the NATO military campaign will not stand aloof from the looting. Operating from afar and pulling strings, we should expect the countries that participated in the removal of Gaddafi to turn on all the throttles to milk Libya dry. Already, there is the feeling that they will demand that the new Libyan administration pay for all the expenses made on NATO’s military campaign against Gaddafi. Speculation is rife that Libyan funds in the custody of these countries (especially the United States, France, Italy, and Britain) will be used to pay off the war expenditures. Should that happen, we won’t be surprised at all because that’s how the West operates. Nothing goes for nothing!

Then, they will turn round to twist arms and get the new Libyan leadership to enter into long-lasting agreements for the supply of military armaments to replace what has been destroyed in the war. Certainly, the military-industrial complex stands to gain a lot from this Libyan situation. That’s how the West oils its economy.

As the UN closes its sordid chapter on the Libyan case, it will go down in history as complicit in all that has happened to turn Libya into a theatre for savagery. It is not as if its authorization of the military campaign against Libya didn’t cause more deaths of civilians than those alleged to have been murdered by Gaddafi. By all accounts, more savagery has occurred in this Libyan campaign than we have been told so far. When the dust settles after all, the truth will emerge.

Then again, it is not as if the UN is ending its mission in Libya after solving problems. To all intents and purposes, the real problems for Libya are yet to emerge; but the UN won’t wait to be blamed for anything of the sort. Hence, its decision to step out of the situation at this time. It’s a strategy that comes in handy, especially for those manipulating it who think that their physical presence in the country will not allow them to move to the next level of their machinations.

As the dust gradually begins to settle, we will see the reality of the Libyan case; but it may be too late to undo the harm that has already been done. It shouldn’t have taken all that massive destruction of Libya only to get rid of Gaddafi. The UN may be rushing to end its international military operations in Libya but it is leaving behind many unanswered questions.

E-mail:mjbokor@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views or have the endorsement of the Editorial Board of www.africanewsanalysis.com

Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D.

We also highlight the fact that the allegedly widespread maltreatment of Black-African immigrants by some members and operatives of the newly-installed Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) may not necessarily be a peculiarity of the so-called Benghazi-dominated government. Not very long ago, the ousted Libyan dictator was widely reported to have informed the Italian and other southern-European governments of his willingness to drastically stanch the influx of Black-African immigrants who used his country as an entry point for their dangerous journeys across the Saharan Desert and the Mediterranean for a handsome fee. Mr. Gaddhafy was further reported to have implicitly indicated that if the Europeans wanted to preserve their enviable civilization, then, of course, they had no other recourse than to ensure that Black-Africans, whom the deposed Libyan leader cavalierly branded as “barbarians,” were effectively barricaded.

We highlight the foregoing as a way of emphasizing the grim fact that while insufferably repugnant, North-African racism against Black-Africans is a veritable and insidious canker which the faux-populist “pan-Africanist” Mr. Gaddhafy did a piddling little to meliorate.

Having meticulously exposed the foregoing, it becomes equally imperative to underscore the fact that matters have not been helped by the fact that Black-African regimes that received military and economic assistance from the former Libyan strongman, in a bid to entrenching themselves, for the most part, slavishly pursued a pro-Gaddhafy agenda. In the case of Ghana, even a group of chiefs, dubiously claiming to be representing that country’s National House of Chiefs, and by extension the citizenry at large, had shamelessly attempted to fly into Tripoli in order to confer the imperialist title of “King of Kings” on the Sirte native, but for the timely and foresighted intervention of Prof. John Nabila, a former faculty member of Ghana’s flagship academy, the University of Ghana, and the substantive president of the Ghana National House of Chiefs. In all likelihood, the unabashedly pro-Gaddhafy government of the so-called National Democratic Congress (NDC) was smack-dab behind such lurid move.

Likewise, as noted elsewhere before, in the wake of the Benghazi-centered revolt against the Gaddhafy regime and the consequent efflux of Ghanaian residents of that North-African country, the National Democratic Congress government issued a strongly-worded statement in which President John Evans Atta-Mills and his cohorts vowed to relentlessly prosecute any returnees suspected of having fought on the side of the now-ruling Libyan Transitional Council. Ordinarily, one would have expected the government of a country that vocally prides itself in its Non-Aligned foreign policy to have cautioned its Libya-resident citizens against taking sides in the purely internal affairs of that North-African country.

Needless to say, no such balanced diplomatic statement was issued. Instead, we witnessed such operatives of the National Democratic Congress as former President Jerry John Rawlings frantically working around the proverbial clock to ensure that Mr. Gaddhafy finessed those clamoring for the establishment of a constitutional democracy in Libya.

And so, really, while the decidedly grievous allegation of the Libyan National Transitional Council vis-à-vis the summary arrest and detention of some seventy Ghanaian citizens suspected to have fought in the pay of Mr. Gaddhafy cannot be readily accepted as such, the patently unwise foreign policy agenda pursued by the Mills-Mahama administration, can only be aptly envisaged to have further aggravated the vulnerability of the seventy Ghanaians. We even learn that the figure could be considerably higher.

Still, whatever the outcome of investigations aimed at ascertaining the veracity of the purported relationship between the captive Group of Seventy and the proverbial Arab Spring, we hope that decency, respect, fairness and justice would become the watchwords of the new Libyan authorities.

Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D., is Associate Professor of English, Journalism and Creative Writing at Nassau Community College of the State University of New York, Garden City. He is Director of The Sintim-Aboagye Center for Politics and Culture and author of “Ghanaian Politics Today” (Lulu.com, 2008).

E-mail: okoampaahoofe@optimum.net

The oipinions expressed here are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views or have the endorsement of the Editorial Board of www.africanewsanalysis.com.

Heritage, with help from Joseph Coors and the Scaife Foundations, was founded in 1973 by the late Paul Weyrich, one of the most conservative thinkers in the U.S. and a co-founder of the Moral Majority. While the Moral Majority whipped up the culture wars against abortion and gays, Heritage lobbied for an aggressive foreign policy and American military supremacy.

In October 2003, James Carafano and Nile Gardiner, two Heritage Foundation heavyweights, proposed a major shift in U.S. military policy vis-a-vis the African continent. Carafano is a West Point graduate who heads up the Foundation’s foreign policy section, and Gardiner is the director of Heritage’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.

In a “Backgrounder” article entitled “U.S. Military Assistance for Africa: A Better Solution,” the two called for the creation of a military command for the continent, a focus on fighting “terrorism,” and direct military intervention using air power and naval forces if “vital U.S. interests are at stake.” Such interventions should avoid using ground troops, the authors argue, and should include the participation of other allies.

Almost every element of that proposal has come together over the past year, though some pieces, like African Command [Africom] and the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Initiative were in place before the Obama administration took office.

The Libya war seems almost straight off of Heritage’s drawing board. While the U.S. appeared to take a back seat to its allies, NATO would not have been able to carry out the war without massive amounts of U.S. military help. It was the U.S. who took out the Libyan anti-air craft systems, blockaded the coast, collected the electronic intelligence, fuelled the warplanes, and supplied munitions when NATO ran low.

While the UN resolution forbade using ground troops, U.S. Special Forces and CIA teams, along with special units from Britain, France, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates organized the rebels, coordinated air strikes, and eventually pulled off an amphibious operation that sealed Tripoli’s fate.

The Heritage scholars were also clear what they meant by vital U.S. interests: “With its vast natural and mineral resources, Africa remains strategically important to the West, as it has been for hundreds of years, and its geo-strategic significance is likely to rise in the 21st century. According to the National Intelligence Council, the United States is likely to draw 25 percent of its oil from West Africa by 2015, surpassing the volume imported from the Persian Gulf.”

It was a sentiment shared by the Bush Administration. “West Africa’s oil has become a national strategic interest,” said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, Walter Kansteiner in 2002.

The UN tasked NATO with protecting civilians in Libya, but France, Britain, the U.S. and their Gulf allies focused on regime change. Indeed, when leaders of the African Union [AU] pushed for negotiations aimed at a political settlement, NATO and the rebels brusquely dismissed them.

The NATO bombing “really undermined the AU’s initiates and effort to deal with the matter in Libya,” complained South African President Jacob Zuma. More than 200 prominent Africans released a letter August 24 [2011] condemning the “misuse of the United Nations Security Council to engage in militarized diplomacy to effect regime change in Libya,” as well as the “marginalization of the African Union.”

The suspicion that the Libya war had more to do with oil and gas than protecting civilians is why the AU has balked at recognizing the rebel Transitional National Council. For much of Africa, the Libya war was a “shot heard `round the continent,” and there is a growing unease at the West’s “militarized diplomacy.”

Through the Defence Department’s African Contingency Operation Training and Assistance Programme, the U.S. is actively engaged in training the militaries of Mali, Chad, Niger, Benin, Botswana, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Gabon, Zambia, Uganda, Senegal, Mozambique, Ghana and Malawi, and Mauritania.

In June 2006, NATO troops stormed ashore on Sao Vicente Island in the Cape Verde archipelago in operation “Steadfast Jaguar” [an odd choice of monikers, since jaguars are natives of the New World, not Africa]. The exercise, which brought together a host of nations, including France, Germany, Spain, Greece, the U.S. and Poland, was aimed at “protecting energy supplies” in the Niger Delta and Gulf of Guinea.

Major oil producers in the region include Angola, Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Chad and Mauritania.

Protecting energy supplies from whom?

In the case of the Niger Delta, it means protecting oil companies and the Nigerian government from local people fed up with the pollution that is killing them, and corruption that denies them any benefits from their resources. Under the umbrella of the Emancipation of the Niger Delta [MEND], locals are waging a low-key guerrilla war that at one point reduced oil supplies by 20 percent.

MEND is certainly suspicious of American motives in the region. “Of course, it is evident that oil is the key concern of the U.S. in establishing African Command,” says the organization’s spokesman, Jomo Gbomo.

The Nigerian government labels a number of restive groups in Nigeria as “terrorist” and links them to al- Qaeda, including Boko Haram in the country’s north.

But labeling opponents “terrorists” or raising the al- Qaeda spectre is an easy way to dismiss what may be real local grievances. For instance, Boko Haram’s growing penchant for violence is more likely a response to the heavy handedness of the Nigerian Army than an al-Qaeda inspired campaign.

Terrorism and the protection of civilians may be the public rationale for intervention, but the bottom line looks suspiciously like business. Before the guns go silent in Libya, one British business leader complained to The Independent that Britain was behind the curve on securing opportunities. “It’s all politics, no commercial stuff. I think that is a mistake. We need to be getting down there as soon as possible,”

The Spanish oil company Reposal and the Italian company Eni are already gearing up for production. “Eni will play a No.1 role in the future,” says Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini. Almost 70 percent of Libya’s oil goes to four countries, Spain, Germany, France and Italy. Qatar, which is already handling oil sales in Eastern Libya, will also be on the ground floor as production ramps up.

A major loser in the war -and some would argue, not by accident- is China. Beijing had some 75 companies working in Libya and 36,000 personnel, and accounted for about 11 percent of Libya’s pre-war exports. But because China complained that NATO had unilaterally changed the UN resolution from protecting civilians to regime change, Beijing is likely to suffer. Abdeljalil Mayouf, information manager of the rebel oil firm AGOCO told Reuters that China, Brazil and Russia would be frozen out of contracts.

Brazil and Russia also supported negotiations and complained about NATO’s interpretation of the UN resolution on Libya.

For Heritage, keeping China out of Africa is what it is all about. Peter Brookes, the former principal Republican advisor for East Asia on the House Committee on International Relations, warned that China was hell-bent on challenging the U.S. and becoming a global power, and key to that is expanding its interests in Africa. “In a throwback to the Maoist revolutionary days of the 1960s and 1970s and the Cold War, Beijing has once again identified the African continent as an area of strategic interest,” he told a Heritage Foundation audience in a talk entitled “Into Africa:
China’s Grab for Influence and Oil.”

Beijing gets about one third of its oil from Africa – Angola and Sudan are its major suppliers – plus important materials like platinum, copper, timber and iron ore.

Africa is rife with problems, but terrorism is not high on that list. A severe drought has blistered much of East Africa, and, with food prices rising, malnutrition is spreading continent-wide. The “war on terrorism” has generated 800,000 refugees from Somalia. African civilians do, indeed, need help, but not the kind you get from fighter-bombers, drone strikes, or Tomahawk cruise missiles dispatched at the urging of right-wing think tanks or international energy companies.

Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com

The opinions expressed here are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views or have the endorsement of the Editorial Board of www.africanewsanalysis.com

The writer, Dr Michael J.K. Bokor

Creating opportunities to benefit from international diplomacy

Official avenues for the supply of workers can also be established and some channels created for earning revenue from the export of such workers. If we consider the streamlined manner in which Ghanaian soldiers serving on UN Missions are mobilized and deployed to earn money for themselves and the country, we should be encouraged to establish such a pool to provide the labour force for countries needing the services of Ghanaian workers.

Such a mechanism should make it possible for the government to intervene in a more organized and proactive manner if there is any future crisis in such a country hosting Ghanaian workers than the haphazard manner in which the evacuation took place during the Libyan conflict.

So, from what has happened over the past few days, we have every right to say that the government is doing well in extending Ghana’s arms to countries that have the potential to support our development efforts. While welcoming this move, it is important for the government to turn attention to Ghana’s own diplomatic missions, clean the stables, and ensure that they play roles other than being subservient to the host countries and mismanaging affairs to the detriment of their own nationals in those countries.

It is important that these missions be re-oriented to serve Ghana’s interests in a more productive way. For instance, the trade and economic sections of these missions can do better than what they are known for. They seem not to know the importance of vigorous and proactive diplomacy and don’t make their presence felt in any way. They have found comfort in restricting themselves to archaic means of performing functions and don’t “sell” Ghana as should be the case.
Our diplomats and the staff don’t perform efficiently to justify the huge expenditure made on them. The question is simple: How much revenue do they generate at all? Or are they there just to depend on the sweat, toil, and tears of the poor Ghanaian tax payers without doing anything to be self-supporting to an extent while creating favourable conditions for the country to profit from their work overseas?

The time has come for the government to redefine the scope within which the country’s foreign missions function. The recent negative reports about happenings in some of those missions [Dr. Seth Koranteng in Russia, others in Spain, Japan, Italy, etc.] indicate that some of these missions aren’t performing creditably; and something drastic must be done to keep them on their mettle.

We hope that with the new wind blowing in our diplomacy, the interests of the country will be placed above selfish personal ones. Ghana stands to gain a lot from an international diplomacy that is based on sound principles and unquestionable performance.
Operating a foreign policy that fits into the parameters of the continental African Union and global United Nations provisions on inter-stated relations, Ghana has over the years behaved well and earned much respect for itself. Its vigorous stance of non-aggression against its neighbours, non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, and contributions to peace keeping operations are commendable. Ghana is well respected for its immense contributions to peace-making efforts in the West African sub-region [through ECOMOG] and through peacekeeping elsewhere on the continent [the Congo Crisis in the early 1960s and the current operations in Darfur and Somalia] as well as worldwide [in UNIFIL, Kosovo, etc.].

These efforts are not aimed at merely making Ghana’s presence felt in global affairs but also directed at reinforcing world opinion about the country’s choice of non-aggression as the best method for conflict resolution. In pursuit of that agenda, Ghana has demonstrated much goodwill and unquestionable commitment to the ideals and objectives of the credible institutions that it is part of.

It is for this commendable role in international diplomacy that Ghana must do all it can to maximize profits. The government has taken a wise step and must pursue its agenda to the full

E-mail:mjbokor@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed here are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views or have the endorsement of the Editorial Board of AfricaNewsAnalysis.

The writer, Dr Michael J.K. Bokor

Then, the government announced that it has decided to give diplomatic recognition to the rebel National Transitional Council (NTC) as the legitimate governing body in Libya. These two moves in diplomacy have diverse far-reaching implications and deserve our attention.

RESTORING TIES WITH ISRAEL

There is nothing wrong with the government’s decision to restore diplomatic ties with Israel. In fact, it is long overdue. For taking this bold step, the government deserves commendation and must ensure that it does all it can to help both countries [especially Ghana] benefit from this bold decision. I wholeheartedly support this bold decision by the government for many reasons, the most admissible one of which is that the factors that motivated the severing of ties with Israel are no longer tenable in contemporary times and any insistence on treating Israel as an enemy is nothing but a clear instance of immaturity, shortsightedness, visionlessness, and laziness.

We recall Ghana’s commitment to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) that dictated the country’s obedience to measures adopted by the NAM in the period of the Cold War to walk the middle of the lane even though in reality, most members of the NAM were sympathetic to the cause of the erstwhile USSR. Ghana also slavishly obeyed the dictates of the ex-Organization of African Unity [OAU] by joining other countries banded into the Non-Aligned Movement [NAM] and the Organization of African Unity [OAU] to sever diplomatic ties with Israel in protest against Israel’s aggression against the North African Arab countries, especially after the three-day war in 1967 that Israel won.

This severing of diplomatic ties was in consonance with the political and ideological agenda of the NAM and OAU. But happenings in contemporary times have reduced that stance to absurdity. The NAM is no more relevant in international politics while the OAU shifted paradigmatically to bring in an African Union that is struggling to gain equilibrium let alone perform effectively to gain credibility, international recognition, and acceptance. Both the NAM and the AU can’t be validated by performance. Thus, any continued obedience to the sanctions they imposed on Israel is not only anachronistic but is also counter-productive.

It deprives those member countries of the opportunity to benefit from the resources of the country with which they are at loggerheads. And Israel has a lot more to offer countries on good terms with it than those Arab countries have for Ghana particularly. A pertinent question arises. What did Ghana gain from severing diplomatic ties with Israel? Absolutely nothing, except being remembered for historical purposes only.

Ironically too, while Ghana maintained no ties with Israel, it accommodated the Embassy of Palestine and those of the Arab countries whose fate prompted the severance of ties with Israel. But what can we say is the benefit that Palestine and those Arab countries have given Ghana for all this support? On a larger scale, was the Arab-Israeli crisis resolved as a result of the severing of ties with Israel? If not, what, then, can we say is the effect of the severance of diplomatic ties on that crisis?

If the diplomatic action couldn’t solve the problem to date, what is the sense in keeping Israel out of Ghana’s life? My position is that Ghana lost much from this diplomatic anachronism and must, therefore, abandon it for the sake of benefiting from its stake in international diplomacy. Don’t accuse me of being myopic in suggesting selfishness in this case because there is nothing else to look for. In international politics and diplomacy, selfishness is the backbone; and countries seek to pursue agenda from which to benefit directly. Serving self- interest is the clarion call. Anything else is madness.

That is why I insist that the days of futile, arid, and empty diplomacy based on a herd mentality or the blowing of a mere political hot air are over. Ghana stands to gain a lot from restoring relations with Israel more than standing away from it just because it wants to pursue a policy that was implemented in a period of headstrong but wrong-headed international politics.

Perhaps, the only issue that may jolt anybody is the unexpectedness of the announcement. The decision to restore diplomatic ties with Israel came out of the blue, especially considering the fact that nothing in our internal politics or the global sphere gave any inkling to prepare our minds for this huge U-turn. Perhaps, the immediate rhetorical success lies in the suddenness of the announcement.

That no one in government dropped any hint prior to the official announcement is a huge credit to a government that is reeling from the negative fallouts from the loose talk of its functionaries, which is evident in the 900 or so cables from the United States Embassy as released by the Wikileaks report in the past two weeks.

No diplomatic ties but….. Hypocrisy abounds

Ghana’s decision is not out-of-place. International diplomacy is a complicated game that manifests in several incredibly weird guises. We recall that the cutting off of ties with Israel meant that Israel had no diplomatic representation in those African countries and couldn’t do official business in those countries directly. Ironically, Israeli companies operated in those countries, including Ghana. The Motorola Company, for instance, did so.

For the avoidance of any doubt, let me say here that although Ghana overtly was at odds with Israel, it didn’t mean that nothing changed hands between both countries—even if without official government involvement. The connection is simple. Once Ghana maintained cordial ties with countries that have since 1948 been bed-fellows of Israel [the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Japan, for instance], there is the certainty that Israel’s interests were catered for through those friendly countries.

Under the auspices of these countries, for instance, Israel could get all the benefits it needed, operating under what is known in intelligence circles as “the alien flag.” Thus, the mere fact that Ghana was not on good terms with Israel shouldn’t deceive us into thinking that nothing at all transpired to involve both countries. In one way or the other, Ghanaian institutions profited from contacts with Israel. For instance, some personnel in important institutions were sent to Israel for further professional training and companies with roots in Israel did business with Ghanaian companies.

Contacts were exploited for security benefits too. Under Kufuor’s rule, Francis Poku sent some military intelligence officers to Israel, one of such cases sparked off the trouble between him and Kufuor, leading to his dismissal.

Other instances make nonsense of the hypocrisy underlying the claim that Ghana was officially not on diplomatic terms with Israel. Much water was passing under the bridge all that while that the country was deemed to be official out of touch with Israel. So, why continue to deceive the whole world that Ghana had severed ties with Israel when, indeed, there was some form of covert collaboration for mutual benefits? Why not step out boldly into the open to restore ties and regularize the country’s dealings with Israel—and shame the devil of empty political rhetoric?

Continued in the next installment…

Ms Sharon Bar-Li, the incoming envoy, presented her Letters of Credence from Israeli President Shimon Perez, to President John Evans Atta Mills at the Osu Castle in Accra, with the two nations promising to enhance their bilateral relations.

“Congratulations on your appointment. We are extremely delighted at last that Israel has opened an Embassy in Ghana, and you have been appointed as the first ambassador.

“Be assured of our fullest co-operation and collaboration,” President Mills said.

President Mills observed that Ghana had a lot to learn from Israel for its track record, and that the two nations would collaborate and learn from each other for their mutual benefits.

President Mills urged the Ambassador to feel free to contact Ghana’s officials to explore common areas of interest.

Ms Bar-Li praised Ghana on her sound democratic credentials, adding that Ghana and Israel had a shared history, and had walked the same path in many areas making much efforts to build their economic and governance structures.

She noted that Ghana was the first African country with which Israel established democratic relations.

Both nations, she noted, had been engaged in independence struggles and the pursuit of security for their peoples.

She assured President Mills of the cooperation of her country. Five other envoys accredited to Ghana also presented their Letters of Credence to President Mills.

They were Mr Maheyoub Buyema Mahafud from the Sarahawi Arab Republic; Mrs Irene Gala from Brazil, Mr Manop Merkprayoonthnog, from Thailand, Mr Carsen Pederson from Denmark and Mrs Maria Patan from Argentina.

President Mills expressed Ghana’s appreciation to the countries being represented for their development assistance and co-operation, noting particularly that of Denmark through the Danish International Development Assistance (DANIDA).

“Denmark is one of our biggest Development Partners,” President Mills noted, adding 93we are extremely grateful for their understanding of the issues confronting us.”

On Brazil, President Mills said the two nations had very strong bonds of co-operation, and describing Brazil as a role model, the President said: “We want to find out how Brazil did it.”

President Mills noted that Brazil had taken some bold initiatives that had helped her to attain development, and that Government was also taking similar initiatives to help build a Better Ghana.

President Mills expressed the gratitude of Accra to Sao Paolo for that country’s assistance in the development of infrastructure, agriculture and military hardware.

Ghana, he said, would reciprocate the gesture so that the cooperation would be mutually beneficial.

President Mills praised Argentina for the development of her agriculture and livestock.

“It is only through cooperation that we’ll be able to derive advantage from each other,” President Mills said.

GNA