| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
President Obama flies into Ghana today in his first presidential visit to sub-Saharan Africa, where he is expected to praise the country's electoral successes and economic development, holding it up as a model for other countries on the continent. But I believe there is more to this attraction to Ghana than a “peaceful democracy”.
(Update:
In Ghana Obama failed to talk about stopping Barclays Bank establishing a tax haven in Ghana which could serve as a conduit for money Laundering and tax evasion.
He failed to promote a Proceeds of Crime law that has treaty status, and push the boundaries of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) to be expanded power to bite both givers and takers of bribes; American multinational Companies and African kleptomaniacs.
He did not mention Withdrawing US Visa from corrupt African politicians,
Nor to Stop the marketplace for high stakes elite bribery; support transparency and anti-corruption efforts; and expand cooperation in intelligence gathering and sharing and reigning in the vicarious liability of tax havens and offshore banks.
All we heard is rhetoric no actionable policy.)
"The official word is that we're celebrating democracy, but there are probably some ulterior motives," said Gerald LeMelle, executive director of Africa Action, a human rights organization in Washington.
"It has not gone unnoticed that oil was discovered, and Ghana has 600 million barrels under it and offshore. And many Ghanaian leaders think the U.S. might like Ghana to serve as a kind of capital for Africom," the U.S. military command responsible for African operations, he said.
Ghana sits on the eastern Atlantic Ocean, on the southern side of Africa's western hump. The tropical nation of low plains and plateaus is home to 23 million people. This places Ghana at a strategic location relative to Nigeria and other oil rich countries like Equatorial Guinea.
"Using Ghana as a hub would allow the U.S. to keep an eye on Nigeria and the whole Gulf of Guinea," Mr. LeMelle said, noting the United States already keeps a very large embassy in the Ghanaian capital, Accra.
West Africa is arguably the poorest and least stable area on earth. It is also afflicted by a number of transnational trafficking flows, attracted by and aggravating the special vulnerability of this region. On the other hand, the region is rich in Oil, Gold and other precious resources.
The United states are eager to be well-positioned in the on-going scramble for these resources amidst threats from China, Russia and India challenging the dominance of the United States and Europe - West Africa’s traditional friends.
Nigeria, the economic powerhouse and home to half the population of the region is mired in the conflict in the Niger Delta - rooted in grievances of residents, who, despite the wealth beneath their land, remain very poor - organised criminal activity and endemic corruption.
The government of Ghana is steadily privatizing state-owned industries, and production of petroleum products, discovered in 2007, will skyrocket within a decade.
This year, Ghana’s gold industry would receive a major boost with the expected establishment of a gold refinery which is expected to be the biggest in West Africa. The $15 million project would be undertaken by C. C. Global Investments and would be situated on the Spintex road in Accra. C. C. Global Investments with sister companies in Dubai, USA, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, have investments in other businesses apart from its gold.
The direct and peaceful involvement of so many citizens in Ghana's democratic process has reduced corruption and increased stability, even while the rest of West Africa struggles with drug trafficking, corruption and civil war.
That progress earned Ghana a Millennium Challenge Corp. grant of $547 million from the United States in 2006 to support the country's agricultural sector - a sector ironically hindered by agricultural subsidies that the U.S. and other industrialized countries pay out to domestic producers, said Mr. LeMelle.
"Compared to the region, they're doing extremely well democratically and fairly well in terms of economic development," Mr. Schaefer said. "I think its strengthening tradition of accountable and democratic government will help [Ghana] as it begins to export more."
Mr. Obama's choice of Ghana for his first official trip to Sub-Saharan Africa is considered a deliberate snub by Nigeria and Kenya.
Kenya is the home of Mr. Obama's father, and the president's grandmother and a half-brother still lives there. Nigeria is Africa's most populous country and has considerable oil reserves.
The first black U.S. president's choice of Ghana as his first stop on the continent has dented the pride of the two states, which consider themselves equally important and worthy of a visit.
"It's like him visiting [the Welsh capital] Cardiff, but not London," one disgruntled Nigerian resident told Reuters.
Besides Ghana's electoral success, Mr. LeMelle said the nation's strategic position will make a visit worthwhile.
"I think he'll make all the right statements: congratulating them on the recent election, encouraging the economic improvement," Mr. Schaefer. "But the United States has been trying to convey these lessons to developing countries around the world for decades."
In an essay, WARNING TO MY FAMILY AT HOME FROM THEIR KINSMAN IN THE BELLY OF THE BEAST, Dr. Ahati N. N. Toure, warned that for those that understand the way things really work in the United States, a change of a person as president does not necessarily signal a change in policy and direction.
In the United States, he said, the president is less a leader than a manager of policies formulated by corporate elite interests. This is what accounts for the stability of the political system, regardless of who is president.
“This explains the outcome of the electoral fraud--in effect, an electoral coup--staged in 2000 (more than 2 million votes were discarded, 1 million of them cast by US Afrikans) and in 2004 (similar machinations secured a Republican electoral victory in the White House) that assured George W. Bush's ascendancy to and continued hold on the US presidency.
The Democratic Party refused to challenge the results in both years. I speculate that former Vice President Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize was awarded as a consolation prize for his obeisance to the agenda of the true masters of US politics”.
He continues: The United States’ political stability was created after the civil war of 1861-1865, when industrial capitalists consolidated their control of the economic and political direction of the country. The civil war allowed them to oust the neo-mercantilist faction of the European settler elite (owners and champions of the so-called slavery system), which mode of production depended upon exports of raw materials to western European metropoles.
As we all know, this mode of production promotes economic dependency and underdevelopment. The capitalist elites wanted the United States economically and politically to be competitive with and independent of an industrial and industrializing Europe. They did not want to be its subordinates.
Because of the changes of the civil war, both so-called parties--which are really two sides of one coin--have pledged patriotic allegiance to capitalism as quintessentially American. Their emotional and ideological commitment to its advance under the US political system includes the shaping of its foreign policy--or the definition and extension of what are defined as US interests on to the world stage.
Bush's ascendancy to the US presidency, for perceptive observers, shows that the people do not choose the manager of the country. They simply ratify, or are made to ratify, the results of a selection. Barack Hussein Obama--a name that in and of itself is astonishing in European settler political culture--is no less the product of a selection process.
This explains the consistency of policies pursued by so-called "Democratic" and "Republican" presidential administrations--or, now, "black" and "white" presidents. In the United States all US presidents are "white."
In Africa we call this neo-colonialism.
One example of this is Africom. Established during George W. Bush's regime, it is still being carried out by Barack Hussein Obama's regime. To many, at least, the Bush personality was a bit too crude and, in some respects, brutish for the world to accept. Put some color on him, with a sophisticated and intelligent personality, and now you have the same agenda for Africa, skillfully repackaged in an Obama. The agenda remains the same--imperialistic, exploitative, and, ultimately, deadly--but the general perception is different. It is seductive.
US presidents come and go, but the interests remain constant. Therefore, what is the real agenda in the US president's visit to Ghana? Oil and Africom; Dr. Ahati asserted.
He continued: We really should not underestimate the craftiness of the Europeans in their choice of this particular personality for president of the United States. The best way to test this thesis is to explore the question of African strategic interests, or, alternatively, American strategic interests in Africa, and examine the ways in which and the degree to which Obama's pursuit of American policy is consistent with or diverges from that of his predecessor.
Africans should not be fooled by appearances. They should look beyond the obvious.
However, in the end, Ghanians and the rest of Africa have no choice. The game is simply above their pay check.We can only afford to be optimistic about the results of Mr. Obama's visit and speech. "We are stretching our ears and cleaning our eyes before this speech in all of Africa."
Already, Mr. Obama's choice of Ghana for this trip has triggered a bout of self-questioning in Nigeria and Kenya.
We can only hope Mr Obama’s visit will enlighten and inspire our leaders to improve economic development, poverty alleviation and peace in West Africa and the continent.
