Akufo-Addo, Mind The Gap! It is A Trap! Part 1

Akufo-Addo, Mind The Gap! It is A Trap! Part 1

A Rejoinder to: '“All-Die-Be-Die” Clarion Bests Mills’ State-of-the-Nation Address', by Okoampa-Ahoofe, Kwame, Feature Article of Sunday, 27 February 2011.

I suppose that Okoampa would argue that he writes out of his own volition and that Akufo Addo has nothing to do with it. I don't mind believing that. Trouble is, Okoampa writes for his cousin. He sits on his board as a governor of the Danquah Institute. So the association is there. Secondly, if Akufo-Addo does not agree with what his cousin writes, he should be able to tell him to cool it. Unfortunately anyone expecting Akufo-Addo to pump some sense into the head of Okoampa must be disappointed by the fact that Akufo-Addo himself is even talking more nonsense of late than Kwame Okoampa himself!

What we rather see Okoampa attempting to do is the political damage control of the stupid utterances made by Mr. Nana Addo Danquah Akufo-Addo, the blood-thirsty presidential candidate of the NPP who is crying for the blood of non-Akans in Ghana! The only problem with this latest attempt at damage control lies in the fact that there is a wide dichotomy between what the title promised to deliver in the article and what the content of the article was about. It reminds me of London Underground Railway system and the constant admonishment to passengers to "Mind the Gap!"

Okoampa wrote an article which purportedly announces '"All-Die-Be-Die” Clarion Bests Mills’ State-of-the-Nation Address'. It was therefore not my fault that I was expecting to read a genuine comparative analysis of the two speeches which show which one of them was better and why. The essential elements in the Akufo-Addo's infamous "All die be die" slogan and speech was the simple fact that as a national leader leader of a political party in today's Ghana, he was caught on camera identifying himself with a particular ethnic group and asking them to wage war with other non-Akans, and is therefore unfit to be offered the job as the President of Ghana.

It is ethnocentrism in his speech which is unacceptable and completely repugnant. Contrary to the stated objective of President Mills to be a "father to all" Ghanaians, here, we have a political leader presenting himself as a tribal leader beating war drums mobilizing Akans against their imagined enemies:

"They have made up their minds that they are going to intimidate us in 2012." Akufo-Addo was caught on the microphone, speaking in Twi, an Akan language, 'I sometimes explain this as the claim that we Akans are cowards. They argue that if one is able wound one or two of us, then all the rest of us remaining take to our heels! Is that so? Well, We shall see! Atiwa for example, was a little illustration of this. During the by-elections at Atiwa we did "something small" that showed a little bit of this. And so we have to understand that this party was formed by brave men. Our elders who formed this party which is now the biggest political party in Ghana, were not people who were hiding under beds! The courage that is needed now to face the 2012 elections is 'All die be die! All die be die!' Nobody is a man more than his fellow! Nobody more manly than the other. No matter how tall you are, no matter how small you are in size, by God's plan, all of us are endowed with exactly the same thing. You cannot tell us that you have three inside yours. All of us have how many? Two! Ha! ha! ha! So we are going to pick up courage. Ghanaians need us to come back to power. Whatever courage we need to stand firmly and to ensure that we come back to power in 2012, we are going to have to do it!" (Transcription by the Office of the Odikro, from audio, source: @joyonlinenews: Listen to key voices on Nana Akufo-Addo's 'all die be die' http://dlvr.it/Gb2v7)

I have never heard of a divisive political speech in the history of the entire country by a leading political leader and aspirant that is so divisive, and so disgustingly ethnocentric! It is very obvious that Akufo-Addo has spoken absolute nonsense. I have seen attempts to beat around the bush and make this absolute bunkum look a bit presentable. A lot of spin has passed under the bridge since this nonsense was uttered. I particularly found the efforts of Justice Sarpong and Arthur Kennedy rather pathetic apologies which did nothing to help the Akyem dwarf out of his political predicament.

It is normal to see Justice Sarpong, a staunch supporter of Akufo-Addo, after two years of "treatment" by the Odikro in the forums of Ghanaweb.com, to be able to point out on his own what was exactly wrong with the speech and to distance himself accordingly:

"Let me make it crystal clear here that, I do not agree with the part of Nana's speech talking about the bravery of Akans and making it seem like NPP is an Akan party at war with the Ewe dominated NDC Party. Ghanaians are not going to war war with each other, we have come a long way in our democratic rebirth we will not resort to the Kenya or Ivory Coast examples but we will not allow any Party, either NPP or NDC to hijack any election in Ghana, that NDC should not try to rig the 2012 election." (See: 'NDC Dunderheads, Atta Mess "Threatened" Kenya On Ghana', by Sarpong, Justice, Feature Article of Sunday, 13 February 2011).

Quite unlike Sarpong who wanted to make it "crystal clear" that, "the part of Nana's speech talking about the bravery of Akans and making it seem like NPP is an Akan party at war with the Ewe dominated NDC Party" is wrong, Okoampa has always believed that the NPP is not just an Akan Party, but Christian. Advancing his reasons why the NPP should reject the candidacy of Hajia Alima Mahama, who was then the Kufour Administration's Minister of Women and Children's Affairs, Okoampa vehemently expressed his disagreement with Mr. Akilu Salisu, of the Nasara Club, who proposed Hajia Mahama as Akufo-Addo's running mate. First he stated the offence:

"Mr. Akilu Salisu, of the Nasara Club, stakes the unpardonably preposterous claim that “giving the position [of Vice-Presidential Candidate] to a Muslim woman would help remove the perception that NPP is an Akan party as well as help to promote gender balance” (see “FOMWAG ROOTS FOR ALIMA” Modernghana.com 7/10/08)."

The Okomapa passed his judgement:

"Indeed, as this writer stated quite awhile ago, in one of his columns, to describe the New Patriotic Party as an Akan party ought to give absolutely no occasion to invidious charges of ethnocentrism. For one, to be an Akan party simply means that democracy is active an alive in Fourth-Republican Ghana – for Akans, indisputably, constitute at least 50-percent of Ghana's electorate and citizenry. This means that no political party could be accorded an electoral mandate without having carried a sizable portion of the majority Akan vote; and so disingenuous and hollow attempts by the likes of Nasara Club's Mr. Akilu Salisu to politically malign the NPP are just that, totally hollow, disingenuous and practically unsound."

And as though that was not enough, Okoampa added:

"This writer personally believes that, indeed, Hajia Alima Mahama, given the chance, could well become one of Ghana's best Vice-Presidents. But this writer is also wary of the fact that Ghana and the NPP have just had a Muslim Vice-President for nearly 8 years now. And, indeed, it is an unprecedented and, perhaps, also an unbested first in Ghana's history, since no ruling party before the emergence of the New Patriotic Party had a publicly professing Muslim as Vice-President. Even more significant is the imperative need for Ghanaians to guard against the eerie possibility of setting an unsavory and morally unsound precedent of making a habit, or culture, of permanently reserving the Vice-Presidential spot in the NPP for Muslims and Northerners; for political entitlement, of the sort foolhardily championed by the likes of Mrs. Konadu Agyeman-Rawlings, has absolutely no place in a constitutional democracy. What must be done is to strongly encourage, as well as actively support, qualified Ghanaian women to enter mainstream politics, not create an unsavory political ghetto – or “tokenistic” entitlement institutions – such as the reservation of a certain number of parliamentary seats for women, as was wildly and vehemently advocated in the recent past."

(See: "Mr. Akilu Salisu Should Argue Sensibly", by Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D.
Feature Article | Sat, 19 Jul 2008).

Of course, I don't expect Okoampa who has already characterised the NPP as an "Akan Christian Party" to be bothered with, or see anything wrong with this declaration which sounds more of a tribal warlord than a decent political party candidate contesting for the high office of the President of the country! for a Presidential elections! There is no amount of comparisons with speeches made by President Mills that can wash away the spectre of a presidential candidate telling his tribesmen and women, 'I sometimes explain this as the claim that we Akans are cowards"! And calling for blood, anybody's blood, for the simple reason that according to him every death is the same!

Okoampa then raves and rants about the MV Benjamin cocaine episode, the President's "promise to round up, vigorously prosecute and severely punish the alleged killers of the Ya-Na",  and "his strongman-mentor and his politically ambitious, erratic and ever-scheming wife". How any of these answer the silly tribal nonsense uttered by Akufo-Addo baffles me! The trouble is if you can not deal with your cousin's problem, you don't have to make it worse by thinking you can insult the intelligence of Ghanaians and get away with it. Perhaps if Akufo-Addo has been stupid enough to make the utterances, he would be stupid enough to believe that what Okoampa is doing would do the trick instead of coming out like a gentleman to apologize and promise to turn a new leaf.

There are gaping holes in the damage control articles being churned out in the support of Akufo-Addo. Those gaps represent insults to our intelligence. It can never produce anything positive in the long run. Indeed, what it can do, if this continues, in the absence of a clear apology, people are rather going to be infuriated, including myself, because we want peace in Ghana, and we are in no mood to countenance irresponsible statements that do nothing to promote peace and stability of the nation. You may not be able to stop Okoampa from writing. He seems to have a compulsive urge to write even when his head is empty, so no point to stop him. Just tell him to mind the gap!

Forward Ever! Backwards Never!!!

Cheers!

Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro

E-Mail: nanaakyeamensah@gmail.com

Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheOdikro

Blogs: http://panafricanistgrammar.blogspot.com/

Feature Articles: http://nanaakyeamensah.blogspot.com/

An Exposure Of The Danquah Institute And Their So-Called “Chocolate Revolution”.

By Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro.

A Rejoinder: Cote d’Ivoire needs a chocolate revolution, by Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko, Ghanaian Chronicle, Opinion | Fri, 04 Feb 2011

"The world can take a firmer decision on cocoa exports to gradually but speedily deny Gbagbo the oxygen of remuneration for the institutions that keep his intransigence fuelled. But, the people of Cote d’Ivoire should also be proactive in demonstrating their protests publicly like we have seen further north. This current situation of no war, no peace, no government is too dangerous and may end up costing more lives than a short, sharp, shock of public revolt. I call it a Chocolate Revolution. La Cote d’Ivoire needs it. Africa needs it. The Ivorians should not fail us. The UN, AU and ECOWAS can play their part by increasing the number of peace-keepers/makers in the country to enhance the public sense of security. Let the international peacekeepers offer the striking masses protection and let us see how many pro-Gbagbo civilians will come out with a counter demonstration. How I pray that the Molotovs of Mubarak’s violent counter demonstration burn him out of office. For this strategy of his to succeed would be highly counterproductive for Africa; only useful to the Gbagbos of a discredited status quo. Chocolate Revolution it must be. The author is the Executive Director of the Danquah Institute, a policy think tank."

- Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko, "Cote d’ivoire needs a chocolate revolution", Ghanaian Chronicle, Opinion | Fri, 04 Feb 2011

Introduction: A “Chocolate Revolution” Indeed!

For me, this is all about connecting the dots. Let's begin from the autumn of 1999, Cheney's speech at the London Petroleum Institute. In his first known comment on the subject of the “peak of petrol”, here is how Dick Cheney distinguished petrol from the ranks of products such as chocolates:

“Oil is unique in that it is so strategic in nature. We are not talking about soapflakes or leisurewear here. Energy is truly fundamental to the world's economy. The Gulf War was a reflection of that reality.”

Often, I am amazed at the paucity of references to Oil in the news stories covering the Ivorian crisis. I can understand that as the world's leading producer of cocoa, the story of La Cote d'Ivoire cannot be fully and completely be told without references to cocoa. I can understand a story which begins thus: “The world's top cocoa exporter is locked in a deadly presidential power struggle...“
The real danger here is that cocoa is not the only export commodity from La Cote d'Ivoire. And what is more, the key commodity that has energized all these frenetic diplomatic shenanigans, military preparations, and the beating of the drums of war, including the current Danquah Institutes's propaganda piece under discussion, is about the OIL. The very attempt to get the UN to authorize military action against Gbagbo, as well as the readiness of Russia to veto such a resolution, is all about the oil.
In what I can describe with ineffable sincerity as “the most brilliant work on the Ivorian Crisis to date and a must-read for all Peace Activists around the world, particularly West Africans”, is the latest work by Crossed Crocodiles. Here is his quote on the subject of oil and chocolates:
“In the western media you will not see much about oil being an issue in Ivory Coast. The news stories all talk about cocoa. But if you look at the map above you can see the significance. And no doubt the prospect of oil money makes the Ivorian presidential contenders more contentious. Oil is most certainly the reason AFRICOM’s General Hogg was seeking troop commitments in January for military intervention.” (See: Côte d’Ivoire – Military Intervention Vs Constitutional Legitimacy, by Crossed Crocodiles, February 22, 2011. http://crossedcrocodiles.wordpress.com/)
They do not fail to mention cocoa and chocolates, but inexplicably fail to mention oil and petrol. I believe that is an omission which speaks volumes. The strategic geopolitical decisions being made around the globe in respect of the Ivorian crisis is fundamentally over oil and not chocolates. It almost seems as though they want us to see what they want us to see, not necessarily what is there to be seen.

Ochere-Darko opportunistically dresses his pro-imperialist bait with the smells of the Jasmine Revolution of Algeria, and what the Egyptians stood for at Tahrir Square. By hailing the Egyptian revolution he cleverly tries to distance himself from what the Egyptians are opposed to: Young and old dictatorships, stooges of imperialism who cannot flourish under a democracy because of their anti-people policies.

Most knowledgeable Africans, including Ochere-Darko, know very well that the establishment of the US Africom was a part of what Dick Cheney's wrote in his capacity as the Chairman of the National Energy Policy Development Group, in the preface to his report that was handed to President Bush in May 2001:

“As you directed us at the outset of your Administration, we have developed a national energy policy designed to help bring together business, government, local communities and citizens to promote dependable, affordable and environmentally sound energy for the future.”

Indeed, it has been noted by Ochere-Darko himself that:

"The United States, in typical Dick Cheneyic oilthink, sees the Gulf of Guinea as offering the opportunity to break with the old politics which saw the U.S. at the mercy of the geostrategic pressure of unstable or unfriendly oil-producing states in the ‘old’ Gulf (Persian Gulf) and Venezuela."

Incidentally, there is one thing that Dick Cheney, J.B. Danquah, Houphet Boigny, K.A. Busia, and perhaps, Gabriel Ochere-Darko himself, share in common: they all actively supported the racist Apartheid regime of South Africa! Are these the kind of people to look up to for the well-being of the ordinary African? “Cheneyic oilthink” indeed! Cheney never even offered a single apology for his anti-African voting record in the Senate!

Here is an account of the last time someone tried to get him to retract:

'Dick Cheney was willing to negotiate with the Apartheid leadership that stole 83% of all the lands of South Africa, and unleashed a fascist and racist dictatorship which turned its thugs loose on the citizens who protested. He was one of the "big men" who tried to give legitimacy to a thoroughly illegitimate regime.

In an interview on Meet the Press on July 30, 2000, Cheney was asked about his vote in opposition to releasing Nelson Mandela from prison. Cheney answered, "Well, certainly I would have loved to have Nelson Mandela released. I don't know anybody who was for keeping him in prison. Again, this was a resolution of the U.S. Congress, so it wasn't as though if we passed it, he was going to be let out of prison."'

We also know that:

'In May 2001 the Cheney report warned that the U.S. would grow increasingly dependent upon foreign oil in the years to come and recommended that as a matter of policy the Bush Administration work to increase production and export of oil from regions other than the Middle East, noting that Latin America and West Africa were likely to be the fastest growing sources of future U.S. oil imports. ... Three months later, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner declared that African oil "has become a national strategic interest." This statement is particularly noteworthy in that it uses the language of the Carter Doctrine in the Middle East, in which President Carter went on to declare that the U.S. would intervene by any means necessary to protect its national interest in Middle Eastern oil. In April 2002, Donald Norland, former U.S. Ambassador to Chad told a Congressional subcommittee: "It's been reliably reported that, for the first time, the two concepts -- 'Africa' and 'U.S. National security' -- have been used in the same sentence in Pentagon documents." '

Letitia Lawson, "U.S. Africa Policy Since the Cold War", Strategic Insights, Volume VI, Issue 1

(January 2007),

We also know that:

“Few figures in American politics maintain a world view that is so consistently apocalyptic as does Cheney. Fewer still have allowed petty fears and profound ignorance to so dramatically warp their actions and public pronouncements.

Cheney's Cold War obsessions have frequently placed him on the wrong side of history, causing him to misread the geopolitical realities of regions around the world -- and of the key players within them. This is the man who was so certain that the African National Congress was a dangerous group that he regularly voted, as a member of Congress in the 1980s, against House resolutions calling for the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners in South Africa. While leading conservative Republicans such as Jack Kemp were hailing Mandela as an iconic fighter for freedom and racial justice, Cheney continued to decry the ANC as "a terrorist organization" and to dismiss its leaders as threatening radicals.
During the same period that Cheney was championing the imprisonment of Mandela, the Republican representative from Wyoming was one of the most prominent Congressional advocates for the Reagan administration's illegal war making in Central America. When the administration's crimes were exposed as the Iran-Contra scandal, former White House counsel John Dean notes, "Cheney became President Reagan's principle defender in Congress." Cheney argued that those who sought to hold the Reagan administration accountable for illegal acts in Latin America were "prepared to undermine the presidency" and the ability of future presidents to defend the United States. “

Ochere-Darko himself boasts on facebook, how close the Danquah Institute is with the most conservative of American “think-tanks”. It is the only think-tank in Africa I know, that ever accepted the establishment of US Africa Command on African soil, together with naval and air-force bases. We also know that in the case of war, it would be US Africom which would be running the show. We also know that since their complete and total rejection by African countries, they seem to have taken a low profile, preferring to use their local puppets to do their biddig on their behalf. Here is an abstract written by Ochere-Darko on the subject of establishing US military bases in Ghana, including the Headquarters of the US Africa Command or USAfricom:

"This article argues that in the excitement surrounding President Obama’s July visit to Ghana, what has been missing is an analysis of what is in it for the United States, an understanding of which is crucial for Ghana if it is to capitalise on the immense opportunity provided by this trip. Highlighting the significance of the deepwater oil find in 2007, the article sets out why Ghana is now the subject of strategic U.S. energy and military interests which, as far as the Obama administration is concerned, has raised the stakes considerably in Ghana–United States relations. As the potential gem in the crown of what Washington terms Africa's ‘New Gulf’, the article highlights how Ghana’s pending oil-rich status will shift the terms of negotiation during the trip. Furthermore, America’s preference for Ghana as the physical location for the U.S. African Command (AFRICOM) headquarters, and its concern not to cede strategic ground to China in this region, mean that in 2009 Ghana has an unprecedented hand of cards to play in this game of international diplomacy. Our task as a nation – and the Government’s task as our representatives - is to make the strategic decisions to ensure that we aren’t simply the honoured recipients of President Obama’s first visit to Africa, but that we come away with more concrete deliverables to help us meet our own strategic goals."
The call for war is at the same time an acceptance of the essential traps behind the US Africa Command, which Africa has so roundly refused. It is against a background such as this one, that the artistic beauty of the propaganda by the Danquah Institute which is still instigating war for oil in the name of a “Chocolate Revolution” emerges. This is what some of the “other ranks” in the Ghanaian army may aptly refer to as “camouflage and total concealiament.” I guessed automatically, the first time I heard this, that “concealiament” was perhaps a military way of saying “concealment”.

Secret Report Ordered by Obama Identified Potential Uprisings

Ochere-Darko begins his article with the following:

“U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, gave a prophetic advice to Middle East leaders gathered in Qatar for the Forum of the Future on January 12 that their regimes should adapt or die. Reform or deform. A few days later, Ben Ali fell and, and scents from the Jasmine Revolution filling the air of Egypt, with Hosni Mubarak, misreading the mood and sacking his government and promising to step down at a future date when the demand of the masses are simply: ‘go and go now!’.”

Speaking at the "Forum for the Future: Partnership Dialogue" panel session today in Doha, Qatar, Secretary Clinton said:

"This is the last stop on a trip that has brought me from Abu Dhabi and Dubai to Yemen, Oman, and now to Doha. On this short, but intense journey, I saw many signs of the potential for a new and innovative Middle East: a solar-powered city rising from the sands of the UAE; civil society leaders in Oman partnering with their government to improve education and create economic opportunities; a young Yemeni woman and a young Yemeni man, both of whom studied abroad and then returned to work for progress in Yemen. And of course, here in Qatar, the home of the 2022 World Cup, we see many examples of a commitment to innovation. Last year I visited Education City, which is connecting Qatar's young people to the global economy.

"...We all know this region faces serious challenges, even beyond the conflicts that dominate the headlines of the day.  And we have a lot of work to do. This forum was designed to be not just an annual meeting where we talk with and at each other, but a launching pad for some of the institutional changes that will deal with the challenges that we all know are present. “

Perhaps Ochere-Darko, in his zeal to extricate himself and his owners from the potential blow-back from the 30 years of imperialist support genuinely confused science with prophecy. The impression he is giving that all of a sudden, the Americans realized that they have been dealing with dictators does not wash with the facts. A news story of the same title, published as recently as February 16, 2011 throws some light on this enigma. MarK Landler, writing in the New York Times, begins this way:

“WASHINGTON — President Obama ordered his advisers last August to produce a secret report on unrest in the Arab world, which concluded that without sweeping political changes, countries from Bahrain to Yemen were ripe for popular revolt, administration officials said Wednesday.

Mr. Obama’s order, known as a Presidential Study Directive, identified likely flashpoints, most notably Egypt, and solicited proposals for how the administration could push for political change in countries with autocratic rulers who are also valuable allies of the United States, these officials said.

The 18-page classified report, they said, grapples with a problem that has bedeviled the White House’s approach toward Egypt and other countries in recent days: how to balance American strategic interests and the desire to avert broader instability against the democratic demands of the protesters.”

Somewhere down the line we also read:

“By issuing a directive, Mr. Obama was also pulling the topic of political change out of regular meetings on diplomatic, commercial or military relations with Arab states. In those meetings, one official said, the strategic interests loom so large that it is almost impossible to discuss reform efforts. The study has helped shape other messages, like a speech Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gave in Qatar in January, in which she criticized Arab leaders for resisting change.”

Thus, it is clear that Ochere-Darko is simply doing his job by putting a spin on it to look as if the Americans were really in the front-seat in the ongoing struggle in the Middle East and North Africa. Nothing could be further than the truth.

In a recent interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! Professor Emeritus, Noam Chomsky debunked such propaganda is his comments on one of the White House declarations calling for an orderly transition in Egypt:

“Well, Obama very carefully didn’t say anything. Mubarak would agree that there should be an orderly transition, but to what? A new cabinet, some minor rearrangement of the constitutional order—it’s empty. So he’s doing what U.S. leaders regularly do. As I said, there is a playbook: whenever a favored dictator is in trouble, try to sustain him, hold on; if at some point it becomes impossible, switch sides.

The U.S. has an overwhelmingly powerful role there. Egypt is the second-largest recipient over a long period of U.S. military and economic aid. Israel is first. Obama himself has been highly supportive of Mubarak. It’s worth remembering that on his way to that famous speech in Cairo, which was supposed to be a conciliatory speech towards the Arab world, he was asked by the press—I think it was the BBC—whether he was going to say anything about what they called Mubarak’s authoritarian government. And Obama said, no, he wouldn’t. He said, "I don’t like to use labels for folks. Mubarak is a good man. He has done good things. He has maintained stability. We will continue to support him. He is a friend." And so on. This is one of the most brutal dictators of the region, and how anyone could have taken Obama’s comments about human rights seriously after that is a bit of a mystery. But the support has been very powerful in diplomatic dimensions. Military—the planes flying over Tahrir Square are, of course, U.S. planes. The U.S. is the—has been the strongest, most solid, most important supporter of the regime. It’s not like Tunisia, where the main supporter was France. They’re the primary guilty party there. But in Egypt, it’s clearly the United States, and of course Israel. Israel is—of all the countries in the region, Israel, and I suppose Saudi Arabia, have been the most outspoken and supportive of the Mubarak regime. In fact, Israeli leaders were angry, at least expressed anger, that Obama hadn’t taken a stronger stand in support of their friend Mubarak."

The claim that the US played any role worth writing home about is therefore extremely ridiculous. Indeed, it is as ridiculous as the claim by another member of the Governing Board of the Danquah Institute, Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr. who argues that far from thanking Kwame Nkrumah for our independence, we need to thank President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill for signing the Atlantic Charter which called for the independence of colonized peoples!

Several of the NPP spin doctors who understand the import of this great sack of Arab dictators who have been in bed with the Americans, are trying to de-link the NPP as much as possible from the fall-out. They even admonish us to study Black History in order to understand what is going on. I think a recent comment I made on this issue shall be sufficient to “make my circle just”:

“We hear from our MOVE friends in the United States that the reason why February was chosen as the Black History Month in the United States is because it is the shortest month in the year! Perhaps this explains why people like you have so much undigested chunks of our history in your alimentary canals The people in the streets who are chasing away these bloody dictators and stooges of imperialism, know fully well what they are doing! If anything at all, what is happening is a threat to all those African leaders whose list of opinions are e-mailed to them from London, Paris and Washington!

We are getting rid of leaders who have systematically sided with the imperialists against the people, such as Nana Addo-Danquah Akufo-Addo and Alassane Ouattara who are known to ask "How high?" whenever their imperialist owners ask them to jump! Forget about your ridiculous spin and silly attempts to throw dust into our eyes! We see clearly what is going on! Thank you very much for the feedback that you are desperately trying to control the impending and inevitable damage coming your way by the current Peoples' Power Demonstrations!”

A War For Oil Or A Chocolate Revolution?

Estimated undiscovered and recoverable oil and natural gas off the coast of Ivory Coast, extending through Ghana, Togo, Benin, and the western edge of Nigeria.: 4,071 MMBO, million barrels of oil, 34,451 BCFG, billion cubic feet of gas, and 1,145 MMBNGL, million barrels of natural gas liquids, for the Coastal Plain and Offshore AU in the Gulf of Guinea Province, outlined in red. This does not include current existing discoveries, or fields already in production. Note that it extends along the entire coast of Ivory Coast.

Ochere-Darko writes:

“How does this apply to Laurent Gbagbo and the Ivorian crisis? If a solution is not found quickly enough for Cote d'Ivoire the rebels would strike and the consequences could be worse than the application of a surgical legitimate force by international forces.”

A friend of mine, commenting on Ochere-Darko's call for a “Chocolate Revolution” in La Cote d'Ivoire, was very laconic:

'Ochere-Darko lives in a fantasy land: "application of a surgical legitimate force by international forces"! Not legitimate, and there is no such thing as a surgical use of force.  That is just a myth used by people trying to sell war.' I think he meant Ochere-Darko is being ridiculous if he thinks anyone is going to take him seriously, because this same friend once commented:

'The problem for Africa is the same as it was in the first waves of colonialism.  Africa has too much that other people want.  The western industrial world was built on wealth taken from Africa.   Henry Stanley probably offered the best short explanation of the origins of the Anglo-Ashanti war, and this remains metaphorically true today. “King Coffee”, (Asantahene Kofi Kakari) he said, “is too rich a neighbour to be left alone with his riches.” 

And that remains the problem for Africa, it is too rich in resources, and it has been carefully encouraged to remain politically poor and divided, the Cold War, the IMF, World Bank, structural adjustments,  foreign aid, diplomatic advice, military assistance, etc., so that outsiders can continue to plunder the wealth.  What I don't like about Mr. Ochere Darko is that he appears to recognize this, but seems perfectly willing to sell out his own people.'

And this is exactly Ochere-Darko and the Akufo-Addo's Danquah Institute is about. Here is how Ochere-Darko argued for the establishment of US military bases in Africa:

"Top on the list is the United States’ military and energy security agenda. Before the 9/11 bombing in 2001, conventional thinking in Washington perceived no vital strategic interests for the U.S. in sub-Saharan Africa. But this has changed. Today we can see a significant shift away from America’s traditional geopolitical calculations regarding oil production and supply. The U.S.’s National Intelligence Council (NIC) estimates that by 2015, 25 percent of American oil imports will come from West Africa, compared to 16% today – an estimate even considered as too conservative in some quarters. Already West Africa supplies as much oil to the U.S. as Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, our oil is light and sweet, making it easier and cheaper to refine than Persian oil. Plus its offshore location reduces transportation costs and minimises risk of political violence and terrorist attacks."

He therefore recommends:

"The way forward is a pro-active policy to build a new Gulf of energy security and prosperity in a part of the world that is relatively receptive to American presence. With significant discoveries being made in the Gulf of Guinea oil basin, off the coast of Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Congo and Cote d’Ivoire, according to the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy, the United States will be importing in the year 2020 over 770 million barrels of African oil a year. And Ghana with its stability, notable responsiveness to America, deepening multiparty democracy and promising investment climate is seen as the perfect epicentre for the growth and fulfilment of this interest. In the eyes of America, geography, geology and ideology all favour Ghana as the gem in the crown of this new policy."

Mr Ochere Darko argues that:

"Furthermore, the U.S. is, understandably, bent on establishing a regional command for Africa, similar to U.S. Forces Korea, with a homeport situated on the African continent to protect their interests. West Africa is its natural home, given the need to protect energy interests in the Gulf of Guinea. Liberia has offered but simply cannot match the kind of convenience available in Ghana. It can be a win-win situation.”

One trick Ochere-Darko used which I have never forgiven was to make it look as though allowing our lands to be occupied by a foreign military power is a from of liberation! Here is what he wrote:

“Obama’s chief policy adviser assured Africans two months before the 2008 presidential race, “Barack Obama understands Africa, and understands its importance to the United States. Today, in this new century, he understands that to strengthen our common security, we must invest in our common humanity and, in this way, restore American leadership in the world.” Now is the chance for him to seek and effect the real change that will finally show the world that Africans are capable of more than managing their own affairs – but, crucially, Ghana must take up the opportunity provided by the state visit and the U.S.’s burgeoning strategic interest in us, to be the nation that demonstrates this. - Gabriel Asare Ochere-Darko, " (Obama’s Visit – What’s In It For Us And U.S.?",  Feature Article of Monday, 25 May 2009. "The author of the article is the Executive Director of the Danquah Institute, a think tank based in Accra.”)

“Now is the chance for him to seek and effect the real change that will finally show the world that Africans are capable of more than managing their own affairs"? Does that sound familiar? It is obviously a sacrilegious reference to the Independence Eve declaration by the great Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah:

“And as I pointed out, I made it quite clear that from now on, today, we must change our attitudes, our minds! We must realize that from now on, we are no more a colonial people but a free and independent people! But also, as I pointed out, that also entails hard work!

That new African is ready to fight his own battles and show that after all, the black man is capable of managing his own affairs! We are going to demonstrate to the world, to the other nations, that we are prepared to lay our own foundation! Our own African identity!”

I do remember very vividly a fellow Board Member of the Danquah Institutes's take on this speech:

“At best, it is a pleonastic declaration that Ghanaians would rather do without; for, ever since those of us who are about Mr. Mahama's age can recall, including the vice-president himself, March 6 has always been an invariably monotonous celebration of Kwame Nkrumah, almost as if the Nzema-Nkroful native was the only Ghanaian citizen who significantly contributed to both our beloved country's attainment of sovereignty from Britain and the massive decolonization of the African continent which latter landmark, by the way, had far more to do with U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's “Atlantic Charter” than any single or even group of African leaders.” (See: March 6 has always been a one-man show, anyway, by Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Feature Article, Monday, 15 February 2010). I just wondered why Ochere-Darko did not allude to Roosevelt instead!

There is an African proverb which simply says, “a snake shall always give birth to something long!” This homage that we see the Vices of Danquah paying to the Virtues of Nkrumah, reminded me of Antonio's warning to Bassanio in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. You see, in the Holy Bible, it is written that the devil tempted Jesus by quoting from the Holy Scriptures!  "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" ( Matthew 4:6).  The King James Bible is what most of us are very familiar with. The response of Jesus must ring a bell:

"Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

 Matthew 4:7

Which brings us to Shakespeare's warning about people like Ochere-Darko who is doing the dirty and stinking job for Akufo-Addo and his imperialist owners:

“ANTONIO: Mark you this, Bassanio,
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart...”!


The Danquah Institute Is A Neocolonialist Institute!

John Nichols rightly asks:

“But why would anyone else treat Cheney seriously? Why would the press repeat his over-the-top charges without noting that Dick Cheney has a track record of reading the world wrong, imagining threats where they do not exist and neglecting real dangers? Why would it go unmentioned that the man who is questioning John Kerry's judgement thought Nelson Mandela was a terrorist?” (See: Dick Cheney: Vice President of the Apocalypse, by John Nichols).

I have always loved this comment on Cheney:

“Well, the Cheneys of the world are just going to have to take stock of the new progressive tsunami in the making. There is no white, non-white divide. The divide is progressive, non-progressive. And Cheney and the likes of him are on the wrong side of the fence.”

The Danquah Institute is clearly an apparatus of the Cheneys of this world, and it is one of those intitutions whose propaganda must be thoroughly resisted. The reason has been eloquently given by Mr. Kwesi Pratt as: “That is why, it is important for us to resist all attempts to establish foreign military bases on African soil especially forces of the United States, must be prevented from establishing on African soil. Clearly because they are not on African soil to protect our interests, they are on African soil to facilitate the exploitation of our resources for the benefit of the tiny minority that controls the wealth of the American people and who are sitting on top of this world exploiting the Chicanos, exploiting the African Americans and exploiting all of the other independent and healthy forces in the United States on America. We have to resist all attempts to build U.S. military bases in Ghana and elsewhere in Africa.

Nkrumah has taught us:

"IN order to halt foreign interference in the affairs of developing countries it is necessary to study, understand, expose and actively combat neo-colonialism in whatever guise it may appear. For the methods of neo-colonialists are subtle and varied. They operate not only in the economic field, but also in the political, religious, ideological and cultural spheres.

Faced with the militant peoples of the ex-colonial territories in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America, imperialism simply switches tactics. Without a qualm it dispenses with its flags, and even with certain of its more hated expatriate officials. This means, so it claims, that it is ‘giving’ independence to its former subjects, to be followed by ‘aid’ for their development. Under cover of such phrases, however, it devises innumerable ways to accomplish objectives formerly achieved by naked colonialism. It is this sum total of these modern attempts to perpetuate colonialism while at the same time talking about ‘freedom’, which has come to be known as neo-colonialism."

Kwame Nkrumah, On The Mechanisms of Neocolonialism.

International Solidarity Committee
Pan-Africanist International
http://www.panafricanistinternational.org/

Tweet

KWESI PRATT TO FONKAR: "The people of Ghana want some decency in our politics!

KWESI PRATT TO FONKAR: "The people of Ghana want some decency in our politics!

Kwesi Pratt, Jnr., in an interview with Shamima Muslim on Citi Eye Witness News, Wednesday, 9 February 2011:

Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: First and foremost, I am a citizen of this country. And every citizen of this country ought to have an interest in who becomes President of the country. This is not the preserve of the National Democratic Congress, or FONKAR, or any other political party. All citizens must have an active interest in who becomes President of this Republic! And I am a citizen of this country!

I have not said that Nana Agyemang Rawlings should not contest the elections. I have NEVER said so! Indeed, what I have said is that she is entitled to to contest the elections. She is a Ghanaian. She is qualified under the constitution and so on.  But as a person, I feel frightened by the possibility of her becoming the President of Ghana. Now, that fear that I have expressed has been confirmed by this statement.

I mean, how can anybody issue such a vitriolic statement against another citizen simply for saying the he is not in support of one candidate? What is the crime I have committed? My crime is simply that I have stated publicly that I would be very frightened and uncomfortable about the candidature of Nana Konadu, and that I would not support her candidature, and that if I have my way, I will do whatever it takes to prevent her from becoming the President of this country. Is that a crime?

I have never insulted Nana Konadu Agyemang Rawlings. I have never made unfounded allegations against her. But listen to her supporters! Now, this is the kind of campaign they want to wage! Then my Goodness, they should not even start at all! Because they have lost ab initio! Because the people of Ghana are discerning!

The people of Ghana want some decency in our politics!

And the people of Ghana are not going to vote for a candidate whose supporters are out there raking mayhem on the people! And warning people not to talk about her! How can anybody make a statement to the effect that any Ghanaian journalist should not talk about any presidential candidate? Where is the democratic credential?

Shamima Muslim: They haven't quite made that, they think you, Mr. Pratt, do not have the moral authority, especially...

Kwesi Pratt, Jnr: No! And they made the statement that I should shut up about their preferred candidate, and that if I ever made any adverse comments against her, regardless of the fact that the statements I make would be founded on truth or not, they would draw blood!

Shamima Muslim: Because they think that they also have err, a filler on you?

Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: No problem! You see, what is the problem? If there is any citizen operating in the public arena, who is as active as I am, and so on, and there is filth on that citizen, why would anybody hide that citizen? Why would anybody wait for that citizen to take a position against him, or his preferred candidate before he makes that information available?

(Transcription by the Office of the Odikro).

Akufo-Addo Is Rather Ghana's Hosni Mubarak!

Feature Article, by Nana Akyea Mensah,

- a rejoinder to '“Osagyefo Dr.” Hosni Mubarak', Feature Article | by Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D.

"Anyway, throughout his adult career as a journalist with an axe to grind with the perceived opponents and detractors of his father and his neo-Fascist CPP government, Mr. Nkrumah has preponderantly highlighted the pan-Africanist credentials of “Osagyefo-Dr.” Kwame Nkrumah. So, logically, one begins to wonder why the younger Mr. Nkrumah has, this time around, conveniently chosen not to equally highlight the positive aspects of the Mubarak government which, fundamentally, is not very different from that of the CPP."

-  Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D., '“Osagyefo Dr.” Hosni Mubarak', Feature Article | 6 hours ago.

It is very strange, even by the decadent Okoampa standards, that of all the monumental, unprecedented, and historic events currently unfolding in North Africa and the Middle East, his first shot at it is to disturb our sense of what is proper, by once more launching into yet another diatribe against Kwame Nkrumah and his family.

There is however a very simple explanation to this rather bizarre attack on Gamal. The puppets of US imperialism in Africa are having sleepless nights in the wake of what is happening in Egypt today. What better way of damage control than to deflect the puppet status that Akufo-Addo shares with Mubarak and replace that with the great Osagyefo himself? I am sure I am not the only person who is seeing through this. That is why we have so many people in Tahrir Square today!

In the first place, what is wrong with what Gamal said?

Okoampa opens his latest attack on Nkrumah and Gamal thus:

 "I was quite amused to read about the recent interview that Mr. Gamal Nkrumah granted Mr. Paul Adom-Otchere of Ghana's Metro-TV (See “Gamal Nkrumah: Mubarak Must Go…But Power Should Not Be Given to ElBaradei” (Peacefmonline.com 2/2/11). What particularly amused me was the following quote from the half-Egyptian son of Ghana's flamboyant first president and self-knighted “Life-President”: “The West should…accept [the fact] that the people of North Africa and the Middle-East desire more democracy and desire to elect leaders of [their own] choice [choosing?] and not leaders that suit Israel or leaders that serve Israel's interest.”'

Gamal was expressing his personal opinion on what was going on in a country he knows well and loves as much as he loves Ghana. Indeed, the news story Okoampa is referring to, Gamal Nkrumah backs Mubarak's exit but not ElBaradei, begins this way:

"Gamal Nkrumah, son of Ghana's first president Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah, has backed calls for Egypt President Hosni Mubarak to resign but insists that the reigns of Egypt should be handed over to a more youthful person and not ElBaradei."

Strangely enough Okoampa did not give any explanations which made what Gamal is saying wrong! He rather resorts to a puerile character assassination in order to counter the political opinions of Gamal. J. B. Danquah used the same technique to a dramatic effect in the course of the Akyea Mensah Murder Trial. I know Okoampa is aware of the tactic because he has written extensively about it.

And before anyone is left with the impression that the criticism of ElBaradei, the man the US is probably hoping to take over from Mubarak, is only a forlorn thought by Gamal Gorkeh Nkrumah. it is because they have not been following what is going on very closely! He was under tremendous pressure before he decided to leave Vienna for Cairo. Those who watch Aljazeera are aware of the sentiments that are coming from the people in Tahrir Square even before he addressed them a few days ago. Democracy Now!'s senior producer Sharif Abdel Kouddous is in Egypt. According to Amy Goodman, his "round-the-clock tweets are being read around the world. Last night, CNN International highlighted one of them.

CNN INTERNATIONAL: Let’s go to a trends map here that we’re looking at to see the trending topics out of Cairo on Twitter. Now, still at the top here is Mubarak. But what’s interesting to note is how ElBaradei has come up in a popularity so much in the last few hours. That’s referring to Mohamed ElBaradei. Now, let’s see what some Twitter users there are saying about him.

"Baradei seen as non-corrupt, is respected. But he lived away too long, didn’t join earlier protests & this revolt was done w/o his help."

AMY GOODMAN: That was CNN International last night reading one of Sharif’s tweets. Sharif grew up in Mubarak’s Egypt. He was only three years old when the current regime came to power. He comes from a prominent Egyptian family with a long history in the arts, literature, film and politics."
I am personally very comfortable with these views! These are two young Egyptians that I personally admire a lot. I have Gamal on my mailing list, and I do follow Sharif on twitter. And they are very good examples of young and extremely brilliant and principled Egyptians untainted by imperialist flirtations that can rise to the occasion!
"If You Cannot Deal With The Testimony, Destroy The Witness":
Instead of dealing with the message Gamal is presenting, Okoampa resorts to invectives, name-calling, and character assassination, just as his mentor, Dr. J. B. Danquah, had done before him. It is a tactic Okoampa is very familiar with. He has even written about it concerning how Danquah used it to destroy the witnesses to the case in which Nana Akyea Mensah was believed to have been ritually murdered by eight of his own relatives. This is Okoampa's own account of the silly tactic:

"Consequently, it appears that the first major, modern Ghanaian playwright was forced by circumstances other than purely legal to proceed with his Herculean role as a Defense Maestro or Conductor, for Danquah does not appear to have personally mounted a spirited challenge against the prosecution. And, indeed, as Rathbone wanly recalls: Danquah, who watched the inquest proceedings which usefully rehearsed the prosecution evidence for the defence as they were also implicitly commital proceedings, wrote to the Okyenhene [- Nana Ofori-Atta II -] on 27 September 1944: The evidence against the accused is very strong particularly the evidence of Botwe, Fosu, Gyekye and Mireku. But I feel certain that very conclusive evidence is available both at Kibi and in Ashanti against all these witnesses (Murder And Politics 98; Ellipses appear in the original)." See: "The Enduring Legacy Of Dr. J. B. Danquah PART 9", Feature Article of Sunday, 8 May 2005, by Okoampa-Ahoofe, Kwame.

If you cannot deal with the message, destroy the messenger. It did not work, even though Danquah tried very hard to destroy the reputation of many decent Ghanaians in order to save his brothers from the gallows! And it is not going to work today, simply because it is Okoampa and not J. B. Danquah doing a mischievous character assassination! I wish someone would be kind enough to help this tormented soul wake up from his self-inflicted nightmare, and smell the coffee! He must abandon the character assassination tactic.

Just as it did not save Asare Apietu, Kwame Kagya, Kwaku Amoako Atta, Kwadwo Amoako, Kwasi Pipim, Opoku Ahwenee, A. E. B. Danquah and Owusu Akyem-Tenteng, from being sentneced to death by hanging on the neck until pronounced dead, it will not help in distancing an imperialist puppet like Akufo-Addo from Mubarak.

I think it is about time that I take my grandson through some history lessons.

To begin with, I shall want to point out that there are significant differences that even a mentally retarded individual could see between Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah of Africa and Mr. Hosni Mubarak of Sharm el-Sheikh! What we see in Nkrumah, his life, political career, his goals for the rapid development of Africa, as well as the very manner of his overthrow are all very much different from the jaundiced picture my grandson Kwame Okoampa wants us to believe!

1966 Coup:
My grandson points out that the overthrow of Nkrumah was executed by "the gallant men of the Ghana Armed Forces and the Ghana Police Service, led by [Messsrs.] Kotoka, Harlley and Afrifa." As to who engineered it, he was very economical with the facts. 'While charges of U.S. involvement are not new, support for them was lacking until 1978, when anecdotal evidence was provided from an unlikely source,' writes Paul Lee, '—a former CIA case officer, John Stockwell, who reported first-hand testimony in his memoir, In Search of Enemies: A CIA Story.
"The inside story came to me," Stockwell wrote, "from an egotistical friend, who had been chief of the [CIA] station in Accra [Ghana] at the time." (Stockwell was stationed one country away in the Ivory Coast.)
Subsequent investigations by The New York Times and Covert Action Information Bulletin identified the station chief as Howard T. Banes, who operated undercover as a political officer in the U.S. Embassy"
There is definitely a big difference between a CIA-inspired coup d'etat and what we are seeing in the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, Suez, and other major cities of Egypt today! This is not a coup d'etat resulting from a conspiracy between our security forces and foreign imperialist interests! Indeed, the Americans were very swift to recognize the National Liberation Council which replaced the CPP after the coup, and amazingly clueless as to how to respond to the on-going Egyptian Revolution. So, I am constrained to diagnose my grandson's problem, within a severely limited range of possibilities, as either as a result of political mischief, misanthropy, ignorance, naivety, and or he is probably writing in his capacity as a genuine fool.

What do we see as the US response to the will of the Egyptian people? We know from declassified documents such as the one compiled by Paul Lee. He talks about preparations that lasted for years! Here we are nine months before the coup:
'As it turned out, the coup did not occur for another nine months. After it did, Komer, now acting special assistant for national security affairs, wrote a congratulatory assessment to the President on March 12, 1966 (Document 260). His assessment of Nkrumah and his successors was telling.
"The coup in Ghana," he crowed, "is another example of a fortuitous windfall. Nkrumah was doing more to undermine our interests than any other black African. In reaction to his strongly pro-Communist leanings, the new military regime is almost pathetically pro-Western."
In this, Komer and Nkrumah were in agreement. "Where the more subtle methods of economic pressure and political subversion have failed to achieve the desired result," Nkrumah wrote from exile in Guinea three years later, "there has been resort to violence in order to promote a change of regime and prepare the way for the establishment of a puppet government."' See: Documents Expose U.S. Role in Nkrumah Overthrow, By Paul Lee, Special to SeeingBlack.com.
"Mubarak Is Not A Dictator"!
It is clear Mubarak is not only their man, but their main man in the Arab world. His dictatorship has been plodded on by a massive life-support of almost two-billion dollar aid each year, for the past thirty or so years he has been in power. Democracy Now! has an interesting interview with Chomsky. When asked about President Obama’s remarks the other night, February 02, 2011, on Mubarak, Chomsky said: "Obama very carefully didn’t say anything... He’s doing what U.S. leaders regularly do. As I said, there is a playbook: whenever a favored dictator is in trouble, try to sustain him, hold on; if at some point it becomes impossible, switch sides."
"NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, Obama very carefully didn’t say anything. Mubarak would agree that there should be an orderly transition, but to what? A new cabinet, some minor rearrangement of the constitutional order—it’s empty. So he’s doing what U.S. leaders regularly do. As I said, there is a playbook: whenever a favored dictator is in trouble, try to sustain him, hold on; if at some point it becomes impossible, switch sides.
The U.S. has an overwhelmingly powerful role there. Egypt is the second-largest recipient over a long period of U.S. military and economic aid. Israel is first. Obama himself has been highly supportive of Mubarak. It’s worth remembering that on his way to that famous speech in Cairo, which was supposed to be a conciliatory speech towards the Arab world, he was asked by the press—I think it was the BBC—whether he was going to say anything about what they called Mubarak’s authoritarian government. And Obama said, no, he wouldn’t. He said, "I don’t like to use labels for folks. Mubarak is a good man. He has done good things. He has maintained stability. We will continue to support him. He is a friend." And so on. This is one of the most brutal dictators of the region, and how anyone could have taken Obama’s comments about human rights seriously after that is a bit of a mystery. But the support has been very powerful in diplomatic dimensions. Military—the planes flying over Tahrir Square are, of course, U.S. planes. The U.S. is the—has been the strongest, most solid, most important supporter of the regime. It’s not like Tunisia, where the main supporter was France. They’re the primary guilty party there. But in Egypt, it’s clearly the United States, and of course Israel. Israel is—of all the countries in the region, Israel, and I suppose Saudi Arabia, have been the most outspoken and supportive of the Mubarak regime. In fact, Israeli leaders were angry, at least expressed anger, that Obama hadn’t taken a stronger stand in support of their friend Mubarak."
The current US Vice President, Mr. Joe Biden, even went as far as to say, in the face of the massive opposition to Mubarak's rule, that "Mubarak is not a dictator"! Here are his own words: "Look, Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things that he’s been very responsible on relative to geopolitical interests in the region, Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with Israel. And I think that it would be—I would not refer to him as a dictator."

I watch Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! every working day, and so naturally, I did not miss the brilliant comments of Professor Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan. Professor Cole writes regularly about Middle East issues on his blog, "Informed Comment," which is found on-line at JuanCole.com. His most recent book is Engaging the Muslim World. So, I believe he has one or two things to say the people like my grandson need to know:
"SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That was Vice President Joe Biden. Juan Cole, your response?
JUAN COLE: Well, Vice President Biden seems to be wanting to define a dictator not with regard to domestic policy, but with regard to the responsible role the regime plays in the international world system, you know, from Washington’s point of view. But certainly, from the point of view of human rights activists in Egypt, there are strong dictatorial tendencies in the Egyptian government. It’s seen a lot of phony elections. It’s used repressive techniques..."

Indeed, the tergiversative proclivities being displayed by the Americans, the White House and the State Department is a clear indication yet, that far from being the instigators, the US has not even managed to have a clue, as to how to even respond to the popular demands of the Egyptian people. That in itself is no surprise at all. What is surprising is any comparison with Kwame Nkrumah!

Within a space of a week, the US policy on the Egyptian crisis has been nothing but pussyfooting. First, the only thing they could find to say was that there should be no violence on both sides. Then they quickly replaced that with "Time for Mubarak to initiate reforms". Then came the talk of the need for Mubarak to consider an orderly transition. If you add "Mubarak is not a dictator", we have four in a week!

One-Party State:
Okoampa writes as though the Danquah-Dombo-Busia puppets of imperialism and neo-colonialism played a passive role towards the evolution of one-party democratic centralism in Ghana. I once had the occasion to explain to him, that a political party is very different from a political army. Political Parties win votes. Political armies win wars. Ghana's constitution has never had a place for political armies. The United Party which was the mother of the Afrifa-Busia-Kufour tradition, also known as the "Mate Meho" meaning "I have broken away [from Ghana]". That was how they called themselves!

With the "Mate Meho" colonialist zombies throwing bombs day and night, they abondoned their role as a political party and became a political army. They transformed themselves into a political army after failing to win votes even when their colonialist owners had imprisoned Nkrumah and given them a free range to campaign with cash and logistics.

To win a war that they themselves had declared, Nkrumah had no choice other than chasing the elephant into the bush! Thus putting all the blame of Ghana becoming a one-party state is a completely insane distortion of our history. In fact, in other West African states, just like their support for Mubarak, the US support for the one-party states was very strong, especially the over one hundred years old one party state of William Tubman of Liberia.

Their current darling of West Africa, Alassane Ouattara was the last Prime Minister in the 33-year one-party rule of the Ivory Coast which ended with his death in 1990! Mrs. Sirleaf Johnson was also a Minister in the 100-year old one-party state of Liberia by the True Whig Party! These, of course, in Joe Biden's words, were not dictators simply because they were US allies! This is a history of an injustice that Liberians have paid dearly for and continue to pay to this day.

It takes two political party to make the two party state Ghana was on the eve of the First Republic. Just as if you are lucky enough to have a life-partner, you cannot be called "a single man", even though your partner might not necessarily be a man, you cannot call a state a two party state when one political party has vacated its post and turned itself into a political army! In other words, if your partner leaves you, you can then call yourself, a "one-party state", sorry, a single man!

This is what happened to President Nkrumah when the United Party abandoned all civilities and embarked upon a campaign of deadly hostilities, including bomb throwing, against a democratically and popularly elected President of the Republic of Ghana. The verandah boy who warned the chiefs they would "run away and leave their sandals behind" was not called "Osagyefo" for nothing. If you ask for it, he would give it to you roundly and squarely. He urgently had a nation to build. He did not have the time nor the choice. Hence the One-Party state!

The reason he would not tolerate such thugs was clear:

“We in Africa who are pressing now for unity are deeply conscious of the validity of our purpose. We need the strength of our combined numbers and resources to protect ourselves from the very positive dangers of returning to colonialism in disguised forms. We need it to combat the entrenched forces dividing our continent and still holding back millions of our brothers. We need it to secure total African liberation. We need it to carry forward our construction of a socio-economic system that will support the great mass of our steadily rising population at levels of life which will compare with those in the most advanced countries” - Kwame Nkrumah, "Africa Must Unite!", 1960.
The Osagyefo had the same dreams we see in the eyes of the demonstrators! And we hear them say just that! Mubarak and Akufo-Addo represent some of the "entrenched forces...
still holding back millions of our brothers"! Did you see the alacrity with which he was supporting the US-France led war effort on La Cote d'Iviore recently?
I rest my case!
Please let's stay in touch and on top of the NPP! Give me a follow on twitter! I shall give you a follow! Twitter: /twitter.com/TheOdikro

"To all men of goodwill, organize, organize, organize! The struggle is
far from over! We need Tahrir Squares in all our cities to make them world banks for the Asomdweehehe! We prefer self-government in danger, to servitude in tranquillity!
Forward ever, backward never"!
--
Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro.
Facebook: /www.facebook.com/people/Nana-Akyea-Mensah
Blog: nanaakyeamensah.blogspot.com/
Twitter: /twitter.com/TheOdikro