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