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

ECOWAS Communique Was Calibrated To Lead Us To A Senseless War!

...and those responsible for this must not be allowed to get away with it!

Feature Article, by Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro.

On the Thursday, 13 Jan 2011, I read to my horror, the news that a senior officer in the US Africa Command was already moving from country-to-country in West Africa "to officially find out whether or not [they] would commit troops to Cote d’Ivoire, should the need arise", and perhaps, to find out how many troops they would be contributing in order to facilitate the preparations for the war on La Côte d'Ivoire. I made that deduction when I read in the Daily Graphic, that a "Major-General Hagg was in the country to officially find out whether or not Ghana would commit troops to Cote d’Ivoire, should the need arise." In other words, if Gbagbo refuses to go. (See:  "GAF Won't Commit Troops To Cote d'Ivoire", by Michael Donkor - Daily Graphic, Thu, 13 Jan 2011. I have been led to suppose that the Daily Graphic was actually referring to Major General David R. Hogg, "the Commanding General of United States Army Africa (USARAF).^[1] In his current assignment, Major General Hogg is the senior U.S. Army officer in Italy and commands the Army Component to United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM)". Source: from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then on 24 January 2011, I also read that the Nigerian "Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr. Odein Ajumogobia, has urged the United Nations to sanction the use of force to remove embattled President Laurent Gbagbo of Cote d'Ivoire over his refusal to quit power after his political rival Allasane Ouattara was accepted by the international community as the country's president." (See: Côte d'Ivoire: Ajumogobia Seeks UN Resolution Against Gbagbo, by Paul Ohia, Thisdaylive.com, 24 January 2011. With Gbagbo showing no sign of respecting what he calls "an international conspiracy led by France and USA", the scene was set for a major confrontation, even before West Africans have had the time to apprise themselves of just what is going on!

In a BBC news story by Mark Doyle BBC News, Abidjan, "No rush to military intervention in Ivory Coast", he writes:

"West African nations, usually led by regional giant Nigeria, have mounted military interventions under the banner of "Ecomog" (Economic Community Monitoring Group) before. But they have always been in much smaller countries than Ivory Coast where the governments in place wanted the foreign soldiers to come.

In Sierra Leone and Liberia, for example, Ecomog troops arrived when the governments there were besieged by rebels - but, crucially, still in control of the main ports and airports so the outside forces could arrive and take up positions relatively easily.

In Ivory Coast, the man still in charge of the army, the main airports and the seaports, Laurent Gbagbo, is violently opposed to any intervention. And it seems most unlikely Ecomog would try to force its way in. The armies of the region don't have enough of the equipment or military intelligence necessary for such a "hot assault".

It is not that the skills of ordinary West African soldiers are in question. Many of the infantry (or ground troops) from Ghana, for example, or Senegal, are trained to world standards. But the kind of operation necessary to take control of a large country like Ivory Coast quickly would require sophisticated attack helicopters in big numbers, satellite tracking gear and highly mobile forces with state-of-the-art weapons systems."

Perhaps if we are looking for answers why it is not the French, but the Americans who are in charge, and why the French have taken a back-stage in the build-up to war, Mark Doyle also gave a very interesting answer:

"Most African countries also lack the special forces and on-the-ground military intelligence that would allow them to track and target the physical and personal centres of Mr Gbagbo's power base. In addition, Ecomog has only been successful in most of its operations when it has been supported by outside forces.The UN and Britain helped Ecomog in Sierra Leone, for example, and the United States assisted with training and equipment in Liberia.

The obvious candidate to help in Ivory Coast would be France, which has 900 highly trained soldiers based near Abidjan airport.The official role of these troops is to be the Rapid Reaction Force of the United Nations peacekeeping force in Ivory Coast.

However, if soldiers from the former colonial power France joined forces with anyone to take Ivory Coast by force it would be political dynamite.It would very likely cause an explosion of popular opposition in areas loyal to Mr Gbagbo and risk leading to the deaths of many thousands of people."

Reading between the lines, I suspected the first objective of the imperialist war-planners was to make the West Africans themselves own the initiative and not to show their hands first. It worked perfectly well, as Mr. Choi who helped in misleading ECOWAS would now turn around and urge the UN Security Council to listen to what ECOWAS is saying! As a West African, I do not feel very happy that I can say without any fear of contradiction that the Final Communique issued on the 24th of December, 2010 in Abuja after the Extraordinary Session of the Authority of the Heads of state and Governments of the ECOWAS on La Côte d'Ivoire, was carefully calibrated and deviously crafted to lead the people of West Africa into an inevitable and completely senseless war against La Côte d'Ivoire, which would have negatively impacted on the entire region and greatly benefited France, the former colonial power and the newly formed US Africa Command also known as USAfriCom which was hoping to make itself "useful" and overcome the initial African resistance that greeted its attempts at penetration into the continent to secure our natural resources for the exclusive benefit of Western multinational corporations, particularly US Oil corporations.

This is so serious that there is an urgent need to name, shame and condemn those African merchants of death and mayhem behind the document, and those supporting it, and draw the appropriate lessons for the future. I intend to give a special focus on this. I might as well call that "The Satanic Verses of the ECOWAS" because they reflect the views of the former colonial ruler and its imperialist allies than those of Africa's independent observers at the elections. The greatest mischief in the document is the fact that it was designed to ensure an automatic deadlock in negotiations and make war the only viable and inevitable option.

Whilst ECOWAS does not provide any evidence to back their position, their communique itself acknowledges that they heavily depended upon Mr. Choi Young-jin, who briefed them. Interestingly enough, Mr. Choi claims he depended on his own monitors to arrive at his conclusions, even though ECOWAS countries also sent monitors who contradict the claims by Mr. Choi. Why could ECOWAS not depend upon their own monitors? The interesting thing about the ECOWAS Communique is its attempt to pay lip-service to peaceful negotiations and dialogue. At a time everyone seemed to be saying, "dialogue first, and possible military intervention later", what the ECOWAS Communique did was just the opposite.

Referring to the Christmas season when they met as a "Season of peace", whilst at the same time, firmly ruling out any form of meaningful negotiations leading to a peaceful settlement, they failed to offer the olive branch for peace to prevail beyond a lame call for the "peaceful exit" of President Gbagbo! The essential import of the ECOWAS communique was to set the time to tick inexorably towards war with La Côte d'Ivoire, a war effort deftly choreographed by France and the USA, using the representative of the Secretary-General of the UN to La Côte d'Ivoire, Mr. Choi Young-jin. 

In "Kwesi Pratt to NPP: Do You Support War or You Don't", Feature Article, Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Mr Pratt, a key architect in the construction of the democratic dispensation in Ghana, is certainly not amused: "Right now, in front of me is a statement which was issued by the President of Angola, when he met the Diplomatic Community in Luanda. President of Angola, a key member of the African Union! Now listen to what he said:

"His Excellency, Jose Eduardo dos Santos, The President Of Angola, Says:

'We express however, our concern when military solutions are proposed to resolve crisis such as the one in Côte d'Ivoire. Ignoring the rules of international and domestic law and sometimes, the very evidence presented by the facts. The facts specifically tell us the following;

One: The president of the Electoral Commission released the results of the second round of the presidential election, when it was out of his competence to do so, since his time, for purposes defined by law, was expired and since the issue had been transferred to the Constitutional Council for due consideration and treatment.

Two: The United Nations representative in Côte d'Ivoire in a hastened move, certified and announced those results when the relevant UN resolution states that the certification should focus on election results validated by the Constitutional Council, which had not yet made a pronouncement.

Three: The declaration by the United Nations representative misled the whole international community.

The declaration by the United Nations representative misled the whole international community, since the Constitutional Council had not validated the provisional results released by the president of the Electoral Commission as a result of having accepted objections and complaints of serious irregularities and fraud which undermined these results.

Four: The Constitutional Council is in fact the only organ with the legal competence to validate and publish the final results of the elections.

Five: Under the law, The Constitutional Council should recommend the holding of new elections within 45 days, but it did not proceed in this manner and instead reported results that attributed the victory to another candidate.

Considering the above facts, it is difficult for Angola to accept that there is an elected president in La Côte d'Ivoire.

'We believe however, that there is a constitutional president, the current president of the republic, who happens to be Laurent Gbagbo, who must remain in power until the new election as established by the electoral law of that country. The greatest difficulty now is that the 45 days are not enough to create a favourable climate for elections, and the current crisis complicates the matter further.

We are therefore of the opinion that any military intervention in the particular case of Côte d'Ivoire would have an adverse effect, with serious consequences beyond its borders.

The Angolan Executive supports and encourages dialogue and negotiations to overcome the crisis in this brother country, and believes that by demonstrating political will, wisdom, and realism, it is possible to find a solution that focuses, first and foremost, on the legitimate interests of all the people of Côte d'Ivoire.

Through the competent institutions of the African Union, Africa must prove its maturity, experience, and ability to solve problems on our own continent, even the most complex and delicate, in lieu of waiting for inadequate solutions imposed from outside.'

"Now Let Us Come Back To The Facts.

"Now What Are The Essential Points That The Angolans Are Making? One, that Ouattara did not win the elections; that the election results were so fraught with violence and so on, that you cannot use that election result to declare a President of La Côte d'Ivoire. What the Angolans are telling all of us Africans, is that, look, we should be guided by law and constitutionality. And that you cannot have democracy outside the ambit of the constitution. What is democracy if you ignore what is provided for in the constitution? What is democracy if it is in violation of the law of the country and so on? This is the point that the Angolans are making.

I have taken the trouble to look at the election results. And the paper that I edit, has taken the trouble to publish the election results. The question I am posing to all these political parties in Ghana, and all of these African leaders, and ECOWAS leaders, is simply this: which one of them would accept election results such as the one which has been released in La Côte d'Ivoire?

You know, some of the facts I have repeated so many times over, I don't know why they are not sinking! You know, take the Vallée du Bandama region in La Côte d'Ivoire, the Electoral Commission comes up with votes, you understand, votes, for Ouattara, you add those votes, they come to one hundred and forty nine thousand votes, and yet the declaration of results gives Ouatarra two hundred and forty four thousand votes! Who would accept this? You go to some other constituencies, turn-out, eh? Is two hundred and fifty per cent of registered voters! Two hundred and fifty per cent of registered voters! Who would accept those results?

Indeed, I asked my colleague and friend, Comrade Kwesi Adu, to do an analysis of the election results, because he does these things. He was an election observer in Guinea and so on, so he is so good at it. And I asked him to do an analysis. In one constituency, Gbagbo won one hundred and eighty per cent of all the registered voters. In the same constituency Ouattara won one hundred and something per cent of registered voters. How do you accept these results? How can you say that these results represent the will of the Ivorian people? By what magic?

So, either people are deliberately lying, or they don't know the facts, or they are being insincere in the discussion of the Ivorian crisis. You understand? Now you put that aside.

What Does The Law Of La Côte d'Ivoire Say?

The law of La Côte d'Ivoire says it very clearly that the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire declares provisional results. That those provisional results ought to be validated by the Constitutional Council. That is what the law says. So, the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire, does not declare who a winner is. It only declares provisional results. It is only the Constitutional Council of La Côte d'Ivoire, which can declare a winner in an election.

Then you have some apologists of Ouattara, they come up and they say, look, the legal position is that that provision of La Côte d'Ivoire Constitution was suspended because an agreement was reached under UN auspices! My brother, this is a joke! Is anybody telling me that the UN, ECOWAS, AU, or any International organisation, can amend the constitution of a country, without reference to the people of that country? Does it make sense?

And yet, we are pushing this position that by virtue of an agreement which was reached under UN auspices, parts of the Ivorian constitution are no longer valid. Let us assume that even is true, eh? Let us assume that that position is true. Now, if you assume that that position is true, it would have meant that in the first round of elections, those provisions in the constitution of La Côte d'Ivoire Constitution, still remained suspended.

And yet in the first round of the elections, the Electoral Commission declared Provisional Results, they were validated by the Constitutional Council, before the UN endorsed them. Why didn't we apply the same formula which was applied in the first round in the second round of the election? Does it make sense? You understand what I am saying very clearly?

Now, there is also this problem. A lot of people assume that the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire, is the same as the Electoral Commission in Ghana Ghana. It is not true! The Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire, is made up of thirty two members. Those thirty two members, represent political parties, to the extent that the government of La Côte d'Ivoire has only five representatives on a thirty two-member Electoral Commission.

The Opposition has twenty seven members of the Electoral Commission. If you want to compare the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire with the Electoral Commission of Ghana, the equivalent of the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire is the IPAC [Inter-Party Advisory Committee] in Ghana! You understand, it is the IPAC in Ghana.

So when people say, that the "Independent Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire", what do they mean? When they say, that the "Independent Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire", what do they mean? When twenty seven members of that thirty-two member Commission is from the Opposition? And indeed, when the President of the Electoral Commission is from the Opposition and his deputy is also from the Opposition?

In any case, people should stop to consider the circumstances under which the election results were declared. The election result was not declared by the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire. It was declared by one member of the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire, in Hôtel du Golf, which is the Headquarters of the Opposition. He was accompanied to do that declaration by the Ambassador of France and the Ambassador of the United States of America.

Indeed, the declaration was not done before the Ivorian media. The declaration was done, exclusively before the French media. No Ivorian journalist was present when the declaration was made. And it was made in the Headquarters of the Opposition.

Now, all our friends from the NPP, NDC and so on, which one of them would have accepted election results, declared solely by Afari-Gyan? Even Afari-Gyan has the right, the Electoral Commission of Ghana has the right to declare final results! Now let us just imagine a situation in which Afari-Gyan, alone, without other members of his Commission, accompanied by the French Ambassador, the US Ambassador, goes to the NDC Headquarters to announce results, what would happen?

Now the President of the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire was interviewed on Radio France International, and he was asked this question: "How come that you went and declared the results in the Headquarters of the Opposition?" His first answer was that, look, the conditions in the Electoral Commission offices were not conducive to him announcing the election results there.

The questioner then said, "But did you know you were were announcing the results in the headquarters of the Opposition?" He says, "No, I don't know"! Then he said, "But everybody in La Côte d'Ivoire knows that that is the headquarters of the Opposition?" Then he says "I am not supposed to know what everybody knows"! Suhuyini, can you believe this? He says he is not supposed to know what everybody else knows in La Côte d'Ivoire! You understand? You put that aside.

Even if you accept that the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire is an independent Commission, and you accept that the final constitutional authority for declaring results is the Constitutional Council, what you do have in La Côte d'Ivoire is a situation where the electoral Commission has declared one result, and the Constitutional Council has declared another result. What you do have is a political crisis! It is an issue of the legitimacy of two state institutions.

Do You Resolve That By Going To War?

Do you resolve this situation by declaring that Ouattara is the Head of State? Does it make sense? My goodness! I don't know what is happening to all of us! African leaders! West African leaders! UN, and so on! What is happening to us?

So, we have a political crisis resulting from the contestations over electoral results. Is La Côte d'Ivoire the only country in the world to have this situation? We just had elections in Belarus. You remember? The election was heavily disputed. The Opposition was on the streets. There was mayhem. The Head of State's reaction was to was to arrest two hundred members of the Opposition, including his opponents, and lock them up. They are still in jail. That is in the heart of Europe! Europe is quiet! Nobody is talking about military intervention! But when it comes to West Africa, they say our leaders should gather troops and go and kill themselves! We should send our soldiers to go and die! Why are they not sending their soldiers to go and die in Belarus?

Look at what has happened with the Egyptian elections! Who is talking about military intervention there? Who is talking about sanctions against Hussein Mubarak? They are not doing so because of vested interests in Egypt! Because of their support for the Zionist state of Israel, and the key role that Egypt is playing in that area! So they are acting clearly from a self-interest point of view! And we say, that our self-interest does not matter! So when the President says "Dzi wo fie asem", then there is a problem! But all of them, every one of them, France, the United States, Britain, all of them they are "dzing their fie asem"! All of them!

None of them is doing what they are doing because they love West Africans more than themselves! They are doing it because of their interests in the strategic resources of La Côte d'Ivoire! They are doing it because they don't want the example of Gbagbo to spread through the African continent. That is what they are doing! And that is why it is important for us to wake up to that reality and to begin to raise the fundamental questions of law and constitutionality. To begin to raise the moral question and so on."

Could our leaders have been more stupid than this?

The ECOWAS Communique issued by the Heads of state and Governments of the ECOWAS on the 24th of December, 2010 in Abuja, uncritically accepted hook, line, and sinker, the misleading conclusions of the UN Representative in La Côte d'Ivoire, who was there to brief them on the developments, and there is no indication that they paid any attention to what the African monitors had to say. The Communique did more to convey a wish-list of the Alassane Ouattara camp, rather than any serious undertaking to explore the route of a meaningful dialogue towards peace. Could our leaders have been more stupid than this?

With the exception of President Atta-Mills of Ghana, and President Sirleaf Johnson of Liberia who expressed caution and engagement, three heads of state, which included President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria, in whose country the winner of an election has always been who cheated the most! Blaise Campoore of Burkina Faso, who came to power through a bloody coup d'etat in 1987, in which the then President of Burkina Faso, the late Thomas Sankara, was cut into two with a machine gun and buried in a mass grave, wanted to impose "democracy" on La Côte d'Ivoire!

Even before this awful communique was issued, the Socialist Forum of Ghana, in a statement issued and signed on behalf of the Convenor, by Mr. Kwesi Pratt, Jnr., had laid bare the complexities of the situation that buttressed the President's call for caution and engagement. I take the liberty to quote this very extensively and later ask the reader to compare the wisdom in this with the absolute non-wisdom found in the ECOWAS Communique:

"The Socialist Forum of Ghana (SFG) calls urgently on pan-African nationalists to challenge the dominant international narrative regarding the crisis in la Cote d'Ivoire (CI). Actions based on that narrative, driven as it is by deliberate misinformation, shallow analysis and chauvinism will push the country into prolonged conflict and its working people into even deeper misery. It will also ultimately undermine the credibility and efficacy of our regional institutions like ECOWAS and the AU. Progressives owe it to Africa and to the people of la Cote d'Ivoire to offer a factual, scientific, historical and constructive perspective on this crisis.Pan-African activists must challenge the false assertion that Alassane Ouattara won the November elections. This does not mean support for the opposing claims of Laurent Gbagbo.

"In Cote La d'Ivoire several factors allowed those identity divisions to take on a life of their own in the 21st century. These included the growing challenge to French neo-colonial hegemony in West Africa from the US and from certain regional interests. These also included the collapse of local elite coherence following the death of President Houphouet-Boigny. As neo-colonial power fragmented in the mid-2000s identity politics degenerated to militarisation and partition and a massive increase in the woes of the Ivoirian people. Obviously, the imposition by the international community of Alassane Ouattara on such a deeply divided society will not solve the La Cote d'Ivoire crisis. What it will do is however is advance the overall cause of neo-colonialism and set the scene for further conflict between France and the US and allied regional powers for control over La Cote d'Ivoire and regional resources in particular oil and gas.

The Socialist Forum of Ghana does not in any way seek to downplay the difficulties of making real progress in La Cote d'Ivoire. Nor do we pretend to have all the answers. We are however clear that the pseudo-answers being offered by the international community will lead only to disaster. What we seek is a fresh discourse amongst Pan-African activists regarding the best alternatives for La Cote d'Ivoire and the role of Africa in realising these. As part of that discourse the Socialist Forum of Ghana would like to put forward some ideas about an African platform for support to CI. We think Africa should commit diplomatic and other resources to demand:

a.  respect for Ivoirian sovereignty and the exclusion of neo-colonial political and military interference and specifically the withdrawal of all French troops from Ivoirian soil;

b.  phased disarmament of all irregular forces and unification of the entire country under an interim government preferably composed of national civil society leaders and statesmen willing to forgo participation in elections for at least 10 years;

c.  a popular national political process that seeks to develop Ivoirian solutions including a democratic and inclusive national constitution, social reconciliation and stronger national institutions; and

d.  a credible election system and fresh elections within a reasonable period. We have no illusions that this can be achieved overnight or without a major commitment of scarce financial resources.

We are clear however that the ultimate political, human and financial costs to Ivoirians and Africans of a complete breakdown in Ivoirian society or a return to conflict will be much higher than the costs of a protracted peace project."

What Exactly Did the ECOWAS  leaders Say?

Now kindly compare the SFG position with the ECOWAS position:

"7. They [The Heads of State and Government] reiterated their position of 7 December 2010, especially on the status of Mr. Alassane Ouattara as the legitimate President of Côte d’Ivoire, which is non-negotiable. They demanded the immediate and peaceful handover of power by Mr. Laurent Gbagbo to Mr. Alassane Ouattara, in accordance with the expressed wishes of the Ivorian people.

8.  The Heads of State and Government expressed their support for the travel ban, freeze on financial assets and all other forms of targeted sanctions imposed by regional institutions and the international community on the out-going President and his associates, and would support any future additional measures that may be taken in this direction.

9.  The Heads of State and Government regret the fact that the message sent by the ECOWAS Chairman on behalf of the Authority on 17 December 2010 has not been heeded by Mr. Gbagbo. In this season of peace, the Summit decided to make an ultimate gesture to Mr. Gbagbo by urging him to make a peaceful exit. In this regard, the Authority decided to dispatch a special high-level delegation to Côte d’Ivoire.

10. In the event that Mr. Gbagbo fails to heed this immutable demand of ECOWAS, the Community would be left with no alternative but to take other measures, including the use of legitimate force, to achieve the goals of the Ivorian people.

11.  Against the background of the parlous security situation, the Heads of State and Government hereby instruct the President of the ECOWAS Commission to convene without delay a meeting of the Committee of Chiefs of [Defense] Staff in order to plan future actions, including the provision of security along the Côte d’Ivoire-Liberia border, in the event that their message is not heeded."

There is enough food for thought for all West Africans and Africans in general! Tunisia has shown the way, Egypt is following suit and are holding His Excellency, Monsieur President Mubarak by the balls at the Tahrir square. How long has Monsieur Campoore been in power? Do they have an equivalent of a Tahrir Square in Ouagadougou? Why should Nigerians allow its current governing party to continue such a sloppy performance after their forth-coming elections? Why should Ghanaians allow the opposition NPP, and Akufo-Addo in particular, to even get near the seat of government after displaying such levels of incompetence and irresponsibility by attacking the President of Ghana for saying exactly what needed to be said at the time he said what he said which led to the African Union finally ruling out armed intervention?

See You At Tahrir Square!

We are getting rid of the imperialists and their local agents! This is the meaning of the winds of change currently blowing in the North of Africa. It is southwards bound. All the good people of West Africa must draw the appropriate lessons and act accordingly to their own consciences against these external threats to our peace and progress, and their local agents.

Forward Ever! Backwards Never!!!

Cheers!

Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro, a companion of the

  black  *   star !!!
Give me a follow and let's exchange views on what I call "a grammar of Pan-Africanism and its manners of articulation in an ever-changing world"!
E-Mail: nanaakyeamensah@gmail.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheOdikro

Breaking News RIP OFF- Foreign Ministry Studies Report On STL

Breaking News

RIP OFF- Foreign Ministry Studies Report On STL

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has began a comprehensive study of all reports on the operations of Superlock Technologies Limited (STL) an Israeli company which was awarded a contract for the renovation of three of Ghana's missions abroad.

The contract of US$16,746,682.00 was for the renovation of Ghana's missions in New York, Washington DC and Ottawa.

Interestingly, Superlock Technologies Limited has no construction experience.
Sources at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs told The Insight that the Don Arthur report on the renovation of the missions as well as all media reports are being studied for serious action.

A report prepared by a Ghanaian team headed by Dr Adu Arthur of the office of the President says the contract was awarded without regard to the Public Procurement Law (ACT 663).

There were no consultants engaged for the procurement of the works and no applicable contractor-selection procedure was adopted. The report claims that statutory processes and procedures were completely ignored and basic documents normally submitted for building works are not available.

Conspicuously absent from the contract documents are offer and acceptance correspondence, technical specifications, bill of quantities and activity schedules.
The scope of works for each contract was given only in narrative form without any Bills of Quantities specifying the exact quantum and quality of each item of work to be executed.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs under President Kufuor and by extension the state was pushed into contracts the limits of which were not clearly defined.
The lump-sum quotations submitted by STL were accepted by the Ministry without any negotiations.

Payment schedules were exclusively time bound and did not take into account, quantum and quality of work done. Superluck Technologies Limited was incorporated in Ghana over 20 years ago to sell security locks and doors.
In 2003, the company was re-lunched with two Ghanaians, a man and wife listed as owners with Mr. Yaron Tal as Managing Director.

In June 2008, the Company's ownership changed. The Ghanaian couple sold their shares to a Swiss Company whose directorship remains undisclosed. An important event marked the change in the fortunes of STL. On Wednesday, November 11, 2003, Hajia Alima Mahama, then Deputy Minister of Trade, Industry and PSI publicly announced that “Superlock Technologies Limited would serve as good ambassadors for Ghana and attract foreign investments from Israel and other developing countries.”

A strategic partnership had been established between the Kufuor administration and STL which has since reflected in the fortunes and influence of the Israeli company. Since then STL through a system of political patronage has become the largest single provider of Data Communication services and surveillance systems to public institutions in Ghana.

The institutions include, the Ghana Commercial Bank, Agricultural Development Bank, National Health Insurance Authority, the Electoral Commission and the National Security Council Secretariat. STL has carefully cultivated strategic relations with influential members of the dominant political parties in Ghana including the National Democratic Congress (NDC).

Source:  

The Insight Newspaper http://www.insightnewspaper.com/

Kwesi Pratt Causes Fear And Panic In The NPP! Part One

Kwesi Pratt Causes Fear And Panic In The NPP!

Part One: What Exactly Did Kwesi Say?
Feature Article | by Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro.

Twitter: /twitter.com/TheOdikro,




Introduction.

I wish to raise the following: US Military Bases In Ghana: Any Secret Deal Between The NPP And The Americans? Gabriel Asare Ochere-Darko, Executive Director of the Danquah Institute,  Says So! This also includes, quite naturally, a special treatment of the NPP-USA.
The latest twaddle of the NPP USA concerns three main issues:

1. The link between our oil and the US Military Bases in Africa
2. The GNPC-KOSMOS Dispute Over Violations Of the Laws Of Ghana.
3. Socialism and Capitalism

These are not subjects that one can treat exhaustively under one article unless one is full of wine, or beer, as it might be in the case of the scribes of the NPP USA. I am thus compelled to take them one after the other in subsequent feature articles. This permits me to deal effectively and fairly comprehensively.

Thus for now, our focus is on the first point:

The link between Africa's Oil and the US Africom: What Does The NPP Say About This?

What Exactly Did Kwesi Say About This Link? 
A lot of people have heard of the strange and monumentally ignominious call by the USA-NPP for the arrest of Kwesi Pratt, Jnr. Whilst this marks a very extremely low point for our precious infant democracy. It is obvious from their press releases that the NPP USA are very adamant not to bite the finger that feeds them. This however should not prevent us to defend our own country, Ghana. What many people are unaware of is the question of what did Kwesi say exactly whilst contributing to a panel discussion on Radio Gold’s Alhaji and Alhaji political programme, to incur the wrath of this group who now accuse Mr. Pratt for causing needless "fear and panic" in their hearts and are therefore calling for his arrest?

It is amazing the speed with which they are seeking refuge behind meaningless ideological debates instead of discussing real and present dangers facing our continent today, which could be worse than slavery and colonialism combined! It is the exposure of the NPP's involvement once again in a brutal mischief against the people of Ghana and Africa which is the source of the fear and the panic they are complaining of! By the time I am through with this article, I would have given enough hints to alert Ghanaians as to why they should be extremely careful about every single move of the dubious clique of treacherous elites and traitors of their own people who dare to call themselves "patriotic"!

 "USA Is Ready To Kill And Destroy For Ghana's Oil... NPP Is Supporting Them!"

A Transcription of the Statement by Mr. Kwesi Pratt, Jnr., by the courtesy of the Office of the Odikro.


BEGIN QUOTE
The Ghana National Petroleum Corporation has said that it is interested in buying the 23 per cent stake of Kosmos in the Jubilee Field. It is not, as it were, extracting that stake from Kosmos. Kosmos itself says, "We want out, we want to sell."

The Ghana National Petroleum Corporation says, "We want to buy it."


Kosmos says, "We will not sell to Ghana. We will only sell it to another American company."

The whole of the US establishment is mounting monumental pressure on our government to cave in to US demands. Christian Council is quiet, Bar Association is quiet. New Patriotic Party is supporting Kosmos against Ghana. I mean, this is incredible! You cannot believe it my brother, it's incredible!

Kosmos has violated the laws of Ghana with impunity. They have made data, that we have paid more than 300 million dollars collecting - the GNPC expenditure on collecting seismic data and so on, cost the Ghanaian tax payer, more than 300 million dollars - Kosmos takes the data and distributes it free of charge in order to promote its interests, in order to ensure that it gets more money for its shares.

This matter is raised, and the very people who are making noises about our oil revenue, K.T. Hammond, New Patriotic Party, all these World-Bank-and-IMF-funded so-called NGOs! They are supporting Kosmos in this, against the people of Ghana. And they are the same people making noises about oil revenue. I mean, it is incredible!

I don't know how many people have read "The Cheney Report", the Cheney Report on America's strategic interests in West African Oil? I don't know how many people have read it. Now, if you have read the Cheney Report..., you know, when George Bush became President in 2001, one of his first acts was to establish a committee which would determine the US strategic energy interests and so on.

That committee was chaired by Dick Cheney, his Vice President, and they've written a very interesting Report. The Report says that, given all the turmoil, the social, political and economic turmoil in the Middle East and  the Persian Gulf and other places, The Report said  at the time that the US was importing around 11 per cent of its total oil requirements from West Africa.  Eleven to twenty five per cent in ten years!

So let us open our eyes. Let us listen to the world - what is happening what is happening in the world! The major threat to us is the conspiracy by some of the Western powers, especially the United States of America, to control our oil resources. And don't you make a mistake, military bases are not established for picnics! Military bases are established for the purposes of killing and destruction, and not for organising picnics!

So what the US is saying is that they are ready to kill, to maim, and destroy, in order to control our oil resources. And our churches, our Bar Association, and the so-called elders in society are quibbling about whether we should put our money in the bank or spend it! They are not thinking about how to control the resource. The are thinking about what to do with the crumbs which fall from the table of the big powers. That is what they are thinking about!

I think that the first  and most important thing that any citizen of Ghana who loves his country has to do is to ensure that the oil belongs to us, and we control it, and we exploit and utilize it on behalf of our people, especially the disadvantaged.

END QUOTE.
 
Click her to listen: Audio Attachment: Listen to Kwesi Pratt in his own voice, on why he thinks the USA is ready to kill for Ghana's oil; and the NPP's alleged support for KOSMOS


De-linking Oil From US Military Bases In Africa

It is very strange that the NPP-USA puts up such brave face with evident Dutch courage to make the fatuous claim that there is no link between US Militarisation of diplomacy and desire to establish military bases here in Africa has nothing to do with Oil!

Just listen to them:

"What makes this claim infantile is that in reality, Ghana’s proven oil reserves of 1.8 billion barrels, while contextually significant and greatly appreciated, constitute 0.17% of proven oil reserves on the African continent. Pratt would have us believe that the United States would spend $10 billion (the minimum spent on even the smallest of military bases) for that amount of oil? It is true that the United States does not build military bases for charity purposes, and that it does so to protect its interest. That said, a cost/benefit analysis does not support the puerile claims made by this third rate debater. What’s more, plans to establish a United States Military base in Ghana surfaced at least four years before the oil discovery, and it had more to do with the war on terrorism." See PRESS STATEMENT FROM NPP-USA – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, KWESI PRATT’S LIES ARE NOT RADIO WORTHY, Ghanaweb.com, Diasporian News of Thursday, 18 November 2010, Source: NPP-USA

Kwesi quite rightly reacts:

"The USA branch of the NPP does not deny that the United States of America intended or wished to establish a military base in Ghana. It stated inter alia that “….plans to establish a United States military base in the country surfaced at least four years before the oil discovery and that it has more to do with the war on terrorism than the control of oil resources in Ghana”. Clearly what this branch of the NPP seeks to do is to admit the intent to establish a US military base in Ghana but to delink it from the control of the country's oil. Unfortunately, the United States itself coupled its intention to establish a military base in Ghana with its control of the oil resources of West Africa.

When President George W. Bush became the President of the United States of America in 2001, he set up what has come to be known as the Cheney Committee, chaired by his Vice President good old Dick Cheney with a mandate to review US strategic energy requirements. The report of the Cheney Committee predicted that US oil imports from West Africa will rise from 11 per cent in 2001 to 25 per cent in 2015 as a result of several factors. The report recommended that as a measure to protect US interest in West African oil, military bases needed to established in West Africa. Following this recommendation the late president of Nigeria, Omaru Yardua stated that Nigeria will not allow the establishment of foreign military bases on its soil and will use all of her influence to prevent the establishment of US military bases in West Africa. See: NPP - USA: Attack dogs of Imperialism And Ignorant Noise Makers!

Other people, including scholars and US officials, including  Donald Norland, former U.S. Ambassador to Chad told a Congressional subcommittee virtually the same thing:

"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 fasting growing sources of future U.S. oil imports.[48] Africa supplies about 15% of U.S. oil imports, but with African production growing at twice the global rate, it could be supplying the U.S. with as much energy as the Middle East within a decade.[49] Three months later, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner declared that African oil "has become a national strategic interest.[50] " 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."[51] Having declared African oil to be of strategic interest to the United States, the Bush Administration has not taken the second step to actually apply the Carter Doctrine to Africa. This has left U.S. policy open to criticism from both sides. The Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on U.S. policy in Africa has criticized it for failing "to make a geopolitical shift to pay sufficient attention to West Africa's energy rich Gulf of Guinea,"[52] while others see a neo-imperial push unfolding in the sub-region.[53] " - Letitia Lawson, U.S. Africa Policy Since the Cold War, Strategic Insights, Volume VI, Issue 1 (January 2007) US Naval Postgraduate School.

When Kwesi Pratt Jnr., first broke the news in 2007 of the US intentions to establish its Africom headquarters in Accra with the connivance of the ruling NPP, my first reaction was "how are they going to pull that off? We were virtually in an electoral year and an overwhelming majority of Ghanaians would not approve of a party that brings in a foreign power to establish a military base on our territory!" Reading later on from an article written by Mr. Akufo-Addo's right-hand man, Gabby Asare Ochere-Darko, the Executive Director of the Danquah Institute, all the denials and assurances given by Presidents Kufour and Bush in Accra during the latter's visit was nothing but the "Baloney!" itself!

Indeed, I suspected it as it was happening, that the NPP, particularly Nana Akufo-Addo must have prevailed with George Bush to defer public manifestation until after the elections, since the NPP was bound to lose the elections if this issue came up before the December 2008 elections. Ochere-Darko's article, "Obama's Visit, What Is In It For Us And The US?" confirmed my worst of fears! Both our own President, Mr. John Agyekum Kufour and Mr. George Bush lied publicly to the people of Ghana and the world at large, when Mr Bush declared to the media that the US was not interested in establishing military bases in Ghana. They were both aware that they were deceiving the public. Needless to say, that these lies must have been carefully discussed and rehearsed! In the next part we shall discuss a very closely related subject: "Bush And Kufour Working In Secret And Throwing Dust Into Our Eyes!" after the famous "Baloney!" Declaration. Please don't miss it! Give me a follow on twitter and I shall show you where I am coming from!

Forward Ever! Backwards Never!!!

The Odikro, Nana Akyea Mensah II,
 

E-Mail: nanaakyeamensah@gmail.com
Twitter: /twitter.com/TheOdikro,
Friendfeed: /friendfeed.com/theodikro
 

Blogs: 

Feature Articles: nanaakyeamensah.blogspot.com,
Comments: theodikro.blogspot.com)

NPP - USA: Attack dogs of Imperialism And Ignorant Noise Makers

By Kwesi Pratt Jnr.

The United States of America (USA) branch of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) does the electoral fortunes of the party no favours by its brazen defense of imperialism especially from the stand point of absolute ignorance.

This branch of a party which believes in “Property Owning Democracy” feels offended by my calling for the defence of the national interest in the exploitation of the natural resources of Ghana. It ignorantly tries to decouple the establishment of US military bases in Africa from US attempts to control West African oil resources and it claims that Ghana did not spend any resources to acquire valuable data which KOSMOS Energy distributed illegally to oil companies.

The USA branch of the NPP demands that the Ghana Police Service should pick me up and put me before court for daring to speak out against US interference in the management of our oil resources. Interestingly this is the same branch of the NPP which screamed loudly against the arrest and prosecution of Nana Darkwa for claiming that former President Rawlings burnt his own house. They claimed that the arrest of Nana Darkwa was a violation of his right of free speech. However their commitment to the right of free speech evaporates into thin air when the subject of criticism happens to be the Almighty United States of America.

Many of the claims of the USA branch of the NPP are completely false. It claimed that “The actual amount spent to collect 3D seismic data was just over $30 million and all that cost was borne by KOSMOS, not Ghana. “This is obviously meant to debunk my statement that Ghana has spent in excess of $300 million to collect relevant data which KOSMOS illegally made available to oil companies without the consent of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC). Perhaps the USA branch of the NPP needs to be reminded of the fact that data acquisition on Ghana's oil fields have a more than 100 year history. Indeed at the time that data acquisition began KOSMOS did not even exist. The Geological Survey Department, the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation, the erstwhile Soviet Union, Romania under communist rule and several other entities have all contributed in varying degrees to the acquisition of data on Ghana's oil resources. As a fact between 1984 and 1994, Ghana spent in excess of $300 million on data acquisition and related projects. KOSMOS           was itself attracted to Ghana after the data had been made available to it.

The USA branch of the NPP does not deny that the United States of America intended or wished to establish a military base in Ghana. It stated inter alia that “….plans to establish a United States military base in the country surfaced at least four years before the oil discovery and that it has more to do with the war on terrorism than the control of oil resources in Ghana”. Clearly what this branch of the NPP seeks to do is to admit the intent to establish a US military base in Ghana but to delink it from the control of the country's oil. Unfortunately, the United States itself coupled its intention to establish a military base in Ghana with its control of the oil resources of West Africa.

When President George W. Bush became the President of the United States of America in 2001, he set up what has come to be known as the Chenney Committee, chaired by his Vice President good old Dick Chenney with a mandate to review US strategic energy requirements. The report of the Chenny Committee predicted that US oil imports from West Africa will rise from 11 per cent in 2001 to 25 per cent in 2015 as a result of several factors. The report recommended that as a measure to protect US interest in West African oil, military bases needed to established in West Africa. Following this recommendation the late president of Nigeria, Omaru Yardua stated that Nigeria will not allow the establishment of foreign military bases on its soil and will use all of her influence to prevent the establishment of US military bases in West Africa.

The USA branch of the NPP states that ….”Ghana's proven oil reserves of 1.8 million barrels, whiles contextually significant and greatly appreciated, constitute only 0.17 per cent of proven oil reserves on the entire African continent” and therefore the US will not spend more than $10 billion to establish a military base in Ghana. The ignorance of the USA branch of the NPP is more than apparent. The US military base in Ghana was to serve the strategic interest of the US in the entire West African sub-region and beyond. Secondly, it is only the Jubilee Oil Field in Ghana which has been assessed to have reserves of up to 1.8 billion. There are several other fields with huge potentials and the US unlike the NPP branch knows this.

In attempting to refute my claim that the NPP has supported the KOSMOS – EXXON – MOBIL deal, the branch wrote “certain individuals who may be sympathetic to the NPP have expressed support for the deal, but the party itself has not made any declaration in support of it”. What a pity and who are these individuals who support the deal?

The loudest supporter of the KOSMOS – EXXON deal has been Mr. K.T. Hammond, former NPP Deputy Minister of Energy who has acted as the party spokesperson on Energy in many instances. Other persons with substantial influence in the NPP have also spoken out in favour of this rather dubious deal which frowns on the laws of Ghana. In any case the USA branch of the NPP leaves no doubt about what the party's position is, when it asks “…why would Pratt be so vehemently opposed to an American company buying out another American company, but demonstrates tacit support for the Chinese Company's purchase? Although it was supposedly a GNPC/CNOOC offer, with the Chinese putting up the entire $5 billion, who do you think would control the stake when purchased? Do not forget that when the opportunity presented itself for the Chinese to invest money to explore for oil in Ghana, they laughed at what they called the “oil graveyard”. Can the NPP's position on the KOSMOS-EXXON deal be more clearer?

Statements by the USA branch of the NPP which tend to glorify gold exploitation in Ghana are at best misinformed. As at today, Ghana gets only five per cent of the total value of gold it exports. Is the USA branch of the NPP happy with this situation too?

I am sick and tired of these imperialist attack dogs and their anti-national machinations and if these types get anywhere near power we might as well begin to sing the requiem mass for Nkrumah's Ghana.

Source: The insight Newspaper