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

Why Kofi Annan's "Green Wash" In Africa Does Not Wash! Part One

Introduction:

"Father of GM Food" Receives a TKO on BBC's "One Planet"?


LISTEN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!
"The father of GM foods, bolivian seeds and wildebeest
Dr Roger Beachy, the father of GM foods on scientific ignorance and our moral obligations
Read full summary, ListenDuration: 28 minutes"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00b2rgn

By way of introduction, I would like very much to hurriedly draw your attention to this programme, and pray, you make it a point not to miss it, while it is available.The accuracy or otherwise of the following transcription is still verifiable. Currently running on the website of the BBC is an important humiliation of the arrogant "Monsanto scientists" President Obama seems to rely upon to take charge of US Department of Food and Agriculture. You may want to call it the most up-to-date public debate (last broadcast, Sun 10 Oct 2010, available to listen online for a few more days) on allowing genetically modified organisms into our food chain. Another claim one can successfully make about this debate is the fact that it brought together, some of the best brains on the opposing sides of the issue in a broadcast that was beamed to millions of people across the globe. I have decided to write about this as an introduction to a special focus on the threat of GMO invasion on the African continent. The reason why I urgently want to bring this out is because even though I have improvised a transcription, owing to the importance of the issue the debate covers, it is still possible to listen to the discussion online. It goes off forever after a few days!

On "One Planet", a BBC World Service "Factual and Science and Nature Programme", Dr. Roger Beachy, the man reputed to have made the first genetically food crop, also described by the presenter as "the father of GM Food", "the man appointed by Barack Obama to head the National Institute of Food and Agriculture" (www.csrees.usda.gov), answers the following question from BBC's Mike Williams. I like very much the style of the presenter. He takes his time to let his listeners know the experience and qualifications of the people he is interviewing. To Dr. Beachy he asks:

"You have been called 'the father of GM food' how does that feel like?", Dr. Beachy confirms with admirable humility, "But then so have a number of other people, I am one of the members of the club, I guess, of those of us who adopted the science nearly twenty five years ago. And I was privileged enough to be at the right place at the right time with the right idea."

"And with the help of the company, Monsanto, you made the first genetically modified food crop?" Mike wants us to know whom he is talking to,

"We did, successfully,"  Dr. Beachy's answer is in the affirmative, "and then had the first field trial of genetically engineered food plant, that was a tomato that was resistant to a virus disease. The field trial was held in 1987."

Then comes the long-awaited question:

"Does it bother you that there is resistance, people are scared, some people, are scared of this technology, concerned about it?"

Here is Dr. Beachy's answer:

"You know, there is a recent article that was published about why people make decisions about accepting cell-phone technology, or driving a fast car,, or GM crops, or having a vaccine for measles. And there are always some who will choose against all facts, against all knowledge, simply not to participate for some other reason, reason in their hearts, in their heads, in their souls, they choose not based on science. so, maybe you want to turn the question around. How have they taken those attitudes, where do those attitudes come from?

"If they hold those attitudes strongly and honestly," an obviously surprised Mike Williams would only mildly ask, "It's, I'm sure, you would accept that it's not your job, not trying to change that?"

"Exactly right," Dr. Beachy responds, "the job of the scientist is to discover new solutions. What we would hope is that decisions that are made by the public are based upon their knowledge and understanding of the science. And, clearly, we know that that is not happening in many cases. We know in the case of vaccines, that some people simply wont take vaccines for reasons that are not based on science but for something else."

"Forgive me, if I..." Mike tries to intervene without success.

"Then on the other hand, we know that people will not take new food, who will not accept a new food variety because they believe that it should be grown in a certain way. And I think those decision-making process is often in the absence of science. Now, one could say that, perhaps, we should have started fifty years ago, and maintained our level of science education, so that when new facts come along, it would be more understood and so forth, but we haven't done that."

At this stage, I simply can't wait to bring you with me to Mike, back in London, inside the laboratory of Dr. Michael Antoniou, as a molecular geneticist, surely a man no one can call a "scientific illiterate", whose opposition to GM food is not only "based on science", but also has a ring of credibility completely absent in Dr. Beachy's hocus pocus on the reasons why there is resistance to the attempts to impose GM crops on the world. What makes the rebuttal of Dr. Antoniou so sweet is not simply because he happens to be an expert in the field, but also the manner in which he tears the arguments of Dr. Roger Beachy and Mr. Jack Bobo, "Senior Advisor for Bio-Technology in the US Department of State.". So, I continue with the interview in Washington before we come back to London.

"Can I just bring you back to that reference to vaccines which the science shows to be beneficial to them? what you can then do is to put the vaccine in the water and I think one of those arguments people make about GM crops is that there are concerns that those genes would spread and end up ingesting genetically modified material. That is what they are concerned about."

"You know," Dr. Beachy replies, "I gave a talk in Dublin a number of years ago, and a young man was really, really concerned about potatoes. And we said we were mostly talking about corn and cotton. He said the corn pollen would contaminate the potato. He didn't know that the corn pollen couldn't pollinate potato. Which gets us back the issue of illiteracy about science. It is very easy to promote fear and distrust when there is lack of knowledge in those who are reading or listening. So in the case of cross-pollination as issue, if you had a guy who was exporting organic weet corn, and somebody next door is producing commercial corn for cows and other uses, the sweet corn has a different pollination time than does the commercial corn. So, the chances for contamination in that example are non-existent or can be managed very nicely. If the farmer, that is, one or the other, says I am going to plant my crop a little bit later, then, yes, there is no cross-pollination. My point is by knowing about the biology of organisms and how they are grown, one can find ways that side-by-side, we can have a safe organic production or commercial production and bio-tech,. It is straight science knowledge and the inability not to  vilify but to get along with each other."

"Joining us here is Jack Bobo, Senior Advisor for Bio-Technology, US Department of State," Mike turns his attention to Jack Bobo, "Erm, Mr. Bobo," Mike asks, "can I just ask you about United States policy? I mean, it seems clear that the United States is interested in promoting genetically modified food world-wide, tell me why?"

"Actually, I would say that the United States is interested in promoting agriculture world-wide, and bio-technology just happens to be one of those. We promote organic agriculture, and bio-technology. But as an export issue and as a development issue, I think there is a particular importance though, trying to address the issue of acceptance of bio-technology both from a farmer perspective, and consumer perspective."

"I wonder whether you would agree", Mike fires, "that, we are, in the West, exporting Western consumerism to the rest of the world, and the GM crops is, perhaps, an attempt to export a solution to that particular problem?"

"The fact is, we need a double food production between now and 2050. that is a huge challenge." Mr. Bobo confidently explains, "Climate change means there is going to be a 27% decline in productivity. We need to double production and we have declining productivity. How are we going to do about that? And so we need all the technology that are available in order to do that, and so the developing world desperate need of technologies that are going to reduce the variability of yields, and that would allow them to produce their own food. this is not about exporting consumerism. This is about production and self-sufficiency."

"I would like to add," Dr. Beachy interjects, "that I think this is an area that the developed nations must collaborate on. This partnership in knowledge sharing  and in building the ability of countries to feed themselves is our responsibility, it's your responsibility, and should be based on science. It should not be based on a demonization of technology per se. It should be based on the best science that meets the needs of the world. And I think that is a responsibility that goes beyond philosophy, whether it is GM, organic, or conventional. It becomes a moral obligation of not feeding people but educating them so that they can feed themselves."

"Do yo think that the technology has been demonized?" Mike asks.

"I think it has been, largely." Dr. Beachy replied. "In our country, it has been demonized because it is a way to value something else more. An organic product costs more than conventional product. That 20, 25, maybe even in a hundred per cent premium on an organic banana compared to conventional, allows somebody to make more money. It is about finances in that case. And I would like to see this come down to what is safer for the environment, safer for people, and more economic so that those who don't have as much as you and I have, sitting here around this table, with a biscuit and a cup of tea, can say that the woman who has less, has the same capabilities of feeding herself and her kids, as we do sitting around the table. And I think that's only going to come when we adopt the safest and best technologies of whatever type, to help to make things happen. And then we can put that responsibility behind."

"Some of the problems you are fighting to overcome through genetically modified food seem to many, to have come about because of monoculture and that monoculture has caused the problem and that GM monoculture isn't going to provide the solution."

"Modern agriculture is by definition a monoculture." Dr. Beachy would surrender no grounds, "You can drive around through - I love driving through - the southern parts of England and watching the fields of wheat. That is monoculture. Don't pretend it's not. But don't blame that on GM, blame it on modern, high output agriculture. The wheat is cheap because we grew them in the wheat fields. Our beef isn't expensive because they grow a lot of corn in large monoculture so that we can feed at lower cost than if we had it in small plots. So, it is agriculture that you are talking about. You are not talking about GMOs or conventional agriculture."

Thus it was that my hopes that this could be an opportunity to hear what I needed to know to understand the best and the most current argument making the case for GM food passed by in vain. Unfortunately, instead of squarely confronting the real issues surrounding the biology, politics, and the economics of GM technology the advocates only insult our intelligence. If I was looking for any insight or argument that would have effectively addressed my own apprehensions about GM crops, I was alarmingly disappointed. Dr. Beachy is no doubt a brilliant geneticist, but as an advocate of his wares, he is certainly not the best in town. The fundamental choice of ignoring the highly informed and science-based opposition to the current push to promote genetically modified organisms into our food chain with lower and lower restrictions, and the erosion of the precautionary measures installed to safeguard against possible hazards must be rightly considered a crime against humanity.

I call on all the people's of the world to uphold the precautionary approach contained in Principle 15 of the "Rio Declaration on environment and Development" as relates to the current uncertainties surrounding GMOs. The principle states:

"Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information and knowledge regarding the extent of the potential adverse effects of an LMO on biodiversity, taking into account risks to human health, shall not prevent a Party of import from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of the LMO in question, in order to avoid or minimize such potential adverse effects." Annex III on risk assessment, which notes that "Lack of scientific knowledge or scientific consensus should not necessarily be interpreted as indicating a particular level of risk, an absence of risk, or an acceptable risk." (Article 10.6 and 11.8).

I was expecting answers that go beyond questions raised by advocates of GMO particularly in Africa, such as summarized in the following abstract: "Even after more than 15 years of the emergence of modern biotechnology in agriculture, much of Africa remains reluctant if not hostile to it. Some view modern biotechnology as the new messiah to lift Africa from starvation and food insecurity while others hold the contrary view and advise Africa to stay away from the technology for reasons ranging from health and environmental concerns to economic considerations. They fear that the unfolding ‘gene revolution’ is destined to fail on its promises because of the existing complex economic, social, and political circumstances in Africa as was the case in the green revolution." (Presented at the SIEL 2010 Conference in Barcelona., Birhanu, Fikremarkos Merso, Biotechnology and the Future of Africa’s Agriculture (June 30, 2010). Society of International Economic Law (SIEL), Second Biennial Global Conference, University of Barcelona, July 8-10, 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1633009)

In his response to the question, "Does it not bother you that there is resistance, people are scared, some people, are scared of this technology, concerned about it?" Dr. Beachy chose to blame the resistance to what he calls "scientific illiteracy". Said Dr. Beachy:

"You know, there is a recent article that was published about why people make decisions about accepting cell phone technology, or driving a fast car, or GM crops,or having a vaccine for measles, and there are some who wil choose against all facts, against all knowledge, simply not to participate for some other reasons, reason in their hearts, in their heads, in their souls, they choose, not based on science. So maybe, you want to turn the question around. How have they taken those attitudes? Where do they come from?"

It is a pity that Dr. Beachy had clearly not read Crossed Crocodiles, "Why Is Kofi Annan Fronting For Monsanto? GMO Assault On Africa". If he had done that, he would have been ably to give a more intelligent response, or at least one that is not as stupid and insultingly arrogant, as as this one. I am not a geneticist, and I do not cease to be amazed by the brilliant contributions to knowledge particularly in fighting disease, but I bet I know where my concerns about GM food are coming from! These have nothing to do with "scientific illiteracy"! They are coming from the bitter experiences of over twenty five thousand farmers in India who committed suicide with Monsanto''s pesticides after being misled into the believing that genetically modified cotton was the key to higher yields and bigger profits.

They are coming from reports that scientists working for Monsanto refused to drink the milk that they themselves had helped to invent. As Jeffrey M. Smith puts it, "former Monsanto scientist said that after company scientists conducted safety studies on bovine growth hormone, all three refused to drink any more milk, unless it was organic and therefore not treated with the drug. They feared the substantial increase of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in the drugged milk. IGF-1 is a significant risk factor for cancer." - Monsanto: The world's poster child for corporate manipulation and deceit, Friday, July 30, 2010. http://www.naturalnews.com/029325_Monsanto_deception.html.

Our fears also come from the fact that GMOs remain inside of us. "The only published human feeding study revealed that even after we stop eating GMOs, harmful GM proteins may be produced continuously inside of us; genes inserted into Monsanto's GM soy transfer into bacteria inside our intestines and continue to function.(64) If Bt genes also transfer, eating corn chips might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories."

"Un-recallable contamination: In spite of the enormous health dangers, the environmental impacts may be worse still. That is because we don't have a technology to fully clean up the contaminated gene pool. The self-propagating genetic pollution released into the environment from Monsanto's crops can outlast the effects of climate change and nuclear waste."

For Dr. Beachy to simply brush all these legitimate, and many more science-based concerns aside, with the ridiculous claim that opposition to the acceptance of GM crops in our food chain is largely based upon our ignorance is the cheapest way to avoid the hard questions which tip the debate against GMOs. What makes this particular programme very interesting is the fact that the "One Planet" also interviewed a molecular geneticist, Dr Michael Antoniou, Kings College London (www.kcl.ac.uk). The beauty of this lies in the fact that Dr. Antoniou is himself a genetic engineer and as such can not be deemed to be "scientifically illiterate".

"Dr. Antoniou, what is it do you do here?" The question was asked whilst inside a laboratory of King's College, where Dr. Antoniou works.

"What we do in my research group", Dr. Antoniou responds, "is to investigate fundamental mechanisms of how human gene systems are controlled, and then we exploit those discoveries to design safe and efficacious gene units to be used within a therapeutic context, within a human gene therapy context, for treating for example, inherited diseases such as immune deficiencies, thalassemia, sickle disease, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, and so on."

"The people who create GM crops use very similar techniques to yours, different applications though, are you comfortable with that?"

"I am not comfortable at all with the way that GM is being used in agriculture". Dr. Antoniou answer categorically, "because compared to what we do in a clinical context, where not only research is done under contained genes, they are non-replicated. They can't reproduce and spread and cause harm. In agriculture the same technique is used in open fields, the organism can spread in an uncontrolled way and we suffer with the consequences of that forever."

"You use this technology to device medical therapy to help people to live longer and healthier lives, to keep more of us on the planet for longer, what is wrong with other scientists using these same techniques to fed those extra millions and billions? They say  -  you heard the argument  - that there was a need, a moral moral obligation?", Dr. Antoniou responds:

"Indeed, the world has a moral obligation to feed itself. What is invariably ignored by advocates of GM crops in explaining why almost a billion of people in the world go to bed, each day, hungry, is that actually, we have  more than enough food to feed everybody now. In fact, we have have doubled the amount of food to feed everybody in the world now, but people don't have access to food. And in terms of meeting future food needs, specifically in the face of climate change, then the latest United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation sponsored report clearly pointed that the future in meeting future food needs lie in applying agro-ecological methods. They said that genetic engineering would play little or no role in meeting immediate food needs of the world and future food needs of the world. Which is why the Americans were not signatory. But 62 other nations, actually signed up, including the UK, signed up to that report. We have to take on board, the report compiled by 400 independent scientists from around the world, in all manner of expertise and discipline, which said go forward with low-input, agro-ecological, sustainable agriculture, not GM, because GM simply does not fit the bill."

We shall be focusing on Bolivai and the GMO debate soon.

This is what I call, a "technical knock-out"!

And the winner is...

Bravo! Dr. Michael Antoniou!!!

Thanks, Mike, and the BBC for this eye-opener!



FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Nana Akyea Mensah distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C ß 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this blog for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Why is Kofi Annan Fronting For Monsanto? The GMO Assault On Africa

 Why is Kofi Annan Fronting For Monsanto? The GMO Assault On Africa http://crossedcrocodiles.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/why-is-kofi-annan-fronting-for-monsanto-the-gmo-assault-on-africa/

Why do you bring your mistakes here?

Kofi Annan has joined with President Obama, Monsanto, AGRA, and the Gates foundation to promote and execute food aid that replaces bags of wheat, rice and corn (agricultural dumping) with bags of pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers and genetically engineered seeds. The end result will be to starve people in Africa and feed corporations in the US and Europe.

Kofi Annan and farmers

Under the guise of “sustainability” the [Gates] Foundation has been spearheading a multi-billion dollar effort to transform Africa into a GMO-friendly continent. The public relations flagship for this effort is the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), a massive Green Revolution project. Up to now AGRA spokespeople have been slippery, and frankly, contradictory about their stance on GMOs.
…
If you had any doubts about where the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is really placing its bets, AGRA Watch’s recent announcement of the Foundation’s investment of $23.1 million in 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock should put them to rest. Genetic engineering: full speed ahead. (Eric Holt-Gimenez)

If you have questions about Monsanto’s agenda, here it is in brief:

At a biotech industry conference in January 1999, a representative from Arthur Anderson, LLP explained how they had helped Monsanto design their strategic plan. First, his team asked Monsanto executives what their ideal future looked like in 15 to 20 years. The executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Anderson consultants then worked backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct. (Jeffrey M. Smith)

Kofi Annan is Chairman of the Board of Directors for AGRA. He is convening a conference in Ghana in the first week of September. As detailed in this blog, and by others, both AGRA and USAID top positions are filled with people that come from Monsanto and Dupont.
Kofi Annan Calls For United Effort To Accelerate African Green Revolution

African heads of state, industry representatives, the international donor community and farmers will meet in Ghana at the African Green Revolution Forum (AGRF) in the first week of September. Delegates will create an action plan on the acceleration of a Green Revolution in Africa.

Samuel Amoako has reported on this as well: Kofi Annan Hosts Forum On Africa’s Food Security in the Ghanaian Times on August 11.
It is worrisome that Kofi Annan is connected with AGRA. Maybe he believes that US mechanized and chemical agriculture work well. Most people in the US do, aside from family farmers who see the effects first hand. I have a good friend who works for the US Dept. of Agriculture and thinks this kind of big agriculture really is the best and that Monsanto is a boon to mankind. We have had several heated discussions. In fact Monsanto is destroying land, causing chemically induced human diseases, creating super weeds, super insect pests, and economic havoc in many parts of the US farming areas, particularly in the midwest and the south. There have been countless protests all over India and Brazil. I’ve read many heartbreaking stories, including this comment from Pearl on this blog:

The farmers of southern Kentucky have been enslaved by Monsanto. The previous generation fell for an ad campaign called “Hi-bred” or “High-Bred”, and the current generation is stuck with fulfilling the contracts their fathers signed. The chemicals that Monsanto has contractually required be applied to those fields have so damaged the soil that the only way to get anything to grow in the fields now is to keep applying more of those blasted chemicals. So even if a person who inherited a contract WANTS to discontinue the agreement with Monsanto when the contract expires, they are unable to do so unless they want to leave the land fallow for many, many, many years. Most farmers cannot afford to do this, as this would mean little to no income for their families for somewhere between 5 to 20 years, depending on how long it would take for the soil to renew itself.

I’ve always had enormous respect for Kofi Annan, I do not understand his participation in this and it bothers me a great deal. Even though I admire and respect him there are no free passes with a subject like this.
Genetically modified crops produce less, not more, than conventional crops.
Alexis Baden-Mayer points out in Dupont, Monsanto, and Obama Versus the World’s Family Farmers that AGRA is basing its programs on myth:

Most of the world’s food is not produced on industrial mega-farms. 1.5 billion family farmers produce 75 percent of the world’s food.
The hunger problem is not caused by low yields. The world has 6 billion people and produces enough food for 9 billion people.

And as I’ve discussed before, the smaller the farm the greater the yield.

There is an inverse relationship between the size of farms and the amount of crops they produce per hectare. The smaller they are, the greater the yield.
In some cases, the difference is enormous. A recent study of farming in Turkey, for example, found that farms of less than one hectare are twenty times as productive as farms of over ten hectares(3). Sen’s observation has been tested in India, Pakistan, Nepal, Malaysia, Thailand, Java, the Phillippines, Brazil, Colombia and Paraguay. It appears to hold almost everywhere. (Monbiot)

The key to true food security is food sovereignty, and the key to food sovereignty lies in who controls the land. The problems of both starvation and obesity stem from injustice in the way farmland and food are distributed. AGRA policies will poison the land and water, destroy local seeds and seed gene pools that provide the true hope for food sustainability. Local agriculture in most parts of the world has developed seeds that are tough and resistant to local pests, weeds, and local environmental dangers such as droughts or floods. AGRA wishes to replace these seeds with ones that need expensive, continuous, and ever expanding chemical coddling. These chemicals will poison the land, the water, and the people.
Additionally the Gates Foundation, Monsanto, and other corporate interests are investing in a doomsday seed bank, in which they will own the world’s agricultural gene pool. They are storing seeds from all over the world. In the event of genetic disaster, they will own the surviving gene pool.
Jonathan Weiner, in The Beak of the Finch describes how chemicals drive the destruction of land and the creation of super weeds and super insect pests:

Some of the greatest opposition to evolution comes from the farmers of the Cotton Belt, and that is where Taylor is seeing one of the most dramatic cases of evolution in action on this planet.
… in the year 1940, cotton farmers began spraying their fields with the chemical compound dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, better known as DDT. These first insecticidal sprays killed so many insects, and killed so many of the birds that ate the insects, that in biological terms the cotton fields were left standing virtually vacant, like an archipelago of newborn islands – and out of the woods and hedgerows fluttered [the cotton destroying moth] Heliothis virescens.
In the next few optimistic years, pesticide manufacturers assaulted Heliothis with bigger and bigger doses of DDT. They also brought out more poisons from the same chemical family: aldrin, chlordane. The aim was nothing less than the control of nature, and pesticide manufacturers believed that control was within their grasp. The annual introduction of new pesticides rose from the very first product, DDT, in 1940, to great waves of chemical invention in the 1960s and 1970s. In those decades, dozens of new herbicides and insecticides were brought to market each year. Heliothis became on of the most heavily sprayed species in what amounted to a biological world war. Through it all, the moths clung to the cotton.
… The moths have become almost absolutely resistant to all pesticides, from your cyclodienes to your organophosphates to your carbamates, and most of your pyrethroids. …
“Its an extraordinarily potent example of evolution going on under our eyes,” Taylor says. “Visible evolution.”
A pesticide applies selection pressure as surely as a drought or a flood. The poison selects against traits that make a species vulnerable to it, because the individuals that are most vulnerable are the ones that die first. The poison selects for any trait that makes the species less vulnerable, because the least vulnerable are the ones that survive longest and leave the most offspring. In this way the invention of pesticides in the twentieth century has driven waves of evolution in insects all over the planet. Heliothis is only one case in hundreds. (from pp 251-255)

In short, pesticides and herbicides destroy most of the insects, plants, and often other animals in those fields where they are used. But nature fights back. Those insects and weeds that can resist the chemicals initially, breed and grow stronger. They have no competition except from the chemicals, and they quickly evolve immunity, even as the chemicals become stronger and more toxic. Stronger and more toxic chemicals are needed to fight the new insects and weeds, and the destructive cycle continues. The chemicals wind up in the food, and run off into the land and the water, creating an ever increasingly toxic environment for humans and many other plants and animals.
For the growth of super weeds world wide, see the following charts:

The vertical axis shows the number of species of weeds that have become chemical resistant, the horizontal axis shows the years. You can see the exponential increase starting about 1970 when Monsanto introduced Roundup, and continuing into 2010. (click to enlarge)

You can see the distribution, North America, Western Europe, and Australia have already been severely impacted. Africa is a huge new market that has not yet been ruined. You can see why it is so desirable, it is a huge wide open opportunity to Monsanto and other greedy chemical corporations. Most countries in Africa have not yet been touched or biologically recolonized by GMOs and agricultural chemicals. South Africa, which has allowed GMOs, is the most severely impacted to date. (click to enlarge)

Genetically modified seeds, GMOs, are designed to be used as part of a program involving chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Their effect on farmers is usually to lock them into a cycle of debt, as described by Pearl above, and as experienced and protested in many countries including India and Brazil, as mentioned above. Terminator seeds, also known as suicide seeds or homicide seeds, will not regenerate, so instead of saving seeds, farmers have to buy new seeds each year, as well as investing in more, and more toxic chemicals each year that are necessary to make the GMO seeds grow. This cycle has created death and destruction in many places, including hundreds of farmer suicides in India. More...


FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Nana Akyea Mensah distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C ß 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this blog for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.