US Foreign Policy Through The Blood Of Africa: Obama Ghana Must Go

20 July 2009

By Reason Wafawarova

THE Ghana visit by President Barack Obama and the subsequent speech delivered in the Ghanaian Parliament have been treated by some as the caricature of goodwill and the ultimate catechism on democracy.

Obama was following in the footsteps of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who both visited the West African country during their presidential tenures at the White House.

Obama made it very clear that he had chosen Ghana for "its democratic commitment" and in typical American fashion, he did not hesitate to give a sound lecture on democracy and to make it very clear that Washington remains the examining board that awards the marks for democracy internationally, and that by definition.

Such frequent visits to Ghana by presidents of the United States must create a serious soul-searching among African states, from South Africa, Nigeria, Angola to everyone else, at least by what we read in the media. Indeed Ghana was overjoyed with this endorsement of being the shining beacon of democracy on the continent and the people of Ghana did exactly what Africans do best, sing and dance the hell out for visiting presidents.

The difference between Obama’s visit and that of his predecessors is that he was carrying US foreign policy on non-white shoulders and that the policy was for once being propounded by someone with "the blood of Africa within me".

Was this the US foreign policy in the blood of Africa or the blood of Africa fronting the US foreign policy?

Obama’s African blood provided a totally different context in terms of politics and that context gave a meaning that could only be dreamt of by any other Western leader visiting Africa.

It was a question of political theatre versus actual politics. When you are a celebrated achiever such as Obama is today, you really do not worry much about the actual politics or the effect of the content of what you say.

You can pretty much rely on the theatrical influence of your celebrity status and what you do or say is celebrated for who you are and not what those things are.

Ablade Glover, a Ghanaian painter, put it correctly when he said, "When a white man like the French president comes to tell you to put your house in order it is seen as an offence. When a black brother comes it is good advice."

This was in reference to Nicolas Sarkozy’s very poorly received speech in Dakar, Senegal.

What Sarkozy said was pretty much the same as what Obama said in Accra.

The truth of the matter is Africa does not need Obama to know that it has a governance problem.

There is the African Union initiative on this matter and even the failed George W. Bush Millennium Challenge Corporation was centred on this very topic. In short, this matter has been highlighted countless times.

Equally the assertion that Zimbabwe’s economic problems had nothing to do with Western sanctions was not an Obama invention.

This is the position of the United States and that of the West and it is a position that passes blame for the economic crisis on "unsound policies like the chaotic land reform programme".

This position is always void of the effects of the economic sanctions on Zimbabwe. In fact, the position assumes that the sanctions have had a benign effect and are, in fact, very popular with ordinary Zimbabweans.

Zimbabwe does not need Obama to know that the West will not take responsibility for the effects of their illegal sanctions on the country.

This has been repeated by Western leaders countless times, despite the collective position of the three political parties that form Zimbabwe’s inclusive Government, that sanctions must be lifted if at all the economy is to recover.

The US interest in Ghana in recent years is obviously all to do with the plan to establish Africom, the Africa Command, the euphemism for a US military base that Washington seeks to establish on mainland Africa. That was the cause for the visits by Obama’s predecessors and certainly that is what influenced his choice of Ghana over other sub-Saharan African countries.

Obama did the usual Washington gimmick of selling terrorism as the motivation for Africom. Said Obama: "Our Africa Command is focused not on establishing a foothold on the continent, but on confronting these common challenges to advance the security of America, Africa and the world."

Obama was applauded for this tired argument that got Bush ridiculed so many times.

That brings us back to the issue of context, leaving us with political theatre devoid of actual politics. Obama gets applauded for what would pass for an insult if it came from any other mouth.

The John Koufur government had serious trouble trying to assure Ghanaians they did not have plans to host Africom and here is Obama explaining in one sentence what this monster is all about and getting a round of applause for it.

Surely the US foreign planners must be seriously planning to have another black president to get things moving this fast in Africa.

The logic here is very simple. George W. Bush was a war-mongering white US president and his efforts to establish Africom in Africa were imperialistic and evil.

The same evil becomes righteous goodness because Obama preaches it.

It is that simple. Obama’s terrorism message is more legitimate than that of Bush.

The official position for Obama’s choice of Ghana was partly that "Ghana’s history is rich; the ties between our two countries are strong".

So strong are the ties that Ghana qualified to be part of a world tour starting with a visit to Moscow where Obama went for "a summit between two great powers", and followed by a "meeting of leading economies" in Italy, to use Obama’s own terms.

Ghana’s relevance in this context was its "strategic position to shape the 21st century". The only expansion given for this by Obama was "your prosperity can expand America’s prosperity".

The question is how does Ghana’s prosperity expand America’s prosperity?

In what way is this shared prosperity relevant to the shaping of the 21st century? By the way, Ghana will help shape the century the way the US wants the century shaped.

The only foreseeable transaction right now is American aid to Ghana in exchange for Africom. It is Africom that will expand American prosperity on the continent of Africa and Ghana will, by harbouring US military aggressors, assume a "prosperity (that) can expand America’s prosperity."

Obama did say he was looking forward to a partnership between the US and Africa, based on mutual responsibility. He correctly said Africa’s future is up to Africans and he reiterated that position by reinforcing his own African roots, for better appeal.

The question is on the issue of mutual responsibility. It is hard to envisage this partnership driven by mutual responsibility when the African Union is so frustrated by its counterparts from Europe treating them like a "club of dictators" and despising every one of their efforts on resolving the continent’s problems.

Obama hailed Jomo Kenyatta and Kwame Nkurumah as part of the generation that brought down colonial empires in Africa and founded "new nations".

He, however, lamented the fact that the efforts of this generation have been badly betrayed by slow economic growth, disease and conflict.

He followed this up by saying: "The West has often approached Africa as a patron or a source of resources rather than as a partner." So Obama is aware of this perennial problem and how it has made governance such a difficult task in Africa?

In what this writer views as a contradiction, Obama followed up his observation on the patronising role of the West by boldly declaring: "But the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwe economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants."

How patronising is it for the West to declare that Zimbabwe’s agriculture is best done by white settler farmers or else they stop co-operation with Zimbabwe?

How patronising is it for Britain to mobilise the rest of Europe and the entire Western communities in Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand to isolate Zimbabwe, purely on the basis of the country daring to redistribute its land for the benefit of its indigenous people?

And, of course, the West has presented itself as "a source of resources" by funding political parties and civic organisations in Zimbabwe so that they can shape the future of the country in line with their own interests. Is this not in contradiction to Obama’s declared position that "Africa’s future is up to Africans"?

Talking about conflicts and the enlisting of children as combatants; Obama must be aware of how Ronald Reagan funded some of these "child soldier wars" in Angola, Mozambique and other places where murderous rebels were armed to the hilt by Washington in the name of fighting communism and the Russians.

To his credit, Obama rightly noted that with tribalism, patronage and nepotism reigning supreme in Africa, there cannot be good governance and without good governance there cannot be development.

Obama said he wanted to make a clear position on four areas of governance, and these were democracy, opportunity, health and conflict resolution.

It is quite interesting that Obama credited "civil society and businesspeople" for stopping the Kenya post-election violence of 2008.

He also credited the Zimbabwe Election Support Network for teaching Zimbabweans that "a person’s vote is their sacred right".

The civil society and businesspeople of Kenya, together with Zimbabwe’s ZESN, must feel greatly honoured when Obama thrusts upon their shoulders this great honour.

However, not many Kenyans would agree that civic society and businesspeople stopped the violence in Kenya and surely many in the world will not agree with Obama for suggesting that the events of 2008 in Kenya can be singled out to express happiness about the flourishing of democracy in Africa.

Neither would Zimbabweans agree that ZESN taught them that "a person’s vote is their sacred right".

Zimbabweans fought for 14 years for their right to vote and they have been exercising that "sacred right" since 1980.

On opportunity, Obama criticised "dependency on commodities" and reiterated the importance of skills training and focusing on diversified productive economies.

He also made it very clear that aid is neither a means nor an end in itself.

He said Africa must focus on trade and investment and must value "the dignity of work". Nothing can be truer than this.

Africa has some of the laziest people on this planet and we do lack initiative and innovation.

Unless we do away with this dependency syndrome and the culture of being employees, we can forget about creating the opportunities that Obama was talking about.

On health, Obama highlighted the brain drain in Africa as an area of concern and Zimbabweans do not need an explanation on this.

He promised that the US would focus on maternal health and children’s health, together with continuing to support efforts to combat HIV/Aids.

This, he acknowledged was a George W. Bush initiative that he would follow through. In all fairness, the US efforts in combating HIV/Aids and promoting health in Africa must be applauded.

He ended his speech by tackling the issue of conflict. He said: "Let me be clear: Africa is not the crude caricature of a continent at perpetual war. But if we are honest, for far too many Africans, conflict is a part of life, as constant as the sun.

"There are wars over land and wars over resources. And it is still far too easy for those without a conscience to manipulate whole communities into fighting among faiths and tribes."

Who are these without conscience who "manipulate whole communities into fighting among faiths and tribes"?

You cannot absolve African politicians who lead these rebellions and civil wars.

Equally, it is hard to absolve those foreign powers with whom these politicians collaborate as recipients of benchmarked funding designed to promote foreign interests.

There is no single African rebel leader who has been known to have the financial capacity to run and sustain a war but they do it for decades without running out of ammunition.

Who funds these wars and on what motivation?

Africa we are one. It is homeland or death!

EsinIslam.Com