THE FORTHCOMING AU SUMMIT MUST SIMPLY LISTEN TO KWESI PRATT, JNR.!

Kwesi Pratt to NPP: Do You Support War or You Don't?

Author: Nana Akyea Mensah

"To make it worse, they say they don't want war, they are fighting the president for refusing to commit troops to a war that they don't want, and at the same time, they say that they support the ECOWAS position which includes the use of war. So, it is not clear what the position of the New Patriotic Party is. An I would like to know, in very clear terms what the position is... Now, if they are saying, telling us today, that they would have accepted the advice of the Military High Command, and President Mills has accepted the advice of the same Military High Command, where is the problem?"

- Kwesi Pratt Jnr., Speaking on Radio Gold's Alhaji and Alhaji on Saturday, 22nd January 2011

Notes:
Transcription by the "Office of The Odikro", based upon audio recording available on-line, see: Kwesi Pratt to NPP: Troops are sent for war, not to dance “Abele”, Myjoyonline.com, Monday, 24 January 2011, 10:32 GMT.

Host: Alhassan Suhuyini
Guests: Kwesi Pratt Jnr., CPP, CJA, Accra Freedom Centre, Managing Editor, The Insight Newspaper; Dr. Tony Aidoo, NDC, Head of Presidential Monitoring Unit, of the Mills Administration; Samuel Abu Jinapor, NPP, Special Aide to NPP Presidential Candidate, Nana Akufo-Addo.

BEGIN QUOTE:
Kwesi Pratt Jnr.: Frankly, I don't know what the New Patriotic Party is about. It is extremely difficult for me to say, what the point is, in the numerous statements that the New Patriotic Party has been making over the last couple of weeks.

Now listen, the New Patriotic Party, and its flag-bearer, make the point that they are not for war in La Côte d'Ivoire. That war in La Côte d'Ivoire, will have dangerous consequences for the people of Ghana. And yet, the same people are opposed to the president declaring that he would not commit troops to a war that they disagree with! Eh? This is incredible!

To make it worse, they say they don't want war, they are fighting the president for refusing to commit troops to a war that they don't want, and at the same time, they say that they support the ECOWAS position which includes the use of war. So, it is not clear what the position of the New Patriotic Party is. An I would like to know, in very clear terms what the position is.

Do They Support War or They Don't?
And if they don't support war, why would the president commit troops to La Côte d'Ivoire? Would those troops be sent to La Côte d'Ivoire to go and dance Tango? To go and dance Abele, Abele? Troops are sent to wage war! And that is the only reason why the president would commit troops to La Cote d'Ivoire. And that point needs to be made very, very clear.

Now Suhuyini, you know, this whole discussion about La Côte d'Ivoire, has been encased in ignorant noise-making. Nobody is talking about the facts. There is so much noise based on just complete ignorance, and we are misleading everybody with these ignorant noises!

I think it is important to set the records straight. The impression has been created that our President is betraying the so-called international community, and yet the facts on the ground increasingly suggest that the positions of Ghana and our President, are indeed too mild, compared to the positions that other heads of state and other organisations are taking.

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."

And Listen very carefully,. The President of Angola says:

"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...,"

And this is very important, listen to the Angolan position:

"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."

This is the president of Angola! Eh? Jose Eduardo dos Santos!.

Compare this position to the position of President Mills, and it is clear that President Mills is a dove by any standard! You understand?

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.

But you see, before anybody comes to the conclusion that this one President in Africa, hold on!

Yesterday, the Central African Republic made a very clear statement on the situation in La Côte d'Ivoire. Their position is that the whole world is being misled by foreign interventionist forces in La Côte d'Ivoire. And that it is now time for Africans to resolve their own problems. The Central African Republic has made it clear that it would not support military intervention in La Côte d'Ivoire, especially one that is dictated by neo-colonial imperialist forces, forces outside Africa, and that is clear.

The Gambia has even gone further. And Gambia is a West African country. Two days ago, the Gambian President despatched his Foreign Minister to Abidjan to declare solidarity with Laurent Gbagbo. As we speak, the Russians have blocked a UN vote on La Côte d'Ivoire because it fails to recognize the realities in La Côte d'Ivoire.

But you see, it is not just politicians who are seeing the light and who are speaking out publicly and speaking to the facts in La Côte d'Ivoire. You know, more than fifty Trade Union leaders from Africa have just met. More than fifty, have just met. And they come from countries such as Niger, Cameroon, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Morocco, Senegal, Rwanda, Mauritius, Nigeria, Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Angola, Algeria, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Ghana, and so on. More than fifty countries represented in this conference.

Now, what is even more significant is that the final position adopted by African Trade Unionists was read by our own Kwesi Adu-Amankwaa, who was Secretary-General of the Trade Unions Congress of Ghana. It is a very long resolution, and I am not going to read all of it. And in fact, for those of you who want to read all these things, we will publish them on Monday.

But Listen To The African Trade Union Leaders!

Listen to them very carefully. This is what they said. And I am reading only a part of it. They say:

"Already, most of our leaders are compromised by the dubious ways in which they got themselves into power or secured their continued stay there. The military option is a dangerous one that can plunge the whole West African sub-region into an unprecedented crisis and should not be encouraged.

African leaders, particularly West African ones, need to think outside the box, to devise a resolution that ensures peace and stability, as well as promotes democracy in the long run. Everything should be done to prevent the situation in La Côte d'Ivoire from degenerating into a situation of full-scale conflict and civil war."

These are African Trade Union leaders! This is their position. Now, you know, in this discussion, and indeed in all discussions about La Côte d'Ivoire, I think it is absolutely important that we respect the facts. Now if you are going to respect the facts, what are the facts?

The African Union, which has joined ECOWAS and the UN in insisting on the military option, and insisting that Ouattara won the elections in La Côte d'Ivoire, sent an observer team to La Côte d'Ivoire to observe both the first round and the second round of the elections. The African Union Team was led by Koku Koffigoh, former Prime Minister of Togo.

At the end of the elections, Koku Kofigoh, made a public statement in Abidjan to the effect that the results of the elections were not credible. They were not credible! And that they were vitiated by extreme violence, stuffing of ballot boxes and so on. Indeed it is interesting that two of the AU observers were kidnapped by the New Forces, and it took the intervention of the United Nations to secure their release.

So today, if the AU tells us that Ouatarra has won an election, or that we should wage war against La Côte d'Ivoire, what is the basis of the AU's position? Having regard to the fact that their own observers concluded that the elections could not be free and fair? Having regard to the fact that their own observers were kidnapped by the New Forces, and were not able to perform their duties?

You understand? This is the problem with the analysis! This is the clear problem with the analysis! AU sends an Observer Mission, the Observer Mission says the elections are not credible, and yet the AU declares a winner! And insists that we should go to war in order to make the "winner" the President, when its own Observer Mission, headed by a former Prime Minister, says that the elections were not credible! I mean Suhuyini, can you believe this?

Now Let Us Come Back To The Facts.
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. Now for those of you who have been shouting about war and so on,

I Have Some Interesting News For You!
You know, Suhuyini, I'd like to start with some definitions first. And then you will see how ridiculous the proposition to go to war is. Listen to me very carefully. I just checked, I am not a military man, so yesterday, I spent some time to go on the internet. And these are the definitions I got from the internet:

A platoon, a platoon, and fortunately Dr. Tony Aidoo is in the studio, having been Deputy Minister of Defence before, he may understand these things better than me.

Dr. Tony Aidoo: It is a small unit.
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: A platoon is twenty six to fifty five men. You understand? I will relate it to what I am going to say very soon. A platoon is twenty six to fifty five men. A company is eighty to two hundred and twenty five men. A battalion is three hundred to thousand three hundred men. And a regiment or brigade, is between three thousand and five thousand men and so on.

Now we are saying that the Ghana government is not committed to war. Other nations are committed to war. What is their concrete commitments? Look, ECOWAS chiefs of staff met in Abuja on the 28th of December last year, to consider the military option. So they said, everybody, bring what you have and let's go to war. Look at what they brought, Suhuyini, it is very interesting!

Liberia..., Liberia, Liberia committed one infantry platoon. To go to war in La Côte d'Ivoire, Liberia contributed twenty six men!

Dr. Tony Aidoo: Hm hm hm! [chuckling]
Kwesi Pratt Jnr.: Sierra Leone committed one infantry company. That is all they committed. One infantry company! Senegal, Senegal which is leading the charge, Senegal and Burkina Faso which are leading the charge listen to what they contributed. Senegal is contributing one commando company, one motorised infantry company, and one battalion headquarters, take note, headquarters, not a battalion, one battalion headquarters with level two hospital. Benin decided to contribute only one mechanised company! One mechanised company!

It is getting more and more interesting. Now you can see the point I am making. Togo, Togo decided to commit one motorised company, and a possible commando company. A "possible", it is not definite, commando company. Mali decided to contribute one transport company, one engineer company, and one motorised company.

Burkina Faso, Blaise Campoore's Burkina Faso. Blaise Campoore who is touring the world to make the case for military intervention. He has been to Britain, he's been to France, he is all over the place! Look at his contribution and you would laugh! Blaise Campoore's contribution, Burkina Faso's contribution is one mechanised infantry company, one commando company, and one engineer company. These are the contributions they are making.

This is a reflection of the commitment of West African leaders to war in La Côte d'Ivoire!

Abu Jinapor: What about Nigeria? A lot of troops!

Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Yes, I haven't come to that.

Abu Jinapor: A lot of troops!
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Hold on, hold on! Nigeria's contribution is here.

Abu Jinapor: A lot of troops!
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Nigeria's contribution is this. One motorised or mechanised battalion. One! One F-17 Fighter Squadron,

Dr. Tony Aidoo: A squadron is five people.
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.; Yeah. One M-135 squadron, one single company and battalion headquarters. Headquarters-ooh? Sea assets, and additional one or two infantry companies, as may be required. And indeed, Nigeria is making the highest contribution.

Abu Jinapor: If you put all of them together, it is a lot of troops!

Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: You don't know what you are talking about! You don't know what you are talking about!

Dr. Tony Aidoo: They don't even reach two thousand!

Abu Jinapor: If you put all of them together, it is a lot of troops! Combined with the New Forces.

Dr. Tony Aidoo: In total, they don't reach two thousand.

Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Abu, you don't know what you are talking about! Now listen, this force...

Abu Jinapor: Combined with the New Forces...

Host: Let's finish that.

Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Master, this force is going to La Côte d'Ivoire to wage war against a regular professional army of eleven thousand men! This is the force that is going to La Côte d'Ivoire to wage war against a regular professional army of eleven thousand men!

We are not talking about irregular forces and so on. They are in La Côte d'Ivoire, eleven thousand men! And you are sending less than two thousand men to go, defeat them, capture their President, and install your President! What recklessness can this be? This is irresponsibility at its highest level! And indeed, if I were a soldier in any of these countries, I would rebel!

Do you know why? Because this is their death warrant being signed!

Dr. Tony Aidoo: Suicide mission.
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr..: This is a suicide mission! Suicide mission! My brother, listen to me very carefully. If you have been to Abidjan before, Abidjan is a densely populated city, with high rise buildings and so on To be able to take Abidjan, you need have total air domination. You need to have troops which would take complete control of the ground and so on. In fact, the estimates to be able to do that, the interventionist force needs not less than twenty thousand men, to be able to do this effectively and to do it quickly.

And yet, our leaders in Africa think that with less than two thousand men, and outdated equipment and so on, they will be able to do it! God bless them! They are only sentencing their soldiers to death, painful death on the streets of La Côte d'Ivoire.

I am happy that our Commander-In-Chief, and President, has taken the wise decision not push Ghanaian soldiers into this reckless adventure! The lives of Ghanaian soldiers are important to us! The fact that they are soldiers doesn't mean that when there is any foolish thing, you go and push them inside there to go and die! So I am very happy with the decision which has been taken by the President.

But Most importantly, Suhuyini, listen, I heard our Defence Minister say that the decision of the Government of Ghana, was based on advice by the Military High Command. The Military High Command decided that they could not participate in this war. Now the Opposition leaders who are saying that the President should have done otherwise, what are they saying?

They are telling you that if indeed they were in power, they would ignore the advice of the Military High Command.

Abu Jinapor: No, no, we haven't said so!
Dr. Tony Aidoo: That is the implication!
Abu Jinapor: No! No! We have never said so!
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: So what is the problem then?
Abu Jinapor: Nana Akufo-Addo said it clearly. He said that he was going to heed to the advice of the Military High Command!

Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: So what is the problem?
Abu Jinapor: And our argument is not about committing troops. That has never been the case. We have no quarrel about that!

Host: Abu, Abu, you don't like being interrupted. You Protested seriously and dramatized your protest! I hope you understand.

Abu Jinapor: Nana Akufo-Addo was very clear on this!

Dr. Tony Aidoo: Let Kwesi Pratt finish!
Host: Please, please! Allow Kwesi to finish.
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr: Master, I am happy about the intervention of Abu. I am not disturbed at all about his intervention. You know the reason why I am not disturbed at all by the intervention? Because it makes it possible now, for our listeners to know what the issue is about!

They are saying that they would have accepted the advice of the Military High Command.

Abu Jinapor: Sure!
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Now, if they are saying, telling us today, that they would have accepted the advice of the Military High Command, and President Mills has accepted the advice of the same Military High Command, where is the problem?

Abu Jinapor: I will tell you when you are finished.

Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: You can say it any time! But you understand, where is the problem? You are saying that you would have accepted the same advice that President Mills has accepted, and yet you are complaining about him accepting advice that you would have accepted! I mean, where is the logic? You know, where is the logic?

As for the claim, as for the claim that because Ghana signed a certain resolution and so on, we are bound to do everything that the resolution imposes on us, the answer lies in the statement that Nana Akufo-Addo himself has made! Nana Akufo-Addo says that in the case of Liberia and Seirra Leone, all the Heads of State agreed to military intervention, and yet in the final analysis, only two countries committed troops!

Dr. Tony Aidoo: Huh! huh! huh!
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: What does that mean? That means it is possible to sign on to a declaration of war and not contribute troops! And that comes from Nana Akufo-Addo himself!

END QUOTE.

Forward Ever! Backwards Never!!!

Dear Reader,
There is one simple thing thing you can do to stop this war. Help spread the word, e-mail, tweet or share this information with your friends in any way you can!

Cheers!

Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro
*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

Africa: Climate Change And Climate Reparations

Cancún climate change summit: How Africa's voice has been hijacked

A scramble for individual leaders to speak for the whole of Africa undermines the common voice

By Nnimmo Bassey

Source: guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 December 2010 10.01 GMT

Article history

When it comes to UN climate summits, Africans usually, and rightly, have plenty to say. We are used to being the conscience of the outside world, which is so important in a setting where it is kept – through armed police, restrictions on peaceful protest and meetings closed to outsiders – as far away as possible. Yet at the latest talks in Cancún, our common voice is being hijacked – with potentially catastrophic consequences for the very people it should be speaking out for. How so? In the last few days, there has been a scramble for individual leaders to speak for the whole of Africa. Yet such moves have undermined the common voice with which Africa has spoken so powerfully up until now – with potentially devastating consequences. First, on Tuesday evening, the prime minister of Kenya suggested a second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol – through which rich countries have a legally binding obligation to cut their emissions – wasn't essential. Then, even worse, he suggested that the $100bn pledged in Copenhagen last year for developing countries was sufficient – even though Africa has agreed that the minimum that would even come close is six times this. Reports are circulating that the speech was written by a Japanese economic advisor on secondment to the prime minister's office – and his words, coincidently, are remarkably in line with Japan's announcement that it would "in no circumstances" sign up to a second commitment period of the protocol, which was signed on its own soil. The retraction of the PM's comments is testament to the stunned reaction it received here. Next up was the prime minister of Ethiopia, who walked into a meeting of African negotiators and proclaimed that the Copenhagen accord, agreed in the chaotic final hours of the climate negotiations in the Danish capital last year, should form the basis of the talks. Yet its proposed system of voluntary pledges would be disastrous – and are currently so low that global temperatures could rise dangerously high, according to a recent report from the United Nations Environment Programme. Cables released by WikiLeaks have confirmed that the prime minister was heavily leant on by the United States to sign up – and Ethiopia stands to benefit from billions in aid for doing so. Yet the rest of Africa will pay the price many times over. We Africans have long recognised our vulnerability to climate change. Recent research has shown that in a world of dangerous climate change, drought and desertification would increase markedly and farming patterns would be fundamentally altered – for the worse. Hundreds of millions could simply be overwhelmed. Friends of the Earth groups from Nigeria to Swaziland are bearing witness to the changes they are already seeing in their communities. Yet now, when rich countries are finally being asked to recognise this through taking strong action to cut their emissions, they are using Africans as a mouthpiece to help them wriggle out of it. What they should do is clear: commit unconditionally to an extension of the Kyoto protocol, cut their emissions by at least 40% by 2020 (without carbon offsetting), and provide more money for developing countries to tackle the problem. That rich countries have already applied extreme pressure on developing countries to sign up to the Copenhagen accord and to weaken their demands for strong and fair action on climate change is bad enough. To ask them, in the words of a delegate from Tuvulu at the end of the Copenhagen conference, to sell their countries for 30 pieces of silver, beggar's belief. • Nnimmo Bassey is Chair of Friends of the Earth International 
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Focus on Cancun by Democracy Now!

Seattle-led coalition tells Gates Foundation to change approach

Posted by Kristi Heim
A coalition of groups led by Seattle-based activists has sent a letter and online petition to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, saying its current approach to agriculture in Africa is unlikely to solve problems of hunger, poverty and climate change, and may make them worse.
The letter, signed by 100 organizations and individuals from 30 countries, was released to coincide with protests at the UN climate talks in Cancun.
Led by the Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global Justice (CAGJ), the coalition said the foundation and its private sector partners are pushing industrialized agriculture and genetically engineered crops at the expense of small farmers and the environment.
The Gates Foundation has made agricultural development one of its priorities in recent years, launching the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) with the Rockefeller Foundation in 2006.
The Gates Foundation spent about $316 million last year on agricultural development, which it says is part of a larger strategy to reduce hunger and poverty by giving small farmers tools and opportunities to boost their productivity and increase incomes. More...


Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/thebusinessofgiving/2013630646_seattle-led_coalition_tells_ga.html

Welcome!

Welcome!

“Africa will write its own history, and to the North and the South of the Sahara, it will be a glorious and dignified history.” 
Patrice Lumumba.

HOME

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

3. GM Crops and Foods: Real and present dangers...

Wikileaks: State Dept. wants intel on African acceptance of GMOs

Source: Tom Laskawy

 

The Wikileaks release of U.S. State Department classified diplomatic cables may be problematic, but it has been quite a trove of information on the workings of our diplomatic corps. For the most part, the dump has confirmed things that we already knew about U.S. policy -- and that seems to be the case regarding the one mention of agricultural policy in these thousands of emails and documents (no doubt there are more) to which I was alerted. More...

 

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Who Is AGRA In Ghana?

Who Is AGRA In Ghana?
by crossedcrocodiles.wordpress.com

October 25, 2010
Who Is AGRA In Ghana?
Posted by xcroc under Ghana, agriculture, development, maize
Leave a Comment

Here are AGRA’s agents in Ghana. The result of their efforts, if they are successful, will be small farmers crushed by debt and forced off their land, the land will be depleted by chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and new super weeds and insect pests will flourish. As a friend who has worked with AGRA in Ghana says, if they give you 2000, they make sure to get 4000 back from you (in dollars, cedis, or any currency you name).

AGRA Watch researchers have mapped AGRA grant recipients and some alternatives to AGRA. The map, which is linked below, covers all of Africa, this is just the Ghana section. More...


See also:

1. GM Crops and Foods

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

***






  I/ RESPONDING TO REAL AND PRESENT DANGERS 

Food Sovereignty and Security/ Real and present dangers...

1. The Multifunctionality of Agriculture
2. WTO Agreement on Agriculture
3. GM Crops and Foods
4. Food Subsidy and local economies
5. Corporate, Foreign Government land grab
6. The Right To Water 

***





   I/ RESPONDING TO REAL AND PRESENT DANGERS •


  II/ FACILITATING SELF-MOBILISATION •
CHALLENGING DOGMA AND PROPAGANDA

  III/ EFFECTIVE NETWORK •
AMBUSHING AN IMMINENT CONJUNCTION

IV/ THE ENDURING IMPERATIVES •
OF THE PAN-AFRICANIST STRUGGLE

V/ CONSOLIDATION OF INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY •

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic - Africa's Hot Beds of Tension

'Two die' as Morocco breaks up West Sahara protest camp


by bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa,  8 November 2010 Last updated at 13:55 GMT

Protesters clash with security forces in Western Sahara camp - image from 2M TV (8 Nov 2010) Officials said they "exhausted all means of dialogue" over the camp
 
Two officials were killed and dozens injured as Moroccan security forces broke up a protest camp in Western Sahara, say reports.

The camp, for several thousand people near the territory's capital, Laayoune, was the biggest protest against Moroccan rule in the 35-year dispute.

Officials said the fighting later spread to the streets of Laayoune.
Continue reading the main story...

Related stories:

* Western Sahara 'beating' after BBC interview
* UN names new Western Sahara envoy

Hot-beds of Tension: Real and present dangers

• The Horn of Africa
• Congo
• Sudan
• Central Africa Republic
• Rwanda
• Burundi
• Mali
• Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
• Algeria
• Angola  

• RESPONDING TO REAL AND PRESENT DANGERS •

• FACILITATING SELF-MOBILISATION •
CHALLENGING DOGMA AND PROPAGANDA

• EFFECTIVE NETWORK •
AMBUSHING AN IMMINENT CONJUNCTION

• THE ENDURING IMPERATIVES •
OF THE PAN-AFRICANIST STRUGGLE

• CONSOLIDATION OF INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY •

 

The United States Africa Command (US Africom)

America's New Frontline - Diplomats or Warriors? - Part 1

America's New Frontline - Diplomats or Warriors? - Part 2 

 

Resist AFRICOM

Resist Africom

Ghanaians Discuss AFRICOM & Obama’s Visit

Posted by xcroc under AFRICOM, Africa command, Ghana, Ghana oil, Gulf of Guinea, Obama, foreign policy, recolonize
[3] Comments 

This is something that no one among us has the power to do with our sovereignty. It amounts to the attempted robbery of the nation by the force of arms. In a fundamental matter such as this, that has serious implications on our status as an independent nation, that could even mean life or death to Ghanaians, as we have seen in the bombs that continue to fall on marriage ceremonies in Afghanistan, the minimum expectation ought to have been an open democratic national debate and not secretive and conspiratorial manoeuvres.

TAKORADI, Ghana - A traditional fishing boat sails in the Gulf of Guinea near the fishing village of Takoradi, west of Ghana's capital, Accra, on March 2, 2009. U.S. Africa Command's civilian deputy, Ambassador Mary C. Yates, met with local fishermen to discuss ways that maritime security programs can protect fishing stocks, which are a vital source of food in West Africa. Inset: Nana Ekow Akon, chief of the Takoradi fishing community, speaks with U.S. Africa Command's civilian deputy, Ambassador Mary C. Yates, on March 2, 2009. Yates visited West Africa to discuss international cooperation in illegal fishing, counter-narcotics and illicit trafficking. (Photos by Vince Crawley, U.S. Africa Command)

Nana Akyea Mensah writes in US Military Base In Ghana in response to a feature article on GhanaWeb by Asare Otchere-Darko, Obama’s Visit – What’s In It For Us And U.S.? Otchere-Darko’s article describes and implies that Kufuor did a deal with Bush and General Ward, bringing the Africa Command into Ghana without informing the Ghanaian people.

… in August 2007 Major-General Ward, who was later confirmed as AFRICOM’s first commander, visited Accra. He held discussions with President Kufuor on “ways of strengthening military cooperation.” His high-powered secret meetings with the President, Minister of Defence and the Chief of Defence Staff triggered huge speculation. Much was made of Maj Gen J B Danquah’s public statement about the visit when he said Maj Gen Ward had ‘done enough to resolve’ Ghana’s concerns about AFRICOM, adding, “I have had the chance to hear [Ward] explain what is the reasoning behind the command, and it’s all about partnership.”

This passage is preceded by:

At the moment the Americans say they are happy to keep the U.S. Africa Command headquarters in Germany, to coordinate all U.S. military and security interests throughout the African continent. But any reasonable assessment must conclude that this can be nothing but a temporary address and arrangement. Ghana should welcome that it is thus the target of America’s desire – and we should make the most of this, using it for our own advantage. After all, the process has already started.
The U.S. and Ghanaian militaries have cooperated in numerous joint training exercises, including the African Crisis Response Initiative, an international activity in which the U.S. facilitates the development of an interoperable peacekeeping capacity among African nations. And the head of AFRICOM has already reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to assisting the Ghana Armed Forces “to become more robust”. There is also the African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance program. Beyond that, Ghana and the U.S. have an active bilateral International Military Education and Training program. In 2007, Kwesi Pratt Jnr, the Managing Editor of The Insight newspaper and the energy behind the pressure group Socialist Forum, warned Ghanaians against what he saw to be the looming danger of a U.S. military base in Ghana. He cited, inter alia, the erection of the huge American Embassy complex in Cantonments as evidence of this.

And Otchere-Darko follows it with this:

General T. Hobbins, head of the U.S. Air Forces Europe, has held discussions with his counterparts here on the possibility of establishing “lily pads”, landing and rapid airlift facilities in otherwise deserted terrain in certain strategic sites in Africa. Tamale Airport has come up as one of the “forward operating sites” targeted. That airport is said to have a runway capacity of accommodating massive U.S. C-3 cargo planes and troop transports.
Ghana is also already the site of a U.S.-European Command-funded Exercise Reception Facility that was established to facilitate troop deployments for exercises or crisis response within the region. The direct link to our oil is only too apparent: the Facility came out of Ghana’s partnership with the United States on what is termed a Fuel Hub Initiative. It may sound like a mere gas station for the troops. But the choice of stable, imminently oil-rich Ghana as a Fuel Hub reflects a greater strategic interest in the country than as merely a filling station.
The Americans have not been shy in establishing a clear economic link alongside their military cooperation.

There are already lily pads and a robust American military presence in Ghana, which I have written about previously in this blog.
Kwesi Pratt was one of the first to raise the alarm about oil and US military bases in Africa. In a 2007 interview he said:

Kwesi Pratt: I am very alarmed after reading what is called the Cheney Report. When Bush came to power, he set up a committee chaired by Dick Cheney his Vice President to assess America’s energy requirements up to the year 2015. The Cheney Report actually says that by the year 2015, twenty percent of American oil requirements will be supplied by West Africa and therefore it is important to maintain a foothold in West Africa in order to ensure that oil supplies from West Africa to the United States of America will not be interrupted.
Consequently, the United States is planning to establish military bases across West Africa including Ghana. And I am very worried that at a time when we are celebrating our national independence we are going to tolerate the establishment of foreign military bases, especially American military bases on our soil. The great Osageyfo Dr. Nkrumah, Malcolm X, Kwame Ture, and all of them emphasized that Africa ought to be free from foreign military bases and weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow that dream to die.
That is why, it is important for us to resist all attempts to establish foreign military bases on African soil especially forces of the United States, must be prevented from establishing on African soil. Clearly because they are not on African soil to protect our interests, they are on African soil to facilitate the exploitation of our resources for the benefit of the tiny minority that controls the wealth of the American people and who are sitting on top of this world exploiting the Chicanos, exploiting the African Americans and exploiting all of the other independent and healthy forces in the United States on America. We have to resist all attempts to build U.S. military bases in Ghana and elsewhere in Africa.

Nana Akyea Mensah writes:

I feel greatly incensed by the casual manner Mr. Ochere-Darko breaks this news as though it is simply a matter of business, and not even making any attempt to explain the basis of the conspiracy that he confesses in the article. What does this mean? According to Asare Ochere Darko, even though the NPP government did not allow Ghanaians to have a say in whether or not they want a US military base on our soil, it is too late for the Atta-Mills government to say “No”! In other words, without any national debate, whether we like it or not the process has already been started and they cannot be reversed, so we are as good as being already occupied by a foreign power!
…
Is this supposed to mean that the NPP government was simply throwing dust into our eyes whilst plotting secretly to undermine our national independence and sell us to the Americans? Fortunately for Ghana and Africa, the elections did not go their way. From the article under discussion, it seems to me that with Obama and Atta-Mills in power, the same special interests behind the establishment of the military base in Ghana, the military industrial complex of the USA, are acting as ventriloquists, using their local stooges, to revive their diabolic plot, and rope the two newcomers into the deal. Who else could fit better in the role of selling Ghana to the imperialists more than the very right hand man of Nana Addo Danquah Akufo Addo, the great Asare Ochere-Darko, himself? If you should ask me what it was that worried me most in the article, I believe I would put my finger on the following seven words written by Mr. Ochere-Darko: “After all, the process has already started.” Most of us are still dazed by the question. What this man is virtually telling Ghanaians is that for months, the NPP has been secretly plotting with foreign powers to establish military bases on our lands without letting out a word about it to the Ghanaian public.

The picture above is of Mary Carlin Yates, AFRICOM’s top civilian employee, promising that AFRICOM can help protect Ghana’s fishing rights, and help protect against drugs. But money for these programs was cut from the Pentagon’s budget. As Daniel Volman informs us in AFRICOM from Bush to Obama:

AFRICAN COASTAL AND BORDER SECURITY PROGRAM (ACBS) – provides specialized equipment (such as patrol vessels and vehicles, communications equipment, night vision devices, and electronic monitors and sensors) to African countries to improve their ability to patrol and defend their own coastal waters and borders from terrorist operations, smuggling, and other illicit activities … No dedicated funding was requested for FY 2008 [or in 2007]

With this in mind, I cannot help thinking that Ms. Yates is, in the very best interpretation, being misleading.
Ms. Yates said in Washington on May 12th:

She disclosed that of the four major target areas of its mission-statement, which explicitly are, reducing conflict, improving security, defeating violent extremism and supporting crisis response. The three words that highlight the Command’s activities are “sustained security engagement”.
…
“When I was U.S. Ambassador in Ghana, we had a robust military-to-military program. We started the State Partnership Program. What we want to do is to find the African partners who are looking to build peace and stability in their nations and in their regions – partnering with those African standby forces as they build their goal is to come online with battalions for each of the five geographic areas by 2010”.

Five battalions do not mean more peace. Just like lots of police in a neighborhood are an indication of crime and violence, lots of soldiers in a country or region are a sign of war and conflict. If it is not there already, they will bring it.
Open and democratic debate is the currency of democracy. It is sadly lacking in many places that call themselves democracies, including being far too lacking in the United States. Mr. Ochere-Darko says:

But we must not ignore America’s interest. After all, whatever his connection to the African continent, Obama is President of America – and acts in the interest of its people at home above all else.

And so far, in terms of policies, Obama has shown himself to be a willing and enthusiastic supporter of the entrenced elites, what Kwesi Pratt calls the tiny minority that controls the wealth of the American people. Obama has allowed a certain amount of democracy theater in his political manueverings so far. But he has carefully closed off any areas of debate he does not wish to entertain. And President Obama seems to be continuing all the same military imperialist programs initiated by Mr. Bush.
I have been an enthusiastic supporter of President Obama. I made my own small contributions to his campaign. He is wildly and justifiably popular in Ghana and Africa. This should not blind us to what is going on. And it should not stop us from exercising our democratic responsibility to speak out and say what we see.
ADDED June 8th:
For a broader sampling of Ghanaian opinion, read the comment threads on these three posts, listed below, from GhanaWeb. As Nana Akyea Mensah says:

We had an interesting discussion on Ghanaweb yesterday, and as usual an overwhelming consensus was a clear and mighty “NO TO AFRICOM!”

US Military Base In Ghana
Obama’s Visit – What’s In It For Us And U.S.?
Ghanaians Discuss AFRICOM & Obama’s Visit

AFRICOM, US military bases, and Ghana