Latest

LATEST:

Grab the widget  Tech Dreams

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

The enemy within: The challenges of transformation in a corrupt society

An unemployed university graduate allegedly operating an unlicensed fruit stand in Tunis was harassed by a corrupt policeman for trying to eke out an honest living under an autocratic regime. In desperation, he set himself on fire. This suicide set off demonstrations which culminated in Ben Ali’s rapid flight from Tunis. This achievement has given birth to hope for true freedom in North Africa and the Middle East. The speed of internet communication has contributed to the emerging outcome of these events in many countries. Egypt has been under continuous military rule since Nasser’s coup of 1952. It has a 40% unemployment rate. If the internet existed in 1974 when students of Ghana’s 3 major universities first marched against the Acheampong regime, Ghana’s history would have been remarkably different.

In the 60’s it was said that “Winds of Change” were sweeping across Africa.  These changes ushered in a period of euphoria fuelling dreams of a better tomorrow for generations of Africans to come. Unfortunately, many countries fell to persistent military rule and civilian regimes built around a culture of personality cults. Sixty years later, while Egyptians have now found a voice to demand basic rights which we take for granted in Ghana, we all share a basic problem which retards Africa’s progress as a continent.

All these teetering regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Sudan and Yemen have been propped up by dictatorial corrupt individuals and systems. In the end they deny their citizens basic needs and rights through a well choreographed mix of brutality, fear and corruption. After five progressively free and fair elections in Ghana, our democracy is growing steadily but we still have not met the promise of democracy for the vast majority of our people. The main reason for this failure is the enemy within – the Ghanaian Citizen.


President Mills confronted this enemy at the Tema Harbour this past week and laid out—in very simple and clear terms—why corruption is literally depriving citizens of health care, education and infrastructural development. The revelations from the Anas Armeyaw video are not a surprise to anyone but children under the age of 6 in Ghana. Even some of them may not be surprised but their very future is at stake.

Somehow the CEPS and police officials fingered by Anas for smuggling cocoa on the Ivorian border in July 2010 have not been prosecuted because reportedly on two occasions, the prosecution did not show up and the judge was obliged to discharge the suspects. These are some of the systemic problems President Mills faces in combating corruption in Ghana. His words were direct, honest and fair. His outrage was justified and reassuring but the next step is setting up a covert government structure with prosecutorial powers to implement lasting interventions to address this plague.

The president is correct to warn all agencies of the state that he will “descend on them” but it must portend the beginning of an implementation phase in this year of action. We must begin to see a wave of firings, arrests and prosecutions because the problem is woven so deeply into the fabric of the society that corrupt officials in all agencies operate with impunity and are well known. This is not news.

The president is at the threshold of a major transformation in Ghanaian society which will be resisted by many but leadership requires courage to bring about change so we expect Prof. Mills to do better than Kwame Nkrumah who also acknowledged corruption to the nation publicly but could not proceed from the identification phase to the implementation phase of the solution.

Investors are truly turned off by this daily extortion which is not only in government agencies but across the country in a manner that has also clouded land tenure in Ghana. Chiefs are particularly notorious for frustrating investors by coming back under all sorts of pretexts to nullify previously concluded land lease transactions so they can resell already sold lands to others or absurdly to original buyers. They are aided by some members of the legal profession in collecting what has now become institutionalized as “re-entry” fees when buyers begin their projects. The judiciary should frown on these schemes which are all over the country. These unscrupulous chiefs are robbing their communities of development opportunities and should be halted in their tracks.

While I applaud the president for his bold signal to corrupt officials, I recall his visit to the Accra Psychiatric Hospital last year, which also followed an Anas exposé. The mental health bill has still not been passed and psychiatric patients are still being cared for in 19th century conditions. A new modern Neuroscience facility needs to be built on part of the grounds of the outdated current hospital. Mental illnesses account for over 30% of total disease burden, whether we recognize this fact or not. With this in mind, it is extremely disappointing that a returning Ghanaian expert psychiatrist like Dr. X has been received the “go and come” treatment the president talked about. After a year in the country, Dr. X has returned to the US. We have 1 psychiatrist for 2.4 million citizens but this still goes on.

Service to ordinary citizens is a duty that must guide the actions of all public servants. The president has struck the right tone by the practice of confrontation and verification of facts. It is conservatively estimated that corruption costs Africa $300bn per year, accounting for over 25% of our GDP. This is the central issue of this era of our development as a nation. If we use technology to eliminate human interfaces leading to corruption and apply persistent enforcement, we will not need donor countries.  We may be ready to lead Africa again in ridding our nation of the greatest cause of revenue loss and hence failed development.

There are those cynical and short-sighted individuals who will have partisan responses to the president’s recent actions but any problem that sucks away about 25% of GDP should transcend narrow emotional responses that do not come with proposed solutions. In Ghana the hemorrhage amounts to an estimated $4.5bn/ year on average. The NPP had 8 years to address this problem and saw to it that appropriate legislation was passed but President Kufuor’s leadership on this issue was subpar. He simply declared zero tolerance and asked the public to bring problems to his attention. Their 8 years was a missed opportunity.

The president’s address to the CEPS officers has gone viral on YouTube. We should remember that the internet has brought down Ben Ali and will bring down Mubarak but Mills may well use it as a tool for advancing leadership with integrity and grappling with corruption in our homeland Ghana.

Prof. T. P. Manus Ulzen
February 6, 2011

Monday, February 7, 2011

Corruption in Africa: Where Does the Buck Stop?

 But the corporations and foreign politicians and business executives are not the only ones in the game. The governments in Africa have been doing their best to loot their countries' coffers with impunity.

*By Lord Aikins Adusei

Corruption is an endemic cancer that has devastated African societies and impoverished millions. According to the Africa Union (AU) around $148 billion are stolen from the continent by its leaders and civil servants every year. The 2006 Forbes' list of most corrupt nations had 9 out of the first 16 countries coming from Africa. According to Global Financial Integrity (GFI) a US based anti-corruption group, the continent of Africa has lost more than 854 billion dollars in illicit financial outflows between 1970 and 2008. GFI director Raymond Baker says the amount of money that has been drained out of Africa—hundreds of billions decade after decade—is far in excess of the official development assistance going into African countries.

The illicit flow of such huge amount of money is not the work of African leaders and their associates alone but also that of multinational corporations from Europe, America and Asia doing business in Africa. It is no secrete multinational corporations with investments in Africa understate their profits and falsify profit documents in order to cheat poor African countries of money due them. The corporations also undervalue their goods, indulge in smuggling, theft and the falsification of invoicing and non-payment of taxes, as well as employing kickbacks and bribes to public officials. They also overprice projects; provide safe havens for looted funds, all of which affect the financial capability of countries in Africa to fight poverty. A 2002 UN Report into the war in Congo Kinshasa found multinational corporations working in that country to be engaging in some of the dubious practices mentioned above. 

In 2002, Halliburton, a US company, was accused of establishing $180m flush fund with the intent of using it to bribe Nigeria officials in order to secure a $6billion Liquefied Gas Plant contract in Nigeria. The company fired Mr. Albert Jack Stanley, its executive. A report by the company later named a British called Jeffrey Tesler as the middleman behind the bribery. In 2010 Nigerian authorities brought charges against former US Vice President Dick Cheney and Halliburton for their role in the bribery scandal. The charges were settled out of court after the defendants agreed to pay 35 million dollars. On 17th September 2002 for example, a Canadian Engineering company called Acres International was convicted by a High Court in Lesotho for paying $260,000 bribe to secure an $8 billion dam contract in Lesotho. Achair Partners, a Swiss company and Progresso, an Italian company have been accused of bribing Somali Transition Government officials in order to secure contracts to deposit highly toxic industrial waste in the waters of Somalia. 

But the corporations and foreign politicians and business executives are not the only ones in the game. The governments in Africa have been doing their best to loot their countries' coffers with impunity. The recently released US diplomatic cables by Wikileaks indicate how corruption has become part and parcel of President Ben Ali's family and his government in Tunisia. And the worse thing is that it is getting worse by the day. Part of the cable states that: “corruption in Tunisia is getting worse. Whether it is cash, services, land, property, or yes, even your yacht, President Ben Ali's family is rumoured to covet it and reportedly gets what it wants. President Ben Ali's extended family is often cited as the nexus of Tunisian corruption. Often referred to as a quasi-mafia, an oblique mention of "the Family" is enough to indicate which family you mean. Seemingly half of the Tunisian business community can claim a Ben Ali connection through marriage, and many of these relations are reported to have made the most of their lineage. Ben Ali's wife, Leila Ben Ali, and her extended family -- the Trabelsis -- provoke the greatest ire from Tunisians." 

The Cables point out that the corruption at the presidency has trickled down to all aspect of Tunisian society. “Beyond the stories of the First Family's shady dealings, Tunisians report encountering low-level corruption as well in interactions with the police, customs, and a variety of government ministries. When a contact was asked about whether he thought corruption was better, worse, or the same, he exclaimed in exasperation “Of course it's getting worse!" He stated that corruption could not but increase as the culprits (Ben Ali and his cohorts) looked for more and more opportunities. Joking about Tunisia's rising inflation, he said that even the cost of bribes was up. "A traffic stop used to cost you 20 dinars and now it's up to 40 or 50!" The economic impact is clear, with Tunisian investors -- fearing the long-arm of "the Family" -- forgoing new investments [abroad and] keeping domestic investment rates low.” Tunisians openly talk about how corruption is destroying their country and bemoan the lack of effort by the authorities to tackle it. “Corruption is the elephant in the room; it is the problem everyone knows about, but no one can publicly acknowledge. The lack of transparency and accountability that characterize Tunisia's political system similarly plague the economy, damaging the investment climate and fueling the culture of corruption” says the Cable.

Despite years of exports of oil, gold, diamond, bauxite, tin, coltan, uranium, manganese timber and other minerals, the continent is ranked the poorest. Revenue from the minerals finds its way into the bank accounts of corrupt government officials, civil servants and their allies.

Nigeria has consistently featured in the top 1% of the most corrupt nation on the planet. The nation has also featured on the Foreign Policy Failed States Index. The index shows that Nigeria has featured consecutively over the last four years among the top 20 failed states on earth. Since oil was first discovered in Nigeria about 50 years ago, over $400 billion have been realised from its sale but today more than 70% of Nigerians continue to live in abject poverty. The country has nothing to show for its petro-dollars except poverty, corruption, and recently violence and anarchy. Only corrupt the politicians and the big oil companies such as Shell, Mobil, BP, and Chevron have benefited. As a result, able men and women are battling dangerous seas to enter Europe and try their luck. Others have resorted to 419, a popular scam used to trick people into giving out their money and valuables. A visit to the Niger Delta region of Nigeria shows that majority of the people especially the youth are unemployed. According to Nigeria's National Population Commission 2000 about 44% of young men between the ages of 20 and 24 are unemployed. The Niger Delta region which produces about 90% of the total 2.2 million barrels produce everyday, but over the past 30 years, poverty rate has been rising steadily and living conditions remain one of the poorest in the country. Life expectancy, literacy, and infant mortality all compare unfavourably with the national average. According to Okechukwu Ibeanu only about 27 per cent of households in the Niger Delta have access to safe drinking water. At the same time only 30 per cent have access to electricity and both are below the national average. There are 82,000 people per doctor rising to 132,000 in some areas more than three times the national average of 40,000. While 76 per cent of Nigerian children attend primary school only 30-40 do so in parts of the delta. Thus despite being the goose that lays the golden egg, the Niger Delta remains one of the most deprived areas in Nigeria. 

In 2010 Sanusi Lamido, governor of Nigeria's Central Bank lamented over the corruption and economic mismanagement in his country saying: 

“As an economist, I have done and looked at the input and output content of the Nigerian economy, and I have never seen an economy with a kind of black hole like that of Nigeria. We produced cotton, yet our textile plants are not working; we produce crude oil, we import petroleum products; we produce gas and export, yet we don't have power plant. We have iron ore, we don't have steel plant; and we have hide and skin, we don't have leader products”. 

Sanusi was right. According to Paul Collier of Oxford University's Centre for the Study of African Economies, past and present leaders in Nigeria have managed to steal about 280 billion dollars of the country's oil proceeds, stashing it in abroad with the help of financial firms like, Barclays, Lloyds, and UBS. Between 2005 and 2007, several state governors and their immediate families were arrested by Scotland Yard in London on corruption and money laundering charges. Among them are James Ibori of oil rich Delta State and his wife Theresa who had their $35m asset frozen by the English court. Mr. Ibori earns about a thousand dollars a month but during his eight years as a state governor, he acquired wealth to the tune of $35m, and was able to finance the election campaign of late President Umaru Yar'Dua. He also owns a private jet and a lavish London home.

Another corrupt governor is Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, governor of oil-rich state of Bayelsa who was also arrested in London for money laundering. When Police conducted a search in his London home, they found one million pounds worth of cash. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has been linked to a corruption scandal involving former US Congressman William Jefferson who is serving terms in prison in US. In 2007 Atiku Abubakar was accused of diverting $125m from Petroleum Development Trust Fund into his personal businesses. Okey Ibeanu and Robin Luckham note that a mechanism that was devised by Nigerian leaders for stealing oil revenue included: “diversion into special funds controlled by the president; bribes or taxation paid on oil contracts; extensive smuggling across Nigeria's borders called bunkering; as well secrete account held by the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) (six such accounts were uncovered in 1997)”.

Years of oil spills have made the soil unfit for any agricultural activity. Their streams and wells are polluted and the people have no access to basic necessities of life because their leaders have enriched themselves with the money. In the 1990s, abject poverty and destruction of the environment forced the people of Ogoniland in Nigeria to demand a say in Shell operations but the Abacha regime repulsed them and had Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight Ogoni activists executed. According to available data, Abacha stole between $3 and $4 billion of Nigeria's oil money and stashed it in several secret bank accounts in Switzerland, Britain, Luxemburg, Jersey Island and Liechtenstein.

Effort by the people of Niger Delta to get the Nigerian government to develop the oil rich areas fell on death ears until the unemployed youth took up arms against the government and the oil companies, kidnapping foreign oil workers; demanding ransom and disrupting oil production. Eventually, the companies had to reduce their output by 25% in 2007-8. These disruptions seriously affected supply of oil on the world market forcing the price to skyrocket to $140 a barrel in the summer of 2008. The situation has not changed much.

In Equatorial Guinea for example oil export has earned the country billions of dollars since 1990 yet most of the 600,000 people living in the country continue to live in poverty while Teodoro Obiang Nguema and his cronies continue to siphon the oil revenue with no accountability. His looting of Equatorial Guinea's assets became public when it was discovered that the US banking firm Riggs had written to him encouraging him to loot his oil rich but economically impoverished country. Teodoro Nguema Obiang, son of Teodoro Obiang Nguema has made news headlines about how he and his associates steal and misuse E. Guinea's oil funds. 

Obiang Jr (the son) once hired Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen's 300-foot yacht Tatoosh for $700,000. His property portfolio includes a $35m estate in Malibu, California, purchased with cash, as well as a couple of estates in Cape Town, South Africa. His fleet of cars includes Bentley and a Lamborghini. The New York Times reports that "the boy king" also owns a Gulfstream V jet. Riggs Bank a US based bank is known to have helped the Obiangs steal their country's oil proceeds and hid it in US. A 2004 US Senate investigation into the activities of Riggs Bank found that President Obiang's family had received huge payments from US oil companies such as Exxon Mobil and Amerada Hess and laundered the money in US.

In 2004, President Bush Jr issued Presidential Proclamation 7750, barring corrupt leaders and their associates from entering the US but the Obiangs have been able to travel freely to the United States in spite of their massive corruption. John Bennett, the United States former ambassador to Equatorial Guinea from 1991 to 1994, told the New York Times that "Washington has turned a blind eye to the Obiangs' corruption because of US dependence on the country for natural resources".

One might think that given the history of corruption, poverty, instability and violence in oil producing countries (like Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Congo and Cameroon), incoming oil producing nations like Uganda would take time to make sure there is complete transparency and zero tolerance for corruption in the oil sector. If what is happening in Uganda's young oil sector continues unchecked then there is no doubt that the country will end up being labelled another resource curse country. The US diplomatic cables released by Wikilieaks indicate that the country's leaders are engaging in massive corruption and back door dealings that are slowly adding to the dire corruption situation in the country. One case involves Security Minister and National Resistance Movement (NRM) Secretary General Amama Mbabazi and Energy and Mineral Development Minister Hilary Onek who the report says have “benefited from the sale of production rights by Heritage Oil and Gas to Italian oil giant ENI”. Security Minister Mbabazi and Energy Minister Onek “received payments from Heritage and/or ENI in exchange for their support”. According to the diplomatic cable the Italian multinational firm “ENI created a shell company in London called TKL Holdings - through Mark Christian and Moses Seruje (who acted as frontmen) to funnel money to Mbabazi. 

In Ghana, officials illegally charge 15 and 150 Ghana cedis for a birth certificate and a passport respectively. Police officers openly solicit bribes from bus and taxi drivers before they are allowed to cross mounted road blocks. Customs officials adopt all manner of tactics in order to collect money from importers and exporters before their goods are allowed to leave the ports.

Africa's political parties pledge to combat corruption with deadly force but when elected, change nothing. Ghana's former president John Kuffour pledged "zero tolerance for corruption" in his government but his party lost power for failure to tame corrupt officials.

In South Africa, Jacob Zuma battled it out for his part in the multi-billion arms deal in South Africa in 2001 until he was cleared by the court on the grounds of technicalities. In 2006, former president of Malawi Bakili Muluzi was arrested for pocketing $12m donated to his country by foreign governments. Former Zambian president Frederick Chiluba was arrested and charged with 11 counts of stealing money meant for the Zambia's development.

Guinea has large deposits of gold diamond, iron, nickel and uranium yet poverty is so severe that the country was ranked among the top 1% of most corrupt countries in Africa and 160th out of 177 in the UN's Development scale.

Gabon and Angola are no different. The late Omar Bongo of Gabon is known in the world for the way he and his family looted Gabon's oil revenue and used the proceeds to buy expensive and luxury properties in France. French Police investigation into the Bongo's illegal looting of Gabon's oil revenue established that the Bongo have 39 expensive apartment, fleet of luxury cars and owned 70 bank accounts in France. Similarly Denis Sassou Nguesso of Congo Brazzaville also has 112 bank accounts in France with hundreds of millions of euros stashed in them. He also has mansions and fleet of cars similar to his father-in-law (Omar Bongo) all with the full knowledge of French authorities. 

On Friday 31, 2007, the Guardian newspaper in Britain published a report by Kroll, an international risk consultancy firm, that Daniel Arap Moi, Kenya's former president and his family banked £1 billion in 28 countries including Britain. The family used shell Companies, secret trusts, front men and his entourage to siphon the money away. Moi's family also bought multimillion pound properties in London, New York, South Africa including 10,000-hectare ranch in Australia.

In Sudan the recently released US diplomatic cables by Wikileaks show that Omar Al Bashir has been able to loot 9 billion dollars of the country's oil proceeds and stashed it in UK and other jurisdictions with the help of British banks especially the Lloyds Banking Group. According to the US cable leaked by Wikileaks Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the International Criminal Court prosecutor contemplated going public with Bashir's loots which has turned Sudan into a desert of poverty. "Ocampo reported Lloyds bank in London may be holding or knowledgeable of the whereabouts of his money".

In Egypt for instance there are reports that over the 30 year period in which Mubarak has been president, Mubarak, his wife, Suzanne, and his two sons (Gamal and Alaa) have amassed wealth to the tune of $70bn. Swiss Bank UBS and the Bank of Scotland in Britain are reputed to be hosting much of the money they have acquired, while New York, London, Los Angeles also play host to the many properties owned by the family, not to mention the countless properties they own in Egypt itself including lands and hotels in Alexandra,Cairo, Sharm el-Sheikh and Suez.

Christopher Davidson, professor of Middle East politics at Durham University, told the Guardian newspaper in UK that "Much of Mubarak's money is in Swiss bank accounts and London property. These are the favourites of Middle Eastern leaders and there is no reason to think Mubarak is any different. Gamal's Wilton Place home in London is likely to be the tip of the iceberg."  Meanwhile there are one million children roaming the streets of Cairo and other cities without home, education and future.

In countries such as Cameroon, The Gambia and Libya, a kleptocracy class of people have replaced anything democracy. Leaders amass wealth at the expense of their poor countries and continue to mismanage whatever remains of their corrupt activities. Because most of the leaders are former military officers or former rebels with no grasp of economics and management, they are unable to formulate any good economic policies that will transform and grow their economies hence poverty has become a part of the people but their leaders know not what poverty is. 

In DR Congo it is estimated that gold and diamond deposits alone could fetch the country 23 trillion dollars not to mention the abundance of timber and other several minerals that are found in large quantities such as columbo-tantalite (coltan) and cassiterite (tin ore) yet years of corruption, mismanagement, conflicts and foreign involvement have made this resource rich nation one of the poorest in the world. Western nations cannot maintain their current level of lifestyle without Congo. Most corporations in the west can easily go bust without Congo. If Congo is the bloodline of the west and the west is rich because of Congo, why is Congo so poor?

Where are the billions of dollars from the sale of these minerals? The answer lies in the history of the nation which is endemic corruption, armed conflict and foreign involvement. Mobutu in his 32 year reign is believed to have taken several billions of dollars from the treasury and deposited it in his numerous Swiss bank accounts.

Everyday in Walikale, about 16 aircraft fly out of the city with loads of minerals bound for Rwanda. These stolen minerals further find their way in the western mineral markets in London and Switzerland. The proceeds are shared by the Generals, politicians, western companies the businessmen in Rwanda, the warlords in Congo who use part of their share to acquire weapons that are used to terrorise the people and prolong the war.

Western governments are quick to preach good governance to Africa but they fail to preach the same message to their banks who act as save havens for these corrupt leaders. Even though these countries like to portray themselves as civilised and cultured, they have failed to recognise that keeping monies that are dishonestly obtained from the poor people on earth taints whatever reputation they might have. How can a continent develop when monies meant for her development are stolen by her leaders and kept by countries who praise themselves as civilised, cultured, loving and democratic?

Africa is poor today because Swiss and other western banks collude with African kleptocrats to loot the continent. Corruption is rife on the continent because those who steal the money never lack a place to hide it. The dictators are able to steal so much because Western governments particularly France, Britain, Switzerland and the United States often turn a blind eye to the adulterous relationship between their governments, MNCs and the dictators in Africa. On 21 June 2010 Christine Lagarde, French Finance Minister and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala of World Bank wrote an article titled “No Safe Havens for Dirty Money”. In their article they urged all countries to play by the rules, fight corruption and end safe haven practices. They argued for “better regulation, good governance, and accountability. “No safe havens for tax evasion. No safe havens for money laundering and terrorism financing, and no safe havens for cozy financial regulation” so they wrote but Ms Lagarde and her government have done little if not nothing to practice what they preach. Ben Ali of Tunisia, the Bongos in Gabon, Paul Biya of Cameroon, Nguesso and Dos Santos have become very corrupt because of their closeness with successive French governments, politicians and the business elite in France. 

The impact of the large scale rampant corruption is that people who should not live in poverty are living in poverty. Roads, hospitals, schools, electricity and other social and economic infrastructures that should be provided with the money are never provided. Children die because of lack of food and lack of essential medicine in the hospitals. Unemployment becomes high because money does not circulate for people to have access to loans that could be used to establish their own businesses. Inflation becomes high and prices of food are put beyond the limit of the ordinary people. In the end the entire economy suffers. People harbouring grievances are no longer willing to sit quietly. Their frustration turned into despair and demonstration and sometimes violence uprising become the order of the day as current situation in the Niger Delta shows with consequences for everyone. Vandalism and looting of properties built with the stolen money becomes the target of the people who have been denied the opportunity to benefit from the economy.

Fighting corruption should not be left to the poor countries alone. Western countries have a duty to stop their nations being used as safe havens for stolen monies from the African continent. They should return all looted money put there by corrupt African leaders to the African people. There must be an international coalition dedicated to tracking all stolen monies on the face of the earth with Africa given to priority.

*The author is anti-corruption campaigner and the author of "Switzerland: A parasite feeding on poor African and Third World countries?"

Saturday, February 5, 2011

CEPS and Corruption in Ghana: Where Does the Buck Stop?

Recent revelations by Anas Amereyaw Anas showing how the Tema harbour has been turned into a house of thieves is no news to many Ghanaians. The only people who seem to have no idea is President Mills and his ministers who are paid with the tax payers' money to protect and defend the country and yet have failed to lead the country and act decisively when it comes to matters of national importance.

 

President Mills and his ministers paid with the tax payers' money are claiming ignorance about the massive corruption that exist at the harbour and indeed in many of the institutions in the country. The corruption revealed by Anas is just a tip of the iceberg if one considers in totality what is going on in the country. The culture of corruption in the country begins right from the Castle (the Seat of Government). There are people who use the office of the president to solicit favour from the public. There are ministers who are using their offices for financial and material gain at the cost of the nation. Carl Wilson and many of his cohorts are still going around with guns terrorising the people after it became known that he was using his association with Alex Segbefia (presidential aide) to steal cars from Tema Harbour.

Corruption at Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS) runs deep from the head to the bottom. The head of the commission of CEPS is corrupt.There are custom officers who own 13 cars  and 5 houses in Koforidua, Accra, Tema, Ho, Aflao. The police is the same. 

 

Take the Accountant General's department for example where people who have gone on pension are made to pay thousands of cedis before their money is released to them. Those who are not able to pay money to the accountants sometimes die and leave their money behind. 


It is no secrete that the Lands Commission and the Town and Country planning are one of the corrupt institutions in the country. The many land disputes scattered all over the country have come about because of the corrupt officers who in cahoots with some traditional leaders are making millions of cedis at the expense of the people of Ghana.

At the Immigration Headquarters there are people who have turned their office into money making jackpot. I can give the example of one officer called George who after going to University of Sheffield in Britain to study learnt nothing but how to take bribe. This George (a senior officer) is teamed up with one officer called Victor and are making money using their office. Nobody goes to the Immigration Office without paying money. The officers there use tactics that force people to give them money. 

 

Does anyone know any institution in Ghana that is not corrupt? I am struggling to find one.


It is not the existence of corruption that make people unhappy and angry, it is the lack of effort by the President, his ministers and the institutions to fight corruption with the potency it needs that makes people angry. There is the tendency for people accused of corruption to be allowed to continue their corrupt activities without any penalties. Take the Elubo corruption case revealed by Anas for example. The Attorney General's office has shown no interest to prosecute CEPS and other officers who were caught on tape aiding and abetting smuggling. Take the Osu Children's Home saga also revealed by Anas in which officers were caught manhandling children, and food and items donated to them systematically stolen by the officials. No one got punished, no one got sacked. The same people who were stealing and beating the orphans are still in charge doing as usual what they have been caught on tape doing: stealing items and abusing the children. 

Take the other classic revelation by Anas i.e. the Accra Psychiatry investigation. The nurses and officer who were caught abusing inmates, and selling food and other items are still in charge doing their old stuff.

This is what makes we the people of Ghana angry. We have leaders who cannot take action. We have leaders who are happy milking nation and failing to protect the interest of the people. We have a president who is always preaching and yet failing to practice what he preaches. We are slowly documenting all these crimes one day the people of Ghana will take the law into our own hands and give ourselves justice: justice that will make sure that CEPS officers stealing, aiding and abetting smuggling; police officers taking money from drivers; accountants failing to pay pensioners; immigration officers taking money from travelers. 

We know the government is on the side of the corrupt and the powerful that is why nothing is being done to prosecute and punish the corrupt and the greedy in the country. But we know our day will come.

One day all will account to us. We the people will deliver instant justice to make the poor and the powerless strong and happy. The Sipa Yankey's and their cohorts will account to us. We shall take away from them all that they have stolen from the poor people of Ghana.

 A day will come in which those turning Ghana into the epicentre of international cocaine business will answer to the people of Ghana. A day will come in which we will deliver justice to the people of Ghana and restore true democracy, freedom, development. A day is coming in which we will rescue the nation from the wolves, and vampires in the country; from the corrupt CEPS, police, accountants and immigration officers and restore dignity to our dear nation.

We are watching and following closely what our North African brothers and sisters in Tunisia and Egypt are doing; their effort to defeat corruption, cronyism, nepotism, poverty and restore hope to the people. We are watching their effort to demand accountability, probity and justice from those entrusted with the responsibility to manage the resources of their countries. 

Our day will come very soon.

By Lord. A. Adusei

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Tunisia: Opportunity for United States to Begin a New Chapter

"Today the entire Arab World is full of leaders who have built the foundation of their totalitarian regimes on arms and weapons supplied to them by the United States and her allies in Europe."
*By Lord Aikins Adusei

The events in Tunisia offer a real opportunity for United States and her European allies to take a critical look at the way they have used the so called national interests to protect autocratic regimes in the Middle East and Africa and put them on collision with the people. For decades United States of America and her European allies have openly supported the corrupt and despotic governments in the Middle East and Africa whose only interest is to maintain their grip on power without offering the people any hope of economic, political and social development. These regimes have suppressed and continue to suppress freedom and democratic ideals cherished and enjoyed by Americans and Europeans with the full support of Western governments.

Today the entire Arab World is full of leaders who have built the foundation of their totalitarian regimes on arms and weapons supplied to them by the United States and her allies in Europe. The security forces usually deployed by the regimes to terrorise, maim and kill the people have been financed, trained and armed by France, the US, Britain and their cohorts. Egypt for instance receives about $1.3bn annually from the US despite the fact that the country's autocratic leaders continue to suppress freedom of speech, assembly and the right of Egyptians to freely elect their leaders. The regime in Saudi Arabia has maintained its grip on power through arms sold to it by the United States. Last year for instance (September 2010), the State Department said that United States was selling arms worth about $60 billion to Saudi Arabia.

According to the website www.warisbusiness.com between 1987 and 2009 the United States government signed $349 million worth of arms deal with Tunisia's ousted dictator Ben Ali that enabled him to maintain his grip on power. In Algeria, Egypt, Kuwait and Morocco weapons built by European and American firms are constantly used to harass people with legitimate grievances over unemployment, poverty, high inflation, high prices of food and other concerns.

The behaviour of Western governments abroad, the support they give to regimes that abuse the rights of their citizens, directly contradict what they do at home. There are many monarchies in Europe (Britain, Holland, Spain and Sweden) yet we do not see the citizens in these countries being arrested, detained, tortured and summarily executed. On the contrary the countries in Europe with established monarchies are some of the open and freest societies on earth. However, the monarchies and autocratic regimes in the Middle East with Western support frown on anything called democracy, freedom and human rights and their citizens are some of the most repressed on earth.

From Bahrain in the Persia Gulf to Morocco in the Mediterranean no dissent is tolerated. People are arrested, detained, tortured and summarily executed for voicing for the right to speak their mind freely. William H. Lewis of the Atlantic Council notes that in Libya: “Qaddafi remains in tight control of domestic developments. Public criticism of government policies is not countenanced; the press is carefully monitored and labor organizations are restricted. Any political opposition is intimidated, imprisoned, or forced into exile. In short, there are no viable pathways for political reform in Libya.” Annual Reports publish by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other right organisations contain tales of torture, and inhuman treatment carried out by the governments with weapons sold to them by US authorities. The US which pride itself as the leader of the Free World has not given its support to the progressive forces in these regions fighting for change, instead it has aligned more and more with the brutal regimes.

The unflinching support the leaders receive from the West has helped to alienate them from their citizenry. Instead of building a society which is more tolerant and inclusive, the opposite is the situation. Large sections of the population in these countries have been marginalised socially, economically and politically. Everyday the people in the Middle East and Africa see the huge wealth being created from oil, gas, gold, diamond and other precious metals yet they are not allow to benefit. In Tunisia, the recently leaked US diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks talk about massive corruption and nepotism at the presidency. Ben Ali is reported to have asked for a fifty per cent share of a business deal. His wife Leila Ben Trabelsi is spoken off as a corrupt queen grabbing by force anything that she sets her eyes on. Leila's brother Belhassen Trabelsi is known in Tunisia as the most notorious of the Trabelsi clan. His corrupt activities extend from banking, to real estate, tourism, information technology and airline. Imed and Moaz Trabelsi, President Ben Ali's nephews, are reported to have stolen a yacht belonging to Bruno Roger, a well-known French businessman and Chairman of Lazard Paris, a prominent firm with interest in banking and asset management.

Ben Ali, Leila Trabelsi and their associates in Tunisia are no different from the rulers in Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Over the years these corrupt leaders have signed huge arms, oil and other business contracts with American and European firms and siphoned what should have gone to the people into their private bank accounts in America, France, Britain and Switzerland with the full knowledge of American and European political establishments. The series of corrupt deals involving members of the Saudi Royal family and British defence, security and aerospace company (BAE Systems) are a case in point. Billions of dollars worth of arms sold to Saudi Arabia by BAE Systems had their prices inflated and the proceeds diverted to Switzerland by members of the Saudi Royal family and Prince Bandar in particular. Then British Prime Minister, Tony Blair ordered Lord Goldsmith and the Serious Fraud Office to stop investigating the BAE deals saying the investigations were harming British interests. In the same vane the media reported in August 2009 that Britain freed Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the jailed 1988 Lockerbie bomber, because of a $500 million oil deal between Gaddafi and British Petroleum.

In French speaking Africa, France is more interested in protecting her business and other interests in Gabon, Cameroon and Congo Brazzaville than ensuring that citizens in those countries enjoy political and economic freedom. A November 2009 article in the New York Times written by Adam Nossiter titled “Ill will grows in former colonial region” tells a sad story of French leaders pulling the strings in Africa, supporting dictators, siding with leaders who rig elections and actively promoting FrenchAfrique in contrast with assertions by Nicolas Sarkozy that France was ending its opaque and corruption ridden policies in its former African colonies. The US and Europe it seems are more interested in protecting their interests than making sure the freedom, democracy and respect for human rights they preach is practised by their friends and allies in the regions.

While the shady deals have continued unabated and have helped to shape US and European policies in the Middle East and Africa, the shady deals have also created a situation where the leaders have remained largely unaccountable; worked to ensure the survival of their regimes; and preserve US and European interests rather than that of their people and countries.

As unemployment, inflation and prices of basic commodities soar, the leaders who live in securitised palaces continue to act in business as usual fashion. They continue to remain detached from their people, most of whom have become frustrated, depressed and live in fear of their leaders. In Egypt many people have sought to solve their problems by committing suicide. The same is true in other countries as the case in Tunisia shows, where Bouazizi Mohamed, a young graduate unemployed youth set himself ablaze and in the process triggering the violence that toppled Ben Ali.

But the frustration, depression and suicides are not the only consequences. The detachment of the leaders from the people has created a wide and deep crater (vacuum) that has been exploited by Al Qaeda and other Jihadists' groups. The support Al Qaeda and its affiliate organisations enjoy in the Middle East and the Sahel region of Africa shows that there is a strong link between the growth of terrorism on one hand and political repression, economic and social marginalisation on the other. The growth of terrorism and terrorists' attacks against American and European targets also show that poor and marginalised people without jobs will find solace in extremism as a way to express their frustration and to challenge the existing order.

The 9/11 and 7/7 attacks should have led the US and Europe to assess and examine their foreign policies especially their relationship with the corrupt regimes in these countries. The attacks should have encouraged the United States to push for economic and political reform in these countries and to distant itself from the corrupt and repressive regimes that would not reform. The US and Europe after the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks should have made their policies towards the regions more transparent and build allies based on the tenets of democracy, respect for rule of law and economic and social freedoms.

But this was never to happen. Instead the assessment that was made after 9/11 rather led to a closer collaboration between the hated regimes and the United States and her allies. The 'War on Terror' declared by the Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks has been seen as a gold mine by Ben Ali and his cohorts in Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen among others. These leaders have used the 'War on Terror' as an excuse to further curtail the few rights and freedoms that previously existed. The 'War on Terror' has been used to silence critics of the regimes to the point that anything associated with rights and freedoms is quickly linked to extremism and terrorism and brutally crashed. It was therefore no surprise that the Tunisian Interior Minister, in the wake of the demonstrations, sought to link the genuine protests over poverty, unemployment, high inflation and high food prices to extremists groups. Linking the protests to terrorism was a ploy not only to win the sympathy and support of American and European governments but also to use it as an excuse to brutally smash the demonstration.

The leaked cables indicate that United States has been aware of the harassments, the human right abuses and the massive corruption, that largely defined Ben Ali's government. A statement from one of the cables reads: “Tunisia is a police state, with little freedom of expression or association and serious human rights problems”. Another cable also notes that President Ben Ali's extended family is the nexus of Tunisian corruption. The Cable concludes: “Corruption is the elephant in the room; it is the problem everyone knows about, but no one can publicly acknowledge. The lack of transparency and accountability that characterize Tunisia's political system similarly plague the economy, damaging the investment climate and fueling the culture of corruption”.

In spite of having full knowledge of the massive corruption perpetrated by Ben Ali, his family and members of his government the US did little publicly to call for a paradigm shift in a way the country's economy was being raped and mismanaged until the violent demonstrations took place. And even while the demonstrations were underway the US and her European allies were reluctant in condemning Ben Ali and his security forces. For instance in the wake of the uprising in Tunisia, Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of States was asked during her visit to Middle East about the situation in Tunisia. Her response was: “We can't take sides”.

Secretary Clinton should have stood with the people of Tunisia and demanded change, a position that was later taken by President Obama when he spoke condemning the police crackdown on the protesters. A statement released by the White House quoted President Obama as saying:

“I condemn and deplore the use of violence against citizens peacefully voicing their opinion in Tunisia, and I applaud the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people. The United States stands with the entire international community in bearing witness to this brave and determined struggle for the universal rights that we must all uphold, and we will long remember the images of the Tunisian people seeking to make their voices heard”.

By the time the above statement was released more than fifty-five Tunisians had perished, shot dead by Ben Ali's US and French backed security forces. Additional twenty three were to die later, bringing the total to seventy-eight. The seventy-eight people who died as a result of police brutalities could have been saved if the US and France had spoken out and had been more vocal against corruption, and the impunity of Ben Ali and his henchmen.

History has shown that the American people love justice and fairness; they love rule of law, respect for human rights, economic opportunities for all and they have been supporting many humanitarian programmes around the world. At the same time they hate the misuse of their taxes for activities that undermine development and human progress elsewhere. Therefore why should their taxes be used to support autocratic regimes who are hell bent on denying their people the very opportunities that are the symbol of American power and progress? Why should their taxes be used to train security forces that perpetrate violence and atrocities against their own people with the support of the American government?

This is why I believe US should seize the opportunity brought by Tunisia revolution and push for radical reform in the Middle East and also in Africa, that is reforms that will open up the countries that have been turned into prisons by the corrupt leaders.

US and her allies in Europe should begin to realise that their policies in the Middle East and Africa are not working and need serious evaluation. The policies are breeding more extremists than Bin Laden could have achieved on his own. It is alienating the governments from the people, and moving them closely to radical ideologies spewed by those who hate America and her ideals.

I cannot see the US and her allies winning the 'War on Terror' either now or in the near future while large section of the populations in the Middle East and Africa are excluded from the economy, and while they remain poor and marginalised. The war against extremism and terrorism will not be won and the influence of Bin Laden and his organisation will not wane unless United States and Europe push for a more inclusive, democratic, transparent and corruption free governments that respect not only human rights and freedom of speech but also allow a vibrant civil society to develop.

Therefore the United States and her allies must stop being quiet while great injustices are being committed against innocent people in the name of 'War on Terror'. The men, women, children, the poor and the unemployed youth in these countries would want to know openly whether the United States government and the American people are with them or are with their autocratic governments. The US must say openly what it says to the leaders in private to reassure the people that the world's great democracy is behind them.

In Egypt for example US could use the $1.3bn annual aid it gives to the country as a leverage to push for democratic and economic reform that will enable the people to actively participate in the political and economic development of their country. That huge aid could be used as a leverage to empower the people so they can openly criticise their government without being arrested. Therefore it may be wise for United States to cut off funding to regimes that will not reform and use the funds to support progressive forces and engage those marginalised by US policies in these countries

Additionally, the regimes must be encouraged to lift the censorship on media, allow private media to operate freely and grant more licenses to others. If Americans can express their opinion freely on CNN, ABC, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, why should Saudis, Egyptians, Moroccans and Algerians have to go to jail for doing the same?

It is important to promote and protect US economic and other interests in these countries but what is the gain when fifty year old economic interests are destroyed within a twinkle of an eye as the situation in Tunisia has shown? What is the use when diplomats and their dependants are put at great risk in these countries? What is the gain when US and European citizens are kidnapped and murdered in cold blood by extremists as recent cold blood murder of two Frenchmen in Niger shows? Must the US national interests supersede our common humanity? That is not to say US and her allies should stop promoting their interests in these countries but the interests must be pursued in open and transparent manner devoid of the corruption, hypocrisy and double standards. In short the interests must not be pursued against the sufferings of the people.

The recommendation offered by the US Ambassador in Tunis contained in the leaked cables published by Wikileaks could not be more clear. The ambassador recommended that US should:

“keep a strong focus on democratic reform and respect for human rights, but shift the way we promote these goals; -- seek to engage the Government of Tunisia in a dialogue on issues of mutual interest, including trade and investment, Middle East peace, and greater Maghreb integration; -- offer Tunisians (with an emphasis on youth) more English-language training, educational exchanges, and cultural programs; -- move our military assistance away from FMF, but look for new ways to build security and intelligence cooperation”.

The above is what United States and her European allies should have done before and after 9/11. However it is not too late. US and her allies should quickly embrace the opportunity the Tunisian revolution offers, engage the governments and the people in the region and usher in a new chapter that places emphasis on inclusion of all citizens in decision making, democracy, respect for human dignity, and freedom to live a life of their choice.

*The author is a political activist and anti-corruption campaigner. He is the author of "Switzerland: A parasite feeding on poor African and Third World Countries?"

Ivory Coast: President Mills over spoke, but was right not to go to war




Laurent Gbagbo
Laurent Gbagbo
 It also appears that President Mills' decision is also based on frank assessment of the situation both in Ghana and in Ivory Coast...The frank assessment was based on whether or not Ghana has the capability to wage a sustained war against its neighbour. It was also based on the question of whether or not Cote D'Ivoire has the capability to fight back should an all out invasion occurs. The judgement was also made based on the question of whether or not peace can be maintained after the overthrow of Laurent Gbagbo.

By Lord Aikins Adusei

Many pundits, commentators and analysts have subjected the recent comments made by President John Atta Mills to serious criticisms. During his meeting with Editors of Ghana's media establishments, the Commander-in-Chief, Armed Forces of Republic of Ghana is reported to have said Ghana would not contribute soldiers should the leadership in West Africa (and Africa Union) decide to use military force to remove Laurent Gbagbo. He said: “As Commander in Chief, I consulted with my Military High Command and they advised that they could not release troops to join any ECOWAS contingent to take military action in Cote d'Ivoire”. He concluded his statement by saying Ghana would rather mind his own business rather than those of others. What the president said has become a serious debate both in local as well as the international media.

Some members of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) and some pundits in Ghana have jumped to the defence of the president, but the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) in Ghana is accusing the president of undermining efforts by regional leaders to let Gbagbo hand over power. Hackman Owusu Agyemang, former Foreign Minister of the NPP said President Mills "Is now seen to be breaking ranks with ECOWAS. We must take the moral high ground".

A recent BBC discussion of the matter had some contributors saying the president's public pronouncement was unwise, forcing Mohammed Mumuni, the Foreign Minister to accuse the BBC of unfairness. “The BBC has been unfair and unjust because it took that proverb totally out of context and presented it and it clearly gave a certain impression, it portrayed president Mills as a person who is uncaring for others, as a selfish person, an inward-looking president who is only concerned about his own internal affairs and does not care a hoot about what is happening in La Cote d'Ivoire.”

The point is that regardless of what regional leaders, foreign powers, opposition parties, or local commentators say or think, as a commander-in-Chief President Mills reserves the right to decide where and how Ghana Armed Forces should conduct their operations. The right to declare war or peace as vested in the President ought to be respected by those criticising the him because the president is the one who will take full responsibility should the outcome to declare war or peace does not go in the nation's favour.

The President is refusing to go to war knowing very well the outcome of any military involvement can be costly to Ghana both in human and in financial terms. Apart from its potential financial and human consequences and wider security implications, a decision to go to war could also destroy the political career of those who unwisely take their nations to war. The ongoing Inquiry in the United Kingdom in which Tony Blair and his Ministers are being questioned for their decision to take Britain to war in Iraq attests to this fact. Again the 2008 US presidential elections in which President Bush's Republican Party lost to the Democrats also add weight to the importance of not playing ball when it comes to declaring war. Tony Blair lost his post as British Prime Minister and George Bush Jr became the most unpopular president in recent US history largely because of their decision to invade Iraq despite international outcry. In our world full of extremism and terrorism decision to go to war can make a country highly susceptible to attacks from enemies within and outside the country. Several assessments made by security think thanks indicate that the decision to overthrow Saddam has poisoned the security of the world and United States and Europe in particular. Saddam's overthrow has not only worsened the security situation in Iraq but has also made US, Britain and their allies targets of suicide bombers. While Mills' lack of interest in seeing Laurent Gbagbo toppled by military means is inherent in his belief that peaceful settlement of disputes is better than confrontation, the above unforeseen problems have played a part in his decision not to go to war.

It also appears that President Mills' decision is also based on frank assessment of the situation both in Ghana and in Ivory Coast. Available information indicate that President Mills was in fact being honest and frank with Ghanaians when he said Ghana won't commit troops to Ivory Coast. Though President Mills did not elaborate when he said Ghana's armed forces was overstretched, sources inside the military have confirmed that the armed forces after assessing its role in other theatres around the world decided to inform the President to shelve any idea to contribute troops should ECOWAS and its military wing (ECOMOG) decides to invade Ivory Coast.

The frank assessment was based on whether or not Ghana has the capability to wage a sustained war against its neighbour. It was also based on the question of whether or not Cote D'Ivoire has the capability to fight back should an all out invasion occurs. The judgement was also made based on the question of whether or not peace can be maintained after the overthrow of Laurent Gbagbo. In other words if Gbagbo's forces decide to retreat to the forests of Ivory Coast and wage a guerrilla war do we have the capability to defeat them. What happens if Gbagbo's forces decide to launch attacks in villages inside Ghana along the Ghana-Ivorian border?

Of all the issues that informed the President to arrive at the conclusion not to invade Cote D'Ivoire the question of capability was very prominent.

To begin with in 2009 Pieter D. Wezeman authored a document titled “Arms transfers to Central, North and West Africa”. It was published by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), an independent security think thank that tracks military spending world wide. According to the document, between 2003 and 2007 Cote D'Ivoire's total military expenditure stood at US$1.27 billion, representing an average of US$253.8 million per annum. During the same period, (2003-2007) Ghana's total military expenditure was US$381.3 million representing an annual average expenditure of US$76.26 million. That is Ghana's expenditure for the period represented only a third (about 30%) of Cote D'Ivoire.

All things being equal, it is not difficult to predict the outcome of a war between two countries one spending US$1.27 billion, the other spending US$381.3 million. That is giving their expenditure a confrontation between the two neighbours will in no doubt be in favour of Cote D'Ivoire. Weapons are very important because weapons and its technology can determine the outcome of a battle. In any military confrontation with an enemy one would want to know the enemy's capability, the weapons the enemy is using, its troop numbers, the combat experience of the enemy forces etc. As Israelis used to say “to beat your enemy you must know the weapons your enemy is using” therefore giving the level of expenditure of Ghana and Ivory Coast, it can be concluded that it is the capabilities of both countries: weapons and arsenals in possession, as well as available number of soldiers ready to be involved in a combat operation which actually informed the President not to go to war.

Other factors such as the power of the Ghanaian economy to support a war in Cote D'Ivoire also informed the President to refuse to go to war. Analysis of Cote D'Ivoire's economy indicates that by West Africa standard Cote d'Ivoire is relatively a rich country; its military is well resourced and is probably one of the best in West Africa (a fact that also reflect in its military spending). The huge funding available to the Ivorian military means that it is better equipped than its Ghanaian counterpart. In addition, Ivorian soldiers appear to be better remunerated than their Ghanaian counterparts which mean all things being equal, morale and the will to fight favour Ivory Coast than Ghana. That means any invasion will be tough and costly in human and financial terms and Ghana does not want to be involved in a long battle with with a powerful neighbour. President Mills after careful analysis of the strength of Ghana's economy and the capabilities of its military concluded that a war with militarily strong neighbour with an over stretched army is in nobody's interest.

But there is even a bigger problem. At the ECOWAS meeting of Heads of governments, it was discussed that any invasion force was to be made up of soldiers from West Africa and some other countries. That means Ghana's weak position could be strengthened with that of Nigeria which according to Pieter D. Wezeman leads military spending in West Africa, spending US$3.7bn between 2003 and 2007. The problem however is that very few of the French-speaking countries in West Africa (though they form the bulk of ECOWAS) are prepared to contribute soldiers and logistics to the invasion. It became apparent that the cost of any invasion would fall on Ghana and Nigeria, echoing the memory of the Liberian civil war where Ghana and Nigeria footed most of the bill and contributed most of the soldiers who helped to restore peace in the country. The failure of French-speaking West Africa to show interest in military build up against Gbagbo forced Mills and his military Generals to conclude that a war against Gbagbo will drain Ghana's resources and therefore will not be in the interest of the nation.

There is no indication to suggest that president Mills erred when he spoke about the invasion. He was very right in his judgement and was in fact telling Ghanaians the truth. There is nothing wrong with the President announcing that he met with his Generals who advised him against going to war to remove Laurent Gbagbo. So the decision not to go to war was a wise and smart move intended to protect the one million Ghanaians living in Ivory Coast.

In my candid opinion, the President's only fault is that he over spoke (over stepped the diplomatic cordon) when he answered the question of Ghana not sending troops to Cote d'Ivoire. His assertion that Ghana should 'mind her own business' ('Dzi wu fie asem') shows his lack of understanding of the strategic importance of Ghana as a key player in regional affairs. Whether President Mills likes it or not Ghana is a major player that cannot be ignored when it comes to regional issues whether it is security or economics. For Mills to say that Ghana will mind its own business shows that he does not appreciate (or understand) the importance of Ghana to influence decisions in the sub region.

The import of his statement also has a wider implication for any decision regarding the impasse in La Cote D'Ivoire. First of all, his statement that Ghana's military is overstretched has the effect of weakening Ghana's influence in the sub-region because nations (within out and inside the sub-region) that count on Ghana's ability to project power and influence key events in the sub-region will begin to have doubts.

Secondly, President Mills' unconditional public statement has the potential to torpedo effort by regional leaders to let Gbagbo go peacefully. Mills unilateral action is being interpreted by Gbagbo as a support from Ghana and Gbagbo is using it to advance his hold on power. Watching how events are unfolding in Cote D'Ivoire suggest that President Mills' statement has in fact emboldened Laurent Gbagbo. We could see Gbagbo's emboldened position in a recent visit by the AU mediator, Raila Odinga where Gbagbo failed to recognise or cooperate with him. We could also see it in Gbagbo's statement praising President Mills. Speaking on TV Africa's The Bare Facts, hosted by one of Ghana's ace journalists Mr Kwesi Pratt Jnr. Gbagbo said of President Mills: “He is a wise man; he has taken a very good decision that his country intervention in Cote D'Ivoire. This is in the spirit of the creation of the Organisation of African Unity in the 1960s and the African Union (AU) in 2000".

The unfortunate aspect of President Mills' statement is that it has the effect of producing the same problems he is trying to avoid: the status of the one million Ghanaians living in Cote D'Ivoire. Whereas Gbagbo may see Ghana as an ally and will not harm Ghanaians living in Abidjan and other cities controlled by his forces, the same cannot be said of Alassane Ouattara. Ouatarra forces may interpret the President's decision as a declaration of support for Gbagbo and they may vent their anger on Ghanaians living in the areas controlled by them with very serious consequences.

Although it is wise decision not to go to war, but declaring it publicly is a complete diplomatic blunder. The diplomatic blunder however, is a symptom of a larger problem within the ruling NDC. It was caused because of the fact that most of the president's inner circles are people who appear to be learning politics: little foreign policy experience. So far within the NDC Ambassador James Victor Gbeho is the most experienced foreign policy expert with the acumen and credentials to advice Mills on major foreign policy issues such as the one the NDC is confronted with in Cote D'Ivoire. Ambassador Gbeho's appointment as President of ECOWAS has left the NDC with few individuals who could offer the President the kind of advice he needs to pursue a well articulated foreign policy.

So far as Ivory Coast is concerned President Mills was right not to go to war, but he over spoke. It would have been very right if he had kept quiet and done his bidding behind the scene rather than going public. The impact of Mills public pronouncement is that it will help keep Laurent Gbagbo in power, but will end up making Ghana lose credibility in the eyes of our allies. Ghana may altogether lose some allies within and outside the West Africa sub-region, but in this era of global interdependence losing many allies for the sake of one country however is not a good decision.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

The Ivorian Crisis where does Ghana stand?

The government of Ghana seem confused as to what it should do regarding the impasse going on in Cote D'Ivoire between Gbagbo and Ouattara. There are news reports that the government of Ghana moving closer to endorse Gbagbo or at least accept the legitimacy of his government. When such news paper reports are subjected to further scrutiny the facts do not stand. There are no shred of truth in such reports.

The question however is whether Ghana will be prepared to implement  ECOWAS policies should a decision to unseat Gbagbo by force is taken and whether Ghana is prepared to accept and enforce the legitimacy of Ouattara's election victory. There is no doubt that as a neighbour Ghana needs to be careful on what it does publicly regarding the Ivorian saga but it is also important for Ghana to be seen to work to enforce international policies, and agreement. Walking between this thin line is the nightmare Mills and his government are facing: to stand with her neighbour or to support the international action to unseat Gbagbo. Very nightmarish indeed.

L. A. Adusei