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

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.

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

Land: The New International Strategic Asset. How Africa is losing big time

By Lord Aikins Adusei 


There are credible reports that big multinational corporations like Biofuel Africa Ltd in cahoots with corrupt politicians and traditional leaders and with the backing of global financial institutions are buying large tracts of land in parts of Africa, under bizarre circumstances, displacing rural farmers, destabilising rural communities and slowly building up chaos that is further aggravating the poverty situation in Africa.


The international craze for a reduction of carbon dioxide emission from fossil fuel guzzling cars and industries has led to an intense focus on biofuel as the solution to the pollution and associated global warming. But the production of biofuel is not taking place in the sky, it is taking place on land and is leading to a new social cancer that is slowly beginning to emerge. The focus on biofuel as alternative to oil, gas and coal has put new and unrealistic demand on land, and it is on record to make land the most strategic commodity in the 21st Century. The history of land as a strategic asset dates back to the 18th Century. During that period Physiocrats considered land the ultimate source value and all attempt was made to secure it. However, in the 19th Century labour became the most important factor of production as new factories competed aggressively for that resource. Then the importance of labour as the most important factor  of production was replaced by capital in the 20th Century. Access to money was considered the ultimate source of value in production. However, in the 21st Century land is coming back as the most strategic asset.Evidence of this can be seen in the scramble for land not only in Africa but also in Latin America and Russia [1]


Driven largely by a global cartel of land speculators, many energy and agro-multinational corporations are strategically acquiring agricultural lands in poor countries of the global south particularly Africa at a rate never anticipated by land economists. The 2007 and 2008 food crisis and its associated price hikes have forced rich but food insecure countries in the Middle East and the Gulf Region to scrounge for lands in Africa further complicating matters. Meanwhile the belief in some countries in Africa like Sudan and Ethiopia that heavy injections of foreign capital will enhance agricultural technology, boost local employment, revitalize sagging agricultural sectors, and ultimately improve agricultural yields has given the corporations a field day with serious social, economic, political and environmental consequences, [2]


The land grabbing statistics worldwide and Africa in particular is not only overwhelming but is also extraordinary shocking. According to International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) a US-based policy think thank, since 2006 between 15 million and 20 million hectares of farmland around the world have been secured for biofuel and grain production, while between US$20bn and US$30bn has gone investment [3]. 


In Africa the past five years has seen more rich agricultural lands being taken over by food insecure but rich countries in the Middle East and rich multinational firms in Europe, US, and Asia particularly China, Korea and India. Some of the land acquisitions have occurred under bizarre and non-transparent circumstances making experts to warn of the consequences if the practice is not stopped. In Mozambique for example China has US$800 million investment to expand 100,000 to 500,000 metric tons of rice production in the country and Skebab (Sweden) and Sun Biofuels (UK) have acquired more than 100, 000 hectares of land for biofuel production in the country. In Ethiopia, a country noted internationally for its food insecurity and its dependence on handout from the World Food Programme, the government has set aside around three million hectares of farm land to be used to produce grain and biofuel for export. Flora EcoPower (Germany) has acquired 13,000 hectares for bio-crop production while India is investing US$4 billion in agriculture, flower growing and sugar estates in that country. In Tanzania Sun Biofuels (UK) has acquired 5,500 hectares of land for sorghum (biofuel) production while the Chinese firm Chongqing See Corp has secured 300 hectares of farm lands for rice production. In the same Tanzania the Gulf State of Saudi Arabia has requested a lease of 500,000 hectares of land. In Southern Sudan Jarch Capital (USA) has signed a 400, 000 hectare deal with a local army commander while the Middle East and Gulf States of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Kuwait and Egypt together have about 1.045m hectares under their thumb in that country. In the same Sudan, South Korea is running away with 690,000 hectares of farmland secured for wheat production. In Nigeria, Trans4mation Agrictech Ltd (UK) has secured 10,000 hectares of land. In Angola, Lornho (UK) has 25,000 hectares leased to her for rice cultivation and is negotiating for a further 125,000 hectares in Malawi and Mali. China has requested 2 million hectares for jatropha production in Zambia; and in Democratic Republic of Congo the Chinese firm ZTE International has secured 2.8 million hectares for biofuel oil palm plantation [4].


These figures do not only reflect the unequal power relations between rich multinational corporations and governments of rich countries on one hand and poor African countries on the other, but it also reflects the vulnerability of African countries to the predatory activities of rich multinational corporations and governments of these rich countries. This global assault on Africa has the tendency to produce the same negative effects that colonialism has had on the continent.


A major problem is that many of the corruption-ridden governments in Africa are rushing to make land deals with multinationals without proper consultation with the people and without proper studies as to the economic, social and environmental cost of such deals. Another issue is that the lands being giving to corporations by the nonchalance governments in Africa are not empty lands. They are lands that rural farmers farm on and depend on for their livelihoods. That means the farmers whose lands have been taken over by the multinationals are being denied the opportunity to make a living. They are being robbed of the only asset that helps put food on their tables.The lands of the poor farmers are being handed over to rich multinationals to meet the needs of populations elsewhere to the detriment of the local farmers. They are being pushed away by multinationals that are increasingly seeing land as strategic asset that must be acquired at all cost to meet their own greedy, selfish and opportunistic ambitions. 


Many who support corporate land grab efforts in Africa point to Asian-style Green Revolution. Their argument is that allowing land grabbing to go will allow benefits such as revenue, employment, and technology transfer to be bequeathed to countries in Africa. But there are many unanswered questions regarding the so called benefits of land investments in Africa. For example what happens to displaced farmers whose lands are taken for food production to feed populations abroad? What happens to food production and food security in countries where agriculture lands are auctioned to produce biofuel and food to feed economies elsewhere? In some of the countries where land is being taken for food and energy production people already spend between 60-75% of their income on food so what per cent of income of these poor people will be spent on food when it becomes unavailable in the local market? Most importantly what happens to communities when scarce water and other scarce resources that they depend on and which are currently being channeled into food and energy production for export abroad are depleted? What happens to farmlands that are degraded after the food is produced and exported? What happens to the polluted environment after the food and biofuels have been shipped abroad? Little is known of the environmental implications of committing hundreds of thousands of hectares of farm lands into jatropha production. New pests and diseases may emerge to confront poor farmers, who may not have benefited from the jatropha production with serious consequences. For example the use of chemicals to process the jatropha into biofuel may not only lead to contamination of soil, but also the poisoning of shallow groundwater with serious health repercussions for both humans and animals.


As Hornborg (2009) notes: "Generally speaking, social scientists will probably not get too involved in discussions about ethanol with all those engineers, agronomists, and economists who are committed to keeping the global technomass going by feeding it with corn or sugar cane. But we can listen attentively to the debate. We are told, for instance, that the conditions of people harvesting sugar cane for ethanol production in Brazil are appalling. We are told that ethanol production might in fact generate more greenhouse gases than the combustion of fossil fuels. We are told that it will accelerate tropical deforestation and loss of biodiversity. We are told that it will probably yield less horsepower per hectare than just simply growing fodder for horses. And what undoubtedly worries us the most, we are told that it is making food more expensive and contributing to malnutrition and starvation among the global poor" [5].


In Ghana for instance while the Ministry of Agriculture has allowed over 20 companies from around the world, including Brazil, China, Germany, Italy, Norway and The Netherlands, to acquire land to produce biofuels, the ministry has not conducted any study to establish the social, economic and food insecurity implications of such land deals to Ghana as a whole and the affected farmers and the communities in particular.


Current estimates by the World Food Programme (WFP) put the number of people in Ghana who are food insecure to 1.2 million; almost half are people living in the Northern Region of the country where the corporate land grabbing is taking place. In a paper presented during the World Bank Annual Bank conference on Land Policy and Administration in Washington, DC, April 26 and 27, 2010,Kwesi Ahoi, Ghana's Minister of Food and Agriculture admitted that on the whole Ghana remain food insecure. He stated that "Ghana is self-sufficient only in roots and tubers but deficient in cereals where it produces 51% of its needs, fish, 60% of its requirements, meat 50% of requirements and less than 30% of the raw materials needed for agro-based industries. The output of vegetables such as tomatoes and onions, the most widely used, is rather erratic and vacillates between scarcity, sufficiency and glut depending on the vagaries of the weather". [6] Yet, in spite of the food insecurity in the country, Kwesi Ahoi and his ministry are busy supervising the handing over of the same land that could make Ghana food sufficient to non-food producing multinationals.


The acquisition of 23,700 hectares of Ghanaian land by Biofuel Africa Ltd in the northern part of the country has already forced the inhabitants of seven villages that depend on the land for their livelihoods to move to Tamale, the regional capital in search of non existing jobs. These 23,700 hectares of land were taken away from the people without adequate compensation and without viable alternatives. For example Steinar Kolnes, Biofeul Africa Ltd chief executive officer (CEO) in Ghana admitted that the company offered the farmers just options and not compensation: "We don't pay compensation...We gave the farmers two options: To stay and farm their crops alongside the jetropha or leave to other more fertile lands we had provided for them" [7] The question is if there are fertile lands as the chief executive claims why doesn't he use it for his jatropha business? Why is he seizing the poor farmers' land and not use his so called rich land for his jatropha business?


The findings of an in-depth study sponsored by the World Bank on the impact of corporate land grabbing in Ghana have implicated the biofuel corporations in the country. According to the World Bank study published in 2010 [8] "The most direct and immediate impact of biofuels relates to land loss… Some 70 households from three communities were involuntarily vacated from their lands, without any form of restitution, following the harvest of yam (the primary cash crop) from the 2008 growing season. For two of the villages this equated to between 40 and 50 percent of households. Of those households that lost land, on average nearly 60 percent of their total landholdings were acquired by the company. Only 20 percent of households were able to obtain some replacement land, with most households unsuccessful in recovering both the quantity and quality of land lost to the plantation. These households cited increasing land scarcity and land quality concerns as key obstacles."


The World Bank study concluded "In all the plantations assessed households were required to relinquish landholdings for the purpose of plantation development. At the majority of plantations, directly affected households were not consulted by the company, nor did they formally acquiesce to transferring their land. With the exception of one company that promised to pay approximately US$ 1 per acre per year to those losing land, no formal compensation measures have been proposed by other companies or by the relevant Traditional Authorities" [9]. These findings which corroborate Steinar Kolnes' statement that his company does not pay compensation show that the corporations are paying close to nothing for their robbery. The question is how many Europeans, Americans, and Koreans will accept approximately US$ 1 per acre per year as compensation for not farming on a land that acts as the source of livelihood?


Meanwhile similar reports of people loosing their livelihoods are being reported in Ethiopia, Tanzania, Mali, Zambia and war ravaged Sudan. Thus the commodification of land is threatening rural farmers whose lands are being seized by these greedy multinationals acting in cahoots with local politicians and traditional leaders. The consequence of such blind land grabbing by bio-multinationals is that food security efforts of a continent frequently scarred by food shortages, hunger and starvation is being compromised. Such acts are creating unnecessary tension and chaos in many farming societies and helping to destabilise the cohesiveness of rural communities. The peace and stability that many communities have enjoyed for decades are being breached as a result of the land grabs especially in communities where farmers have been left without compensation and without alternatives. The danger is that the carving up of rich arable farmlands for production of non-food commodities such as biofuel if not checked will worsen the continent's food security efforts and force already poor people into hunger and starvation. That warning has been issued already in the GRAIN Report of 2008.


The Report by the Spain based NGO-GRAIN states that: "Food corporations and private investors, hungry for profits in the midst of the deepening financial crisis, see investment in foreign farmland as an important new source of revenue. As a result, fertile agricultural land is becoming increasingly privatised and concentrated. If left unchecked, this global land grab could spell the end of small-scale farming, and rural livelihoods, in numerous places around the world". [10]


The true value of that warning cannot be underestimated because the danger is already appearing. That is the leasing of these lands to multinationals under circumstances that leave much to be desired, as indicated by Ghana's example is forcing many rural farmers to move into the cities and towns in search of non-existing jobs. That is the commodification of land is pushing already poor farmers out of farming and into cities that have little to offer them. These cities are already overburdened with populations and face major problems as discussed by Mike Davis in his book the "Planet of Slums" [11]. In effect the seizing of the poor farmers' land is destroying their only hope of survival on earth. 


Governments in Africa that think major agro-multinationals securing large tracts of land under dubious means could help initiate Asian-style Green Revolution in Africa must know and understand that in Asia the Green Revolution was largely successful because of the role played by smallholders [12]. These smallholders who played pivotal role in making Asia economies food sufficient are the very people being displaced by the multinationals and the rich countries and their hedge fund managers. Such displacements will produce nothing but a backlash with serious economic and political consequences. 


Dangerous consequences are always in the pipeline when corporate interests coincide with that of corrupt and insensitive governments as we have seen between oil giant Shell and the corrupt federal government in Nigeria. Niger Delta crisis was largely created when the interest of Royal Shell Corporation coincided with that of the corrupt regimes that ruled the country since 1966. Thus the accumulation by dispossession currently underway in Africa will definitely produce its consequences not only for people being robbed of their lands but also the corporations acting in cahoots with the indifference governments in Africa. Rich governments securing lands in Africa may altogether lose their investments when landless farmers and hungry communities begin to make claims to what has been unjustly taken away from them. 


The political ramifications of outsourcing lands to multinational have had its first casualty in Madagascar. The toppling of the government in Madagascar after 1.3 million hectares of land was sold to the Korean firm Daewoo and another 465,000 hectares to Varun International of India demonstrates the political cost such non-transparent land arrangement poses to the security and stability of governments in Africa. Lesson should be learnt from that and it must serve as an eye opener to all those scrounging for lands in Africa and in the process helping to destabilise the people and their communities.


When foods being produced by the multinationals and rich governments are exported the shortages that will be created and the associated price hikes will produce devastating and undesirable effects. Avoiding the shortages and its undesirable effects through the implementation of policies that give first priority to smallholders and local farmers producing food for local consumption must be the objective of governments in Africa.


Reference


[1] Hornborg, A. 2009. Zero-Sum World Challenges in Conceptualizing Environmental Load Displacement and Ecologically Unequal Exchange in the World-System. International Journal of Comparative Sociology. SAGE Publications.


[2] Kugelman, M. and Levenstein, S. L (eds).2009. LAND GRAB? The Race for the World's Farmland. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C.


[3] IFPRI 2009 cited in the Economist "Outsourcing's Third Wave," Economist, May 21, 2009, available from http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13692889.


[4] Hornborg, A. 2009. Zero-Sum World Challenges in Conceptualizing Environmental Load Displacement and Ecologically Unequal Exchange in the World-System. International Journal of Comparative Sociology. SAGE Publications.


[5] Von Braun, J. and Meinzen-Dick, R. 2009. "Land Grabbing" by Foreign Investors in Developing countries: Risks and Opportunities. IFPRI Policy Brief. April 2009.


[6]World Bank, 2010 Annual Bank conference on land policy and administration Washington, DC April 26 and 27, 2010. Government's Role in Attracting Viable Agricultural Investment: Experiences from Ghana
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTARD/Resources/336681-1236436879081/Ahwoi.pdf


[7] IRIN, 2009. Ghana: Land grabs force hundreds off farms, growers say. http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=86044


[8] Schoneveld, G. C. et al. 2010. Towards Sustainable Biofuel Development: Assessing the Local Impacts of Large-Scale Foreign Land Acquisitions in Ghana. World Bank.


[9] Schoneveld, G. C. et al. 2010. Towards Sustainable Biofuel Development: Assessing the Local Impacts of Large-Scale Foreign Land Acquisitions in Ghana. World Bank.


[10] GRAIN, 2008 Seized: The 2008 land grab for food and financial


[11] Davis, M.2006. Planet of Slums. Published by Verso.


[12] Jirström et al. 2006. Addressing Food Crisis in Africa - What Can Sub-Saharan Africa learn from Asian experiences in Addressing Food Crisis ITS? CIDA Report

Power sharing: An ugly Paradigm shift in African Politics

   Gbagbo must be removed by force

Lord Aikins Adusei

*By Lord Aikins Adusei

Dangerous precedents
The year was 2008. The countries: Kenya and Zimbabwe. The subject matter was presidential elections between the then incumbents Mwai Kibaki of Kenya and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and their challengers Raila Odinga and Morgan Tsvangirai respectively. Both elections had similar things in common. The opposition candidates in the respective countries won the elections but the incumbents refused to go, called on their supporters to inflict harm on their opponents and stole the verdict under the watchful eye of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) and East Africa Community, the Africa Union and the international community.

First was Mwai Kibaki who came to power after Arap Moi's two decades of corrupt dictatorship came to an end. Kibaki during the campaign promised to weed corruption and put Kenya back as East Africa's economic powerhouse. After using state machinery including the media (electronic and print) he could not win the people's heart and mind. He failed to deliver on his promises and the people punished him for failing. But he refused to go and made diabolical calculations that earned him the presidency of the country under a sham arrangement called 'power sharing'. His refusal to accept the choice of the people led to a senseless bloodbath which resulted in more than 1200 people losing their life. Raila Odinga who had won the election was given the position of Prime Minister.

Then came Zimbabwe. Mugabe too lost to Morgan Tsvangirai after the first round and went about employing all manner of tactics that finally forced Tsvangirai to withdraw from the election effectively handing over the presidency to Mugabe. Kenya's power sharing was imported and imposed on the people of Zimbabwe against their will.

Thus in both Zimbabwe and Kenya power sharing was considered the solution to the debacle in those countries. The Zimbabwe's power sharing deal sponsored by SADC, retained Mugabe as president, while Tsvangirai got the less important Prime Minister position with Arthur Mutambara as Deputy Prime Minister. To add insults to injury Mugabe and his Zanu-PF were given key portfolios, and sweeping powers that placed them in charge of the country. Meanwhile Mugabe has refused to abide by the terms of their agreement that stipulate that both the Prime Minister and the President must consult each other for major appointments. In October 2010, Tsvangirai wrote to the United Nations protesting at Mugabe's unilateral appointment of officials without consultation as stipulated by the agreement.

Thus in Zimbabwe since the government of unity was sworn in more than eighteen months ago nothing seems to have worked. Mugabe and his supporters have done everything in their power to make sure that the unity government does not work. Mr. Mugabe has totally hijacked the implementation and twisted it in his favour. He and his Zanu-PF agents continue to frustrate the unity government forcing Tsvangirai to threaten to pull out many times. As The Economist magazine put it "Mr Mugabe still treats the agreement and his prime minister with contempt. Mr Tsvangirai recently announced that journalists were now free to report on Zimbabwe without government approval, yet he was promptly contradicted by the information minister, a Zanu-PF man, who said that journalists without proper accreditation could face up to two years in jail. After months of negotiations, Mr Tsvangirai at last secured the release of human-rights activists and MDC sympathisers who had been detained, and many tortured, on treason charges. But a few weeks later they were rearrested."

Although better than Zimbabwe in terms of the implementation of the power sharing agreement, Kenya's power sharing implementation is also beset with the same problems despite the rhetoric by the politicians that they would let it work. The negative impact on the disagreements are manifold but the most serious of them all is that in Zimbabwe as it is in Kenya the people who voted for change continue to suffer under the same leaders they rejected. Their economic, social and political conditions have not improved a bit.

It is clear that the concept of power sharing as it has been practiced in both Kenya and Zimbabwe has been flawed and has been a sham that ought not to have been considered in African politics at all. But this appears to be what Laurent Gbagbo is hopping for when he refused to accept the people's verdict. His call for Mr. Ouattara to meet him to dialogue is intended to ensure that he remained president. Gbagbo appears to be towing the same line as Kibaki and Mugabe hopping that by refusing to relinquish power and using the military to terrorise the population he would be able to force Quattara into a power sharing deal. He was also hopping that the regional leaders will support his move for a possible power sharing arrangement. But it is clear from the outpouring of support for Mr. Quattara that Gbagbo hugely miscalculated and underestimated the intelligence of the West Africa and the AU leadership.

Show of Support for Ouattara
Unlike Zimbabwe and Kenya where regional leaders were divided and could not speak with one voice, thereby allowing the stolen verdicts to stand, the leadership in West Africa is speaking with one voice asking Gbagbo to step down and allow the legitimately elected leader to take the mantle of leadership. The support expressed by the leadership in West Africa has not only isolated Gbagbo regionally and continentally but has also reduced his influence in the region to only his southern controlled part of the country.

Reacting to calls by Gbagbo to accept defeat the President of ECOWAS James Victor Gbeho said ""There is nothing to negotiate as far as ECOWAS is concerned. From now on, ECOWAS will deal with Ouattara, not Gbagbo." The UN Secretary General also made it clear to Gbagbo that Mr. Ouattara's nominee for the post of UN Ambassador will be recognised. President Khama Ian Khama's government in Botswana also condemned Gbagbo's power grab efforts in Ivory Coast. "The Government of the Republic of Botswana is deeply concerned about African leaders who reject election results that are not in their favour. Such actions not only deny people the right to have leaders of their choice, but also thwart efforts to maintain peace and security on the African continent". Morgan Moseki, Botswana Congress Party's Secretary for International Affairs released statement saying "We urge the AU not to allow the Kenyan and Zimbabwean style Government of National Unity in Ivory Coast as this creates good precedence for losers who remain heads of state with full privileges despite the outcome".

The strongest show of support came from Kenya's Prime Minister Raila Odinga who has called for Gbagbo to be removed by force. Odinga (himself a victim of electoral short-change) said in a news conference in Cancun-Mexico that "Mr Gbagbo must be forced even if it means using military means to get rid of him because he is just now relying on military power not people power to intimidate the people. He thinks that he can basically intimidate the people to submission so that he can continue to rule in undemocratic fashion. This will only spell doom and destruction for Ivory Coast." "What is building up in Ivory Coast now is a tragedy Africa cannot afford this time and one that the international community must not allow at any cost."

The message from West African leaders and the Africa Union leadership has been loud and clear: Africa will not accept such blatant abuse and entrenchment of power. They will no more tolerate or support autocratic regimes that are hell bent on controlling power at all cost.

Meanwhile the Central Bank in West Africa Chaired by Mali's President seem to have pulled the plug denying Gbagbo access to funds that could help him sustain his illegitimate regime. According to the Reuters News Agency a statement issued by the West African Central Bank stated "The council of ministers has taken note of the decisions of the U.N, the African Union, and of (West African regional body) ECOWAS, to recognize Alassane Ouattara as the legitimate elected president of Ivory Coast," and that only appointed members of the "legitimate government" would be allowed to access funds held in the central bank's accounts.

The blow to deny Gbagbo funds was made heavier after the World Bank also announced that it was cutting all financial help (loans and grant) to the country. The European Union led by France, (former colonial power) has been threatening sanctions. The United States has also proposed sanctions threatening to freeze assets of Gbagbo and his key allies held in the US.

Defiance and acts of violence
But so far Gbagbo has stood his grounds and has remained stubbornly defiant urged on by the country's military. At the same time he and his supporters appear to be adopting the crude tactics Mugabe adopted: arrest, torture and killing of those suspected to have voted for his opponent. Kyung-wha Kang, the U.N. deputy high commissioner for human rights, said "Between 16 and 21 December, human rights officers have substantiated allegations of 173 killings, 90 instances of torture and ill treatment, 471 arrests and detentions and 24 cases of enforced or involuntary disappearances,". "We have credible reports that almost 200 people may have already been killed, with dozens more tortured or mistreated, and others may have been snatched from their homes in the middle of the night," U.S. ambassador Betty E. King said during the Human Rights Council's meeting in Geneva.

Y. J. Choi, the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative in Ivory Coast, said he was personally prevented from visiting a site suspected to be a mass grave. "I went there and we were about to enter into negotiations then reinforcement came with young men mounted on pick-up trucks […] with rocket launchers directly aiming at us… Finally, because of our rules of engagement we returned but we will continue to try to reach this site to verify the facts." "I met him several times to deliver two messages: that he lost and must accept it; the second message was if his action to change the results of the election results in serious violations of human rights then there would be no turning back. He will be dragging […] people into tragedy."

Gbagbo must be removed by force
The overwhelming support Mr. Ouattara has received internationally suggests that no matter how hard Gbagbo tries to remain in power he will only be doing damage to his reputation as a statesman and ruin his country's economy as Mugabe has done. This will be too obvious if the threats of sanctions against him and his government are implemented. The logic of the sanctions is that it will make it difficult for him to govern his country. The soldiers who are backing him may switch side or may turn and remove him after the sanctions begin to hit them. There is a clear similarity between Gbagbo's cling on power and what happened to Mamadou Tandja of Niger when he took a similar path.

Although the condemnation and isolation and threat of sanctions by the ECOWAS, AU, EU, US and UN is a welcoming development I believe the whole idea to use sanctions to cripple him cannot be a viable option; it cannot bring the change in leadership that Ivorians voted for. It has not worked in Zimbabwe and will not work in Ivory Coast. Gbagbo as stubborn as he is will want to cling on to power at all cost, even if it means totally collapsing the country. Let us not forget that Gbagbo became president by default and has ruled Cote D'Ivoire in the last ten years without the mandate of the people. He deliberately thwarted all effort to hold credible, transparent free and fair elections adopting tactics that enabled him to postpone the elections several times.

I must admit that I am not a big fun of military intervention and I have spoken against it in some quarters especially when Paul Collier suggested it as way of getting failed states like Somalia back on their feet. But when a leader like Laurent Gbagbo fails to do what is reasonably acceptable in human society and tries to plunge his country into a senseless blood bath and deny Ivorians the hope of a better future then the only hope to restore that hope is to use force. This is why I strongly agree with Raila Odinga that all options must remain on the table as dialogue continues. However, it must also be made loud and clear to Gbagbo that Africa and the international community will only accept Ouattara leadership as president and nothing less. The message must be made loud and clear to Gbagbo that Africa and the international community will use force to bring about the change that Ivorians hope for should the need arises. That message must also include the warning that he Gbagbo and his backers will join Charles Taylor in The Hague to answer for any crime they commit in the country. We cannot be serious about regional security, stability and development if we cannot implement military intervention to bring about that security and stability. It is the actions of persons like Gbagbo that continue to insulate Africa from the global economy and force investors to go elsewhere despite the huge resources found on the continent. Africa should not accept Kenya and Zimbabwe style power-sharing arrangement that so far has not delivered any tangible results to the ordinary people living in those countries. Gbagbo must not be allowed to ruin his country as Mugabe has done to Zimbabwe. It must be understood that Gbagbo does not command the support of the people as the election results indicate; neither does he have any valuable options. The only option available to him is to accept defeat.

If the wish of Gbagbo and the military leaders in the country is to plunge Ivory Coast into another senseless bloodbath, then that wish must be denied of them. Therefore any attempt to legitimise Gbagbo's rule through power sharing arrangement will set a dangerous precedent in West Africa, a region already noted for its instability and political upheavals. Those who want to take Africa back to the Stone Age like Gbagbo must be stopped at all cost.

Part of the Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights states that "Colonized or oppressed peoples shall have the right to free themselves from the bonds of domination by resorting to any means recognized by the international community." This article enjoins Ivorians to resist any form of domination by any entity including their own leaders who want to rule them without their mandate. In this instance it is clear that the people of Cote D'Ivoire are under Gbagbo's bonds of domination and must be helped to free themselves from his oppressive regime. We will do a great injustice to the people of Ivory Coast if Gbagbo is allowed to rule as president.

Therefore if he refuses to accept defeat and allow Ouattara to govern then he must be removed by force. The removal of Gbagbo by force will send a powerful message to current and would be tyrants that their corrupt and autocratic style of governance will no more be tolerated on the continent. Therefore, Nigeria, Kenya, Botswana, South Africa, Ghana, Senegal, Tanzania, Malawi and all countries in Africa that believe in democracy and freedom of the people to choose who should lead them should get prepared to contribute soldiers to unseat Gbagbo should the current efforts to persuade him to go peacefully fail.

West Africa and Africa military planners must begin to put a force together. The peace, stability and hope that ECOMOG brought to Liberia must also be brought to Cote D'Ivoire. The campaign must be shock and awe and decisive. Securing the airport and the harbour in Abidjan as well security and energy installations and borders must be a priority so at to cut Gbagbo's supply line and force him and his backers to capitulate. If the shock and awe strategy fails to bring him down then he must be fought to the end captured dead or alive. That means ECOMOG must be prepared to dig in for a long battle and be prepared to take casualties for it is only when they are prepared to take casualties can they also bring the illegitimate government down. The UN 10,000 strong peacekeeping force in the country must be given the mandate to fight along side ECOMOG because as the situation stands today there is no peace for them to keep in the country.

To get the support needed the campaign must be African led; and civilian casualties must be avoided as much as possible. Neighbouring countries must secure their borders and also get ready to accept people fleeing the country and provide them with food and shelter until such a time that peace returns to the troubled country.

The precedents set by Mugabe and Kibaki and encouraged by regional power brokers seem to have informed Gbagbo that he too could have his way. Perhaps if EAC and SADC regional leaders and Thabo Mbeki in particular had been more vocal and supportive of Morgan Tsvangirai and Odinga as the West Africans are doing the debacle and the dysfunctional unity governments in Zimbabwe and Kenya as we have them today would have been averted including the dangerous precedents set by Kibaki and Mugabe and being followed by Laurent Gbagbo.

The actions of West African leaders, as well as those of AU, UN, EU and the US in the coming days and perhaps weeks will be crucial to what happens to the change and hope that Ivorians voted for. For now the options for Gbagbo is to admit defeat, leave office peacefully or be prepared to be removed by force.

*The author is an anti-corruption campaigner and the author of "Switzerland: A parasite feeding on the economies of poor African and Third World Countries?"
E-mail:politicalthinker1@yahoo.com

Africa: The past decade, and The next decade

Another decade is about to end and as usual we will be discussing Africa: the economy, the politics, social achievements, progress, development, failures, and what the next decade can offer Africa. To begin with Ghana established itself as the doyen of African politics after two successful power transfers between opposition and incumbent parties. South Africa emerged as the economic powerhouse of Africa becoming the only African country to be made a member of the G-20. South Africa successfully hosted the 2010 Fifa World Cup after been written off by western media commentators. Ghana surprised everyone in the 2010 world cup by reaching the quarter finals. Angola is poised to overtake Nigeria as Africa's largest oil exporter in the coming decade. But thanks to the greed in Wall Street and Capitol Hill many of the successes chalked had been eroded.

African leaders strongly rejected the US imposed AFRICOM but other countries are still secretly negotiating with the Americans. 

Goodluck Jonathan assumed the mantle of leadership in Nigeria he appears to be doing a marvelous job for Nigerians and Nigerians seem to approve the work done so far. But challenges remain. 

William Kamkwamba, a Malawian boy established himself as one of the best brains on earth after harnessing wind in his village to produce electricity.

Most of the corporate financed wars that plagued West Africa in the 1990s have ended especially those in Liberia, Sierra Leone. Rwanda is peaceful now. But Ivory Coast is spoiling the party for everyone due to the resumption of hostilities in that country. 

The International Criminal Court continues to target Africans using Africa as a test case. Ocampo indicted only Africans for trial living Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair and the hawks in Washington who invaded and killed Iraqis.

The dictators refused to go except those struck by death. Dictators like Omar Bongo and Lansana Conte died and left their loots behind. Mugabe is still firmly in control after the 2008 carnage against opposition members and supporters. Many of the countries have shown real economic progress.