 | | | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
8 months ago
Showing posts with label coups. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coups. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
AFRICOM to sharpen skills of military
Friday, March 5, 2010
Lawmakers Concerned About Deployment of Nigerian Military
Share This
Related Articles
Nigerian lawmakers want to know who authorized a deployment of troops without the knowledge of the country's acting commander-in-chief.
Nigerian presidents always have troops lining the nearly 30-kilometer drive to Abuja's airport.
They were there again last month when Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua returned after midnight from treatment in a Saudi hospital. But Acting President Goodluck Jonathan knew nothing of his return. Information Minister Dora Akunyili said she heard about it on television.
Because of the president's extended illness, Acting President Jonathan is currently the commander-in-chief of Nigerian armed forces, including those soldiers who were deployed along the airport road without his knowledge.
That has raised concern among some members of parliament about who is commanding Nigerian troops. And it comes at a time when senior officers have repeatedly warned soldiers to stay out of politics, mindful of the instability surrounding President Yar'Adua's illness in a country that has had half-a-dozen coups since 1966.
Ruling-party parliamentarian Patrick Obahiagbon asked about the deployment on the floor of the National Assembly this week. The House immediately went into closed session.
When it was over, Obahiagbon spoke to reporters about his concern.
"Three-hundred soldiers deployed in the middle of the night conveyed in about 25 vehicles with weapons given to them in the wee hours of the night. Supposing the soldiers decided to have a change of mind. And the C-in-C was unaware," he said.
Nigeria's Trade Union Congress wants a public hearing into who ordered the deployment of soldiers without orders from the Commander-in-Chief, saying it is worried that troops trained to respect regimented authorities could act irresponsibly.
Military chiefs briefed lawmakers in private this week about the incident. A parliamentarian who was present for that briefing says the Brigade of Guards was deployed without informing the acting president because those soldiers are responsible for protecting the president and his family, so commanders explained there was no need to notify Mr. Jonathan.
Army Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Abdulrahman Dambazzau was at that briefing. He says soldiers will not be drawn into a political dispute.
"It is a difficult period for everybody, but we believe that it is a political thing. We are not politicians. We are military professionals and we are determined to remain so," said Dambazzau.
The deployment of troops without his knowledge has raised questions about Acting President Jonathan's command of the military. But the strong reaction to that deployment by some of his cabinet members, including Information Minister Akunyili, may have further eroded support among those who still back President Yar'Adua and believe Mr. Jonathan's supporters are over-reacting to a ceremonial detachment of troops showing respect to an ailing leader.
Ibrahim Mark, the general secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association, says some of the acting president's supporters have made the situation worse.
"He has not been able to control these people. So people now will look at him with suspicion. Is he the one authorizing this or authorizing that? I think the information managers in the presidency are not doing too well. We are hearing a cacophony of voices. Nobody seems to be in charge. It is like we are fed with rumors. Nobody seems to talk authoritatively," he said.
Military leaders told lawmakers this week that some politicians have approached them about again taking power in Nigeria, but they have pledged their support to the government currently led by Mr. Jonathan.
Nigerian Minister Fears Instability Over President's Ill-Health
Photo: AFP
Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua (File)
Share This
Related Articles
Nigeria's information minister says lack of information about the state of health of President Umaru Yar'Adua is becoming a source of instability in Africa's most populous nation. The ailing president, whose return to Nigeria last week sparked renewed uncertainty, is under pressure to resign or be removed.
Dora Akunyili, the information minister who last month petitioned the Cabinet to support the transfer of executive powers to then-Vice President Goodluck Jonathan, says tensions and uncertainty about the leadership of Nigeria persist despite the vice president assuming the role of acting president.
Akunyili appealed to the bed-ridden Nigerian leader to ease the current tensions by addressing the nation on his true state of health.
"There is a political crisis," Akunyili said. "We should not pretend about it because we are yet to get out of the woods. As soon as we hear from our president or the people around him are able to come out and tell us his true health status then things will gradually normalize. Even if they have lied for too long there is nothing wrong with coming out today to say the truth."
The Nigerian leader has not been seen in public since he returned to the country last week from Saudi Arabia, where he was receiving treatment for an acute heart condition. Official delegations have failed to gain access to the sick leader.
The cloak of secrecy that surrounded his return to Nigeria has strengthened the belief that he is gravely ill.
Information Minister Akunyili say aides to the president are withholding the truth on the state of health of the Nigerian leader.
"The stories that ae coming up are really very discomforting and I wouldn't want to repeat some of them," Akunyili said. "And, why are they coming up? Because we don't have information. I am minister of information of Nigeria, but I don't have information. So when people say certain things I am not even able to say no this is not correct. How can I say this is not correct when I do not know the truth?"
Britain and the United States have both offered support to Mr. Jonathan and voiced concern that Mr. Yar'Adua's surprise arrival could lead to confusion and government deadlock.
Source:VOA News
Friday, January 1, 2010
EDITORIAL:Africa Union must rid itself of Corrupt Dictators and their Sons
By Lord Aikins AduseiAt its inauguration in 2002, the Africa Union (AU) sets itself ambitious goals "to promote peace, security, and stability on the continent; to promote democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good governance; to promote and protect human and peoples' rights. It also aims to establish the necessary conditions which enable the continent to play its rightful role in the global economy and in international negotiations and to promote co-operation in all fields of human activity (in order) to raise the living standards of African peoples. The ultimate goal of the AU is to establish a United States of Africa" Source:http://www.africa-union.org
There are many issues that may derail the AU from achieving the goals it has set itself however the most critical of these issues has to do with the very kind of people who constitute the AU leadership. For example the current Chairman of AU in the person of Gaddafi has been a dictator since 1969. For forty years he has ruled his country with iron hand jailing opposition members, restricting freedom of speech, assembly and limiting political activities in attempt to stay in power for good. He frowns on any idea about democracy and has consistently argued that democracy is foreign and unAfrican.
Museveni of Uganda came to power in 1986 and has since ruled his country as his personal estate. In 2003 he had the presidential term limit set by the constitution abrogated so he could be president for life. Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea came to power in 1979 after overthrowing his own uncle and executing him. In that same year Dos Santos of Angola took over power and begun to rule. Both are still president today. In Burkina Faso Blaise Campore has been in power since 1987 and is still adamant about leaving office. Congo Brazzaville´s Denis Sassou Nguesso has used every means just to stay in power. Since 1982 Paul Biya of Cameroon has won every election is his oil rich but economically impoverished country and likewise Hosni Mubarak of Egypt who since 1981 has been president of the North African country. Ben Ali of Tunisia has resisted every attempt to leave office changing the country´s constitution just to stay in power.
Gaddafi has never been elected in his forty year reign as the head of state of Libya. Omar Al Bashir has not been elected. There are no words to describe Mamadou Tandja of Niger and Yahyah Jammeh of the Gambia. Iddris Derby of Chad and Isaias Afewerki of Eritrea have spent more than a decade in power and there is no sign that they are prepared to leave. Ethipoia´s Meles Zenawi is still prime minister after 18 years and it is a waste of time to talk about the tactics he has used to stay in power.
The last time I checked more than half of the over fifty countries that make up the AU had leaders who are unelected and deeply corrupt. Even the rest who claim to have been elected more than half have had their elections questioned by both local and international election observers. Yar´Dua of Nigeria, Ali Bongo of Gabon, Denis Sassou Nguesso, and Mugabe and the elections that brought them into power have all been questioned. The resignation of the head of the electoral commission in Mauritania just immediately after election confirmed what everyone was saying privately at the time.
Thus from Libya where Gaddafi has managed to misrule his country for forty years, to Zimbabwe where the old man still thinks of himself as one that Zimbabwe cannot do without; to Uganda where Museveni and his family are anything but thieves; to Gambia where Jammeh continue to ridicule himself and that of his country with his treatment of HIV/AIDS sufferers; to Kenya where Mwai Kibaki refused to leave office after a humiliating defeat and had to resort to violence to keep himself in power; to Nigeria where corruption and embezzlement have produced a failed state; to Niger where Mamadou Tandja has staged a coup against his own government in an effort to rule for life; to Angola, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea and Congo where a cabal of corrupt leaders preside over the looting of their countries´ oil revenues; to Ethiopia where Meles Zenawi has turned his country into a prison; to Eritrea where Isaias Afewerki has turned from a freedom fighter to a brutal despot and to Gabon, Togo and DRC where children of former corrupt dictators have assumed the mantle of leadership apparently to continue where their parents left off (including the systematic looting and mismanagement of their countries´ treasuries) there is no sign that continent is going to achieve the lofty goals it has set itself. One needs not look far to see how their incompetence and monumental failures have contributed to the demise of the continent, the countries swimming in rich natural resources yet the people lacking the basic necessities of life.
There are two main characteristics of these leaders which directly go to affect the achievement of the goals set by the AU. First they are all corrupt dictators who are unwilling to relinquish power despite their colossal failures. And second none of the leaders seem to have any good political, economic or social record. Their countries are deeply soaked in poverty. The key question is how is the AU going to promote peace, security, and stability on a continent full of unrepented dictators and how is the AU going to promote democratic principles, popular participation and good governance when the people at the helm of affairs on the continent consistently kick against those laudable ideas?
There is no point arguing that there are strong and direct link between dictatorship in Africa and the high level of insecurity and instability seen all over the continent. We need not to look too far to see how dictatorship, corruption and unfair distribution of resources (poverty) led to many civil wars, coups and counter-coups in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and even this 21st century. The logic is that if people who are poor cannot democratically change their leaders they will have no other alternative but to use force and violence to bring about a change of government hence the many conflicts and wars seen in Africa.
This logic of violent removal of governments was correctly echoed by President Julius Nyerere who warned against the consequences of over staying in power and stealing resources meant for the people:
"We spoke and acted as if, given the opportunity for self-government, we would quickly create utopias. Instead injustice, even tyranny, is rampant…We can try to carve for ourselves an unfair share of the wealth of the society. But the cost to us, as well as to our fellow citizens, will be very high. It will be high not only in terms of satisfactions forgone, but also in terms of our own security and well-being." Julius Kambarage Nyerere, from his book Uhuru na Maendeleo (Freedom and Development), 1973.
The consequences of a continent dominated by tyrants as echoed by Nyerere was given a boost by Obama in a speech to Ghana´s Parliament in which he linked tyranny and corruption in Africa to the high level of poverty, instability and conflict:
"But history offers a clear verdict: governments that respect the will of their own people are more prosperous, more stable and more successful than governments that do not. Democracy is about more than holding elections - it's also about what happens between them. Repression takes many forms, and too many nations are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the port authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end". He added: "Make no mistake: history is on the side of these brave Africans and not with those who use coups or change Constitutions to stay in power. Africa doesn't need strongmen, it needs strong institutions". People everywhere should have the right to start a business or get an education without paying bribe. We have a responsibility to support those who act responsibly and to isolate those who don't" Source: http://www.ghana.gov.gh.11 July 2009.
As Nyerere and Obama correctly hypothesized you can only expect wars, instabilities and conflicts in an environment where tyrants and dictators dominate. Hence one may not be surprised to hear that Somalia is burning, or the Lord´s Resistance Army is heading to Kampala, or rebels have encircled N´Djamena the Chadian capital, or the Great Lake Region is in turmoil they are the consequences of dictatorial rule, bad governance, nepotism, cronyism and rampant corruption. The high number of dictators making up the AU leadership, their unwillingness to allow democracy to work will only continue to breed instability, conflicts and wars and hence will defeat the AU´s key goal of promoting peace, security, and stability upon which all the other goals depend.
Where is the AU heading with these dictators still in office? Can any progress be made towards Africa´s unity and can the United States of Africa be realised with all these tyrants in power? The answer is a big no. The fact is that if the AU is ever going to transform itself into a respected democratic institution made up of democratic member countries then it must as a necessity purge itself of these tyrants and their children who are holding the organisation in bondage.
The question is how can the AU rid itself of these selfish leaders? There are a number of things the AU can and must do.
It must first and foremost abrogate the automatic membership. Throughout the world all serious bodies have constitutions and charters that set out the benchmarks that would-be members must attain before they are admitted. This contrasts the AU where membership is automatic no matter the record of a government or the means by which it came to power. This system is not only wrong but it is also self defeating. It is one of the reasons why AU is full of corrupt dictators and tyrants. It is this automatic membership that has ensured that Mugabe could wrought violence against his people and still has the audacity to attend AU meetings. It is this automatic membership that has ensured that Nguema, Museveni, Nguesso, Santos, Afewerki, Tandja, Kibaki, al-Bashir, Mubarak, Gaddafi, Campore, Biya and Jammeh can do whatever they like in their respective countries and still attend AU meetings. The automatic membership must be abolished and benchmarks set for would-be members to attain before being accepted. That is AU must be made up of serious minded countries committed to democracy, rule of law, protection of human rights, peace, stability and fight the against corruption and poverty. Members must demonstrate their commitment to democracy, rule of law, and fight against corruption and poverty before being admitted as is seen in the EU. This must change if the AU is ever going to be a United States of Africa. In the European Union where membership is earned all the 27 members have democratic governments that respect human rights. Romania and other Eastern European nations whose governments were corrupt were forced to reform before they were admitted into the EU and we know how hard Turkey has tried to become a member without success despite the huge internal reforms it has carried out over the last couple of years. We cannot make the AU a body of no standards AU must have standards and benchmarks if it is ever going to eliminate dictatorship from its ranks.
The effort by some leaders to transform the AU into a Commission with more powers to conduct business on behalf of the continent has met fierce resistance and continues to be thwarted by these old corrupt guards who see every reform as a threat to their power and corrupt lifestyle. These tyrants continue to torpedo every effort of AU to move from its current position as a talking shop into serious solution solving body. Mugabe and his cohorts and their sons are holding the AU in bondage through their hold on power. They continue to resist every attempt to transform the AU into a useful body. These corrupt dictators have and still continue to frustrate the good intentions of the body but the AU must not capitulate but work to adopt and implement resolutions that will force these tyrants to improve human rights, empower women, fight corruption and poverty, promote democracy and ultimately give up power.
Furthermore, to prevent the AU from being dominated by tyrants and their children the Africa Union must insist that leaders who are not democratically elected by their citizens cannot become a Chair of the body. If a leader of a country wants to be the Chair of the august body then he/she must subject himself/herself to rigours of elections in his country. Such simple demands by the AU will make these tyrants consider their positions carefully. They will be ashamed to request for a chairmanship position when they know they are not democratically elected. The current situation in which Gaddafi a lifelong dictator chairs the body is not only unacceptable but is also an insult to all the democratically minded people in Africa.
Additionally to boost its position to rid itself of these tyrants the AU must lobby the democratically elected leaders like Senegal´s Wade, Ian Khama of Botswana, Ghana´s Atta Mills, Zuma of South Africa, Benin´s Yayi Boni and others to persuade these tyrants to adopt democracy. The tyrants must be persuaded to stand down and allow free and fair elections to be held. Any tyrant who refuses to stand down should be suspended until free and fair elections are held. The AU is not going to make any progress if the leaders are pampered to do what they want. AU leaders must recognise that Africa cannot harness her strategic importance in this new global order unless there are democratic and institutional reform that will rid the continent of absolute dictators and their corrupt machinery which for so long a time has been responsible for the misery and high levels of poverty seen throughout Africa.
Again the AU should push for genuine democracy in its member countries like the one in Ghana. I am not talking about just elections I am talking about free and fair elections that give opposition equal access to state media and resources. The situation whereby incumbent governments monopolise state resources and employ all manner of tactics to win power as happened in Equatorial Guinea, Congo, and Zimbabwe is a recipe for disaster.
In addition, the AU must insist that children of former dictators cannot automatically replace them when they leave office. The current situation where children of former dictators have been installed as presidents in sham elections is not only an insult to people of these countries but is an indictment on the credibility of AU as a body. It is unacceptable for Faure Eyadema of Togo, Joseph Kabila of DR Congo and Gabon Ali Bongo of Gabon to replace their fathers as presidents. These precedents and developments seem to have encouraged Gaddafi, Museveni and Hosni Mubarak who are busy grooming their children to replace them. This trend is not only dangerous but it is also a recipe for conflict and instability and the earlier the AU sends a clear message to these leaders the better. These dictators and their children must be prevented from establishing dynasties in Africa.
Also the current practice where a country is only suspended when there is coup is not fair to the citizens of Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, Libya, Niger, Gambia, and Eritrea who suffer human right abuses on the daily basis. AU should not suspend only countries where coups have taken place but must also suspend all countries whose leaders engage in human rights abuses and corrupt practices that push their citizens into poverty and economic annihilation. If a country is suspended because a coup has taken place, is it also not morally right to suspend a country when its leaders loot their resources, and engage in human rights violation? If citizens of a country like Libya are denied a say on how their leaders are elected or how their country is governed is it not enough to suspend that country until the citizens are given the opportunity to determine who should lead them?
Again the AU must make sure its institutions are headquartered in countries that respect human rights and rule of law, eschew corruption and is a democracy. I cannot imagine Gambia being made the headquarters of the AU´s Human Right Commission when Jammeh is busy killing journalists in cold blood and has threatened to annihilate people who freely express their views in that country. It is very shocking that the AU seems to be pampering these leaders. I can hardly comprehend why and how a nation whose leader is known to be abusing the rights of its citizens is made the headquarters of a human right commission. AU has got to be really serious if it wants the rest of the world to take it serious. Therefore certain criteria must be met before headquarters are cited in a country and the AU must not hesitate to remove the headquarters when the situation there changes. Ethiopian leaders must demonstrate their commitment to democracy, rule of law, justice and equality before the law. The eroding of democratic values in that country must be of much concern to the AU. I strongly believe Ethiopia should loose its headquarters status if the leaders continue on the path of dictatorship. This will send a clear message to the rest of the leaders that dictatorship and human rights abuse will not be tolerated in the new AU.
Moreover, AU must compile annual reports about human rights, corruption, and abuse of power in all member countries and sanction those countries found to be in breach of AU Charter. If we are ever going to rid ourselves of the dictators and the rampant corruption and abuse of power associated with their regimes then the AU must act and apply sanctions.
AU should engage the people of Africa in its programmes. Very few people know what goes on at the AU headquarters and we are not going to build a successful Africa when the people who make up the continent are excluded from its activities. Universities and other institutions of higher learning must be involved in AU´s activities to sensitise the people and to build grassroot support in member countries. Therefore AU Chapters must be established across Africa: in universities, colleges and high schools to make the people aware of what AU is doing. AU must organise symposia and debates and other competitions in schools. The advantage is that since the students are going to be the future leaders and policy makers in Africa their involvement will help inculcate and build support for AU. To add to this AU must publish news letters and distribute them to schools, civil society organisations, government departments and other institutions to create awareness. Since we are in the information age internet, e-mail and other information distribution methods must be employed to deliver information about the AU to the people. Editors of both print and electronic media must be encouraged to cover AU activities and events.
The AU must also involve the intellectuals, diplomats and technocrats in Africa. President Julius Nyerere the illustrious son of Africa says:
"...intellectuals have a special contribution to make to the development of our nation, and to Africa. And I am asking that their knowledge, and the greater understanding that they should possess, should be used for the benefit of the society of which we are all members." Julius Kambarage Nyerere, from his book Uhuru na Maendeleo (Freedom and Development), 1973.
In short the people of Africa of whom the AU belong must be involved, but this involvement of the people will come to nothing if the dictators are not persuaded to hang off their glove.
Above all, the tyrants themselves must acknowledge that it is in their own interest to give up power and allow democracy and rule of law to prevail. The cost of holding on to power may be costly not only in terms of satisfactions forgone, but also in terms of their own security and well-being.
If the prosperity and stability Obama spoke about and the contribution of intellectuals Nyerere mentioned above as well as the AU´s own long term goal of a United States of Africa are to be realised and have effect in Africa then the AU must at any cost rid itself of the corrupt dictators and their children who are lining up to take their position. You cannot ask intellectuals to play a role while the dictators are undermining their effort.
The AU will not be able to reverse decades of low per capita income, low productivity, slow pace of social and economic development, poor state of infrastructures and weak economies if steps are not taken to ensure that democracy is established on the continent, and that all leaders subject themselves to the rigours of election, fight corruption and poverty and promote peace, stability and development.
If the AU is ever going to realise any of the goals it has set itself then it must as a matter of necessity purge itself of the dictators and their sons.
By Lord Aikins Adusei
The author is a political activist and anti-corruption campaigner.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
CIA Overthrow of Kwame Nkrumah
The coup d'etat, organized by dissident army officers, toppled the Nkrumah government on Feb. 24, 1966 and was promptly hailed by Western governments, including the U.S.
The documents appear in a collection of diplomatic and intelligence memos, telegrams, and reports on Africa in Foreign Relations of the United States, the government's ongoing official history of American foreign policy.
Prepared by the State Department's Office of the Historian, the latest volumes reflect the overt diplomacy and covert actions of President Lyndon B. Johnson's administration from 1964-68. Though published in November 1999, what they reveal about U.S. complicity in the Ghana coup was only recently noted.
Allegations of American involvement in the putsche arose almost immediately because of the well-known hostility of the U.S. to Nkrumah's socialist orientation and pan-African activism.
Nkrumah, himself, implicated the U.S. in his overthrow, and warned other African nations about what he saw as an emerging pattern.
"An all-out offensive is being waged against the progressive, independent states," he wrote in Dark Days in Ghana, his 1969 account of the Ghana coup. "All that has been needed was a small force of disciplined men to seize the key points of the capital city and to arrest the existing political leadership."
"It has been one of the tasks of the C.I.A. and other similar organisations," he noted, "to discover these potential quislings and traitors in our midst, and to encourage them, by bribery and the promise of political power, to destroy the constitutional government of their countries."
A Spook's Story
While charges of U.S. involvement are not new, support for them was lacking until 1978, when anecdotal evidence was provided from an unlikely source-a former CIA case officer, John Stockwell, who reported first-hand testimony in his memoir, In Search of Enemies: A CIA Story.
"The inside story came to me," Stockwell wrote, "from an egotistical friend, who had been chief of the [CIA] station in Accra [Ghana] at the time." (Stockwell was stationed one country away in the Ivory Coast.)
Subsequent investigations by The New York Times and Covert Action Information Bulletin identified the station chief as Howard T. Banes, who operated undercover as a political officer in the U.S. Embassy.
This is how the ouster of Nkrumah was handled as Stockwell related. The Accra station was encouraged by headquarters to maintain contact with dissidents of the Ghanaian army for the purpose of gathering intelligence on their activities. It was given a generous budget, and maintained intimate contact with the plotters as a coup was hatched. So close was the station's involvement that it was able to coordinate the recovery of some classified Soviet military equipment by the United States as the coup took place.
According to Stockwell, Banes' sense of initiative knew no bounds. The station even proposed to headquarters through back channels that a squad be on hand at the moment of the coup to storm the [Communist] Chinese embassy, kill everyone inside, steal their secret records, and blow up the building to cover the facts.
Though the proposal was quashed, inside the CIA headquarters the Accra station was given full, if unofficial credit for the eventual coup, in which eight Soviet advisors were killed. None of this was adequately reflected in the agency's records, Stockwell wrote.
Confirmation and Revelation
While the newly-released documents, written by a National Security Council staffer and unnamed CIA officers, confirm the essential outlines set forth by Nkrumah and Stockwell, they also provide additional, and chilling, details about what the U.S. government knew about the plot, when, and what it was prepared to do and did do to assist it.
On March 11, 1965, almost a year before the coup, William P. Mahoney, the U.S. ambassador to Ghana, participated in a candid discussion in Washington, D.C., with CIA Director John A. McCone and the deputy chief of the CIA's Africa division, whose name has been withheld.
Significantly, the Africa division was part of the CIA's directorate of plans, or dirty tricks component, through which the government pursued its covert policies.
According to the record of their meeting (Document 251), topic one was the "Coup d'etat Plot, Ghana." While Mahoney was satisfied that popular opinion was running strongly against Nkrumah and the economy of the country was in a precarious state, he was not convinced that the coup d'etat, now being planned by Acting Police Commissioner Harlley and Generals Otu and Ankrah, would necessarily take place.
Nevertheless, he confidently-and accurately, as it turned out-predicted that one way or another Nkrumah would be out within a year. Revealing the depth of embassy knowledge of the plot, Mahoney referred to a recent report which mentioned that the top coup conspirators were scheduled to meet on 10 March at which time they would determine the timing of the coup.
However, he warned, because of a tendency to procrastinate, any specific date they set should be accepted with reservations. In a reversal of what some would assume were the traditional roles of an ambassador and the CIA director, McCone asked Mahoney who would most likely succeed Nkrumah in the event of a coup.
Mahoney again correctly forecast the future: Ambassador Mahoney stated that initially, at least, a military junta would take over.
Making it Happen
But Mahoney was not a prophet. Rather, he represented the commitment of the U.S. government, in coordination with other Western governments, to bring about Nkrumah's downfall.
Firstly, Mahoney recommended denying Ghana's forthcoming aid request in the interests of further weakening Nkrumah. He felt that there was little chance that either the Chinese Communists or the Soviets would in adequate measure come to Nkrumah's financial rescue and the British would continue to adopt a hard nose attitude toward providing further assistance to Ghana.
At the same time, it appears that Mahoney encouraged Nkrumah in the mistaken belief that both the U.S. and the U.K. would come to his financial rescue and proposed maintaining current U.S. aid levels and programs because they will endure and be remembered long after Nkrumah goes.
Secondly, Mahoney seems to have assumed the responsibility of increasing the pressure on Nkrumah and exploiting the probable results. This can be seen in his 50-minute meeting with Nkrumah three weeks later.
According to Mahoney's account of their April 2 discussion (Document 252), "at one point Nkrumah, who had been holding face in hands, looked up and I saw he was crying. With difficulty he said I could not understand the ordeal he had been through during last month. Recalling that there had been seven attempts on his life."
Mahoney did not attempt to discourage Nkrumah's fears, nor did he characterize them as unfounded in his report to his superiors.
"While Nkrumah apparently continues to have personal affection for me," he noted, "he seems as convinced as ever that the US is out to get him. From what he said about assassination attempts in March, it appears he still suspects US involvement."
Of course, the U.S. was out to get him. Moreover, Nkrumah was keenly aware of a recent African precedent that made the notion of a U.S.-organized or sanctioned assassination plot plausible-namely, the fate of the Congo and its first prime minister, his friend Patrice Lumumba.
Nkrumah believed that the destabilization of the Congolese government in 1960 and Lumumba's assassination in 1961 were the work of the "Invisible Government of the U.S.," as he wrote in Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism, later in 1965.
When Lumumba's murder was announced, Nkrumah told students at the inauguration of an ideological institute that bore his name that this brutal murder should teach them the diabolical depths of degradation to which these twin-monsters of imperialism and colonialism can descend.
In his conclusion, Mahoney observed: "Nkrumah gave me the impression of being a badly frightened man. His emotional resources seem be running out. As pressures increase, we may expect more hysterical outbursts, many directed against US."
It was not necessary to add that he was helping to apply the pressure, nor that any hysterical outbursts by Nkrumah played into the West's projection of him as an unstable dictator, thus justifying his removal.
Smoking Gun
On May 27, 1965, Robert W. Komer, a National Security Council staffer, briefed his boss, McGeorge Bundy, President Johnson's special assistant for national security affairs, on the anti-Nkrumah campaign (Document 253).
Komer, who first joined the White House as a member of President Kennedy's NSC staff, had worked as a CIA analyst for 15 years. In 1967, Johnson tapped him to head his hearts-and-minds pacification program in Vietnam.
Komer's report establishes that the effort was not only interagency, sanctioned by the White House and supervised by the State Department and CIA, but also intergovernmental, being supported by America's Western allies.
"FYI," he advised, "we may have a pro-Western coup in Ghana soon. Certain key military and police figures have been planning one for some time, and Ghana's deteriorating economic condition may provide the spark."
"The plotters are keeping us briefed," he noted, "and the State Department thinks we're more on the inside than the British. While we're not directly involved (I'm told), we and other Western countries (including France) have been helping to set up the situation by ignoring Nkrumah's pleas for economic aid. All in all, it looks good."
Komer's reference to not being told if the U.S. was directly involved in the coup plot is revealing and quite likely a wry nod to his CIA past.
Among the most deeply ingrained aspects of intelligence tradecraft and culture is plausible deniability, the habit of mind and practice designed to insulate the U.S., and particularly the president, from responsibility for particularly sensitive covert operations.
Komer would have known that orders such as the overthrow of Nkrumah would have been communicated in a deliberately vague, opaque, allusive, and indirect fashion, as Thomas Powers noted in The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA.
It would be unreasonable to argue that the U.S. was not directly involved when it created or exacerbated the conditions that favored a coup, and did so for the express purpose of bringing one about.
Truth and Consequences
As it turned out, the coup did not occur for another nine months. After it did, Komer, now acting special assistant for national security affairs, wrote a congratulatory assessment to the President on March 12, 1966 (Document 260). His assessment of Nkrumah and his successors was telling.
"The coup in Ghana," he crowed, "is another example of a fortuitous windfall. Nkrumah was doing more to undermine our interests than any other black African. In reaction to his strongly pro-Communist leanings, the new military regime is almost pathetically pro-Western."
In this, Komer and Nkrumah were in agreement. "Where the more subtle methods of economic pressure and political subversion have failed to achieve the desired result," Nkrumah wrote from exile in Guinea three years later, "there has been resort to violence in order to promote a change of regime and prepare the way for the establishment of a puppet government."
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
NDC Activist Warns: Rawlings Can Overthrow Mills
The President, Professor John Evans Atta Mills, has been strongly cautioned to tighten his security detail around him to avoid being ousted by former President Jerry John Rawlings.
Speaking on Accra based radio station yesterday, Osei Yaw Nketia popularly known as Dr Asemfofro, staunch NDC member, who was buside himself with anger warned that former President Mr Rawlings “is a dangerous man who can stage a coup to overthrow sitting President Mills.”
He premised his caution to President Mills on the basis that Mr Rawlings in 1981 staged a coup and overthrew Dr Hilla Limann, in 1981 after Ghanaians had elected Dr Limann in a national election.
According to Dr Asemfofro, Mr Rawlings is still thirsting to become the President of this country even though he has served his term as President of Ghana. He wondered what Rawlings was able to achieve under his 19 years rule of this country, arguing that “his 19 year of
“Rawlings demonstrated his burning desire to become President again of this country, the next day, January 8, 2001; he handed over power to former President John Agyekum Kufuor,” recounted Dr Asemfofro.
The die-hard NDC activist therefore asked Mr Rawlings to “shut up and allow President Mills to rule this country.”
He said Professor Mills was not elected as President of Ghana by Mr Rawlings but by the good people of this country, adding that his day-to-day disparaging comments and insults of President Mills was “shameful and disgraceful.” In the opinion of Dr Asemfofro, former President Rawlings must bow down his head in shame, describing him as “someone who does not respect him.”
He argued that the mere fact that Rawlings is the founding member of the NDC does not give him the leeway to be persistently chastising and disgracing President Mills. “Mr Rawlings must understand that in terms of age Professor Mills is older than him and in the area of academics he [referring to former President Rawlings] is nowhere near Professor Mills.
Professor Mills is a learned Professor whose academic laurels far outweigh what Mr Rawlings has,” Dr Asemfofro noted. Against this background, Dr Asemfofro told Mr Rawlings and his wife Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings to learn to show respect and decorum towards President Mills and refrain from their constant verbal attacks against the President.
Dr Asemfofro advised Mr Rawlings to take a cue from past President like Bill Clinton of
“We can all see the way former
Although is an ardent fan of Mr Rawlings, Asemfofro observed that he abhors him for his persistent castigations of Prof Mills. “Mr Rawlings should respect himself so that we can also respect him and anything sort of that we who are even his fans will never respect him,” asserted Dr Asemfofro.
The NDC, he stressed, can stand on its two legs without the assistance of Mr Rawlings, adding that if former President Rawlings wishes to leave the part he can go and nobody will prevent him from taking that decision.
Dr Asemfofro also descended heavily on Hon. Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, the Majority leader, describing him as somebody who was following Mr Rawlings blindly. “Mr Bagbin did not help matters when instead of telling and asking Mr Rawlings in the face to stop his continuous repudiation of President Mills, he also stirred the hornet nest by blindly supporting him (Mr Rawlings),” he indicated.
Following his submissions on radio, Dr Asemfofro indicated that he would not be surprised if Mr Rawlings will hire thugs and direct them to take his life from the face of the earth. In the estimation of Dr Asemfofro, President Mills was given a four-year mandate to turn the fortunes of the Ghanaian economy, and that he was confident that the President will execute that mandate with diligence.
However, he added that if after the four years Ghanaians are not satisfied with the performance of Prof. Mills, Ghanaians in their own wisdom will give the presidency to another person and not former President Rawlings.
Source: Today
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Obama scores twin coups on Iran, economy
By Steve Holland - Analysis
PITTSBURGH (Reuters) - President Barack Obama scored twin diplomatic coups on Friday, seizing the world stage to forge a new allied call for action against Iran and a framework for global economic growth.
The moves ended a week of intense focus on foreign policy for Obama and could help shore up his standing among Americans after recent weeks during which his popularity fell to about 51 percent from highs around 70 percent after he took office in January.
From the United Nations in New York to a Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh, it was all Obama all the time. He declared a "new era of engagement" for U.S. diplomacy and chaired a U.N. Security Council meeting on nuclear nonproliferation.
Despite a more positive mood, solutions to world challenges from Iran's nuclear program to climate change remain elusive and Obama still faces a long list of headaches that will test his leadership.
A debate on the cost and direction of his proposed U.S. healthcare overhaul is far from over and his administration faces internal divisions over whether to add U.S. troops to an Afghanistan war that is testing the patience of Americans.
All the same, Obama had a good week, said Charles Kupchan, a professor of international relations at Georgetown University and a former Clinton White House official.
"He has begun to deliver. When critics ask "Where's the beef?" he now has an answer. It's still a tentative answer but these are all issues that take time," Kupchan said.
"I do think it has been an important week in that he has begun to turn rhetoric into reality."
DIPLOMATIC TEST
Obama used fresh U.S. intelligence on an Iranian nuclear facility to dramatic effect -- drawing together the leaders of Britain and France and the backing of Germany to sound the alarm at a hastily arranged news event at the riverside convention center where the G20 summit took place.
"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow," Obama said.
The existence of a second Iranian uranium enrichment plant will challenge his diplomatic skills, with Tehran refusing to bend to international pressure and Israel facing some internal pressures to launch a pre-emptive attack.
"The pressure on Obama to do something is even greater because, if he doesn't, it seems pretty clear the Israelis will feel compelled to take action," said Democratic strategist Doug Schoen.
John Bolton, a hawk who was President George W. Bush's U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said he considered diplomacy long ago exhausted on Iran.
"To me the revelation of this site highlights why the military option is the only option and also highlights why it may be too late," Bolton said.
The disclosure put Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the defensive. He told Time magazine Iran was not obliged to "inform Mr. Obama's administration of every facility that we have."
The development gave the reluctant Russians and Chinese a new reason to consider tougher action against Tehran. Obama last week pleased Moscow by shelving a Bush-era missile defense plan for eastern Europe that Russia opposed in favor of another plan.
"Now, the United States does have an audience that's listening and people are now realizing that Iran has been a serial deceiver," said Charles Ferguson, an expert on nuclear proliferation at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank.
ECONOMIC BREAKTHROUGH
As host of the G20 summit of the world's richest nations and emerging powers, Obama enjoyed a diplomatic breakthrough on managing the global economy amid signs the recession may be ending.
He joined in the decision by major world leaders to turn over the duty of managing the global economy to the G20 nations rather than the more exclusive Group of Eight that has held sway for years.
The move gives China a greater voice in economic matters and could have the added effect of encouraging Beijing to play a greater role in the global economic rebalancing that the United States has proposed.
(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan; Editing by Howard Goller and John O'Callaghan)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Ghana Pundit Headline News
My Blog List
-
Has the US Overtaken China in African Investment? - Last week we had a flurry of email requests from reporters who wanted to ask us about the comparative Africa foreign direct investment (FDI) data on Chin...
-
African Extractive Industries: PRC Neocolonialism - That the slow development of the African continent can be traced to Western colonialism is an archetype of this field of study: Mainly interested in extr...
2 years ago -
The Emerging Security Threats and Ghana Special Forces (Part 2) - By Lord Aikins Adusei Does Ghana Need Special Forces?West Africa where Ghana is situated occupies a strategically important position as a major energy supp...14 years ago
-
Egyptians mass in Tahrir to honour uprising - Hundreds of thousands of people have gathered in Cairo's Tahrir Square to commemorate the first anniversary of the Egyptian revolution that toppled their l...14 years ago
-
Egyptians mass in Tahrir to honour uprising - Hundreds of thousands of people have gathered in Cairo's Tahrir Square to commemorate the first anniversary of the Egyptian revolution that toppled their l...14 years ago
-
-
-
-
R.I.P.
AfriGator
