Tunisia: Opportunity for United States to Begin a New Chapter

*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?"

Over liberalization of trade, killing local industries - Participants

Wa, Jan. 25, GNA - Participants at a two-day sensitisation and information workshop, on international trade issues, have observed that, the over liberalization of the trading system in Ghana was hampering the growth of indigenous Ghanaian industries.

The participants noted that foreigners had invaded the Ghanaian market with cheap and low quality products that could not be compared with Ghanaian products.

    

They made the observation at a workshop, organised by the Ministry of Trade and Industry, on Monday, at Wa, in the Upper West Region.

    

The participants called on the government to strengthen its trade policies, to save local industries from the threat they faced from imported goods, some of which are of low quality.

    

Mr Cezar Kale, Deputy Upper West Regional Minister, who opened the workshop, said it sought to refocus the minds of participants on international trade issues, and particularly make them realise that the international scene was partly influenced by what pertained internally, with regards to trade and industry.

    

Mr Kale commended the Ministry of Trade and Industry for organising the workshop and hoped that it would shed light on the processes, challenges, implications and more importantly, the opportunities that could be utilised, especially, by the private sector for the benefit of the wider society.

    

He said Ghana had been a member of the World Trade Organisation since its inception on January 1, 1995 and had since remained active in its activities, spanning policy issues, negotiations, dispute resolution, to that of liberalizing trade.

    

He urged the participants to be abreast with current developments at the international market, especially, with the Doha Development Agenda, the Regional Integration of ECOWAS States, as well as the Economic Partnership Agreement between West Africa and the European Union.

    

Mr Kale also appealed to the Ministry of Trades and Industry to liaise with the Foreign Affairs Ministry to initiate the process that would bring to life, the idea of a Joint Border Check points to facilitate smooth trade within the sub-region.

    

Mr Rowland Aggor, an Independent Trade Expert and one of the resource persons at the workshop, took the participants through the ECOWAS Trade Liberalization Scheme (ETLS), its implementation challenges, as well as other ECOWAS Protocols.

    

He said the ETLS was established in 1990 to remove all tariff and non-tariff barriers between member states, over a 10-year period.

    

The objective, he mentioned, was to eliminate distortions and discriminatory procedures and enhance free movement of goods from one country to another, without having to go through any difficulty.

    

Some of the challenges he said, were non compliance from member states to grant zero duty rate to approved products, lack of adequate transport infrastructure, lack of universal or mutual recognition of certification and standards, as well as administrative barriers at borders and unnecessary check points on highways.

    

Mr Aggor called for the institutionalization of a mechanism to forestall the unilateral imposition of ban on imports by any member country, establishment of ECOWAS Food and Drugs Authority to certify food and beverages.

    

Additionally, he suggested the establishment of an ECOWAS Desk and Complaints Units in all the borders, the removal of non-tariff barriers and the learning of official languages, such as English and French, by citizens of member states.

GNA 

Mills shouldn’t have signed if he didn't want war – NPP Chairman

NPP Chairman, Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey         New Patriotic Party (NPP) Chairman, Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey says President J.E.A. Mills should not have signed the ECOWAS document on Cote d’Ivoire if he knew that military intervention was not on the cards for Ghana. The NPP Chairman was reacting to claims from government circles that the African Mission at the United Nations (UN), which described military intervention in Cote d’Ivoire as “no option”. Speaking to Accra-based Peace FM, Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey insisted that the NPP never said President Mills should send troops to Cote d’Ivoire, but was only concerned that the president had undermined ECOWAS’ position on Cote d’Ivoire. “The President had told us that he had signed the [ECOWAS] document [on Cote d’Iovire] with the other ECOWAS leaders. Then what that document had said, he had then gone on to say that he personally did not subscribe to even though he had signed it and that itself undermines the position of ECOWAS,” he stated. Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey maintained that the President should not have signed the ECOWAS document on Cote d’Ivoire which included the option of military intervention if he was not in favour of it. “If the President’s position from the very beginning was very adamantly that no troops should be sent, then possibly he should not have signed the document,” he contested. Koku Anyidoho, Head of Communications at the Presidency   Early on the same programme, Head of Communications at the Presidency, Koku Anyidoho had said President Mills felt vindicated by the new continental position and stated that this would avoid any casualties on the side of all stakeholders. Mr Anyidoho said the President will be attending an African Union (AU) summit meeting slated for January 28 to January 30, at which the crisis in Cote d’Ivoire is expected to be discussed and a statement issued to that effect. The Head Of Ghana’s Permanent Mission To The United Nations reports that the African Mission at the UN is not keen on any military option in Cote d’Ivoire. Story by Fidel Amoah/Myjoyonline.com/Ghana

Gabby: Mills' vindication letter is "desperate propaganda" piece

The Executive Director of Danquah Institute, Gabby Asare Otchere Darko, is asking President John Mills to tell Ghanaians whether or not he would pullout Ghanaian peacekeepers in Cote d’Ivoire should war break out there. The president on January 7 told journalists that Ghana would be unable to commit troops to support a military intervention in the Ivorian crisis because the nation was overstretched. He also said he did not think a military intervention would secure a solution to the Ivorian stand-off, engendered by the refusal of incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo to step down after polls his opponent, Allasane Ouattara was widely thought to have won. According to President Mills, Ghana has 500 troops in Cote d’Ivoire as part of a UN force protecting the UN-backed Alansane Ouatarra. President Mills’ statement attracted criticisms from especially members of the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) who said he had sought to undermine the Economic Community of African States (ECOWAS) – which unanimously decided to opt for a military intervention should mediation fail in resolving the impasse. On Metro TV’s Good Morning Ghana programme Tuesday, Gabby Otchere Darko who is also a staunch member of the NPP was commenting on contents of a letter published by the two state dailies of Daily Graphic and The Ghanaian Times asserting that the President’s position has been vindicated. According to the letter, a report sent by The Head Of Ghana’s Permanent Mission to The United Nations for the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicates that the Africa Group of Ambassadors at the UN has described the military option to the crisis in Cote d'Ivoire as a ‘no option’. But Gabby says he finds it “extremely doubtful” that what is stated in the letter is the position of the African Group within the UN Security Council. He said information available to him indicates that at least the stance as portrayed in the purported letter is not the position of Nigeria and that the letter “appears to be a very desperate propaganda work to me and I think it will end up even digging deeper the trench that already Ghana is in, in terms of its isolated position on the collective position of ECOWAS.” Mr Otchere Darko further explained that whatever position taken by the African Group of Ambassadors represents the exact position of their countries, therefore he wondered why President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria who is also chairman of the ECOWAS said to President Raila Odinga of Kenya on Sunday that “We [ECOWAS] have not changed the position we took during our last summit” while his country’s representative at the AU supports a ‘no military option’ as reported by the said letter. For Gabby, ECOWAS has always been consistent in its position, again quoting President Jonathan as saying “the use of force will depend on the outcome of a series of meetings to be held with stakeholders of Cote d’Ivoire. “That is why I think the President’s unsolicited view on the use of troops was very unfortunate, undiplomatic and actually undermining the collective position of West Africa,” he said. He added: “I think this letter that has been put on the front page of the Graphic and the Times would end up causing Ghana more embarrassment than actually vindicating the President.” According to Gabby, “there are about 26 elections in Africa this year alone and among this 19 is for a change of government”, therefore, “it is important that a clear message is sent across [using the Ivory Coast situation].” “I want the President to answer one question, respectfully, if you don’t mind: already he says we have 500 troops in Cote d’Ivoire … now are we saying that if war were to break in Cote d’Ivoire we will pull those troops out?” [Read below contents of the letter by The Head Of Ghana’s Permanent Mission to The United Nations for the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which informed the publications.] Story by Dorcas Efe Mensah/myjoyonline.com/Ghana AFRICA'S POSITION ON COTE D’IVOIRE AT THE SECURITY COUNCIL President J.E.A. Mills during the media encounter he said he believed armed intervention in Cote D'Ivoire wouldn't bring a solution.   The monthly consultation meeting of the Africa Group of Ambassadors at the United Nations was convened on Thursday 13th January 2011 at the behest of the African Members and the Security Council i.e. Gabon, Nigeria, and South Africa. 2. This was to enable the latter countries brief the Group on the latest African position adopted at the Security Council on Cote d'Ivoire, and what would appear to be an emerging consensus on the Council. 3. The said position is summarized as follows: the military option is "no option" the evolving refugee situation is a matter of concern the victory of Mr. Alhassane Ouattara as President-elect of Cote d’Ivoire should be respected 4. All the African Ambassadors at the meeting who elected to comment on the above stated 6-point position, took turns to commend the African Members of the Security Council for the diligent and pragmatic position taken. 5. In the particular case of Burkina Faso, the Ambassador intimated, in apparent reference to point (4) above, that the mandate of President Compaore of Burkina Faso, as ECOWAS mediator in the Cote d’Ivoire crisis, ended with the holding of the recent elections in that country 6. Still on Cote d'Ivoire, Information reaching this Mission is that ECOWAS had planned to field two Missions to some major capitals in North America and Europe i.e. to New York and Washington comprising the Presidents of Sierra Leone and Mali, and on the other hand, to Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi led by the President of the ECOWAS Commission. 7. While it is not clear whether the North American leg of the Mission would come on, our information is that regarding the Asian segment, only India appears to have responded positively to the planned ECOWAS Mission to Asia and Moscow. The latest development appears to be that President Compaore of Burkina Faso, the Permanent Secretary of the Nigerian Foreign Ministry, and the President of the ECOWAS Commission, are embarking on a Mission to London and Paris this week. However, since London is receiving the delegation only at the ministerial level, it is likely that; President Compaore will only travel to Paris. 8. Furthermore, indications are that the ECOWAS Chiefs of Staff will be meeting this week in Bamako, Mali on the Cote d’Ivoire situation. 9. Ghana's long espoused position disrecommending the military option in Cote d’Ivoire appears to have been vindicated although the solution to the ongoing crisis seems to be highly elusive. 10. The United Nations says it is looking up to ECOWAS and the African Union to help find an answer to the current stalemate. The upcoming AU Summit at the end of January 2011 should therefore be critical in the on going efforts to help bring closure to the current electoral crisis in Cote d’Ivoire. 11. The Mission will continue to monitor the situation and report accordingly. Regards, For: HEAD OF MISSION AMB. LESLIE CHRISTIAN

NDC wants credit for things they've not done - Ex-minister

Former Minister for Fisheries, Gladys Asmah         Former Minister for Fisheries, Mrs. Gladys Asmah has described as laughable, assertions by Deputy Minister in charge of Fisheries, Nii Amasah Namoale that the Mills' administration deserves all the credit for the current infrastructural development projects in that sector. According to the former Minister, the NDC after failing to honour its numerous campaign promises to the indigenes of fishing communities across the country, has resorted to lying about some pertinent national issues to save its image. Reacting to some claims made by the Deputy Minister regarding the sector, Mrs. Asmah told The New Crusading Guide in an interview that "the man cannot be serious. He knows what he is saying cannot be substantiated. You can never twist the facts. The NDC is panicking. They are just wondering what to tell the electorate and that is why they want to take credit for things they've not done". Meanwhile, the Deputy Minister had earlier told this paper in an interview that the Mills-led Administration deserved every credit for the current developmental projects in the fishing industry. These projects included the construction of fishing habours, cold-stores and refrigeration facilities to help reduce post-harvest losses and also modernise the fishing industry. The Deputy Minister in the two-year old NDC Administration, said the Mills government deserved commendation for work done so far as the NPP whiles in office only exhibited its dreams for the sector and nothing more. To this, Mrs. Asmah said "President Kufuor wouldn't have cut the sod for projects he did not know where money would come from for their funding. They had all been accepted and approved. Just as in the case of the Bui dam project, cabinet decided that we used our internally generated funds before the loan was ready". She further explained that local funding was used for the preparation of the site for the projects, adding that "four companies applied after which a contract of $41 million was signed. We completed everything and knew where the money was coming from. He (Nii Amasah) said he went to Netherlands for what? To continue with what had been initiated". Giving a breakdown, the former Minister said President J.A. Kufuor signaled the start of the projects by cutting the sod for construction to begin on one of the fishing harbours in James Town. She said the James Town project was estimated at US$16.5 million, and all the projects together amounted to US$148 million. "How did we arrive at all these figures if we were just dreaming?" she added. She wondered how the Deputy Minister could say the NPP was only exhibiting a dream, saying "even for the cold stores the equipment arrived in the country in 2008. They are unable to raise revenue because they cannot be trusted and that's why they are claiming ours as theirs". He said all documents on the project were made available to the current Administration. On the naval boats which Nii Amassah claimed the Mills Administration paid for through the Ministry of Finance, Mrs. Asmah recalled that the process of their acquisition commenced in 2006. "Those boats are not like cars which you can just go and stand by, and say you want to buy them. It takes three years to build a boat. We negotiated for them after placing an order. We visited china and after some negotiations there and here, an agreement was placed before parliament for approval. All those happened before the Mills administration came into office in January 2009", she explained. She said "I have said time without number that I personally went to Israel to initiate negotiations for some of these boats. Two of these boats are coming from Britain and the other four are coming from Israel and China respectively". She recalled that the Vessel Monitoring System of the Agriculture Ministry together with Finance Directors of the Fisheries Ministry were asked to use internally generated funds to start the payment. MOFA went on to make the internally generated fund part of our budgetary allocation". Source: New Crusading Guide

Appiah Ofori: Mills only pays lip service to fight corruption

PC Appiah Ofori wants President Mills to prosecute corrupt officials       The Member of Parliament for Asikuma-Odoben-Brakwa, PC Appiah Ofori, is furious no public official under the past and present governments has been prosecuted for corruption in spite of credible evidence of corrupt practices. According to him, the president only pays lip service to the fight against corruption but lacks the political will to fight the canker. “He (president) condemns corruption just by word of mouth; that is nothing. And I am calling on him that he should not do it by word of mouth” he told Joy News’ Sammy Darko. The MP is not impressed with the tall list of past appointees who are at various stages of prosecution for various acts of financial misappropriation under the present government. He finds it laughable the charge of 'misapplication of funds' leveled against Deputy Ministers Prof Gyan Baffour and Dr Akoto Osei in the management of the TOR debt, saying no Attorney General can secure conviction in the name of corruption. “If you give me money to pay TOR debt and as a result of problems facing Ghana government in other areas the money is used to do other things, is it stealing, is it corruption? Can you secure corruption prosecution out of it?” According to PC Appiah Ofori, there are people who engaged in corrupt practices not only ministers who must be prosecuted. He cited an accountant in the office of a former senior minister’s office who he alleged was engaged in corrupt practices and who must be prosecuted. He said the audit report is also replete with numerous acts of corruption but which has not been dealt with by the Mills government. When he was challenged to mention names of corrupt past public officials who deserves prosecution, the MP retorted: “Don’t waste my time; go and read the Auditor General’s Report and you will see them there." Story by Nathan Gadugah/Myjoyonline.com/Ghana

Mills: Ghana backs ECOWAS on military action but will not contribute troops

President John Mills during his meeting with journalists at the Castle         President John Mills says he will back any decision taken by ECOWAS or AU to solve the crisis in Cote d’Ivoire even if it involves military action. This is according to Kenya Prime Minister Raila Odinga who is on a day’s visit to Ghana to acquaint himself with Ghana’s official position on the troubled West African country. President John Mills had in a meeting with senior journalists at the Castle stated Ghana is not interested in military action in Cote d’Ivoire and will not contribute troops in the event that ECOWAS adopts a military action. His comments triggered widespread controversy with critics accusing him of breaking ranks with the ECOWAS. He had earlier on December 24, 2010 appended his signature to an ECOWAS communiqué by Heads of State in the sub region threatening military action as the last resort if embattled Gbagbo remains intransigent. Raila Odinga who has been one of ECOWAS’ emissaries in the Ivorian conflict told news men after meeting with President John Mills he is impressed with Ghana’s clarified position. Confirming, Odinga’s statements to Myjoyonline.com, the Head of Communications at Ghana’s presidency Koku Anyidoho said Ghana fully remains committed to the communiqué signed on December 24. He said Ghana is signatory to the communiqué and in the unlikely event of a military action, Mills will not go against it but will not be able to contribute troops to the ECOWAS mission for a military action because Ghana’s military is over stretched. He said Ghana is still interested in the first option which is dialogue but if need be that the military clause contained in the communiqué is to be activated, ECOWAS' decision will be binding. Koku Anyidoho vehemently objected to criticisms that President Mills has contradicted his earlier position on military action. Story by Nathan Gadugah/Myjoyonline.com/Ghana

Mills was ‘humbly excited’ on Cote d'Ivoire ‘vindication’ – Koku

Koku Anyidoho          … this matter is a matter of national interest. Sometimes if we can move away from the politics and look at it as a national interest matter, maybe we will score better points…  Koku Anyidoho, Communications Director at the Presidency       Communications Director at the Presidency, Mr. Koku Anyidoho says President John Evans Atta Mills was happy at the apparent endorsement of his stance not to send personnel from Ghana’s Army to engage in any armed resolution to the election crisis in the Ivory Coast. Koku told Asempa FM during its Ekosii Senprogramme on Tuesday, that President Mills was happy that his decision found favour with other continental leaders, describing the call not to ‘fight’ in any war in the neighbouring country as a well-thought out decision. A report by the Head Of Ghana’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations of the monthly consultation meeting of the Africa Group of Ambassadors at the United Nations, convened on Thursday 13th January 2011 at the behest of the African Members and the Security Council indicated an apparent “emerging consensus" from the Council that the military option is "no option". The meeting, according to the report, also agreed that “the victory of Mr. Alhassane Ouattara as President-elect of Cote d’Ivoire should be respected.” “Ghana and President Mills have been vindicated” in choosing not to go to ‘war’ but dialogue, dialogue and dialogue, said Koku, who said should any war break out, it is not likely to end anytime soon and that the president would not risk collecting body bags from Cote d’Ivoire as a result of any needless war. He said Ghana would be part of any peacekeeping efforts but will not take sides in the dispute and commit soldiers to fight in a terrain that only promises chaos, advising that critics of the president who thought they would bring him to shame must now be ashamed of their own actions. According to Koku, those critics are scampering for cover, advising that “… this matter is a matter of national interest. Sometimes if we can move away from the politics and look at it as a national interest matter, maybe we will score better points…” Story by Myjoyonline.com

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