SIKANKU: Home is where the heart is (II)

Most foreigners feel so cut off from mainstream America that they’ve stopped trying to integrate. All of a sudden everything becomes methodical. People will see you on the bus and ask “How are you doing these days” You’ll answer ‘good”. But even as you blurted out those words you know deep down that you’re not fine. You know that in your heart of hearts you’re hurting slowly and painfully because you miss home. Jim Reeves is one of my favorite musicians. He reminds me of my Dad and my childhood. If he (Jim) were alive he’ll probably call this “Silent suffering”.

Combine this with the international hustling code (IHC): broke, hungry and lonely and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Color me morally bankrupt but suffice to say that for those in long distance or cross boarder relationships the situation is even gloomier. Zimbabwean author Hope Keshubi says it much better: “the natural feelings that manifest themselves when woman and man really need each other, these feelings are difficult to keep (p.56). Nuff said.

Folks, it’s a sad thing in life when you’ve worked so hard and want to unwind and there’s no one or nowhere to turn to. Like I once wrote elsewhere, if this were an exercise in English summary—as we used to have in junior secondary school—here’s what I’ll say of our lives: no family, no money, and no pleasure. What else could be more depressing? I mean for all the days of my life in Ghana, for all the poverty we experienced, I cannot remember a single day when I got so hungry that there wasn’t even a semblance of food to eat. It was on days like this that I learned to appreciate my Mum most.

Because as a single parent, it’s still unconceivable to me how she managed to keep a family of three rascals (plus some cousins and nieces) not only fully fed but well catered for all the time. It may surprise you but the first time I went to bed desperately hungry not out of choice but due to circumstance was not in Accra but yankee. Believe it or not: it is in America, the land of plenty that I’m most wanting. In fact this will be amusing if it wasn’t so pathetic.

But the one thing I find most pitiable about life away from home is the case of people who cannot return to bid goodbye to say a dead relative. Or those who come here alive but go back in coffins. It happened to my friend whose name I’m not sure I should be mentioning. This is not my favorite topic but the reality is that these things happen. Can you imagine being so far away from your family and always looking forward to being with them only to hear that someone within has passed away?

What if that person is your parent or a very close relative? Then the heart wrenching part: what if you can’t go back to say that final goodbye? This has got to be one of the most miserable things that can happen to anyone. Yet, it happened to Regina Tetteh. It also happened to Ms Kakraba. That woman will never forget the dreadful phone call which announced the death of both parents in a car accident. Why do people have to go through things like this? How do they handle such calamities at all?

Life can be good some times, but other time’s it can be painful. Here’s my confession: before I came over, I used to think that life must be a bed or roses in the US. We used to think: “things are so tough down here; it shouldn’t that hard out there”. Well, not quite. The lesson here is that the grass isn’t always greener at the other side of the fence. Of course I’m grateful for all the opportunities I’ve had both domestic and international.

But two things need to be understood. First, it’s not all hearts and flowers. Secondly, if the relationship with your homeland is a romanticized one then its worth citing Mpe again—“separation is not the end of love”. While America offers wonderful opportunities, make no mistake, it can be as dire as it can be nightmarish. This might not be everyone’s experience, but there’s no doubt it is for others.

SIKANKU: Rare praise for the Obamas: Is O'Reilly changing?

Surprise, surprise, Conservative poster man Bill O'Reilly has mentioned the name Obama and 'impressive' in a single sentence.

However Laura Ingraham, another right wing loon wasn't having any of it. I've been watching Bill for sometime now and it's quite fair to say he is not exactly as jingoistic as he used to be. Is O'Reilly simply changing or is this the case of the pot calling the kettle black?

As for Ms Ingraham, she should have known better than act like the dim cat that pokes at hot coal.

Enjoy the video:

SIKANKU: In Ghana, ethnic violence taints Obama’s “model democracy”

Etse Sikanku

When a crisis breaks out in Ghana on the scale of what we’re witnessing in Bawku now, there are four things that happen: (a) accept the problem wholeheartedly and seek practical solutions; (b) deny that this is even a problem at all; (c) recognize that it is a problem but be sure to note it could be worse and lastly; (d) “play politics” with it.

There can be no denial that the Bawku crisis has become a major embarrassment to Ghana’s international reputation. This is yet another incident that should offer us an opportunity to re-think the current status of rule of law and human rights in Ghana before going to broadcast to the rest of the world that we’re Africa’s “beacon of democracy”.

We can argue that the violence in Bawku is ‘isolated’ as Vice president Mahama asserted or that “stripping of some suspects naked publicly in Bawku is more acceptable than killing innocent citizens” as Upper East Regional Minister, Mr Mark Wayongo ridiculously argued. But to the extent that Bawku is still part of the Ghana—and it’s larger subscription to democratic standards— government must take more seriously the fight against ethnic violence since these events could only be a harbinger of things to come.

If only.

The underlying problem with politics in Ghana is that the de facto strategy for addressing a crisis of any kind is to approach it in a politically cynical or expedient manner. By this we mean everything that happens including our success at soccer games and the glaring violation of human rights must be sieved through the political prism. There are those who will ask, like someone did on an internet discussion board “I didn't see you asking the same question when Ya-Na and Mobilla were gruesomely murdered under NPP's so-called rule of law, so why make so much noise now?” In effect the substantive issue is ignored, while we dabble in a game of political horse trading. It’s a common strategy people adopt from the political playbook in Ghana: meet a question with a question.

While all this might pass for interesting debates in a political science seminar there is an even bigger worry. In many ways, the current attitude in Ghana is beginning to resemble a rampant ideological strain that was at the heart of Bush’s turbulent years at the White House: American exceptionalism. It’s one that holds that the “US is a more highly evolved democracy than anywhere else on earth”. Contextually, Ghanaian exceptionalism believes that our democracy is so far ahead of others in Africa, that none of the protracted civil wars in other parts of the continent is capable of rearing its head in our country.

It will be great if this was the case, but even the most optimistic Ghanaian knows such an assumption is nothing but preposterous. At some point we need to acknowledge that the crisis in Bawku is not just sectional or regional but national in scope. These are serious, even deadly issues, pertaining to human life and human rights; underestimating the problem will not make it better.

SIKANKU: Is Sarah Palin's runner's shorts photo sexist?

Love her or hate her, the truth is that Sarah Palin has come to stay in American politics. My view on her is that she’s a charming candidate who clearly energizes the right wing section of the electorate. Yet when it comes to substance, she still has a lot to prove.

Despite all the talk about “sexism” in the media, Palin recently posed for a picture in runner's shorts which is now on Newsweek’s cover. Right now, I’m just confused as to why anyone will pose for a picture, approve of it and then turn round to cry “sexism”. I also don’t know how to feel about this because I cannot hide the fact that in my opinion Sarah Palin is a very attractive lady.

This is worrying because anytime I see her I’m not sure whether to concentrate on her looks or her politics. Anyway, that’s the picture right up there folks, what do you think?

SIKANKU: CNN must act boldly: Martins, Smith are worthy replacements for Dobbs.

by Etse Sikanku

It’s pretty clear that CNN is going through some rough times. Now that Dobbs has left the network there is even less reason for conservatives of any kind to tune in.

If CNN is going to do well in this time slot they will have to recognize that just another hour of straight news will be downright boring. Yes, we all know that journalists are supposed to be transmitting information but journalism is also a privilege.The public service role of journalism will be incomplete if those in this position do not go beyond regurgitating “facts”.

Now I love John King because he’s my favorite kind of reporter (right up there with Ed Henry).However I doubt he’ll do anything to change the situation unless he alters his straight jacket reporter kind of presentation. Indeed if you consider CNN’s attempts at in-depth coverage, hard news and investigative reportage you’ve got to feel sad for their current position.

There’s got to be a reason why O’Reilly and Olbermann are doing better: partisanship and opinion journalism. CNN can tap into this model by appealing to the truly independent, non-partisan base. How? By finding someone who combines neutrality with the kind of forcefulness exhibited by Roland Martins, all mixed with a dose of Fareed Zakaria’s intellectual stimulation and Shepherd Smith’s on air presence. Is this so impossible? I know this sounds improbable, even mischievous and might NEVER happen but if it gets too hard they could take a chance on me, lol.

Anyway my point is this: there’s every indication that television viewers want more than straight news by the time it’s 7pm. Why not replace Lou with someone with a little more gravitas such as Martin or someone in the caliber of Zakaria. In fact CNN could be more daring by negotiating a toned Shepherd Smith from Fox since he’s one of the few personalities who’s loved by both the left and the right.

John King seems a safe choice plus everyone agrees he’s in love with that magic wall but he lacks star presence and will leave CNN playing defensively.

SIKANKU: Lou Dobbs quits: gain or loss?

Etse Sikanku

Yesterday was one of those rare days I got to scout TV channels in order to catch up with the television world. Little did I know that my short glimpse of Lou Dobbs will be the last I’d see of him on that station.

Lou's departure from CNN is a great disappointment because the network has lost one of its most independent thinkers. I know the man has been heavily criticized for his so called anti-immigration stance and his coverage of Obama’s citizenship issue. In addition it's a bit embarrassing to see him almost gagging CNN reporters to agree with his viewpoints anytime they report on his show.

His opinionated show may be at out of step with CNN’s notion of journalistic objectivity but at least he’s got an opinion even if you disagree with it. Don’t you ever get frustrated with people who you know are on TV simply because of their looks and nothing else? You’ve got to admit that Dobbs at least is not pretentious, synthesizes information and formulates an educated opinion which he brings to the public square. Isn’t that what the American ideology of democracy—which they’re seeking to export to the world—is based on? I cannot help but wonder how they expect the rest of us to buy it when they don’t seem to be sold on the idea themselves?

There is nothing wrong with reporting the news as it is but even in journalism school you learn that “news is a socially created product, not a reflection of an objective reality” (Reese, 1996, p.21). Since this is not a class paper (and I should probably be writing one now to save my grades), I don’t want to get into theorization. In fact, I don’t think we need theorists to tell us that news reports are often influenced by a variety of factors other than the search for “truth”.

If this is the case, then CNN’s cancellation is defeatist. Secondly, people are always going to tag them with an ideological label anyway. Moreover their recent slump in ratings shows that television viewers should not always be perceived as passive. Yes, there are times when it pays to be neutral or pursue a “middle along the road” approach. But there are other times when viewers want to be engaged. And that is where people like Lou Dobbs come in. After all hasn’t it been noted that “the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality"? (Dante)

Instead of "throwing the baby out with the bath water" CNN should have re-structured Lou's show to permit his editorializing without allowing him to leave.

SODZI-TETTEY: Achieving the African Dream demands individual efforts

Dr. Sodzi Sodzi-Tettey

Here in Africa, how does one acknowledge glaring poverty and not yield to despair? How does one recognize amazing opportunities and yet not be enraged about their underutilization? How does one see Africa’s crippling disease burden and yet manage to notice the commitment of some professionals to make a difference?

It is possible if we focus on two things: what works and celebrating success. Anything else and the people best placed to address our common challenges are at once disabled. Unduly focusing on our tribulations would therefore be counterproductive. Those who have will testify how brooding interminably over the paradox of the African development morass have been left so overwhelmed by its sheer magnitude they hardly knew where to start the change process. That negative focus is at once disabling and disempowering. On the other hand, focusing on our strengths coupled with appreciating the majesty of Africa has been known to leave people energized, enabled and empowered by the little things that we can do now to improve our lot.

But of course, there are two obstacles. I see many young people crippled by the magnitude of what they want to achieve. Sadly, some also seem to underestimate the great work they are currently doing. You want to be Obama at once! What we want to do is so big. It intimidates us and we end up doing nothing. I have come to appreciate that what ever one wants to do is perhaps not as important as how well you want to do it. If you do whatever is allowed by your core competence and your passions well enough, you will have impact irrespective of how insignificant your exertions may initially appear.

Kenyan Dr. Wangari Maathai won the Noble Prize for something perhaps as ‘insignificant’ as tree planting. In her own words “It is the little things citizens do that’s what will make the difference; little things like planting trees.” So, what are today’s challenges and how can your leadership make that difference?

A couple of months ago, I was in Ghana’s Upper East Region-a place variously described as poor and deprived. In deed, in some preliminary work done by the UNDP, one District would score interesting marks on the three parameters that measure human development: life expectancy, education and living standard. With a life expectancy less than 60 years, with more children of school-going age outside school than in school, with almost 30% illiteracy rate, (an improvement on the 64% observed in 2000), with a doctor: patient ratio of 1: 31, 000, with “non existent” sanitation, with all rural dwellers having no access to pipe borne water and having to walk over thirty minutes before accessing public transport, the consultant reached the following conclusion.

“The level of deprivation in this District appears lower than the rest of the Upper East Region and to some extent the nation as a whole!” Makes you wonder what’s going on elsewhere.

But that is not all I saw. I also recall the difference that leadership could make. I saw health managers in the region recall with pride that severe human resource constraints notwithstanding, maternal mortality has steadily dropped from 40 in 2006 to 27 in 2008. I saw them fine tune home grown strategies for attracting more professionals into the area. I observed how far from being crippled by their daunting challenges, they seemed energized by the prospect of turning things around.

With the advent of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), out-patient attendance has increased by more than 100% and total admissions by 18% in the Upper East Region. Meanwhile, the numbers of professionals and facilities have largely stagnated. Soon the NHIS will start accrediting health facilities based on personnel and equipment availability. The criteria demands for example that a facility like the Bolgatanga Hospital currently with 4 Ghanaian doctors ought to have a minimum of 16 doctors.

But once again, leadership demonstrated to me why having the right attitude is far more important than focusing on your tribulations. They said “We cannot compromise on quality. Is it because those well equipped health centers in Accra deserved better than our people here?” In the end, despair gave way to hope.

And so with all due respect, forget about tribulations. People are confronting their challenges. Right attitude is vital which is why we must focus on three key areas: developing a national/continental sense of urgency, building a critical mass of change agents and strategic leadership.

In the bushes of Yua near the Burkina border, health officers maintain the potency of vaccines through solar-powered fridges even if they themselves have no radios. Health workers enthusiastically embrace a new test kit aimed at eliminating the presumptive treatment of malaria. A disease control officer rides his motorbike deep into the interior to collect sputum samples so that “Accra” can find out why the old man is still not responding to 6 months of anti-tuberculous treatment. In Kologo, midwives often have no option than to do home deliveries; terrible lighting, woman on a mat and midwife squatting. Very uncomfortable for everyone but the records will reflect they are making a difference in their communities.

These are the change agents that we speak so eloquently of and money is not always their motivation. Something definitely is working in many places as people focus on what they can do rather than throw up their hands in despair.

Dr. Sodzi Sodzi-Tettey writes for www.AfricanLiberty.org. He is a medical practitioner and health policy analyst.

SIKANKU: Why Obama’s Nobel is not such a bad thing

By: Etse Sikanku Published: October 11, 2009 9:14 PM CDT

It seems everyone except the Nobel Prize committee is upset that Obama won the Nobel Prize for Peace? Around the blogosphere, twittersphere, facebooksphere, and elsewhere in cyberspace, status updates/posts show folks are quite miffed that a man who many admit has altered the landscape of global politics is being given a pat on the back.

What is even surprising is that the normally reasonable New York Times and Time magazine have joined in drugging mud over what is supposed to be a noble achievement. Is it just me or are people just missing the larger picture?

Yes, I understand that he’s been in office for less than a year. The corollary for this argument is that, his nomination was done less than a month after his inauguration. Surely, only the supernatural could have achieved anything so “significant” so quickly. Yes there might not be anything tangible to point to but therein lies the point.

The value of Obama’s recognition lies in the intangibiles. To be specific, the palpable dawn of a much nuanced, less hawkish administration that believes not in domination but collaboration.

Indeed if the overriding goal of the Peace prize is the “promotion of peace” and “fraternity among nations” it’s hard to imagine that anyone would be nonplussed about this award. After all, most people anywhere will tell you that one of their greatest desires in life is a peaceful world.

To the extent that the stakes for nuclear proliferation are at its highest in contemporary times; that America is engaging rather than pontificating, Obama deserves the award because only heaven knows what even one more day of neo-conservatism could have brought the world to. That is why I find the cynicism from people like Gibbs (TIME) and surprisingly CNN’s Ed Henry very worrisome. (Most especially Henry because he’s my hero and I thought reporters were not supposed to interpret the news but that will be a matter for another day).

For those Americans who’re skeptical about anything “non-American” (clue: think John Bolton) including—gasp— the United Nations or the Nobel Peace Prize for that matter, I’d like to say that there’s nothing embarrassing or ridiculous about your president promoting global “efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". And for those who quip that this is an award for “aspiration rather than achievement” I’d like to say that sometimes preemption rather than reflection is the way to go.

Conservatives of all people should know this: after all it was preemption that took them to Iraq – “to preemptively neutralize the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of a rogue leader” (referring to Saddam Hussein) were Donald Rumsfeld’s words for justifying the invasion.

To be honest, I’m not a starry-eyed follower of Barack Obama but what the Nobel committee has done is to offer us the rare benefit of hindsight by encouraging global peace because as they taught us in elementary school, “a stitch in time saves nine”.

GAINES: African Americans need to take charge of their own future

By Iche Cica Gaines

While there are many things I admire about America there are more than a few that appear puzzling. One of them has to do with the fact that African Americans seem to infer racial connotations into every untoward thing that happens to them.

As a foreigner, these events have confirmed my own long shelved thoughts about race in America. That is, although one cannot underestimate the effects of America’s racial history, progress will continue to elude blacks who decide to overemphasize it.

Blacks, to be sure, have over the years been at the receiving end of egregious racial discriminations. Some still speak of “systemic racism” which they say continues to plague many minorities. It is a fact that African Americans who live in poverty are twice the number of their white counterparts.

But is all this enough reason for Negroes to totally chuck out on America? After all race relations in America has come a long way since the days of the civil rights movement.

What is surprising is that even with the establishment of historically black colleges, the Associated Press reports than less than a third of the men (37%) at these colleges graduate in six years. It is also true that there are more black men in American prisons than there are in Colleges.

In my acquaintance with some African Americans their deliberate resolution to exploit their predicament—whatever it may be—rather than rise above it can scarcely be ignored. I once met a guy who told me that as an African America he can break the rules because once apprehended he could always scream: ‘race”. Such an attitude is inimical to any form of progress.

The point is that black people cannot attribute every misfortune to racism. How does one expect any real personal development or great quality of life if they indulge in a thug life, “gangsterism”, incomprehensible idleness and an overdependence on certain careers such as the pop culture phenomenon?

Black Americans will do well to remember that the idea that we’re in a post-racial era is a total myth. But no one other than themselves is responsible for their own fate.

SIKANKU: NPP’s unbelievable political calculus

An NPP supporter at a party rally.

By: Etse Sikanku Published: July 31, 2009 9:14 PM CDT

Ghana’s main opposition party - the NPP - recently announced that no more than three persons will be allowed to contest the party’s flagbearership. In my view, this is nothing but an act of desperation by a party struggling to re-assert itself after a bruising election.

Against the backdrop of recent praise — perhaps exaggerated — for Ghana’s democratic record, the NPP’s desperado act is quite disappointing for a number of reasons. Here’s why.

I think the NPP’s actions is based on a flawed assumption that having just three candidates instead of say 17 will lead to less division within the party. This assumption is incorrect because the major division within their party was between two camps: the Kyeremaneteng and the Akuffo-Addo camps. Unless the NPP wants to adopt NDC’s fabled “Swedru declaration” where only one candidate is anointed by the party, there are always going to be competing factions. If party executives are so concerned about numerous contestants they could as well go ahead and appoint a single unopposed candidate by “consensus.”

When I first heard about suggestions for limiting the number of people who will contest the party’s flagbearership, my immediate reaction was to dismiss it as an idea so out of sync with the very fundamentals of democracy that it will never see daylight. Apparently, some in the NPP and, I guess even outside, think otherwise.

But this is Politics 101: the notion of representation, participation, and pluralism are of enormous value to any democratic system anywhere. In fact, it will not be wrong to say they’re the backbone of such systems; thus I wonder why the NPP wants to put a cap on people’s right to freely contest.

We can all give any number of reasons why we like or dislike the NPP, but there’s an underlying truth to all this chaos: The NPP is most appealing when it’s most competitive. I absolutely agree with Dr Gesika Agambilla one of Kufuor’s longest serving ministers who once stated in an on op-ed piece that, “If, it ain't broke, don't fix it.”

Instead of resisting such competition, the NPP should embrace it, and encourage healthy debate during primaries. The current decision may sound good for the short term but means nothing if the NPP is serious about its long term viability.

For the sake of Ghana, I hope the NPP, NDC and other parties thrive as political institutions.

This is because while democracy is the ultimate goal, it is only a by-product of well established and flourishing party systems.

OWUSU-YEBOAH: RE: Why Obama may be wrong on Ghana

By:Prince Owusu-Yeboah
Published: July 30, 2009 10:59 PM CDT

I write in response to Etse Sikanku’s article with the above title which was posted on myjoyonline.com.

First of all, I will like to emphatically say that I am in TOTAL DISAGREEMENT with you on the matter of Ghana, and for the most part of Africa in general! I think that over and over again, people fail to appreciate how far Ghana, and Africa in general, has come. As a matter of fact, i believe that in the history of mankind it is unprecedented in the manner that after being dominated and raped of our resources, human and natural, we should find ourselves, in such a short time of “so-called” independence, in the right direction towards democracy and potential prosperity! That is a miracle and tremendous improvement for a people!

If you want to begin talks about how far we have come, then please compare the status of the developed countries to where they were after 50+ years of their independence.

Take the United States of America for example; do you recall what was happening there around the years 1820s and 1830s? I am sure you know pretty well, so won’t bother to get explicit on that matter! If you judge it from that standpoint then i will begin to appreciate your assertions and pronouncements better!

Another point that i want to emphasize is that, democracy and capitalism is something that has been forced on us, and i believe we are doing a very good job at that. Considering that we come from traditions of chieftaincies and autocratic rule. I think our people are holding up very well! Your thoughts on tribalistic leanings are off base, because if you look at the political parties in Ghana today, you have representation of all the tribes! Now whether there will be changes to the voting patterns as per locations (i.e. Volta and North voting NDC, as compared to Ashanti and Eastern voting NPP), i believe strongly that it is also changing. For example, if you look at the voter numbers for the presidential elections 2008 in Ashanti, you will see that there was a high increase and support for the NDC, of which there has never been.

The conclusion therefore is that people are beginning to look at issues in voting, rather on sentiments. The NPP complained low voter turnout of their supporters in the first round of voting in the 2008 elections. Well, that basically tells me that democracy is working; in the sense that, supporters discontent with ruling parties are protesting by not going to the polls, period. Democracy is working and we are doing it! We need to congratulate ourselves for it and maintain the process and progress.

I think we need to encourage that, and stop comparing what has been a dark past in African politics with civil strife and senseless violence. Ghana as an example for the rest of Africa will go a long way to stabilising the continent. I agree with you that, when Ghana had its first successful coup d’état, the rest of Africa braced itself with other successful coups in their respective countries. Perhaps the time has come when the other African countries will emulate what’s happening in Ghana and try to be a symbol of hope for their people.

We are not quite there yet, but, Ghana is working, so let’s start pinpointing on the positives and the achievements. We will one day wake up to see a very prosperous and poverty-free Africa.

THE FUTURE IS FOR AFRICA!

AGBOKA: Government Is Not Being Unfair to Ex-President Kufuor BUT…

Jerry Rawlings and John Kufuor are Ghana's only surviving former presidents

By: Godwin J. Y. Agboka
Published: July 26, 2009 5:51 PM CDT

Witch-hunting! Witch-hunting! Witch-hunting! That is the rejuvenated term in Ghanaian political circles. Under the NPP administration, the NDC faulted and accused the Kufuor-led government of harassing and falsely prosecuting its members for crimes, it claimed, its officials did not commit. The NPP has lately found solace in the term to also make the case that its members are being hounded by the Mills-led government. Interesting times!

We have all been witnesses to the recent cases involving Asamoah Boateng, Kwadwo Mpiani, Akwasi Osei-Adjei, among a host of others, all of whom have made similar cases of political harassment. Given what we know, we can make the case that the game has just started. Many NPP officials will cry foul in this game of “you-do-me-I do-you” politics that has engulfed our young political process—that is not to say that some of the reasons for which opposition elements have been brought before state institutions or for which they have been prosecuted have not been legitimate. If you asked me, many have been legitimate and many others have been calculated to politically humiliate opposition elements.

I have argued once—and I still do—that people have to be made accountable for their actions either during or after their services to the nation; more so, I have said elsewhere that just because some action(s) was/were right or wrong under the NPP administration does not make it right or wrong under the NDC era. Societies make progress and they learn from the mistakes of the past. That, however, is the ideal situation. Politicians will get their pound of flesh, so I don’t think the NDC will do any less than what the NPP did—at least former president Kufuor can attest to that!

The case of former president Kufuor intrigues me. He wins my sympathy, in a way! He should be enjoying his ESB somewhere. Unfortunately, like many other former African presidents, he is suffering from a negative political process he has helped to build. Mr. Kufuor, notwithstanding his unequaled legacy, set a bad precedent which has, all too soon, caught up with him. Currently, in addition to his many foreign engagements, he has been busy accusing the new government of mistreating him. In an interview he granted to the BBC Network Africa program, Mr. Kufuor expressed his displeasure at the treatment he is getting from the NDC government.

That is not what you will think a former president should be doing. I don’t mean he cannot complain, but conditions should not be created for him to complain. He should be relaxing somewhere in his backyard, playing chess or some “oware.” The man has contributed a lot to the development of the nation, but even if he contributed nothing, he should get what the constitution or any other legal document mandates a former president to get. We may disagree on how much he should get, but he should get what he should get! For purposes of argument, in spite of the campaign waged by then candidate and now President Barack Obama against Bush’s (Jnr) administration, there has never been a time, after he left office, that Bush has complained about the treatment he is getting from the current administration and, I believe, we can say the same about other countries. Sadly, though, Mr. Kufuor has been forced to take his fight outside the shores of Ghana, because he is obviously not happy. It is a shame!

Is Mr. Kufuor a victim of political vendetta? If you asked me, I will say yes! He is in a political battle with the NDC. It is clear that the NDC, given the events of the last eight years, wants to return the favor—albeit negatively. It is a flip of the coin. The new government wants to embarrass and humiliate Mr. Kufuor by making him feel uncomfortable, knowing very well that Mr. Kufuor will give them the perfect response. Thus, what Mr. Kufuor is doing is the perfect response that the NDC expected. It’s a case of “let’s re-enact the Rawlings drama.” Some of this is about Rawlings, trust me. Even though the NDC government ran a campaign that promised not to settle scores with its political opponents, there is no doubt that there has been a subtle attempt, on the part of the NDC, to intimidate its opponents, mainly NPP operatives, even if for legitimate reasons.

Is Mr. Kufuor being treated unfairly? YES and NO! The issue about what a former president deserves or gets after his/her term of office should not be up for public debate. It should be enshrined somewhere in some document. It simply should be a constitutional matter. What does the constitution say he should get at the end of his term? Does any other document speak to this issue, if the constitution doesn’t have such a provision? The country will be setting a very bad precedent if uneducated public debate takes over what a legal or constitutional provision should stipulate. Thus, argued on this front, Mr. Kufuor has been the subject of a democratic political system that should know what to do.

Unfortunately, however, legality runs into ethics and morality sometimes—taking the debate on a fussy tangent that becomes interesting as well. The injection of morality in this debate introduces the historical condition, which gets into many comparative issues. It is sad to say that even though Mr. Kufuor is upset about his new condition,—requiring him to make some adjustments—the case can be made that the country has made tremendous progress in how it treats its former presidents. It is a strange point to make, but it is the fact! On a historical continuum, Mr. Kufuor seems to be enjoying a relatively peaceful retirement together with a bountiful booty, compared to what Hilla Limann got under the Rawlings era or relative to the treatment he (Mr. Kufuor) gave to Rawlings.

On moral grounds Mr. Kufuor had (and still has) no justification to talk (or whine) about the issues that came up during the interview. I am surprised that Kufuor is surprised that this is happening. Why is he complaining? That he wants six cars, but he can only get four cars? That currently he is granted full courtesies in Ghana’s missions abroad, when he didn’t do same for his predecessor? In his own words: “When you look at the situation, it begins to look like there has been a coup d’état. It wasn’t a coup d’état that changed government. People went to ballot and the votes were almost split equally.” Interesting! So, Mr. Kufuor never thought he presided over a dictatorial regime when he mistreated his predecessor? What was Mr. Kufuor thinking when he withdrew privileges constitutionally sanctioned to be enjoyed by former President Rawlings? Was it legally and morally appropriate for the Kufuor-led government to endorse the practice where Ghanaian embassies abroad refused to extend courtesies to Mr. Rawlings?

In spite of his many achievements as president of Ghana—and his government did better, in my view, than the NDC (1992-2000)—but the NPP took politics to a new low with such decisions that should never be repeated. That chapter on this issue should be closed and should be treated as one of the “never happened” events of the country. I can’t say enough about Mr. Rawlings’ dishonorable behavior at various points since he left office in 2000; he has said things unbecoming of a former president; he has taunted Mr. Kufuor; he has acted indecorously, but when someone behaves in such a manner in a democratic regime, you don’t behave unconstitutionally towards him. Apply the law and leave out personal issues that are dictated by your whims and caprices.

To decide to strip Rawlings of his constitutionally mandated privileges, because the government believed he was speaking evil about it on his foreign travels was the most childish decision any democratic government could take—especially when that government came to power through a campaign that promised to respect the rule of law. On that score, in addition to many happenings that strike the moral chord, Mr. Kufour is not being treated unfairly! Maybe both Rawlings and Kufuor don’t deserve any good treatments from the state, because of the poor treatments they meted out to their predecessors.

As I have hinted, in our march to the top, we need to look back, see what we’ve done right, see what we’ve done wrong, and close the door that took us in the wrong direction. We should do better than that! In our journey to political maturation, we need to end the vicious cycle of settling unnecessary political scores that threaten to injure opponents, but which might come back to hit the very same people who began the process. We need to be able to separate personal issues from national issues that are grounded or firmly rooted in law. We need to close the chapter on the “you-did-it-to-me-so-I will-do-it-to-you” politics.” It takes us nowhere. I will be surprised if the NDC doesn’t learn any lessons from this. The wheel of misfortune may strike them “BIG TIME.”

We need to begin an educated debate about what our former presidents should enjoy after they leave office, and such benefits should not be subject to change by the personal concerns of any one person or government. We should avoid the situation where anybody can wake up on the wrong side of his/her bed and decide to do what s/he wants. It’s a shame that 50 years of nationhood, a former president will grant an interview to a media organization and be forced to talk about the poor treatment he is being given by a current government. We should clearly delineate what we mean by accountability from what we mean by witch-hunting. Today, it’s the NPP that is at the receiving end, and tomorrow it might be the NDC, again, if the current practice continues. It becomes a never-ending vicious cycle!

Godwing J.Y Agboka is a PhD candidate in English at Illinois State University

KALEVOR: Liberia-Africa’s oldest republic celebrates 162 years of nationhood on July 26 2009. What does the future hold for them?

Flag of Liberia

Liberian President, Mrs. Ellen Johsnon-Sirleaf.

By Delaena Kalevor, Rochester, NY
Published: July 19, 2009

On July 4 2009, Liberia’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) recommended the prosecution and debarment of ex-warlords and their associates during the Liberian civil wars of the 1990s and early 2000s. It recommended that President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, and others be barred from public office for thirty years for their role in the dreadful war. Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf became the first female head of state in Africa when she became Liberia’s president on January 16 2006.

Liberia became the first republic in Africa when freed slaves from the United States (who chose to return to Africa) founded the nation on July 26 1847 with Joseph Jenkins Roberts “originally” from Norfolk, VA becoming its first president. The freed slaves or Americo-Liberians (as they became known as) though just about 5% of the population formed an impregnable ruling elite in Liberian society virtually colonizing the natives. They ruled the country unchallenged till 1980 when Sgt. Samuel Doe (a native from the Krahn tribe) stormed the Executive Mansion, executed President Tolbert and his family and took over the country in a very bloody military coup. The natives were mainly made up of the following West African tribes: Dei, Bassa, Kru, Krahn, Grebo, Gios, Manos, Vai, Mende, Mandingos among others.

While Doe’s military coup ended 133 years of Americo-Liberian hegemony, his tumultuous regime was characterized by mass executions of many Americo-Liberians in apparent retribution for decades of their domination. By 1989, the Americo-Liberians were growing impatient with Doe and multiple insurgencies had begun in various parts of the country. The most notable rebel movements were led by Prince Yomi Johnson and Charles Taylor. Prince Johnson’s rebel faction captured and tortured President Doe before executing him in September 1990. After Doe was killed, a power struggle between Johnson and Taylor eventually led to the protracted civil war that ended in 1997 after the Akosombo Peace Accord was signed in Akosombo, Ghana. Taylor became president after elections in 1997 but was forced into exile in Nigeria in 2003 after another rebel insurgency led to the collapse of his government. A transitional government took over the country till elections in 2005 after which the current president was sworn in on January 16 2006.

What does the TRC’s recommendation mean for the future of Liberia and President Johnson-Sirleaf? First off, Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf (a Harvard trained lawyer) has never lied about her support for Charles Taylor when he launched his insurgency from Ivory Coast in 1989. At the time, Samuel Doe was the common enemy. She claims Taylor convinced her under false pretenses. I believe it’s possible for anyone to be taken in given the circumstances – even the most astute politician. Obviously, Taylor is one wily dealmaker (from lay preacher to businessman to warlord to president and now war crimes defendant). He even has “breaking out of a maximum security prison in the United States” on his resume. Clearly, Taylor is the kind of guy who has no real cause. He was a mercenary by almost any measure.

But Mrs. Johnson did support an insurrection against a sitting president. Was she wrong? I don't think so. Doe's regime was illegal. He came to power in an extremely bloody military coup against a “democratically” elected president. His brutal reign was typified by ethnic politics, public executions of his enemies, among other atrocious crimes. In my view, Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf is no less a patriot than Rawlings and the AFRC of Ghana or Washington, Jefferson and Adams in the American Revolution. After all she withdrew support for Taylor after she could get a better read on him.

There are many lessons that can be drawn from Liberia’s story. In many ways, it’s very similar to the French, American, Cuban (Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution), Libya (Gaddafi’s Al-Fatah revolution) and the Iranian (Islamic) revolution. Who would have thought that after 133 years of “democracy” Liberia could descend into such anarchy? The answer is there was no democracy to begin with. The Americo-Liberians “colonized” the natives and ruled them like subjects for over a century. During that period, they wielded all political and economic power and it was as if the natives lived in a different world. The fact that there was “peace” didn’t mean everything was OK. It was a time bomb waiting to explode. And it did explode in 1980 when Doe, a native and a sergeant in the Liberian military burst on the scene.

How can a sergeant (a non commissioned officer in the army) just storm a presidential residence and take over a country? He and his rebels must have been very angry. They had nothing to lose and so they were highly motivated. Harrison Ford (as U.S. president James Marshall) in the movie Air Force One said that “peace is not just the absence of conflict but the presence of justice.” The injustice of 133 years in Liberia is what culminated in Doe and the civil war. I do not intend to give any credit to Doe, but he changed the country significantly. The native people are now fairly represented in Liberian politics and play a bigger role in government. Doe may be a savage beast, but he changed the country even though at a very high price.

Jerry Rawlings (former president of Ghana) once said that “if you humiliate a human being for so long and to such a base extent; even when you offer him a Cadillac to appease him, he’ll kick it right back at you, he will demand your blood.” His views maybe a little extreme but it clearly explains what happened in Liberia. Social injustice ultimately leads to “class wars”, which is what all these revolutions have been about.

I'm only pleased that democratic institutions are working well in the new Liberia, such that they are willing to hang out their dirty laundry and deal with it. Whether the executive or the courts decide to implement the recommendations of the TRC remains to be seen. But Liberia, the oldest republic in Africa has come a very long way. And I believe a brighter future lies ahead of them. Long live Liberia.

AGBOKA: Is Ghana’s Democratic Experiment worth Celebrating?

By:Godwin J. Y. Agboka

The visit by Barack Obama, America’s first black president, to Ghana is now history—as his much talked about and long-awaited trip has ended. That said, questions have been asked about his choice of Ghana over (say) Kenya, his father’s place of birth, where he (Obama) also traces his direct roots, or even Nigeria, one of Africa’s economic and political powerhouses.

The primary reason Barack Obama gave, in all his interviews, for choosing Ghana over other African countries (for his visit) was to reward and celebrate solid democratic credentials, at the heart which is good governance. These are attributes which, in his view, are a function of Ghana’s political and economic environment. Such steady and healthy attributes have also been acknowledged by many other scholars, writers, commentators, politicians, and even cynics. Nevertheless, a debate still rages on that has put under the microscope Ghana’s democratic credentials and that questions whether Ghana was worth the choice for Obama’s visit, given that it was the foremost reason for Obama’s choice.

I have read some analyses on this subject that have cast doubt on the democratic achievements of Ghana—negating Obama’s reason and choice. Some have called Ghana’s current environment, “shaky”; others have called it a “charade,” while others have rightly pointed to the many negative developments that characterized the 2008 elections as evidence of a political system that is bleeding. One writer even pointed to voting along tribal lines, and questioned why people in a truly democratic nation will do that.

Yet, others even say that electoral successes are not a good yardstick for assessing the success of a country’s democracy, a view I share. Indeed, democracy is such an abstract, vague, and, at the same time, a huge concept, that chalking successes in elections will all but satisfy only one condition. Even more so, elections in Africa—and, in some cases, all over the world—tend to favor the bully, the financially powerful, and the strong men.

There is little doubt that on a continent where many countries take the opposite direction when discussions of democracy surface, the bar for assessing good governance is often lowered. Thus, currently, the bar for good governance particularly has been lowered to such a level that anything mediocre by and from any country will be hailed as a success story. Prior to President Obama’s election, I did say that President Obama couldn’t perform any worse, considering the political and economic failures of the Bush administration. Thus, it is not entirely untrue that Ghana might be reaping the benefits of being part of a continent whose democratic achievements are so poor.

Nevertheless, to argue that Ghana’s democratic journey has been fraught with or still has had problems, so it should not be celebrated smacks of hypocrisy. Such a viewpoint is the work of a group of cynics and narrow thinkers, who think that democracy or good governance is a product—not a process. Does a country need to have a perfect democratic record to be considered a success story? What is the yardstick for determining success, anyway, within the context of the discussions of good governance and democracy? Is Ghana’s current political environment not a function of a historical process whose beginnings were a far-cry from what is happening today?

Didn’t the USA have its fair share of problems in the 2000 elections? Were there not registration-related problems in America’s 2008 elections? Do such developments make their system any less democratic? The argument can be made that the US has lost some shine as the democratic standard bearer of the world, because of the events of the past eight years, but, surely, other pioneers and torch bearers have had their own share of problems.

Perhaps, what President Obama shouldn’t have done was to have been calculated in his praise-singing mission that painted a rosy picture about the Ghanaian situation, and, therefore, fogged up the teething problems in Ghana’s political system. His speech almost fell into the trap of valorizing a fledging democratic nation, which is still tottering, but he was not wrong in his choice of Ghana, that is if good governance was his real reason. The events of the last seventeen (17) years have put Ghana on the map of nations that have made calculated attempts at respecting the rights of their citizenry through freedom of speech, respect for human rights, right to choice, and economic growth.

It is important to mention that even though Africa gets all the bad coverage for its poor democratic record, it is only young in terms of when it had the right to control its own destiny; more so, the concept of democracy is new to Africans. More specifically to my argument, Ghana is ONLY 50 years in this journey towards democratic stability and maturation, compared to other advanced nations that have been in this business for more than 200 years. Yet, throughout this process, Ghana has successfully organized five democratic elections since 1992, two of which have seen the transfer of power from one government to the other, including many other relatively healthy developments. Viewed on a continuum, the case can be made that the media landscape has also improved throughout Ghana’s political process—there are many developments I can point to.

The cynics soon forget that the 1992 in Ghana elections were almost a one-party affair, because the New Patriotic Party (NPP) justifiably argued that conditions were not ripe for it to contest the parliamentary elections. Fortunately, though, the 1996 elections were better, even though there were many malpractices in many areas. More significantly, whether it was a result of some external pressure or through his own doing, Jerry Rawlings handed over power to the NPP, after concerns had been raised earlier about whether he would leave office after his party lost power.

More recently in 2008, Nana Akufo Addo was almost seen as the de facto president by his peers, but having contested in the most closely contested elections in the country’s history, and coming off concerns of potential harassment from National Democratic Congress (NDC) officials, he and the NPP handed over power. Definitely, one can make the case of rigging and violence in these elections, but the cases that characterized the events of 2008 are nowhere near those of (say) 2000, 1996, or 1992.

Democracy is a work-in-progress that is always under constant revision. Thus, Ghana’s achievements—that is, if cynics will call them so—should be analyzed and discussed within a broader historical, political, and developmental context. Such a broader view will acknowledge that the events of 1996 were better than those of 2000, or the events of 2008 were better than those of 2000. Societies learn from history and progress is measured by the level of changes that have taken place today (building on yesterday’s).

It is retrogression if the events of yesterday are better than today’s. Surely, media freedom, a primary tenet of democratic development, was better under the NPP than it was under the NDC (1992-2000). That is because the NPP learned from history and improved upon events under the NDC. While democracy is not judged by the level of noise that people can make about a government without fear of being hounded, it is surely a mark of the progress a society has made (or is making).

Such developments, however, do not suggest that Ghana has an impeccable political system; there is no such thing as a faultless political process. Ask the pioneers of democracy! Definitely, the events of the last elections where people were hounded and killed are negative spots that leave a bad taste. The media landscape still suffers from political influences, not to mention shameful assaults on media personnel, including discrimination on gender lines. That rigging still characterizes our electoral process, while people still vote on tribal lines is a huge indictment of and a cause for concern in Ghana’s journey to political maturation.

What Obama should have said was that in spite of the healthy political and economic developments taking place in Ghana, there are many issues begging for attention. That said, he didn’t necessarily have to say that, because Ghanaians knew. Perhaps, Ghanaian leaders needed some motivation or encouragement that they were on the right path—as if to say that they don’t know what is happening in Ghana, but that is a subject for another write-up!

Democracy is akin to a manuscript that is always being reviewed and revised. No country needs to have a perfect system to warrant its celebration—in fact, there is no such thing as a “perfect system.” Ghanaians have a choice, though. They can go back to the days when they lived in a culture of silence. I am not sure anyone wants that. It is not Ghana’s fault that it is sandwiched by countries that have such a poor democratic record! Let’s not be cynical!

SIKANKU: Why Obama may be wrong on Ghana

By : Etse Sikanku

Africans especially Ghanaians made much ado-and rightly so- about Obama’s first visit to the continent of his father. And while there was no question about the depth of symbolism associated with his trip, intense debate prevailed-and still does-over why he chose Ghana.

Despite the bright spots in the country’s contemporary politics-and the huge potential it exudes, there is one fundamental point missing from the whole story.

Why isn’t anyone talking about the fact that from the realistic viewpoint, Ghana’s democracy still remains doubtful?

It has been said that “facts are sacred”: so let’s start from there since unlike opinions there can only be one set of them. Ghana’s place in history is unquestioned: first Sub-Saharan country to gain independence, five successful democratic elections since 1992, high voter turnout at elections and a relatively peaceful political atmosphere.

For the most practical purposes Ghana was the political beau idéal.

But while it is okay to encourage a seemingly progressive nation, any honest observer of our politics knows this isn’t quite the entire picture. Let’s get things straight. The irony of Obama’s trip is that while upholding the country as a model of democracy he failed to acknowledge the unmistakable paradox. Ghana may have organized five back to back elections since 1992 but its democracy remains shaky.

The official Washington explanation is that they’re “lifting up successful models” such as Ghana as a ‘reward’ for their democratic credentials. The media reported that Obama hopes his visit will spur others to “emulate the West African country’s democratic record.”

Ghana. Model of democracy? Really?

Is the US so desperate to prove to the world that democracy works or are they just naïve? Here is a country which cannot even fulfill the most basic of the democratic requirements: credible elections. Secondly, events from not just the last election in Ghana-but the ones preceding it-where a number of lives were lost from Accra to Bawku show that the democratic experiment is far from emulation. Party politics in Ghana is still largely defined by ethnicity, religion, money laundering and the cult of personality. Not issues and ideas. The “North” and Volta will continue to vote for anyone other than the NPP and Ashanti will always go NPP. What Tocqueville said of French society in the 19th century holds true today for Ghanaian politics- “shared hatreds are almost always the basis of friendships.”

It is only in Africa that sloppy elections are acceptable and everything is seen in relative terms; “Relatively peaceful” “relatively developed” “relatively stable” “relatively prosperous”. On what parameters is this relativism defined? I think most of us in Ghana like to hide our shortcomings by taking the easy way: make ourselves look good by pointing to worse neighbors.

Unfortunately, a nation that continues to lower standards is only preparing excuses for inevitable failure.

Many Ghanaians will be hard pressed for answers (since we’re supposed to be a model) if you ask them to identify a couple of reasons why we’re so “successful” and other African countries are not. If history indeed repeats itself, then in fact, Ghana’s contagious influence should be viewed with skepticism--considering how our predilection for coups right after independence caught on with the rest of the continent.

Almost everyone is writing about how inspirational Obama’s visit to Africa has been and I don’t want to be the party pooper. However the crux of my argument is that ignoring the underlying problems that continue to make us poor and “relatively stable” is hardly helpful. Worse still, we may one day find ourselves where Kenya did in January 2008. Don’t forget that like Ivory Coast, theirs was a country which had not experienced a single coup before the electoral violence marred what was otherwise a bastion of “relative stability”.

Better to admit and confront our shortcomings head on than risk asking ourselves later on: what happened?

ULZEN APPIAH: Obama talks to AllAfrica.com about visit to Ghana, etc

I haven't followed Barack Obama much since he became the US president but ever since news broke of his impending visit to Ghana July 10-11, I've become a little more attentive. I hear he will be giving a speech at the Independence Square for which Ghanaians from all walks of lie could go see him speak. Obama is noted for great speeches and I believe we have another one coming up, after his stirring speech at the American University of Cairo earlier this year.

Recently, he sat down with journalists from AllAfrica.com to talk about his visit to Ghana. Ghana is seen as one of the shining stars on the continent and it's easy to see why it would be chosen. It is also a leader in the Pan-African movement, with events like Panafest. President Kuffour also built great ties with Bush's America and the ties will continue with Obama-Mills. Barack Obama is believed to be visiting the Central Region during his short stay in Ghana, probably touring the slave castles there and learning about some more Black history.

There's been a lot of controversy over Obama's visit to Ghana, being his first to a Sub-Saharan country. Kenya feels it should have been them, since Barack's father was Kenyan and Nigeria feels it should have gotten the nod over Ghana. Wole Soyinka mentioned that Nigeria must put its house in order before it gets paid a visit by Obama and his statement sparked a lot in Naija with some criticizing him of 'treason'. Obama mentions his reason for visiting Ghana in the first part of this interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu0AECMc5iE


When asked about why he chose to go to Ghana, he said Ghana had undergone a couple of successful elections and President Mills has shown himself committed to a rule of law. He mentions that there is a direct correlation between governance and prosperity and he wants to highlight that - an effective model as an example for the rest of Africa. Barack Obama has been a big proponent of technological tools. Africans can SMS questions to Obama to be answered on his visit using these codes: Ghana (1731), Nigeria (32969), Kenya (5683) and South Africa (31958). He also talked about the importance of cheap and efficient agricultural technologies for Africa. Some low-tech technologies are also needed to improve food production.

People are mentioning Ghana's oil find as one of the major reasons for Obama's visit. Production has been slated for this year and though the quantities won't be near what is produced in Nigeria or Libya, it will be large enough to have a significant bearing on the nation's financial assets. Some also claim Ghana is going to agree to host an African Command (a US military base) something Nigeria and South Africa don't want to do, and the reason why these countries were bypassed for Ghana. They sound like conspiracy theories.

The second part of the Obama interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt2MucAPeHw


He harped on stability a lot in his interview; following models that work for a period of time as well as preaching stability. Concerning his legacy for Africa, he would like to see the United States as an effective partner for African countries and built political, civil and economic institutions that allowed for improved living conditions and greater security. I loved when he mentioned that Africans could stay in their countries and succeed. If you're following trends these days, it is becoming increasingly easy to succeed in Ghana and Africa.

It's exciting to see Obama choose to visit Ghana, but how will we measure the success of his visit? Cape Coast is seeing a facelift for his arrival, but will it see the kind of development it deserves afterwards? Would this visit increase investment in Ghanaian enterprises back home? There are many questions to answer and it sounds like a topic for a breakout session at BarCamp Diaspora.

In the spirit of Obama's visit to Ghana, if you will be around DC July 25th, you should try and attend BarCamp Diaspora. It will be a day's event of dialogue, discussions and demos about a rising Ghana, organized at Johns Hopkins' School of Advanced International Studies. If you have any interest in Ghana or Africa for that matter, and want to share ideas, network, learn about opportunities in Ghana or some of the businesses and projects out there, this is an event for you.

SIKANKU: It’s a mixed bag: fervor, indifference as Oba-macy takes on the world

This will be Obama's first visit to Sub-Saharan Africa since his transcendent election last fall

By Etse Sikanku
Published: July 3, 2009

For the first time in the post-modern era, a definitive consensus on American exceptionalism is emerging. But even more unpredictable was the rise of a black man as history’s harbinger.

So it is not surprising that Obama’s planned visit to Africa has generated interest globally and particularly in Ghana where I’ve now lost count of the stream of daily commentaries on this matter. This sounds like a good time to see whether Barack's foreign policy brand-Obamacy- will significantly change American diplomacy. That is,the idea of using dialogue including talking to state enemies instead of ignoring them.

Since foreign policy experts have already made mince meat of this subject, I headed to the streets of Iowa to find out what people in the United States think about Obama’s first presidential visit to sub-Saharan Africa.

Prince Eddie Etsey a Ghanaian resident in Iowa and an IT Service Delivery and Operations Manager captures the mood of most Ghanaians abroad when he says “It just shows how AWESOME Ghana is.”

According to Charles Abbott, from Rochester, New York and a Geography PhD, “Africa has an image problem. This visit probably makes more of a difference for Africa than the US. When people in the US think about Africa, five things come to mind: famine corruption, AIDS, war and animals. So it’s good that he’s visiting Ghana which is a stable country”.

Indeed Africa’s image problem is nothing but fabled. It may be hard to believe but an African American woman I once met in Missouri told me she never visited Africa because she couldn’t bring herself to living “among trees, animals and naked people.” Ouch.

No wonder then that for some, any semblance of normalcy in an African country-something they hope Obama’s visit will portray- is seen as a step in clearing such misconceptions.

Sunday Goshit, a Nigerian native who recently earned his doctorate from the University of Iowa believes that “Ghana has every opportunity to take the lead in Africa. It’s important he visited Ghana because the country is politically stable and has conducted relatively free and fair elections. Honestly I don’t think Obama’s policy on Africa is well grounded so such a visit could serve as an eye opener.”

To be sure, not much has been heard from Obama as far as his African policy is concerned. During the campaign period he set out his agenda for Africa along three signposts: (i) accelerating Africa’s integration into the global economy, (ii) enhancing the peace and security of African states and (iii) strengthening relationships with those governments and institutions committed to deepening democracy.

Yet, if Obama’s Africa policy is scarcely nuanced, his visit may be even less obvious to others. “Is he really?” “I didn’t know about that”, “I’m not interested in that” are some of the responses I got when I asked some Americans about Barack’s visit. In fact one African American lady coldly told me straight in the face “I don’t care”. But I was a bit taken aback when another quickly jumped in asking “G-h-a-n-a-a?…where’s that?”

Interestingly too, not all Ghanaians abroad are completely sold on Obama’s presidency “I am a Christian before I’m black” said Kwame Nyarko a graduate student who says he is not as excited about America’s first black president because some of Obama’s policies run counter to his Christian beliefs. Maxine Channel Sencherey a nursing student originally from Ghana says Obama is paying peripheral attention to the country by making such a whistle stop “Why the rush when he has four more years?” she asks.

Nonetheless, not everyone is as miffed either. “I believe it’s a good thing he’s visiting because America has to reach out to the rest of the world”. And for conservatives who believe this is just another opportunity for the Obama’s to rack up their frequent flyer miles, another Iowa native who works as a security guard at the Old Capitol Mall says “who cares what the Republicans think? Obama needs to do something in places like Africa where there’s genocide going on”

Surely, the international political system is in constant flux. Alliances and adversaries are being recalibrated. Not only is a controversial war on terror being waged but the threat of a nuclear arms race looms large. Combined with a declining global economy and an increasing divide between the haves and have-nots, the international system is changing in ways never before imagined. Even America-with its slave history-has voted for its first black president.

What does Obama’s election and Africa visit mean for both the continent and America?

This will continue to be a hotly debated issue. Sadly, the question some Ghanaians are asking is this; “what can we squeeze from Obama”? Instead, what we should be asking is “What can we squeeze from ourselves?”

Actually, if historical precedent is anything to go by then we do not have to look far for answers. Three things: national interest, national interest, and national interest.

Obama maybe an unabashed realist and a brazen pragmatist but American foreign policy has hardly been a blank slate.

Announcing Bar Camp 2009

Hi friends here’s information about a really awesome camp you can attend if you have sometime this summer:-)

On December 22, 2008, 100 plus young Ghanaians met in Accra to exchange ideas on entrepreneurship, innovation and development for a rising Ghana during BarCamp Ghana '08.
On July 25, 2009 the conversation moves to Washington, D.C.
You can be part of that conversation by joining us at BarCamp Diaspora '09 at the School of Advanced International Studies - Johns Hopkins University.

The theme for BarCamp Diaspora '09 is "Investing our talent where it counts"

BarCamp Diaspora '09 will be an ad-hoc gathering and a day of discussions, demos, dialogue, panels and speakers.

Unlike a conference, at a barcamp everyone is both a speaker and a participant. The content is provided by all attendees based on their interests.

BarCamp Diaspora '09 will be the first such event in the United States, focused on bringing together
the African diaspora to exchange ideas on doing business in Ghana, West Africa.

Who should attend?
Anyone who is interested in using skills, talent, resources to benefit Ghana and the Diaspora
Register today at the BarCamp Diaspora website at a cost of $20

Spread the word about BarCamp Diaspora '09 by grabbing badges
Support and donate to us to keep the participation costs low and for sponsorship opportunities, contact us
http://www.barcampghana.org/barcampdiaspora09/register

AMARTEY-TAGOE: Bloggers beware!

By: Edward Amartey-Tagoe, Accra-Ghana.

I must admit I discovered my passion for blogging through a colleague of mine not too long ago. And since then my interest in this activity has kept on escalating by the day. What I however never considered was the fact that I could be held liable for every single word I put on my blog. I am sure a few other bloggers too didn’t have this knowledge. It makes this activity a little bit scarier; I however am in support of holding everyman responsible for his utterances in one way or the other .

In the United States, the First Amendment was adopted on December 15 1791, and states that;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The other section of the debate is defamation of character. Defamation of character is often used to describe accusations of slander, libel or both. Whiles slander involves verbal derogatory statements, libel involves written ones. Despite the freedom of speech regulations in place to encourage as much free expressions as possible from the public, we should still be concerned about what we say or write because such statements could end us up with heavy fines.

Lawsuits against bloggers increased from just 13 in 2003 to 106 in 2007 in the US. To date there have been about $17.4 million in trial awards against bloggers, according to the Media Law Resource Center in New York. Bloggers are feeling so comfortable writing about almost anything that comes to mind, therefore there is the temptation to venture into areas where even Angels fear to tread.

It is so amazing to know how many blogs come up every day. There are blogs that talk about almost everything, from exciting Ghanaian experiences to secrets hidden in the bedrooms of African women. As much as we have legal instruments supporting us to express ourselves in every creative way we can, we need not forget that we can be held liable for every character we put on our blogs.

It is very interesting though; this trend has created a business model for some legal and insurance firms to make a few dollars. Insurance companies are now insuring bloggers, promising to shield them against lawsuits in this direction. Bloggers pay between $200 and $350 per year to be protected from such court drama.

At the same time, companies are increasingly employing automated technology to scour the Internet for copyrighted materials and negative remarks. Because of this, sites that are in the business of rating everything from college best Viagra sale centers to doctors and contractors are being sued by recipients of unfair reviews. Sometimes the problem has to do with using copyright materials such as pictures, templates and diagrams on our blogs without proper permission. In worse cases bloggers are sued for directly plagiarizing an article authored by someone else and making it look as though it were their own. Here are nine copyright myths I knew almost nothing about.

I recently discovered a very interesting Copyscape tool that would be of immense assistance to bloggers who are interested in avoiding plagiarism and also finding out who is stealing their ideas. I am throwing in an advice to my fellow bloggers all over the world to be very careful about the kind of posts they come up with, unless of course one has a few bucks to waste on legal fees.

Circumstances of our birth

By: Afeseh Ngwa Hilary.

I caught myself giving God counsel,
As He consulted with Holy council,

We don't decide what comes with everyday,
We only decide what we do with any day,

Like the circumstances of our birth,
We may be born into dearth,

It is independent of our will,
Only the sanction of the Holy will,

This is for the child in the dark,
Who only knows poverty very stark,

This is for the child in the slumps,
Who lives only on the air in his/her lungs,

This is for the child with a brilliant mind,
This is for the child in the hardest grind,

Who may never be able to read the words I write,
Who has been robbed of every human right,

This is for the child in the womb,
On premature eviction to the tomb,

This is for the child in the heat of cross fire,
Yet alien to the Holy fire,

This is for the child on ten toes,
Who has known only many woes,

This is for the male child with the burdens of a man,
The female child with the pressures of a woman,

This is to the child who has never met love,
And knows not what to do in the face of love,

This is for the child of rape,
Clad in a doubtful drape,

This is for the child without a mother,
The child without a father,

This is for the child with terminal disease,
The child unaccustomed to ease,

This is for the child of violence,
Whose voice has been silence,

This is for the child shut off from opportunity,
The shut door can be an opportunity,

It is for you dear child that I bleed,
It is for you that I weep,
It is for you that in my folly, I question the Holy creed,
It is for you that I wish I another breed,

It is for you that I tried to counsel God,
That every child will be born to peace,
That every child will know the warmth of love,
That every child will have a good father and mother,

It is for you that I tried to plead with God,
That every child will be able to read and write,
That every child will be free of disease,
That every child will have a chance to grow,

It is for you dear child that I entreat the mercies of God,
That every child will have the same opportunity,
That every child will have the same obstacles to challenge growth,
That every child will become something,

And God said to me 'child'
Every child is already something,
No child is a mistake,
Every child is special,
There is a plan for every child,
There is a seed in every child,
There is an indomitable spirit in every child,

Those children, give my love a chance,
They give my compassion a chance,
They give my sacrifice a chance,
They give my grace a chance,

then God went on...
I need a vessel to reach them,
I need vessels to reach them,
One person at a time,
We can reach one child at a time,
With enough vessels,
Like a million tiny ripples,
Together we can build a mighty wave,
And set in motion an impregnable tide,
To begin to overturn the assaults on children,
Together we can begin to give them a chance,
I want your partnership, not that I need it,
but you get to know me best on my JOB...
A tough job but fear not, I will be with you always...

And I said Father I believe, equip me and use me,
According to your will...
You can say yes too...be a vessel...
Child abuse can be retired from our world...

Lauren with chimps

I hope someone will be interested in this....

On Sunday, I am heading to Bend, Oregon to intern at Chimps Inc. It is a sanctuary for eight chimpanzees who were abused in the entertainment industry. While there, I will be playing with the chimps and making their environment enjoyable. Also, I will research captive breeding and how it influences reproductive activities and mental health of the apes.
You can follow my days at laurenwithchimps.blogspot.com.


Whether you "believe" that chimps are our relatives or not, although there is scientific evidence to prove this, they should be treated with kindness---not be forced to perform for humans. This sanctuary helps chimps who have been put under this horrible psychological and physical constraint. And also, looks for ways to help wild chimps that are threatened daily by logging, agroforestry, development, bush meat hunters, illegal international trade, etc.

Thanks for reading and please, feel free to leave comments/questions on my blog...and I will do my best to answer them!

Cheers!