| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Obama apologised to Europe during his trip to France in April 2009. He was apologetic to the Arab world in his speech in Cairo, Egypt. But during his trip to Ghana he opined that Africans are responsible for their multifarious problems and said: “It is easy to point fingers, and to pin the blame for these (Africa’s) problems on others”. Obama did not have the courage to admit and take full responsibility for the role of America in the ruination of the continent.
When Obama travelled to Europe in April 2009, in a speech in France he said.
In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive... So I've come to Europe this week to renew our partnership, one in which America listens and learns from our friends and allies...So let me say this as clearly as I can: America is changing.
Obama sounded apologetic to the Arab world when he travelled to Egypt. He said:
We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world — tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate...More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim—majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations...I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect.
But when Obama travelled to Ghana in July 11, 2009, he said:
It is easy to point fingers, and to pin the blame for these (Africa’s) problems on others. Yes, a colonial map that made little sense bred conflict, and the West has often approached Africa as a patron, rather than a partner. But the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants.
Obama did not have the courage to admit and take full responsibility for the role of America in the ruination of the continent.
Some American States like Virginia have apologised to Black Americans for the slave trade because undoubtedly the slave trade benefited America and was promoted by the United States government. For a long period of time Washington D.C. actually served as the chief port through which slaves were imported.
The Southern region of the United States paid for slaves to be brought over. The Southern plantation owners were supplied with their money from Northern industrialists who knew exactly how the South was growing cotton at so cheap a price. For at least 80 years of its existence the U.S. government condoned and allowed the slavery to flourish.
Yes Obama said, “Africa's future is up to Africans”, But at the root of the current crisis in Africa is surely the Slave trade, Colonialism, neo-colonialism, American imperialism, trade imbalances, the support for corruption and exploitation of Africa by American multi-national companies.
As Obama himself admitted: “I say this knowing full well the tragic past that has sometimes haunted this part of the world. I have the blood of Africa within me, and my family’s own story encompasses both the tragedies and triumphs of the larger African story”.
Obama said in Cairo: “each nation gives life to democracy in its own way, and in line with its own traditions”, but America and the West has not allowed African democracy to evolve on its own. But in so many ways and in so many times, they have interfered in Africa’s development – by sponsoring coups (against Murtala Mohammed and Mobutu Sese Seko against Patrice Lumumba); by manipulating elections (Nigeria, 1960’s); by encouraging murder (Abiola); by doctoring census results (Nigeria); by Imposing foreign and harmful policies (IMF/World Bank); and by generally ravaging the continent and bringing about environmental and social degradation (oil exploration in the Niger Delta, Copper and Diamond Mining in Congo)
Barack Obama said in Ghana: “for far too many Africans, conflict is a part of life, as constant as the sun. There are wars over land and wars over resources”, but what he failed to add was the role of western and American companies in fuelling these conflicts- in the Niger Delta, in Congo, Sierra Leone, Congo and elsewhere.
Obama is right when he said: “development depends upon good governance. That is the ingredient which has been missing in far too many places, for far too long. That is the change that can unlock Africa's potential. And that is a responsibility that can only be met by Africans”.
However, let us not forget that at the root of Africa’s predicament are the tri-partite combination of Bad leadership, Rich Countries exploitation of Africa and the imposition of wrong policies by international Institutions.
Malawi is a case in point. Not quite long ago a New York Times article describes how Malawi went from food aid recipient to regional food provider in just two years after re-introducing fertilizer subsidies for its low-income farmers. The move contravened years of policy guidance from the World Bank and IMF, which warn against such distortions of the “free market.”
In other words, by violating what its wealthy benefactors in Europe and North America say, Malawi achieved success. Unfortunately for Nigeria, the British and American imposition of northern domination on Nigeria has produced semi-literate leaders like Babangida that went against better counsel and imposed world Bank/IMF prescribed Structural Adjustment Programme that ruined Nigeria’s economy.
Obama has come and gone, the speech is classic and the rhetoric is exceptional. But the best way to test whether he would be different from other American presidents is to explore the question of African strategic interests, or, alternatively, American strategic interests in Africa, and examine the ways in which and the degree to which Obama's pursuit of American policy is consistent with or diverges from that of his predecessor.
For example: Africom was established during George W. Bush's regime, will the Barack Hussein Obama's regime continue with Africom? What about the interest of American oil companies in Angola, Equatorial Guinea and the Niger Delta? Will an Obama regime move against their interest vis-a-vis African environmental, economic and political interest?
In Obama’s speech in Ghana, did he comment on Barclays Bank establishing a tax haven in Ghana, warning against such vehicle being used for tax evasion and money laundering – in support of transparency and anti-corruption efforts, to expand cooperation in intelligence gathering and sharing and reigning in the vicarious liability of tax havens and offshore banks.
Did he talk about pushing the boundaries of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) (passed by the US Congress before his tenure) to have the expanded power to bite both givers and takers of bribes – both American multi-national countries and kleptomaniac African leaders?
Did he talk about stopping and Withdrawing US Visa from corrupt African politicians – to stop them spending their looted funds in America; Stopping the marketplace for high stakes elite bribery?
One observer said: To many, the Bush personality was a bit too crude and, in some respects, brutish for the world to accept. Put some colour on him, with a sophisticated and intelligent personality, and now you have the same agenda for Africa, skilfully repackaged in an Obama. The agenda remains the same--imperialistic, exploitative, and, ultimately, deadly--but the general perception is different. It is seductive.
The significance of President Barack Obama's planned trip to Ghana should not be over-emphasized. As written by Mathew Kukah:
A more important question is, beyond the emotional and symbolic value, what difference will a Presidential visit make in the lives of ordinary people in the country? Three American Presidents have visited Nigeria as far as I can remember (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George Bush). The main drivers and beneficiaries of Presidential visits are businessmen and women who, under the shadow of the President, seek to cut the best business deals, concessions, and monopolies they can get for their businesses.
For example, President Carter visited Nigeria during his Presidency but it was not until over 20 years of his leaving office that we have reaped the benefits of his tremendous work in fighting guinea worms around the world under the banner of his Jimmy Carter Foundation. When President Clinton visited Nigeria, the village of Ushafa within the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) was the cynosure of all eyes. Today, none of the promises made during that visit have been realized by all sides. The good work that President Clinton has done for us in Nigeria through his Bill Clinton Foundation in the area of HIV/AIDS surpasses a 100 fold what his visit as President achieved. So, by themselves, Presidential visits are useful, but surely, they should not be the measure for a country's greatness or lack of.
Nigerians and Kenyans have gone to town to second guess Obama’s trip and come to the dubious conclusion that the visit is an indictment on their flawed elections. Fr Kukah asked: If elections were an issue for Obama, would he go out of his way to incur the wrath of his fellow countrymen by hugging or bowing to President Hugo Chavez or the King of Saudi Arabia as he did recently? While Chavez had amended the Constitution and secured an open ended tenure, Saudi Arabia's citizens have neither seen a ballot box or ballot paper in their lives. Is President Obama the world's electoral Pope who is going around rewarding and punishing election defaulters? Kukah concluded: It is the oil, stupid!
Yes, Ghana has just discovered oil. It therefore makes sense that the US, with its gargantuan appetite for oil ensures that it is not caught napping.
Kukah added: This visit is, in simple terms, in pursuit, defence and protection of the permanent interests of the United States of America which is the primary responsibility of any President. These interests, whether they are economic, geopolitical, strategic or even intangible, are varied and complex and only the US knows and defines them. America has shown that it will go to any length or overlook any international obligations or obstacles to achieve these interests.
I have written elsewhere that in choosing to visit Ghana ahead of either Kenya or Nigeria, "The official word is that we're celebrating democracy, but there are probably some ulterior motives," I continued, "It has not gone unnoticed that oil was discovered, and Ghana has 600 million barrels under it and offshore. And many Ghanaian leaders think the U.S. might like Ghana to serve as a kind of capital for Africom," the U.S. military command responsible for African operations.
Further Ghana sits on the eastern Atlantic Ocean, on the southern side of Africa's western hump. The tropical nation of low plains and plateaus is home to 23 million people. This places Ghana at a strategic location relative to Nigeria and other oil rich countries like Equatorial Guinea. "Using Ghana as a hub would allow the U.S. to keep an eye on Nigeria and the whole Gulf of Guinea." The United States already keeps a very large embassy in the Ghanaian capital, Accra.
West Africa is arguably the poorest and least stable area on earth. It is also afflicted by a number of transnational trafficking flows, attracted by and aggravating the special vulnerability of this region. On the other hand, the region is rich in Oil, Gold and other precious resources.
The United states are eager to be well-positioned in the on-going scramble for these resources amidst threats from China, Russia and India challenging the dominance of the United States and Europe - West Africa’s traditional friends.
Nigeria, the economic powerhouse and home to half the population of the region is mired in the conflict in the Niger Delta - rooted in grievances of residents, who, despite the wealth beneath their land, remain very poor - organised criminal activity and endemic corruption.
Moreover I warned that Africa should not expect too much from Obama. The reason being that those that understand the way things really work in the United States, a change of a person as president do not necessarily signal a change in policy and direction. In the United States, the president is less a leader than a manager of policies formulated by corporate elite interests. Thus there is stability of the political system, regardless of who is president. US presidents come and go, but the interests remain constant.
Let me be clear. I am not downplaying the significance Obama’s visit to Ghana as the first African-American president of the almighty US of A. However, I believe that this visit is for President Obama to use Ghana as a platform to address Africa by laying down where he wishes to take the US.
President Obama is ultimately interested in expanding America’s interests, America's commitment to seeking collaborators around the world in the search for global peace and an end to world terrorism.
Yes, as Kukah also pointed out:
Obama will politely but firmly speak directly to the leaders of Africa, calling for an end to corruption and the need for an equitable distribution and allocation of the continent's resources. He will call for an end to violence and the need for Africans to hold their leaders accountable and responsible. These may be nice sound bites. The real challenge is that as he may realize, Africans have heard all this before. What they are yet to see is a clear signal from the US and the international community that they are truly committed to helping Africa. For, to do this, they must be ready to expose their multinational corporations and other corporate crooks (e.g. Halliburton), the sponsors of strife and violence in Africa in the course of the exploitation of mineral resources and the need to energise and support civil society groups.
However, in the end, I agree with Fr Kukah:
Whatever moral exhortations President Obama may make, African leaders must have the courage to admit and take full responsibility for the ruination of the continent. They must genuinely admit that effective collaboration entails their being held accountable to their international obligations. They must sign on to the inviolability of the democratic quest, the sanctity and dignity of the individuals, their rights to vote for or against their leaders.
Mr. Obama's choice of Ghana should trigger a bout of self-questioning in Nigeria and Kenya. Let Mr Obama’s visit move and inspire our leaders to improve economic development, poverty alleviation and peace in West Africa and the continent.
But please Africans, don’t look up to an Obama as a saviour of the continent!
Daniel Elombah
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
