FOOD SAFETY THREATENED: As Biosafety Law Comes Into Force In Ghana

Ghanaians may wish to ask, just whose interests does Ghana's Biosafety Committee represent? Are they interested in safety? Or are they just interested in introducing genetically engineered and patented food into Ghana?

How can we know for sure? One way to assess this issue is to highlight the forces that helped create the Biosafety law that they oversee. Another way is to examine the backgrounds and interests of the members of the Biosafety Committee.

Lets start first with the influences that shaped the writing of Ghana's Biosafety Law. There is clear evidence that it is a creation based on aggressive guidance from the US Government and the US Embassy in Accra. We know this from observation and from reading leaked US State Department cables. With the influence of the powerful biotechnology lobbies, the US embassies across the world have taken up the key economic task to open markets for the giant corporations who also are major funders of the US political class. We know about their active participation in writing Ghana's biosafety laws from cable 10ACCRA59, among others. Hillary Clinton stated that in cooperating African countries the US embassies “offered some assistance in drawing up the country plans". We also know that in Africa, the US has been aggressively pushing genetic engineering, GE, representing it as a weapon against hunger, and a way to cope with drought and climate change.

Why should the US embassy be so interested in helping Ghana in developing its policies for Biosafety? Perhaps there are some individuals in the embassy who truly believe the claims that GE can be beneficial, because it is so widespread in their own country. However, no-one can deny the huge political influence of the biotechnology industry in the US, and how this has influenced the US embassy agenda.

So let’s be clear. “Biosafety” means opening Ghana's door to genetically modified organisms, the key profit generator for agribusiness. The underlying premise we are being asked to believe is that “what is good for bio-technology companies is good for Ghana”.

Should we Ghanaians really believe this? Let’s look at the evidence. In all the major countries that have adopted GMOs, including the US itself, but also Brazil, and Argentina, large scale agribusiness based on mono-cropping of GMO crops means an industrial mode of agriculture. Agribusiness has created an agro-export economy for commodities and primary goods to satisfy the needs of global markets.

This may generate export earnings for politicians, and profits for the companies, but this is an extractive model of production, which has destroyed the livelihoods, peace and well-being of rural communities.  The people who live in its way on family land they have farmed for generations are treated as having out-moded “non-viable livelihoods”, who must ultimately leave their land and communities for the urban slums. They are pushed out of the way by economic and sometimes political forces.

This has already happened in vast stretches of land in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia. through land-grabbing. It is also starting to happen in Africa. There are well-documented examples in Tanzania, Cameroon, Mali, Ethiopia and Mozambique. Those rural people who are left, remain mostly as “contract labourers” serving the needs of agro-industrial corporations. They work as low paid labour, where they used to own their own farms They and their families are often beset by health problems from constant exposure to the chemicals used by agribusiness that saturate the land the water and the air. .

Is this our vision of a “modern” Ghana? Is this the future for agriculture that we want? To those who proclaim that introducing GMOs are in the best interests of small scale farmers in Ghana, do they not see the havoc that industrial agriculture, in which GMOs often play a key role, has created for farm families in other countries?

If by chance, they are not aware of how agro-industial, GMO centric model of agricultural production has affected other countries, let us briefly clarify them here. The main trend is that agro-industrial agriculture ultimately drives the so-called “inefficient” small scale farmers off the land. The displaced rural populations crowd together around the urban peripheries of new super-cities. The consequences of this compulsive urbanisation are marginalisation, social fragmentation, extreme insecurity, hunger, poor nutrition, rising levels of disease. All of this combines to create ever increasing social and political destabilization.

In China, the human suffering caused by this massive shift of peasant farmers to the cities was somewhat mitigated by the availability of export manufacturing jobs. But here in Ghana, can any reasonable person think that there are enough jobs around in Accra, Kumasi and Tamale for rural youth? Is there room for a massive increase in the ranks of those engaged in “ka ya ye” in our cities?

This is only one of the negative outcomes that Ghana’s Biosafety Committee, with its recent approvals for growing test fields of Bt cotton and Genetically Engineered (GE) varieties of rice, is likely to impose on us. For they see these field trials only as the beginning of a much wider program to promote GE corn, cowpeas and sweet potatoes. What do the members of the Bio-safety think is so special about Ghana that we can avoid the negative, social, health and environmental consequences seen in other countries? Do they really believe that what is best for the biotechnology companies, profits, and shareholders is best for the majority of Ghanaians?

Let us now examine the second question. Who are the people appointed to ensure the “biosafety” of Ghanaian citizens and the biodiversity of our mother Ghana? What are their interests? Although there are many calls for transparency, there is not much information publicly available that tells us who the members of the Biosafety Committee are, or anything about their backgrounds.

But we do know that Professor Walter Alhassan is a member of the Biosafety Committee. So let us begin by looking at his background. He has been an active and strong spokesman for genetic engineering, more loosely termed biotechnology. Most of his education and employment have been indirectly funded by Monsanto and Syngenta. He received his PhD in Animal and Poultry Science from the University of Guelph. Multi-national companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayor Crop Science, and Semex have set up in Guelph because of the ability to closely interact with research and the ease of access to human, capital, and government resources, as well as the ability to attract investment. Monsanto recruits new staff from among Guelph's students.

Professor Alhassan received his MSc in Dairy Science from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. The Dairy Dept in the University of Wisconsin has been particularly active in working with Bovine Growth Hormone, which is banned in most countries outside the US. Agriculture at the University of Wisconsin receives a lot of funding from Monsanto.

He received his Certificate of Advanced Studies in Biosafety and Plant Genetic Resources Management from the University of Geneva. The University of Geneva is another hotbed of genetic modification and genetic engineering.  University of Geneva Laboratory of Plant Genetics concentrates on research in gene silencing, the basis for genetic modification. They receive significant funding from Syngenta.

Professor Alhassan works closely with FARA, The Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa.  He was a consultant to FARA's SABIMA project and joint author of its report.  According to its website, FARA's science agenda contains 4 work streams. Two are specifically about GMOs, although they usually avoid saying that directly.  The FARA Science Agenda includes support for G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition.

Despite its rhetoric of good intentions, the G8 New Alliance initiative is specifically designed to give priority to unprecedented access for multinational companies to resources in Africa. Here is most the telling quote:

"To access cash under the initiative, African governments have to make far-reaching changes to their land, seed and farming policies."

The Guardian reports: "The new alliance will lock poor farmers into buying increasingly expensive seeds – including genetically modified seeds – allow corporate monopolies in seed selling, and escalate the loss of precious genetic diversity in seeds – absolutely key in the fight against hunger. It will also open the door to genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa by stopping farmers' access to traditional local varieties and forcing them to buy private seeds."  This is also the agenda of the Gates Foundation and of AGRA.

There is much evidence contradicting the premise that “what is good for agro-industrial and biotech corporations is good for Ghana”.  A review of this evidence points to a very different conclusion. 

What global agro-industrial complex represents is a modern form of genetically modified colonialism. They are waging an all-out effort, country by country, to control the food supply, and especially seeds. This is the path that the Biosafety Committee is encouraging Ghana to follow.

So what is this evidence? Let us start in Europe. First, let us consider that despite strong and angry lobbying by the US, most of Europe has so far resisted the introduction of GMOs. This already should give us Ghanaians reasons to think. Why are Europeans so opposed to GMOs? Why not embrace all those wonderful benefits being enjoyed in the US and Brazil?  Why are GMOs good for Africa and not for Europe?

Secondly, a recent study in Europe shows that the only country in Europe to adopt GMOs, Spain, has already lost significant diversity among its seeds. The other European countries studied have done better in maintaining their seed diversity and productivity.

Professor Alhassan is a charming, well-educated person. We cannot know his true motivation for advocating GMOs for Ghana. But given his background, can Ghanaians really entrust him with our “biosafety”? It is clear Professor Alhassan has a serious conflicts of interest being both an advocate for genetic engineering and a member of the Biosafety Committee.

We don't have a full list of the names of the other members of Ghana's Biosafety Committee.  We know a couple of the names from articles in the news.  The Biosafety Committee was already in place when Ghana's Biosafety Law was passed.  The members were quoted as being pleased because, in their view, it meant GMOs would be allowed in Ghana.  Here are two members that were named:

• Professor Emmanuel Quaye, Chairman of the National Biosafety Committee

• Dr Yaa Osei, Member of the National Biosafety Committee.

Both Professor Quaye and Dr. Osei, along with Professor Alhassan spoke with enthusiasm of genetic engineering coming to Ghana following the passage of the Biosafety Act. Professor Quaye spoke to the press about “leading the crusade”.

Clearly, there seems to be similar deep conflict of interest problems among these other members. We cannot look into the hearts and discern the true motivations of these three well educated individuals. However, one can be forgiven for thinking that we Ghanaians are entrusting foxes to guard our chickens!

Ghanaians need to know more about their National Biosafety Committee and their interests. We should be deeply sceptical that the interests of the global agro-industrial/GMO corporations are also in the best interests of small scale Ghanaian farmers.  We need be vigilant about how agribusiness money is being used. There is a record not just of lobbying funding research, but also of bribery by Monsanto in Indonesia, Turkey and even in Canada. How can we know the various ways that Monsanto and its allies are influencing scientific or political decisions in Ghana behind the scenes with their money?

Whatever the answers to these questions, Ghanaians are entitled to know. We need a free and open debate.  The Ghanaian public, particularly small scale farmers and consumers, not just scientists who are already advocates for GMOs, need to have their say. We need to ensure the well-being of our rural communities, our farm families, our local seeds, our health, and our environment.  We need to ensure the biosafety of Ghanaians and the Ghanaian food supply. This is a task we cannot entrust to a small group of GMO advocates on the Biosafety committee.

For Life, The Environment, and Social Justice,

By Ali-Masmadi Jehu-Appiah,

Chairperson, FSG

Editorial

POOR MAHAMA!

President John Dramani Mahama is not in an envious position. His every word is twisted for political ends and there is a deliberate campaign to make him look his worse.

 Last Monday, President Mahama told a gathering of youth leaders that the so-called GYEEDA report which is currently in circulation is only a draft.

He said he has received the final report and would ensure that it is published as soon as possible.

What a section of the media put out was completely different from what the President had said.

 The media claimed that the president said that the report presented to him on GYEEDA is a draft report and it is being worked upon.

By this distortion of what the President said the impression was created that his government is involved in a grand design to cover up the filth in GYEEDA.

The bigger problem is not that the President is regularly being quoted out of context and sometimes being completely misrepresented. It is that the communication machinery of his government is unable to counter this negative propaganda.

It appears that President Mahama is increasingly becoming the sacrificial lamb of his party and Government.

Poor President Mahama!

Snowden's father grateful to Putin

The father of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden praised Russian President Vladimir Putin for granting the whistleblower political asylum despite pressure from the United States, which has continued to express frustration with Russia's decision.

In a Wednesday interview with Reuters, Lon Snowden said he did not believe Putin would change his mind and send the whistleblower back to the US to face espionage charges. Snowden’s father made the comments on Wednesday – the same day US President Barack Obama canceled a planned trip to Moscow.

“President Vladimir Putin has stood firm. I respect his strength and courage,” Lon Snowden said. “He has stood firm against the face of intense pressure from our government and I have to believe that he will continue to stand firm.” 

Mr. Snowden said that he has not spoken to his son since Edward traveled from Hawaii to Hong Kong and then onto Russia after revealing the existence of secret government programs that routinely monitor the telephone and electronic communications of millions of Americans. Other revelations included American spying on foreign diplomats and international metadata interception. 

Prior to making the disclosures, Edward Snowden worked for the CIA as a private contractor enlisted with the NSA as a consultant. In an interview with The Guardian after the leaks went public, Snowden described his previous life as “very comfortable,” living with a girlfriend and earning approximately $122,000 a year. 

“I am absolutely convinced that my son faced a moral hazard,” Lon Snowden told Reuters. “I believe that my son revealed real abuses by the government and I believe that we have many politicians, up to the highest levels, many politicians who are threatened and embarrassed by that.” 

Obama had planned to visit Moscow ahead of September’s G20 economic summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. The Snowden disagreement is the latest in a line of differences between the two countries – tensions are also mounting over nuclear arms control and the new Russian law that prohibits "gay propaganda" among minors. 

“Following a careful review begun in July, we have reached the conclusion that there is not enough recent progress in our bilateral agenda with Russia to hold a US-Russia summit in early September,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement. 

US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry are still expected to meet with Russian leaders Friday to discuss the nations’ opposite stance on the Syrian conflict. 

“These games of ‘Well, I’m not going to go to this meeting,’ or ‘I’m not going to that meeting,’…I do not believe that President Vladimir Putin will cave to that,” Lon Snowden said of the fractured relationship. 

“This isn’t about Russia. The fight isn’t in Russia,” he said. “The fight is right here. The fight is about these programs that undermine, infringe upon, violate our constitutional rights.”

Mr. Snowden said he “absolutely” believes his son will eventually return to the United States, although the family was first trying to secure an American attorney who would represent the whistleblower. 

Washington Thinks You Are Stupid

US President Hussein Obama

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

There’s the old saying that if the government fears the people, there is liberty, but if the people fear the government there is tyranny.  The criminals in Washington not only do not fear us, they do not respect us. Washington looks upon Americans as stupid sheeple.

Washington believes that it can tell the population anything and the people will believe it. For example, the official line is that the recession that began in December 2007 ended in June 2009.  Many Americans believe this even thought they have not personally experienced economic recovery. Indeed, they are sinking further into poverty and near poverty. 

And don’t forget those nonexistent weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was alleged by Washington to possess. Or the Gulf of Tonkin fake event when Washington claimed that its warship was attacked by North Vietnam.  Really, the list of official lies is very long. Anyone who believes anything that Washington says is too naive to be let out of the house alone. But Americans believe the lies, because that is what they think patriotism requires.

Relying on the proven gullibility of the bulk of the US population, Washington claims to have uncovered an al Qaeda plot to attack US embassies across North Africa and the Middle East. To foil the plot, Washington closed 19  embassies for the past week-end and for this week also. 

Washington has not explained how closing the embassies foils the plot. If al Qaeda wants to blow up the embassies, it can blow them up whether they are open or closed. 

If al Qaeda wants to kill the embassy personnel, they can kill them at home or on the way to work or later in the embassies when the alert passes.

I only check in with the presstitute media in order to ascertain whether my current estimate of their prostitution for Washington is accurate.  Possibly I missed some expression of skepticism about the latest terrorist threat. But I did hear NPR’s account. Back in the Reagan years, NPR was an independent voice. Today it is part of the presstitute media. NPR lies for Washington with the best of them. 

The US media has ignored the obvious fact that as soon as the American population, Congress, and Washington’s puppet allies, such as Germany, made an issue over the NSA’s clearly unconstitutional and totally illegal universal spying, the Obama regime pushed the Fear Button and hyped a new terror plot in order to shut up critics and bring Congress and Germany back in line.

Washington proclaimed that a “threat” was discovered that al Qaeda–an organization that Washington is using in Washington’s effort to overthrow the Assad government in Syria and one that is enriched by US military contracts to affiliated groups in Afghanistan–was going to blow up US embassies in the Middle East and North Africa. Washington did not explain why al Qaeda, a recipient of Washington’s largess, was going to turn off the money spigot by attacking US embassies.

I am surprised that bombs haven’t been set off in the embassies in order to prove the value of the National Stasi Agency’s spying, thereby shaming those in Congress and among the puppet states in Europe who object to the spying.

Once you give a moment’s thought to Washington’s claim, you see that Washington is proving its impotence by hyping such non-existent threats. Officially, the US has been at war with al Qaeda since October 7, 2001. The “superpower” has been battling a few thousand lightly armed al Qaeda for almost 12 years, and what is the result?  

Despite Washington’s claims to have killed al Qaeda’s top leaders, including Osama bin Laden himself, Washington has lost the war. Al Qaeda has grown so powerful that it not only fights in Syria, with Washington’s help, against Assad, but also has prevented the US military from occupying Afghanistan. Moreover, in addition to al Qaeda’s military success against the “superpower” and the chaos that al Qaeda continues to produce in Iraq, al Qaeda now is so powerful that it can shut down US embassies all across the Middle East and North Africa. The “threat” which was supposed to boost the NSA’s position actually proves Washington’s powerlessness.

We can only pray that soon al Qaeda shuts down Washington itself. Imagine the sense of American liberation if Washington simply was shut down, or even better if Washington could be put under Punjab’s magic blanket and disappeared.  For the 99 percent, and the rest of the world, Washington is nothing but an oppressor.

China Is Winning the Space Race

Don't laugh. In less than a decade, Beijing will likely be the world's most important player in outer space.

Chinese President Xi Jinping

By John Hickman 

On June 11, in the flat and featureless Gobi Desert, China took a giant leap for mankind -- or at least a symbolic step toward space dominance -- when it sent three astronauts into space for 15 days. With the past as a guide, both that launch and the 2010 launch of the Chang'e 2 unmanned lunar orbiter are technologically unimpressive. Shift the focus to the present and they are merely unsettling. But look to the future, and they are unmistakable warning signs that China may surpass the United States and Russia to become the world's preeminent spacefaring power.

Yes, launching a three-seat space capsule and docking it with a temporary space station is straight out of the bell-bottom jeans and wide-collar era: it merely replicates what Americans achieved in 1973 with their Skylab 2 mission. With only one main chamber, the diminutive Tiangong 1 space station is far less impressive and barely one-tenth the size of Skylab, not to mention the even larger, elaborately segmented structure of modules, docking ports, and solar arrays that make up the International Space Station (ISS), the largest artificial object in Earth orbit.

Why worry that the Chinese are exploiting 40-year-old technology to send a few men and women into space? Won't it take them decades to catch up? Won't they be daunted by the same engineering and medical scientific barriers that have stalled their predecessors in low Earth orbit, like damage to spacecraft from micrometeorite impacts, and damage to human bodies from exposure to cosmic radiation and weightlessness? And isn't the space race dead anyway?

Not necessarily. The Chinese have not only matched many of the achievements of the Americans and Russians in space -- and in far less time than it took their predecessors to reach the same milestones -- they did so while avoiding their biggest mistakes. For example, rather than investing in customized, expensive space shuttles like both Washington and Moscow banked on, the Chinese are using reliable, mass-producible spacecraft, like the Soyuz capsule. 

And the Chinese space program enjoys some important advantages over its U.S. rival.  As the recent surge in missions attests, the Chinese space program likely enjoys generous and stable government funding -- though the exact amount is unknown. (Meanwhile, NASA's budget as a percent of the federal budget has fallen from 4.41 percent in 1966 to 0.48 percent in 2012.) And the Chinese space program has the support of a unified Chinese leadership: China's President Xi Jinping won't be shutting down the Shenzhou missions to diminish the legacy of his predecessors, as President Richard Nixon did by ending manned lunar exploration.

The United States may have given up on the space dream, but it still burns brightly in the Chinese psyche. Among the most important -- if unquantifiable -- resources Beijing possesses is an extraordinary sense of historical grievance. Chinese nationalists are conscious of almost two centuries of national humiliation at the hands of other great powers, attributable to Chinese military technological backwardness. Anxiety about technology transfers prompted the Pentagon to rejectChinese participation in the ISS, a decision that has drawn little objection from the other 14 participating countries -- and of which some Chinese nationalists are keenly aware. The United States and its allies are even encircling China in orbital space, or so the thinking goes.

Shenzhou 10, however, represents more than a pricey technological ornament for nationalists with a chip on their shoulders. China now has what the United States lacks: a reliable manned spacecraft. The United States finds itself in the preposterous situation of depending on Russia to transport personnel and much of the cargo to and from the ISS. Underfunding and poor planning means that the same nation that once landed men on the Moon can no longer launch anyone into orbit. The United States' best hope is that the private firm SpaceX, which NASA has contracted to supply cargo to the ISS, will eventually be able to transport U.S. astronauts as well. Shenzhou 10 is a reminder that for at least the next few years, space is only accessible via a Russian or Chinese rocket. No wonder that astronauts from the European Space Agency are learning Chinese. 

If Beijing is intent on besting the West, a manned landing on Mars -- extremely risky but possible with today's technology -- could help secure China's place as the foremost spacefaring power. Establishing a permanent manned Moon base, however, would be a more attractive goal -- and one that allows China to minimize the scientific and medical barriers present in low-Earth orbit. The spectacle of second-tier spacefaring states lining up to request permission to station personnel or supply components for the base would be an enormous boost to China's status. And it's not all that ridiculously far-fetched: a permanent 

Moon base would probably only cost something comparable to that of the ISS --

approximately $5 billion a year. Granted, the Moon is farther away than the Earth's orbit, but most of the fuel used in transporting people and materials to space is for freeing them from the Earth's gravity. Additionally, the Moon possesses ice, which can be turned in water and oxygen -- resources which have to be hauled up from Earth for a space station. In any case, excluding Americans from this moon base would be revenge served very, very cold. 

But there is much more to be gained from a Moon base than satisfying honor. Remember that manned space missions are an escape from a perceived geopolitical encirclement, comparable to that felt by German political and military elites in the late 19th century. 

Berlin's solution was to build a blue-water navy and colonize parts of Africa. Establishing a Moon base would not only represent an escape from perceived terrestrial encirclement, but also be the effective occupation necessary to assert territorial sovereignty in international law. Granted, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty expressly prohibits extraterrestrial annexations. However, if China emerges as the leading spacefaring power, it will have the opportunity and motive to rewrite the international legal regime for space. In its territorial disputes back on Earth, Beijing insists on its own interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. What would prevent it from being even more assertive if it becomes the only spacefaring power with boots on the regolith?

The next big milestone is China's plan to establish its own space station by 2020 -- which happens to be the same year that the International Space Station is scheduled to be scrapped and sunk into the ocean. In the long run, Shenzhou 10 may determine the terms under which the spacefaring powers compete on the final frontier. One of many ancient names for China is Tianchao -- the Celestial Empire. Shenzhou 10 may be pointing the way toward its creation.

The Fallacy of  J.B Danquah’s Heroic Legacy (ii)

Dr J.B Danquah

During a public forum at the University of Ghana at Legon marking the 100 Days of Dr. K. A. Busia administration, Dr Jones Ofori Atta, then Deputy Minister of Finance, in his presentation repeatedly attacked and addressed the Opposition Leader, Dr. George Agama as Mr. Agama.

The Legon students, mostly Progress Party supporters, booed Dr. Jones Ofori Atta to the extent that Nene Azu Marte Kole, a leading PP member, walked out of the lecture hall. Sadly, Dr. Ofori Atta kind of arrogance surfaced immediately after Mr. J. A. Kufuor won the presidential election on January 28, 2001. As such, some NPP fanatics have formed the habit of reducing MATTERS OF NATIONAL  IMPORTANCE to blind, ethnic chauvinism and name-calling. Instead of disputing  acts presented in articles, some would get into semantics and/or argue about the style of presenting some straightforward historical data of national importance to the general public. But, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, standing for what is right and telling the truth
may mean carrying the Cross.

Indeed, Kwame Nkrumah and his followers were insulted, ridiculed, physically attacked and called all sorts of names. Krobo Edusei and others in the Asante province, for instance, were called traitors, quislings, and fifth columnists, for supporting Nkrumah. After the birth of the NLM, the Kumawu hene and some CPP leaders  in Asante had to flee to the Colony, especially Accra for refuge (Awoonor, 1990). In Akyem  buakwa, some immigrant farmers in some of the smaller towns closer to Kyebi had to flee for their lives.

In the March 6, 1956 edition of the NLM paper, Liberator, the CPP was referred to as a group of homeless tramps and jackals. But, the more the Danquah-Busia camp resorted to name-calling, brute politics and physical attacks, the more the intelligent people of Ghana rallied behind Nkrumah CPP and its nationalist agenda.

Alas, after the Harlley-CIA conspiredcoup of February 1966, Kwame Nkrumah eighty year-old mother (almost blind) was dragged to the Commission of Enquiry in an attempt to force her at gun point to say that Nkrumah was not her real son (Kanu, 1982). So, as my admiration for her bold refusal to yield to the heartless acts of the Danquah-Busia acolytes, and as a salute to Major-General Barwah, who was butchered for his heroic refusal to betray the Black Race, I will not nor will other like-minded people be deterred by the name-calling and harebrained personal attacks by a tiny minority fromwriting on Ghana political history.

Asamankese & Tafo Vrs. Ofori Atta I-Danquah Dynasty. As indicated in my last article, it was during the reign of Osagyefo Ofori Attah I that corruption and extortion in the tribunals became the most direct form of exploitation the commoners had ever experienced; tribunal fees and fines collected were frequently excessive and divided on the spot among the tribunal members (Simensen, 1975). Hence, King Kwaku Amoah of Asamankese revolted and declared his non-allegiance to Ofori Atta in 1921 (Addo-Fening, 1975; Simensen, 1975). Having always harboured a spirit of independence in his relations with the Omanhene, the corruption and extortion also prompted the Tafohene, Adusei Peasah II, to repudiate the validity of all leases bearing Ofori Atta signature; this, in effect, challenged Ofori Atta political authority (Simensen, 1975). As Osabarima Adusei Peasah IV told me, Tafo attempted to create an independent Akyem Awansa State, out of the towns and villages under its authority (also see Simensen). Yet, in his February 4, 1952 letter to Seth Appiah of the Akim Abuakwa Youth Association, the nationalist Dr. J. B. Danquah bragged about Akyem Abuakwa as the largest State
in the Colony (and so) must also be the greatest in the Land. He added,I am determined to have the Abuakwa name rehabilitated and make Abuakwa lead the nation (Danquah, Vol. III, 1972). Nevertheless, how or with whom were Ofori Atta II and Danquah going to turn Akyem into a federal state or secede from the province, especially when Danquah lost the 1954 and 1956 general elections? 

J. B. Danquah: From UGCC to NLM.
Because of his royal affinity, Dr. J. B. Danquah was able to improve the apprehensive and discomfited relations between the intelligentsia and the Joint Provincial Council of Chiefs. As a result, Danquah and Rev. C. C. Baeta were, in 1946, elected as Provincial Members of the Legislative Council, composed of the elite and wealthy Chief (Reindorf, 1966). Meanwhile, two pressure groups, the Gold Coast League and Gold Coast National Party surfaced to pressure the Colonial Government for import licenses for the African merchants and power sharing.

These groups would later merge to become the United Gold Coast Convention at Saltpond in 1947, under the chairmanship of George Grant, a wealthy Merchant of Sekondi. The membership comprised lawyers (Danquah included), merchants, conservative chief and wealthy cocoa farmers, whose main interest was to advance their economic interest through the sharing of political power with the Colonial Government (Awoonor, 1990; Krafona, 1986). This elitist group took politics to be a leisurely activity.

Hence, they needed Kwame Nkrumah’s kind of leadership to iron out the differences between the two ethic groups and organize the movement. But, while in prison for the 1948 uprisings, Danquah said that he would not have endorsed the recommendation by Dr. Ako Adjei, had he (Danquah) known of Nkrumah ideological persuasion. Danquah regret for writing to invite Nkrumah to assume the office of the General Secretary of the UGCC was to have a deep psychological effect on him, so much so that he and his followers would resort to any means possible, including violence, to eliminate Nkrumah from the political scene in the country.

So, when Nkrumah broke away from the UGCC and organized the 1950 Positive Action, Danquah responded to it as follows: It is obvious that the law, as far as Kwame Nkrumah is concern, must go according to him. In my opinion that those who go against [colonial] constitutional authority must expect to pay it with their neck (Nkrumah, 1957). Next, Danquah instant joy over the arrest of Nkrumah and other CPP leaders ended with the expression, pataku (wolf) had been driven away (Nkrumah, 1957). Ironically, it was the same Danquah who, in 1947, happily assured the people at a mass rally in Accra that Kwame Nkrumah will never fail you. On this promise, Dr. Danquah was right. Kwame Nkrumah later embarked on the motto: One Nation, One People, One Destiny in order to unify the four fragmented territories as one country by 1951.
Henceforth, Nkrumah would successfully strengthen his nationwide political party to defeat the forces of separatism and devolution, which were launched against the CPP nationalist agenda. 

During the debate of the 1951 Local Government Ordinance, J. B. Danquah argued that state control of the Cocoa Marketing Board was in direct violation of the full enjoyment of private property (Danquah, Vol. II, 1972). Similarly, the National Liberation Movement argued in 1956 that the money which the cocoa farmers were pouring into Government coffers was being used in developing the coastal region. The NLM other complaint was that the CPP government had used the resources of the Cocoa Marketing Board to give low interest loans to farmers.

Obviously, the poorer farmers and those looking for government  development that would open up more land for farms, backed the CPP. The government policy thus deprived the wealthy farmers including some of the traditional rulers in the Asante province who had for long run a lucrative business by lending (money) to the poorer farmers (Bing, 1968). Accordingly, the Asante cocoa farmers would be better off if they would manage their own affair (Ninsin, 1991). As such, the wealthy farmers lined up with the chiefs and to give the Committee for Higher Cocoa Prices a more ethical look, it was transformed into the National Liberation Movement. They did not want their movement to be called Party, since party politics were contrary to the tenets of traditional rule.

And as a price for their support they insisted it should embrace feudalism and also thus propose the redivision of the country into its old provinces, which had existed as almost separate entities in the heyday of the indirect rule (Bing, 1968). Interestingly, the biggest contributor to the cause of the NLM was Cadbury and Fryer of Britain. I must add that the Chief of Adanse alone gave 1,000.00 toward the third aeroplane that Ashanti Confederacy contributed as its gifts (to Britain) for the prosecution of the war (Busia, 1951).

Likewise, revenue from cocoa export and levy on the World War II fund were voted by the Akyem  Abuakwa State Council, with Danquah as the legal advisor, to finance the Akyem Abuakwa contingent of the British Volunteer Royal Force during the military occupation of East Africa. If, therefore, there was nothing wrong with the Wealthy Chief of Asante and Ofori Atta II to demonstrate their loyalty to the British Government by generous contributions to the second imperialists War Fund, what was wrong with the CPP government using some of the cocoa farmers money to develop the coastal region, especially the Tema Harbor and its industrial city, University of Ghana, Akosombo Project etc.? The question is, would the control of the cocoa industry by the foreign companies like Cadbury and Fry have led to the building of the KNUST, Okomfo Anokye Hospital or Ofori Panin Secondary School etc.? The answer is, NO. 

During the electioneering campaign of 1956, the NLM supporters in the central Akyem Abuakwa constituency quoted the Omanhene Ofori Atta II as saying that there would be no peace in the country if the CPP won the election. In fact, fears were constantly put into the people (this author, then a child, also heard it) that the CPP strongholds in Akyem Abuakwa would be destroyed by the oprem (cannons) in front of the Omanhene palace. In my village Ettokrom, twelve miles away from Dr. Danquah hometown, his few supporters vowed publicly that if the NLM emerged victorious, all stranger settlers would be chased out of Akyem leaving their cocoa farms behind; in addition, they vowed that the Akyemfoo CPP supporters would also be made to plant their plantains inside their houses. We the children from Ettokrom, who had to walk from Ettokrom to attend primary school at Osiem at the time would run to hide in the bush, anytime we heard the resounding horns of the NLM Peugeot caravans. All the same, the people in the Akyem Abuakwa Central, comprising cocoa farmers, agricultural laborers, some traditional rulers and scholars, saw Dr. J.B. Danquah as an arrogant, ethnocentric elite.

Consequently, my Grandfather, the Chief Cocoa Farmer in the area, admonished us little children in 1956 for going to the Odikro palace to listen to Danquah, whom he described as a black-white man that boasts of his eloquence in the white man language and wears suits whenever he visits the area.

 In fact, the Odikro Okyeame proudly introduced Danquah to us children and two adults present as a highly British-educated black man, who speaks the English language (brofo) for the white man to nod his head. In fact, Danquah elitism was manifested in his distaste and contempt for this thing of masses, whom he viewed as only individuals and dismissed their aspirations as emotions (Wright, 1954). Just before the 1956 election, the NLM gave a strong warning to the British government of the dire consequence if Ghana should attain independence under the CPP administration (Botwe-Asamoah, 2005). Hence, after losing the election, the Danquah-Busia parochial NLM and Northern People Party sent a resolution to the Secretary for Colonies in Britain, demanding separate independence for Asante and the Northern Territorie (McFarland and Owusu Ansah, 1995).

But after Dr. Busia fiasco in London to halt the independence of Ghana, the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Agyemang Prempeh II reconciled with Nkrumah for the good of the country, and became an open supporter of the CPP (Bing, 1968). That, to me, was a mark of a great King. Nonetheless, judging from the threats of Danquah and the NLM, the 1966 coup was the culmination of the Opposition long struggle to topple the Kwame Nkrumah government by any means possible. Certainly, the coup was designed to return Ghana to the claws of its former imperialist Britain and its allies, as desired by Dr. J.B. Danquah. In his March 6, 1944 speech marking the centenary of the infamous Bond of 1844, Danquah expressed his unflinching desire to place a self-governing Ghana under the British empire. He said: I AM SOMETIMES MUCH SURPRISE WHEN I SEE MANY OF MY COUNTRYMEN TERRIFIED BY THE USE OF THAT WORD, SELF-GOVERNMENT.
THEY ARE TERRIFIED OF IT BEACUSE THEY THINK IT MEANS THE DESIRE TO BREAK AWAY FROM THE [BRITISH] EMPIRE AND BECOME INDEPENDENT OF THE BRITISH.
IF IT COMES TO THAT, IF IT COMES TO A DECION TO BREAK AWAY FROM THE BRITISH CONNECTRION, I WOULD BE THE LAST [PERSON] TO EXPRESS SUCH A TERRIFIC WISH (see the Historic Speeches of J. B. Danquah). This was why Danquah would later condemn the 1948 uprising following the ex-servicemen march as an act of treachery. His telegram to the British Government concerning the same uprising ended with the words, God Save the (British) King (Awoonor 1990). What a Compatriot Saint of Ghana! 

 Indeed, imposing Dr. J. B. Danquah on the nation as A Compatriot Saint of Ghana is justifying the shooting of Sgt. Adjeitey and his comrades on February 28, 1948.

Correction in Part II. Sub-Heading: The Tyrannical Rule of Ofori Atta... Line 24-25 should read: majoruprising in Asamankese and not Akyem Kotoku.

Kwame Botwe-Asamoah, Ph. D.
Professor of African and African American History
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260

Snowden's father grateful to Putin

Edward Snowden

The father of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden praised Russian President Vladimir Putin for granting the whistleblower political asylum despite pressure from the United States, which has continued to express frustration with Russia's decision.

In a Wednesday interview with Reuters, Lon Snowden said he did not believe Putin would change his mind and send the whistleblower back to the US to face espionage charges. Snowden’s father made the comments on Wednesday – the same day US President Barack Obama canceled a planned trip to Moscow.

“President Vladimir Putin has stood firm. I respect his strength and courage,” Lon Snowden said. “He has stood firm against the face of intense pressure from our government and I have to believe that he will continue to stand firm.” 

Mr. Snowden said that he has not spoken to his son since Edward traveled from Hawaii to Hong Kong and then onto Russia after revealing the existence of secret government programs that routinely monitor the telephone and electronic communications of millions of Americans. Other revelations included American spying on foreign diplomats and international metadata interception. 

Prior to making the disclosures, Edward Snowden worked for the CIA as a private contractor enlisted with the NSA as a consultant. In an interview with The Guardian after the leaks went public, Snowden described his previous life as “very comfortable,” living with a girlfriend and earning approximately $122,000 a year. 

“I am absolutely convinced that my son faced a moral hazard,” Lon Snowden told Reuters. “I believe that my son revealed real abuses by the government and I believe that we have many politicians, up to the highest levels, many politicians who are threatened and embarrassed by that.” 

Obama had planned to visit Moscow ahead of September’s G20 economic summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. The Snowden disagreement is the latest in a line of differences between the two countries – tensions are also mounting over nuclear arms control and the new Russian law that prohibits "gay propaganda" among minors. 

“Following a careful review begun in July, we have reached the conclusion that there is not enough recent progress in our bilateral agenda with Russia to hold a US-Russia summit in early September,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement. 

US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry are still expected to meet with Russian leaders Friday to discuss the nations’ opposite stance on the Syrian conflict.

“These games of ‘Well, I’m not going to go to this meeting,’ or ‘I’m not going to that meeting,’…I do not believe that President Vladimir Putin will cave to that,” Lon Snowden said of the fractured relationship. 

“This isn’t about Russia. The fight isn’t in Russia,” he said. “The fight is right here. The fight is about these programs that undermine, infringe upon, violate our constitutional rights.”

Mr. Snowden said he “absolutely” believes his son will eventually return to the United States, although the family was first trying to secure an American attorney who would represent the whistleblower.