Beware
of strangers bearing gifts. The “gift” is the ongoing, frantic canonization of
Nelson Mandela. The “strangers” are the 0.0001 percent, that fraction of the
global elite that’s really in control (media naturally included).
It’s
a Tower of Babel of tributes piled up in layer upon layer of hypocrisy – from
the US to Israel and from France to Britain.
What
must absolutely be buried under the tower is that the apartheid regime in South
Africa was sponsored and avidly defended by the West until, literally, it was
about to crumble under the weight of its own contradictions. The only thing
that had really mattered was South Africa’s capitalist economy and immense
resources, and the role of Pretoria in fighting “communism.” Apartheid was, at best, a nuisance.
Mandela
is being allowed sainthood by the 0.0001% because he extended a hand to the
white oppressor who kept him in jail for 27 years. And because he accepted – in
the name of “national reconciliation” – that no apartheid killers would be
tried, unlike the Nazis.
Among
the cataracts of emotional tributes and the crass marketization of the icon,
there’s barely a peep in Western corporate media about Mandela’s firm refusal
to ditch armed struggle against apartheid (if he had done so, he would not have
been jailed for 27 years); his gratitude towards Fidel Castro’s Cuba – which
always supported the people of Angola, Namibia and South Africa fighting
apartheid; and his perennial support for the liberation struggle in Palestine.
Young
generations, especially, must be made aware that during the Cold War, any
organization fighting for the freedom of the oppressed in the developing world
was dubbed “terrorist”; that was the
Cold War version of the “war on terror”. Only at the
end of the 20th century was the fight against apartheid accepted as a supreme
moral cause; and Mandela, of course, rightfully became the universal face of
the cause.
It’s
easy to forget that conservative messiah Ronald Reagan – who enthusiastically
hailed the precursors of al-Qaeda as “freedom fighters” – fiercely opposed the Comprehensive
Anti-Apartheid Act because, what else, the African National Congress (ANC) was
considered a “terrorist organization” (on top of Washington branding the ANC
as “communists”).
 |
| Former US Vice President Dick Cheney |
The
same applied to a then-Republican Congressman from Wyoming who later would turn
into a Darth Vader replicant, Dick Cheney. As for Israel, it even offered one
of its nuclear weapons to the Afrikaners in Pretoria – presumably to wipe
assorted African commies off the map.
In
his notorious 1990 visit to the US, now as a free man, Mandela duly praised
Fidel, PLO chairman Yasser Arafat and Col. Gaddafi as his “comrades
in arms”: “There is no reason whatsoever why we
should have any hesitation about hailing their commitment to human rights.” Washington/Wall Street was livid.
And
this was Mandela’s take, in early 2003, on the by then inevitable invasion of
Iraq and the wider war on terror; “If there is a country that has committed
unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America.” No wonder he was kept on the US
government terrorist list until as late as 2008.
From
terrorism to sainthood
In
the early 1960s – when, by the way, the US itself was practicing apartheid in
the South - it would be hard to predict to what extent “Madiba” (his clan
name), the dandy lawyer and lover of boxing with an authoritarian character
streak, would adopt Gandhi’s non-violence strategy to end up forging an
exceptional destiny graphically embodying the political will to transform
society. Yet the seeds of“Invictus” were already there.
The
fascinating complexity of Mandela is that he was essentially a democratic socialist.
Certainly not a capitalist. And not a pacifist either; on the contrary, he
would accept violence as a means to an end. In his books and countless
speeches, he always admitted his flaws. His soul must be smirking now at all
the adulation.
 |
| US President Hussein Obama |
Arguably,
without Mandela, Barack Obama would never have reached the White House; he
admitted on the record that his first political act was at an anti-apartheid
demonstration. But let’s make it clear: Mr. Obama, you’re no Nelson Mandela.
To
summarize an extremely complex process, in the “death
throes” of apartheid,
the regime was mired in massive corruption, hardcore military spending and with
the townships about to explode. Mix Fidel’s Cuban fighters kicking the butt of
South Africans (supported by the US) in Angola and Namibia with the inability
to even repay Western loans, and you have a recipe for bankruptcy.
The
best and the brightest in the revolutionary struggle – like Mandela – were
either in jail, in exile, assassinated (like Steve Biko) or “disappeared”,
Latin American death squad-style. The actual freedom struggle was mostly
outside South Africa – in Angola, Namibia and the newly liberated Mozambique
and Zimbabwe.
Once
again, make no mistake; without Cuba – as Mandela amply stressed writing from
jail in March 1988 – there would be “no liberation of our continent, and my
people, from the scourge of apartheid”. Now get one of those
0.0001% to admit it.
In
spite of the debacle the regime – supported by the West – sensed an opening.
Why not negotiate with a man who had been isolated from the outside world since
1962? No more waves and waves of Third World liberation struggles; Africa was
now mired in war, and all sorts of socialist revolutions had been smashed, from
Che Guevara killed in Bolivia in 1967 to Allende killed in the 1973 coup in
Chile.
Mandela
had to catch up with all this and also come to grips with the fall of the
Berlin Wall and the end of what European intellectuals called “real
socialism.” And then
he would need to try to prevent a civil war and the total economic collapse of
South Africa.
The
apartheid regime was wily enough to secure control of the Central Bank – with
crucial IMF help – and South Africa’s trade policy. Mandela secured only a
(very significant) political victory. The ANC only found out it had been conned
when it took power. Forget about its socialist idea of nationalizing the mining
and banking industries – owned by Western capital, and distribute the benefits
to the indigenous population. The West would never allow it. And to make
matters worse, the ANC was literally hijacked by a sorry, greedy bunch.
Follow
the roadmap
And
Ronnie Kasrils does a courageous mea culpa dissecting how Mandela and the ANC
accepted a devil’s pact with the usual suspects.
The
bottom line: Mandela defeated apartheid but was defeated by neoliberalism. And
that’s the dirty secret of him being allowed sainthood.
Editorial
AGE AND LEADERSHIP
All
of a sudden age has become a major political topic and it appears to remain so
until Nana Akufo Addo announces his withdrawal from the 2016 presidential race.
Indeed,
long before Nana doggedly hinted at the possibility of his comeback, many or
some of his supporters were teasing President Robert Mugabe for being too old.
Now
the same people are turning round and claiming that age ought not be a critical
factor in the choice of President.
We
agree with them to the extent that people cannot just simply be defined by
their ages.
There
are silly old men and women in the world and there are young men and women
whose foolishness may be legendary.
In
spite of this, we find the attempt to see a Mandela in Nana Akufo-Addo as being
total misplacement.
If
Nana Akufo-Addo is to be treated like Nelson Mandela, then perhaps we need to
start with 27 years in jail.
The
cacophony is not in the interest of Nana Akufo- Addo. It can only make his age
an issue.
The Destiny Of Ghana Is In The Hands Of Farmers - CPP
 |
| CPP Chairperson, Hon. Samia Yaba Nkrumah |
Fellow
Ghanaians,
It
is with great delight that we join our compatriots around the length and
breadth of Ghana to pay glowing homage to our hardworking farmers on this
momentous occasion of National Farmers’ Day. We want to acknowledge the
immeasurable contribution of our women and men who on a day by day, season to
season dedicate their lives tirelessly to the duty of tilling the lands to feed
and nourish our growing population.
On
this day set aside to recognize the vital role you play in our economic
development, we in the Convention People’s Party wish to proclaim to Ghanaians,
your strong support to the struggle for independence in 1957 under the able
leadership of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah.
Fellow
Ghanaians, we wish to bring to your attention an imminent danger facing our
beloved Ghana, as parliament gets ready to pass the Bio Safety Act 831 and the
Plant Breeders Bill. This Bill when passed would eventually make the Ghanaian
Farmer perpetually dependent on seeds from agro-commercial corporations beyond
the territories of Ghana; thereby bring about our total re-enslavement.
We
urge our courageous farmers on this occasion to add their voice to the already
many calls on our parliament to reject the Bio Safety Act 831 and the Plant
Breeders Bill.
The
destiny of Ghana lies in your hands as farmers who have been ordained to
continue with the vocation of feeding the human race till the end of time.
God
Bless Our Homeland Ghana.
Nii
Armah Akomfrah
CPP
Director of Communication
African ‘genocide’ pretext for French plunder
 |
| French President Francois Hollande |
France
last week begun sending its troops into the poverty-stricken Central African
Republic amid lurid claims that the country is descending into genocidal chaos.
There are already 400 French military personnel in the former colony, and France says it is planning to send a total of 1,000 troops to join an African Union force to “restore order”.
But what is going on is a classic French neo-colonial grab for power under the cynical guise of “responsibility to protect” human rights.
The real agenda is the French government is dispatching its troops to secure its commercial interests, and in particular lucrative uranium mining resources.
No one is disputing that the Central African Republic (CAR) is suffering from poverty, hunger, displacement and an upsurge in violence. The pertinent question is: who is behind it and why?
Out of a total population of 4.6 million, some 10 per cent of the people are reportedly displaced, fleeing from inter-communal violence, with a quarter of the nation having no access to food.
However, French claims that the country is “on the verge of genocide” appears to be grossly exaggerated and designed to create a foreboding atmosphere of crisis.
France’s ambassador to the United Nations, Gerard Araud, said last week: “The CAR is collapsing and it could [sic] lead to mass atrocities, with each community trying to slaughter the other.”
Earlier, France’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told French media, “It’s total disorder… we need to act quickly.”
France has now gone ahead with sending troops to the Central African Republic before the UN Security Council has voted on a mandate for a peacekeeping force. In other words, France is railroading its agenda -an agenda that has little to do with “restoring order”.
This precocious military intervention by France replicates the scenario exactly one year ago, when the French government was pushing the UN to sanction a peacekeeping operation in Mali, another former African colony.
In that case, Paris was also making similar sensationalist claims of chaos and humanitarian crisis, and again dispatched its troops to that country, thus pre-empting the UN Security Council then.
In Mali, the French were claiming that secessionist rebels in the north of the country were posing a global threat to security because of alleged links to the al-Qaeda terror network.
In the case of the Central African Republic, the French are now claiming that they are protecting civilians from internecine violence.
France is also accusing the mainly Muslim rebel movement, known as Seleka, of carrying out slaughter on the majority Christian population.
The Seleka rebels ousted the French-backed president of the CAR, Francois Bozizé, earlier this year in March. The newly self-declared president, Michel Djotodia, is the first Muslim leader of that African country.
Djotodia has firmly rejected claims that the interim government is waging a sectarian conflict, and he has recently denied French assertions that the country is on the brink of genocide.
“There's no genocide, there is not even an inter-religious war. All of this is made up to manipulate the opinion of the international community,” he said.
In contrast to French categorical warnings, it is hard to know the exact security situation in remote parts of the CAR. Even the UN has admitted that the casualty figures from the conflict in recent weeks are not verifiable.
Best estimates put the number of victims in the dozens, not hundreds or thousands. And it is not clear which groups are responsible for the sudden chaos.
Also, it seems that the recent surge in violence was initiated in September by shadowy militia known as “anti-balaka” who are linked to forces loyal to the ousted president Bozizé.
These groups began attacking mainly Muslim communities in northern parts of the CAR, which have in turn resulted in reprisal killings allegedly by Muslim rebel groups against Christians.
Until recently, both religious communities lived harmoniously, with sectarian violence unheard of.
What is known is that the French-backed Bozizé regime was notoriously corrupt. He is now exiled in France from where he is agitating a counter-coup, presumably with covert help from the French government.
Bozizé himself came to power in 2003 through a coup against an elected president, Ange-Felix Patasse. It was the intervention of French commandos that installed Bozizé.
Indeed, since the CAR’s supposed political independence from France in 1960, French troops stationed in the country have regularly worked covertly to stage coups and counter-coups to suit the political and economic needs of Paris.
It is this ongoing interference by France that is a major factor in the chronic instability of the CAR.
The ouster of the French puppet president Bozizé was no doubt a serious blow to French strategic interests. Despite its abject underdevelopment, the Central African state is a treasure trove of natural resources.
It is rich in agricultural land, virgin forests, hydropower, untapped oil and gas reserves, and gold, copper, and other minerals.
Of utmost importance is the recent discovery of uranium deposits - the primary fuel for nuclear energy. It is reckoned that the CAR has uranium reserves equal to Niger, another French colony, where France has long-established mining operations.
Niger is one of the top five global sources of uranium and supplies France with one-third of its total import of this fuel.
In 2010, the French nuclear company, Areva, opened a new mining operation in CAR, located at Bakouma. The $200 million Bakouma plant is scheduled to reach full uranium production next year.
Given that France produces 80 per cent of its total electricity from nuclear power and is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity due to its low cost of production - thanks to cheap and abundant African sources of uranium - that factor seems much more plausible than French claims about protecting human rights in the Central African Republic.
What France is pulling off in the CAR is nothing more than a naked neo-colonial plunder of African resources.
Cloaked with hysterical claims of genocide and protecting civilians, the real story is a much more cynical one: French protection of its economic exploitation of Africa.
Why will President Mahama be Ghana’s loneliest
President?
(Part I)
By
Dr. Michael J.K. Bokor
When
I read the news report quoting Kwesi Pratt as saying sometime last week that
President Mahama risked becoming the loneliest President that Ghana would ever
have had, I dismissed it as the product of a fetid imagination. I haven’t
changed that impression.
I
didn’t immediately respond to that claim by way of any formal writing, but
having thought issues over to date, I have found it proper to react to that
claim.
There
is no justification for such a claim; and I state categorically that President
Mahama entered the Presidency a happy man, is happily and assiduously
performing his constitutionally mandated functions, and will end his term a
happy and contented hero.
He
has a natural element of happiness, which every observer can see reflected in
his mien wherever he is. More than that, he is naturally affable, and
attractive. He is no repellent. He will remain a happy and fulfilled person. No
need for anybody to press any panic button to create any misleading impression.
Every
condition exists for him to celebrate his ascension to power through constitutionally
determined parameters, being the youngest in the country’s history to have
become the Vice President and being elevated to become the President (in an
acting capacity when the substantive Atta Mills passed on) and being confirmed
as the fount of authority at Election 2012. He just turned 55. Belated
congratulations!!
Of
course, Kwesi Pratt is entitled to his own opinions just as anybody else is.
Opinions are nothing but opinions and will be treated as such; but when they
are raised to the point of being turned into the truth intoto, they deserve scrutiny of the sort that I want to do.
Right
from the scratch, let me say that what constitutes “loneliness” to one person
doesn’t necessarily mean the same to another. And for Pratt to claim that President
Mahama’s loneliness will be based on his being deserted by those surrounding
him (for whatever reason I don’t know) or that his government’s failures might
end up shoving him to the backwoods as such is worth interrogating.
One
man’s loneliness is another man’s occasion for gregariousness and happiness.
How about that?
We
begin with simple questions: Why will President Mahama be lonely? And why
should anybody bother his head over his being lonely? Should he even fear
becoming lonely, anyway? How can he even be lonely when he is surrounded by all
manner of people at all times, even when enjoying the privacy of his life at
home?
Of
course, loneliness could be viewed from many angles—physical, emotional,
psychological, spiritual, etc. Which aspect particularly does Pratt think
President Mahama will suffer from?
As
I understand Pratt’s opinion to mean a “physical loneliness”, I will react
accordingly with one definitive statement that President Mahama will not be
lonely nor should he even lose any sleep if anybody perceives him as lonely or
being “isolated”, so to speak.
Let
Pratt tell us any of the Ghanaian Heads of State who had company till the end
of his life or who could openly walk the streets in some contented happiness
after leaving office! None whatsoever!!
Until
this 4th Republic, none (except Afrifa) left office as scheduled
(Even then, he was hauled before the firing squad many years thereafter and
shown the exit out of this mundane life in disgrace!). It was either a violent
end to their reign or something else to show them where naked power lay.
Ghanaian
politics is full of much wiliness and nonsense such that those who don’t have
the stomach for it shouldn’t venture into it. President Mahama has the stomach
for it and has survived thus far.
In
the past, some thought that they had stomachs for it only to end up suffering
immense trauma when reality dawned. Take the Great Osagyefo, for instance, who
did all he could, denying himself everything and serving Ghana and the
Pan-African world to the best of his ability. In Ghana, his socialist-oriented
policies sought to level the playing field to give Ghanaians all they needed to
realize their unique “African Personality” and to hold positions and enjoy the
benefits that his indigenization policy entailed.
Infrastructural
development topped his agenda, and he instilled so much confidence in the
Ghanaian that one might think that there was nothing amiss. All in spite of the
machinations of his bitter political foes.
Unfortunately,
the Ghanaian couldn’t be satisfied, as would be stated by Gen. Albert Kwesi Ocran,
one of the dastardly military officers who overthrew Nkrumah. In his Politics
of the Sword, Gen. Ocran accused Nkrumah of wanting Ghana to fly
without knowing that Ghana hadn’t developed wings at the time. Then, the mass
of Ghanaians who supported the cowards constituting the National Liberation
Council, poured out their hatred for Nkrumah, saying that he had made it
difficult for them to get essential commodities, including milk. Or to live
their lives in peace.
When
told, Nkrumah cried his heart out: “If I had known that it was milk that
Ghanaians wanted, I would have made the gutters of Accra flow with it”. But,
alas, it was too late to repair the harm done to his political kingdom.
Woe-begone!! He ended up in Guinea to end it all in Bucharest, Romania. Even
his body won’t be accepted back in Ghana for burial. But Nkrumah “never dies”!!
Any
talk of others? When Kutu Acheampong kicked Dr. Busia and his Progress Party
out of office on January 13, 1972, he thought he was on a redemption spree with
his National Redemption Council. Unfortunately, his mission collapsed and his
own inner-circle colleagues turned him into a laughing stock, stripping him of
his military honours and reducing him to the ordinary status of a “Mr.”
Pained
beyond belief, Acheampong made his proverbial utterance: Ghanaians are
difficult people”!
Yes,
indeed, such are Ghanaians. They are the “hail him… hail him” today and the
“Crucify him… crucify him” tomorrow type. The loneliness suffered by a Ghanaian
leader is thrust upon him by Ghanaians. The fault is in us, not necessarily in
our leaders. We push them to the brink when we sabotage their efforts and fail
to lend the support they need to successfully implement their agenda for
national development. That is the source of any perceived state of loneliness.
I
shall return…
No comments:
Post a Comment