IS US Bullying Ghana to Sign GMO Bill

US Ambassador to Ghana Gene Cretz

The over whelming campaign against the GMO Plant Breeder’s Bill currently at passing stage in Ghana’s parliament has taken a new twist with the USA government found to be behind the schemes to dominate food sovereignty around the world.

This came about when a wikileaks cable (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10ACCRA59.html) from the USA Embassy in Accra as far back as 2010 surfaced this week from anti-GMO campaigners which  proves that the USA and Biotech companies like Monsanto has always been behind the GMO Plant breeder’s Bill which they believed originated, drafted and presented to Ghana’s parliament to pass without proper consultation with the people of Ghana.

The said cable has the ‘Subject – Proposal for U.S. Biotech Speaker to Visit Ghana in FY 2010’ requesting for over $13000.00 for the said visit where a number of activities including meetings with the Government officials, Parliamentarians, academics public audience and the media.

Below are parts of the said cable with reference ID 10ACCRA59, dated 2010-01-20 07:27:

1.       SUMMARY: Embassy Accra requests $13,700 in FY 2010 EEB biotech outreach funds for a U.S. biotechnology expert in agricultural production and development to visit Ghana for one week to engage with government officials and legislators, academics, public audiences, and the media on the merits of biotechnology and the importance of regulating biotech products. END SUMMARY.

2. Per Ref A request, Embassy Accra requests $13,700 in FY 2010 EEB biotech outreach funds in order to fund a one-week public speaking visit to Ghana of a U.S. expert on agricultural biotechnology.

————————— Biotech Background in Ghana —————————

3. Ghana has not yet adopted comprehensive legislation regulating the production and sale of biotech products. The Government of Ghana is currently considering a draft Biosafety Bill that was prepared with international technical assistance (including from USAID), but the draft legislation has not yet been submitted to the Parliament.

In May 2008, the Parliament did pass a Biosafety Legislative Instrument, which allows for field trials of biotech products, but not their commercialization. The Legislative Instrument thus allows for scientific advancement in Ghana while the executive and legislative branches of government continue to consider the merits of a comprehensive biosafety law.

4. Public opinion on biotechnology is divided, with some editorials questioning the wisdom and safety of genetically engineered crops. Other observers have argued that the higher crop yields and the greater resistance to pests associated with genetically modified seeds could help Ghana more effectively deal with issues of food security and the likely impact on farming from climate change.

5. While public opinion remains divided, some biotech products are already being sold in Ghana. In addition, genetically modified cotton and other crops, which are grown in Burkina Faso (Ghana’s northern neighbour), may already be growing in Northern Ghana, or these seeds will soon migrate to and be grown in that region of the country.

While current law allows for field trials of biotech crops, no experimental fields are currently under cultivation, as far as we are aware, though some U.S. companies have begun the processes of requesting permission to engage in such trials in country.

6. U.S. food exports to Ghana, valued at $86 million in 2008, consist primarily of rice, poultry and consumer products. Ghana is the largest commercial market for U.S. rice in West Africa, with U.S. producers maintaining about a third of the Ghanaian rice market over the last several years.

———————– Biotech Speaker Program ———————–

7. Given that the current biotech state of play in Ghana is similar to that in Nigeria, where a U.S. biotech speaker was successfully programmed in FY 2009 (Ref B), we believe that a U.S. biotechnology expert could meaningfully engage with government officials and legislators, academics, public audiences, and the media about the merits of agricultural biotechnology.

We anticipate that a U.S. expert could visit for one week and engage with Ghanaian audiences in Accra (two days), Kumasi (two days) and Tamale (one day), which are located in key growing regions.

8. We would work with Ghana’s National Biosafety Committee to program the U.S. expert speaker, as well as with other local expert groups in Ghana, including biotechnology experts at the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), which is based in Accra, and at Ghana’s Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).

In Accra, the speaker could engage with executive and legislative branch officials on the merits of biotechnology. In addition, the visit could include local radio and TV interviews, and a media roundtable event at which journalists could interact with the U.S. expert.

Media events may also include local Ghanaian agricultural specialists, in order to encourage a healthy debate on the subject of biotechnology and how advanced science could help Ghana more effectively deal with issues of food security and the likely impact on farming from climate change.

The visit may also include an embassy-hosted event at which government and legislative decision-makers could interact with biotechnology and agricultural experts. There could also be public speaking events at FARA, CSIR, the University of Ghana in Accra, the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology in Kumasi, and the University for Development Studies in Tamale.

9. We anticipate the total cost of a one-week visit would be $13,700, as follows:

$7,000: Travel, lodging and per diem for U.S. Speaker

$1,000: Travel, lodging and per diem for one embassy officer to join U.S. speaker in Kumasi and Tamale

$1,600: Fuel for embassy motor pool vehicle, lodging and per diem for embassy driver in Kumasi and Tamale

$1,000: Honoraria for U.S. speaker

$1,000: Travel, lodging and per diem for one Ghanaian biotechnology and agricultural specialist to participate in events in Kumasi and Tamale

$1,500: Expenses for hall rentals, refreshments and meals at U.S. speaker’s events

$600: Honoraria for Ghanaian specialists at events

Embassy points of contact for this proposal are Regional Environment, Science and Technology Officer Aaron Fishman (fishmanad@state.gov), Agricultural Attache Ali Abdi (based in Lagos; ali.abdi@fas.usda.gov), and USAID Ghana Agricultural Adviser John Mullenax (jmullenax@usaid.gov).

Editorial

DAY OF SHAME

Two weeks from now the Socialist Forum of Ghana (SFG) will mark the anniversary of the overthrow of the founder of the Republic of Ghana, Osagyefo Dr Kwame  Nkrumah.

On February 24, 1966, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States of America and its local collaborators subverted Ghana’s progress by overthrowing the Nkrumah Government.

Since then Ghana has suffered many reverses to the point where the country has become a hopeless, backward and fully dependant neo-colony.

 Over the period more than 400 factories established by the Nkrumah government have been vandalized and sold.

Ghana now imports water, food, electricity and basic things such as handkerchiefs.

 In marking the anniversary of this criminal act against the people of Ghana, the SFG has decided to organize three days of lectures at the Freedom Centre in Accra.

The Speakers will include, Dr Yao Graham of the Third World Network, Dr Gamal Nasser of the University of Ghana and Mr Lee Ocran, Former Minister of Education.

 It is our hope that these discussions will rekindle the spirit of Nkrumaism in the people of Ghana towards finding  solutions to its hyudra-headed problems.

AFRICA`S AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL 

Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah

Africa contains more land than is to be found in any other continent, which has been endowed by nature with climatic and geographical conditions which are potentially capable of producing in practically unlimited amounts nearly all of the types of food which are essential to the elimination and prevention of human malnutrition - now known to be one of the chief predisposing conditions out of which many human illness arise.

In the light of these various observations it would appear that although Africa and the other but smaller tropical areas of the world cannot now be described as optimum environments for the prevention of disease and the preservation of health, they posses nevertheless greater potentials in these respects, thanks to certain unrivalled natural advantages, than do the temperate climates on which Nature has bestowed some of her most precious gifts with a parsimonious hand.

More land in Africa

Hardly less revolutionary in character, so far as traditional notions about the misnamed “dark continent” are concerned, are the recent investigations which are tending to demonstrate that there is more land in Africa- including tropical Africa- where the climate, as it is expressed in temperature and humility, is more conducive to human comfort - and to human health-than in any of the other continents.

Most of the evidence pointing to this conclusion has been accumulated by recent investigation in the laboratories of certain climatologists, physiologists and engineers engaged in planning and producing air-conditioning equipment, chiefly in England and United States.

The findings of these scientists have been rather numerous and complex and in some areas there is certain amount of disagreement, and for these reasons the results cannot be adequately summarized here.

But practically all investigators are agreed that for the great majority of mankind, including most of the inhabitants of the cooler and colder climates, human comfort and human health are best maintained, under most conditions, in temperatures ranging between 66 degrees and 82 degrees Fahrenheit.

Temperature

For man appears, it is now generally agreed, to have originated in the tropics; and from a physiological point of view so far as temperature is concerned, he is still a tropical animal.

Even the Eskimo in his seal skin suit and in his whale-oil heated igloo lives most of the time, so far as the greater part of his body is concerned in, temperatures that are essentially tropical in character and which are produced in the main by himself.

It has been discovered that the majority of people in the temperate climates are most comfortable during the winter months when the temperature under the clothing or beneath the bed clothes ranges between the middle sixties and the lower eighties Fahrenheit.

Comparative studies of temperature in all parts of the world have shown that in no continent are temperatures ranging between 66 and 82 degrees Fahrenheit more consistently maintained than in much of the African tropics and sub-tropics. Particularly this is true of the highland areas of tropical Africa, where because of the great altitude the mean monthly and mean annual temperature ranges between the middle sixties and the middle seventies Fahrenheit from season to season and year to year.

And here, too, it should be mentioned that in the arable areas which constitute the greater part of these highland regions, the annual rainfall ranges from about 23 inches at Salisbury in Southern Rhodesia to 62 inches at Yaoundé in the Cameroons. What is equally important is the fact that most of the rain falls during the growing season is “spring” and “summer” months when the plants can make the maximum use of it.

The only notable exceptions to this general rule is in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia and in the Union of South Africa where most of the rain comes ,as in much of Southern Europe and the highlands of Western Asia, in the winter months when the plants can use it the least.

Generally speaking it requires a minimum of 20 inches of rain each year to insure proper growth of most cultivated crops and the greater part of the tropical Afri-grow flowers bloom and can highlands have, as has been noted a good deal more than this.

The tropical and sub-tropical African highlands with their adequate to plentiful rainfall and abundant sunshine total altogether between 2 million and 3 million square miles and they have been aptly called the “lands of eternal spring”, for there plants birds sing throughout the year.

Because of the intensity of the actinic rays of sunlight at high altitudes, it is true that certain human types, who have lost most of their pigments since their ancestors left the tropics many thousands of years ago, often find it difficult to accommodate themselves, for physiological reasons, to the genial climate of these salubrious lands.

For those inhabitants of these and other regions who have however retained sufficient pigment to screen out or tone down and regulate the chemical effects of the abundant and powerful actinic rays, there are no larger and more potentially ideal amounts of living space to be found elsewhere on the face of the earth.

A few glances at the following chart will provide some specific evidence of the manner in which nature has blessed these well-watered and strongly sun-kissed lands which will be the ultimate heritage of those who are physically and physiologically equipped to claim and maintain these potentially unrivalled preserves unearthly paradise as their own.

Although the temperature range of the lowland areas of Africa’s six and a half million square miles of arable land does average about 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than what European and American investigators regard as the ideal for human comfort, most the inhabitants of longstanding in these regions seem on the whole to be comfortable enough. Be that as it may, these regions share in all other respects nature’s exceptional generosity toward the continent. In none of the other great land masses of the earth are storms of the catastrophically destructive type, such as hurricanes and typhoons, less  frequent; and devastating  earthquakes –very much fewer than in any other continent very seldom occur.

Special Gifts

In addition to these natural advantages and Nature’s other special gifts that have been already taken into account, attention may also be called to the fact that specialist have found that Africa has more land which is climatically suited to the production of more of the many other continents.

Because of its wide variety of climatic conditions and type of soil, it has been said of Africa with a good deal of truth, that almost any plant that will grow can be grown somewhere in the continent.

Among Africa’s chief advantages in these respects are the vast regions blessed annually with 20 or more inches of rainfall; the continent’s wide distribution of abundant and effective sunlight throughout the year; the practically endless

growing seasons; and the almost total absence everywhere of the blighting effects of winter’s cold.

Spelling out a bit more fully the implications of some of the observations, it may be remarked that recent investigations by botanist and agriculturalist and workers in related fields have revealed that the great majority of plants cease to grow, or grow very slowly – even where there is adequate moisture – when the ground temperatures drop below 40 degrees or exceed 98.6 degree Fahrenheit it has been further shown that warm season crops such as sugar cane, cotton, coffee, cocoa, rubber, rice and palm oil plants, grow best in temperature ranging from 64.8 degrees to 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. While even cool season crops, such as wheat, oats, barley, and rye grow best in temperatures ranging from 60 degrees to 87.8 degrees Fahrenheit.

In no part of the world, as has already been indicated, is the temperature range - technically known as the optimum growth temperatures – for both warm and cold season crops more consistently maintained over so long an area than in the great African continent.

                                                         

 Production

With assured temperatures favorable to so many crops, it is no surprising that Africa is now and long has been the world chief producer of such warm season crops as cocoa, palm oil, cloves, cola nuts, gum Arabic, kapok sisal, pyrethrum, white woods and certain mahoganies and is capably of rapidly becoming one of the world’s major  area for the primary production of cotton, rubber, bananas, sugar cane, pineapples, peanuts and citrus fruits.

(First published in the Evening News of friday April 19, 1963)

What is supply-side economics?

By Dr Paul Craig Roberts

Supply-side economics is an innovation in macroeconomic theory and policy.

It rose to prominence in congressional policy discussions in the late 1970s in response to worsening Phillips Curve trade-offs between inflation and unemployment. The postwar Keynesian demand management policy had broken down. The attempts to stimulate employment brought higher rates of inflation, and attempts to curtail inflation resulted in higher rates of unemployment.

In other words, the Phillips curve (named after economist A. W. Phillips) trade-offs between inflation and unemployment were worsening. Each additional job created had to be paid for with a higher rate of inflation, and each reduction in inflation had to be paid for with a higher rate of unemployment.

The Phillips curve met its nemesis in stagflation, a new term that entered economics in the late 1970s. Milton Friedman summed up the demise of the Phillips curve with his article, More Inflation, More Unemployment.

The appearance of stagflation–simultaneous inflation and unemployment–was a serious problem for Congress, as I pointed out in the late 1970s in an article in The Public Interest, The Breakdown of the Keynesian Model. Simultaneous inflation and unemployment meant that the federal budget would soon be out of control. In those days Congress actually worried about such an outcome.

The Keynesian economic establishment could offer Congress no solution other than an “incomes policy.” An incomes policy was wage and price controls. Inflation would be controlled by suppressing wages and prices, while expansionary monetary and fiscal policies boosted aggregate demand to raise employment. Even Congress understood that aggregate demand could not rise if wages were suppressed.

Congress looked for a different solution, and I, being on the scene as a member of the congressional staff, gave them the solution. In Keynesian economics monetary and fiscal policies only affect aggregate demand. If these policies were expansionary, aggregate demand increases, thus boosting employment and inflation. If these policies were restrictive, inflation and employment would fall with consumer spending. The fault in Keynesian theory and policy was the assumption that fiscal policy had no impact on aggregate supply.

I was able to explain to members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans who were concerned about stagflation, that some forms of fiscal policy directly increase or decrease aggregate supply. High tax rates mean that leisure is cheap in terms of forgone current earnings–thus there is less labor supply–and current consumption is cheap in terms of foregone future income streams–thus less savings for investments. Keynesian demand management had run into trouble, because the high tax rates on income reduced the response of supply to demand stimulus. Thus, prices rose instead of output.

The solution, I said, was to reduce the marginal income tax rates across the board. This would increase the responsiveness of supply to demand and cure stagflation.
Both political parties listened. In the House it was the Republicans who took the lead–Jack Kemp and Marjorie Holt. In the Senate, Republicans Orrin Hatch and Bill Roth stepped forward. However, in the Senate the lead was taken by Democrats, especially Russell Long, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Lloyd Bentsen, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, and my Georgia Tech fraternity brother, Sam Nunn.

As a result of Rep. Jack Kemp being the first congressional spokesman for a supply-side policy and President Reagan’s adoption of the policy, supply-side economics is associated with Republicans. However, Republicans almost lost the issue to Democrats. The first official government endorsement of supply-side economics was in the late 1970s by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress under the chairmanship of Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas.

The Joint Economic Committee under Senator Bentsen’s leadership put out Annual Reports two years in a row calling for a supply-side policy. As the presidential election approached that put Ronald Reagan in the White House, the majority Democrats in the Senate had a meeting to decide whether to pass the supply-side tax rate reductions prior to the presidential election, thus pulling the rug out from under Reagan on his main plank. The Senate Democrats were inclined to move forward with the tax rate reductions, but the Senate Majority Leader convinced them that it would look like an endorsement of Reagan over their own party’s candidate (Jimmy Carter). The Senate Majority Leader said that immediately after the election, the Democrats would take control of the issue and pass the marginal tax rate reductions. The great surprise of the election was that the Democrats lost control of the Senate.

There was more opposition to Reagan’s tax bill from Republicans than from Democrats. Republicans believed that budget deficits ranked with the Soviet threat and were more willing to raise taxes than to reduce them. The Republican opposition was so strong that I had a hard time getting the tax bill out of the Reagan administration so that Congress could vote on it. In those days the great bogyman for Republicans was budget deficits, and deficits were what Treasury’s projections showed. Although the Treasury was, for the most part, committed to the President’s policy and believed that some part of the lost revenues from marginal tax rate reduction would be recovered, which is also what Keynesians believed, the Treasury’s revenue forecast was based on the traditional static revenue model that every dollar of tax cut would lose a dollar of revenue.

OMB director David Stockman and his economist Larry Kudlow covered up the revenue loss by assuming a higher rate of inflation. In those days the income tax was not indexed for inflation. Nominal income gains pushed taxpayers into higher tax brackets. The higher was inflation, the higher was nominal GDP and tax revenues. In order to raise the revenue forecast, Stockman only needed to raise the inflation forecast.

Senate Democrats complained to me that they were willing to cooperate with Reagan on the tax bill, but were being cut out. Sam Nunn, who had got “Reaganomics” passed in the Senate before Reagan was elected, only to have it nixed by President Carter, told me that no one in the Reagan administration had ever spoken to him or sought his support.

The White House chief of staff, James Baker, wanted a Republican “victory,” and proceeded to pick a fight with the Democrats who were willing to support President Reagan’s policy. I told Jim Baker that he was making a strategic mistake. By cutting out the Democrats, he was setting the policy up for criticism that would create the perception of failure. I told him that Stockman had hidden the deficit by over-estimating inflation, a ploy that contradicted the logic of our policy. If our policy was correct, inflation would be less than Stockman’s forecast. The tax revenues would not materialize, and the Democrats, cut out of the action, would seize on the deficits and pay the White House back for cutting them out of any credit for the new policy. (My prediction came true. Democrats, inured to deficits by decades of Keynesian demand management, suddenly became as rabid about budget deficits as Republicans.)

If I had known then just how corrupt politics was, I would have thought twice before warning Baker that the hidden deficits would be used to discredit the policy even if the policy cured stagflation. Baker was allied with George Herbert Walker Bush, Reagan’s VP, and the fight was on from day one for the succession to Reagan. Kemp was in the forefront, because he was identified with Reagan’s economic policy, and Bush had called it “voodoo economics.” If Baker could make Reagan’s policy appear to be successful only because Bush had moderated it, all the better for VP Bush’s claim to the succession.

Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, offered an alternative supply-side tax rate reduction to the administration’s bill. Speaker O’Neill’s bill had a smaller reduction in marginal tax rates on personal income, but had a superior pro-growth tax reduction on the business side. The House Democrats’ bill offered expensing of business investment.
The Reagan administration was too fearful to propose expensing (immediate write-offs) of business investment, and here was the leading Democrat in the nation offering it to them. I told Jim Baker to jump on it, to work out a compromise with O’Neill on the size of the personal tax rate reductions and to give the Democrats equal credit for the policy. That, I told Baker, would ensure the policy’s acceptance and success.

For political reasons Baker was more committed to giving Reagan a “victory” over Democrats than he was to the success of the policy. Baker wanted a headline. I wanted a policy. From Baker’s standpoint, if Democrats for political reasons turned against the policy, they would help to create welcome roadblocks to Jack Kemp’s challenge to George H.W. Bush for the succession.

Reagan’s version of supply-side economics carried the day over Tip O’Neill’s version. Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Steve Entin prepared a graph comparing the Reagan and O’Neill tax rate reductions. The Democrats’ tax cut was initially larger, but Reagan’s was better over time. That let Reagan go on national TV, point to the graph and say, “the Democrats have the best bill–if you only expect to live one more year.”

The history and explanation of supply-side economics are in my book, The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press, 1984). Books published by Harvard are peer-reviewed, which means that publication depends on a go-ahead from outside experts. A book that was “voodoo economics” or simply said that “tax cuts pay for themselves” or that “trickle-down economics works by giving the rich money to spend and some of it will trickle-down to help the poor” will not clear peer review.

Thirty five to forty years after supply-side economics made its appearance in policy debates the vast majority of Americans, including apparently some economists and public intellectuals, have no idea what it is. For example, on February 1, 2014, Information Clearing House posted Bill Moyers interview of David Simon, “America as a Horror Show.” This important interview gets fouled in its opening lines when Simon declares: “Supply-side economics has been shown to be bankrupt as an intellectual concept. Not only untrue, but the opposite has occurred.”

Supply-side economics was not relevant to the interview. Yet off the bat Simon destroys the credibility of his interview. Supply-side economics cured stagflation exactly as supply-side economists said it would do. That was its only claim. I know. As Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, I was in charge.

In 2013, The Supply-Side Revolution, which Harvard has kept in print for three decades, was published in China in the Chinese language. Why would a leading Chinese publisher translate and publish a 30 year old book about a subject that “has been shown to be bankrupt as an intellectual concept?” Why would Chinese economists request a publisher to translate and publish a book about a discredited and useless subject?
Why does Simon, a reporter who was on the Baltimore Sun’s city desk covering crime during the Reagan administration, think that he knows anything about supply-side economics?

How can America save itself when its public intellectuals have no idea what they are talking about?
As I am associated with supply-side economics and the Reagan administration, the coterie of Reagan haters will write in to the many sites that post my column with sarcastic comments denouncing me for “again defending Reagan.” I am not defending anyone. I am merely stating the facts. Anyone can find the facts. All they have to do is to look. But many had rather shoot off their mouths and demonstrate their ignorance. They can’t stand the thought of having one less reason for hating Reagan.

As I am an interested party, let’s turn to a non-interested one, Paul A. Samuelson, “the father of modern economics.” Samuelson was the doyen of Keynesian economics, America’s greatest 20th century economist, and the first American economist to win the Nobel prize. If anyone was harmed by supply-side economics, it was Keynesian economists’ human capital. Yet in the 12th edition of his famous textbook published in 1985, Samuelson shows how supply-side policy can cause aggregate supply to increase or decrease, a first for economics textbooks. Samuelson validates supply-side economics in principle and says that its policy impact varies from “modest” to “substantial,” depending on circumstances. He also says that in Britain, “the supply side policies appear to have had an unexpectedly large impact, improving both inflation and productivity more than many observers expected.”
Is the “foremost academic economist of the 20th century” (New York Times) another trickle-down, voodoo kook like me and Ronald Reagan?

I met Samuelson in his MIT office when I gave the annual State of the Economy address to the combined economic faculties and graduate students of Harvard and MIT sometime in the 1980s. Samuelson had an open mind and could absorb new thinking. At the conclusion of my address, I received a standing ovation. No one in the large liberal audience of professors and graduate students said I was a voodoo economist or an agent for the rich. I have debated in public forums Keynesian economists who are Nobel prize winners, such as James Tobin and Larry Klein. They were always respectful. At a meeting of the Eastern Economics Association, Tobin acknowledged that I was correct.

Supply-side economics dealt with the problem of its time–stagflation. Supply-side economics has no cure for an economy decimated by jobs offshoring and financial deregulation. The problems of today are different. I have made this clear in my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West.

The George W. Bush tax cuts have nothing to do with supply-side economics. The Bush tax cuts were nothing but a greedy grab, but they are not a signifiant cause of today’s inequality. The main causes of the unacceptable inequality of income and wealth in the US today are financial deregulation and the dismantling of the ladders of upward mobility by the offshoring of manufacturing and tradable professional service jobs. The wages and salaries denied to Americans are transformed into corporate profits, mega-million dollar executive bonuses, and capital gains for shareholders. Financial deregulation unleashed massive debt leverage of bank depositors’ accounts, backed up with Federal Reserve bailouts of the banksters’ uncovered gambling bets. Neither tax increases nor reductions can compensate for these extraordinary mistakes.

Intelligent people over the centuries have stressed that failure to understand the past endangers the present and the future. Across the American political spectrum policymakers, economists, media, commentators, and the public are ignorant of the past and in denial about the present. Those trying to inform are few and far between, and they are constantly under attack from the very people they are endeavoring to inform. What is the point of the effort to inform? Is it merely “sound and fury, signifying nothing”?

Re-inventing al-Qaeda as ‘good guys

Osama Bin Ladin

“True to its origins as a Western intelligence asset, al-Qaeda is helping to create an illusion in Syria that will enable US weapons supply to the militants to continue,” writes Cunningham. Above, two militants are seen in Aleppo, October 26, 2012. 

By Finian Cunningham

The titular head of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has reportedly disavowed the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Videos emerged over the weekend of the Egyptian-born leader denying any organizational links with the ISIS.

The British Guardian reported that the move by the top al-Qaeda commander was an attempt to “reassert control” over the disparate militant groups fighting in Syria.

Later in the same report, the newspaper inadvertently hinted at the real motive for the initiative. “The internecine fighting - among the bloodiest in the three-year conflict - has undermined the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad and dismayed western powers pushing for peace talks,” reported the Guardian.

Forget the bit about “dismayed western powers pushing for peace talks.” That’s hogwash. The key phrase is “internecine fighting has undermined the uprising [sic] against President Bashar al-Assad.”

By “uprising,” the Guardian is euphemistically referring to the covert criminal war sponsored by the West against the Syrian government and its people. This is not an uprising or civil war; it is Western state-sponsored terrorism for regime change using foreign mercenaries of varying affiliation to al-Qaeda - the latter itself being historically a Western, Saudi intelligence creation from the late 1970s onwards.

The political problem for the West is that it cannot be seen to be overtly supporting the al-Qaeda brigades. That would very publicly destroy the last vestiges of the so-called War on Terror and 9/11 propaganda myth.

Previously, Washington and its allies have got around that contradiction by claiming that they have been supporting “moderate rebels” in Syria as opposed to the backbone of foreign mercenaries belonging to al-Qaeda. That sleight of hand ran into terminal problems when the “moderates” of the so-called Free Syrian Army were decisively pushed out of the picture at the end of last year by the “extremists.”

Now that there are no “moderates” fighting in Syria to talk of, even in a fictional sense, that presents the Western state terror sponsors with a very awkward conundrum.

How can Washington and its allies even begin to justify to their public sending weapons to al-Qaeda terrorists? That conundrum was highlighted with reports last week of the US Congress secretly voting to step up its munitions supply to Syria.

The reality that has been extant for the last three years, but which has been made latent by the Western media myth of “moderate rebels,” stands exposed. Western weapons are being funneled to terrorists in Syria, and not just any terrorist, but the supposed arch-terrorist enemy - al-Qaeda. Even the mercurial Western media cannot conceal that appalling reality. Something must be done to cover up the abominable truth.

This would explain the latest move by al-Qaeda chief al-Zawahiri trying to furnish the illusion that there is a distinction between the ISIS and the other al-Qaeda-affiliated militants of Jabhat al-Nusra and those comprising the Saudi-backed Islamic Front.

The ISIS has certainly emerged in recent months as a particularly barbaric brigade. One of its operatives reportedly killed 16 other militants in a bomb attack in Aleppo at the weekend. A video also emerged of ISIS fighters decapitating a man amid cheering crowds as the victim’s head was held aloft. It is also running amok in Iraq, killing dozens of civilians on a daily basis.

It would thus appear that the al-Qaeda command is moving to distance itself from the ISIS group, not for any ideological reason to be sure, but simply from a public relations point of view.

Now that the moderate/extremist dichotomy in Syria is a redundant falsehood, is the Western public being conditioned via the Western media to accept a new narrative of “bad al-Qaeda/good al-Qaeda” or at least an al-Qaeda segment that the West can sort of support?

This incredible mental gymnastic is of course somersaulting right off the floor of common intelligence. Only the most propagandized minds of warmongering politicians and their dutiful Western “news” media could entertain such doublethink nonsense.

But the interesting and telling point is where this initiative is ultimately coming from and why?

Jabhat al-Nusra - the soon-to-be presumed al-Qaeda “nice guys” - is the same group that has committed dozens of no-warning bomb attacks on civilians across Syria and Lebanon - the latest atrocity only days ago killing four in Hermel, east Lebanon.

Al-Nusra is the same group that was involved in the chemical weapons mass killing in east Ghouta, Damascus, last August, which resulted in hundreds of deaths, including women and children, and which the Western governments and their media tried to blame on the Syrian army, nearly resulting in an all-out American military attack on the country.

In the Syrian industrial city of Adra earlier this year, al-Nusra committed a massacre of more than 80 civilians, beheading many and even throwing workers at a bakery into the ovens.

One of the commanders of al-Nusra, Khalid al-Hamad (also known as Abu Sakkar) was the notorious cannibal who filmed himself cutting out the organs of a captured Syrian soldier and eating them.

Al-Nusra is a terrorist al-Qaeda group just as the ISIS is and the myriad other brigades with names like Shams al-Ahrar and so-called Islam al-Tawhid. They are all sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, share the same extremist Wahhabi cult religion, and they are all supported militarily by Washington and its allies, including Britain, France, Turkey, Jordan and Israel.

This spotlights who Ayman al-Zawahiri is really working for. The elusive, phantom-leader proclaims to have taken over al-Qaeda command following the alleged assassination of Osama bin Laden by US Special Forces in May 2011. How can Zawahiri make such a claim when it is credibly documented that Bin Laden died at least 10 years ago from natural causes and that his assassination in Abbottabad, Pakistan, was an American propaganda stunt?

Zawahiri’s latest public disowning of the ISIS in Syria suggests that the “initiative” is Washington-inspired in a bid to give itself a license to further weaponize its al-Qaeda foot soldiers in Syria. True to its origins as a Western intelligence asset, al-Qaeda is helping to create an illusion in Syria that will enable US weapons supply to the militants in that country to continue. Even though the stark reality is that Washington and its allies are - and always have been - on the side of out-and-out terrorists of varying stripes. Indeed, Washington and its allies are the terrorists-in-chief.

A Prosperous China Versus An Imperial US

Chinese President Xi Jinping

By John V. Walsh

China has stated its goals quite unambiguously. “A moderately prosperous society by 2020” is the first goal and “a strong socialist nation by 2049” as the second. But this may be simplified: China’s leadership wants its people to have a standard of living equal to that of the developed nations of the West. And that, along with restoring and preserving sovereignty, has been the main part of the Chinese program since 1949 – at least. China’s great historical achievement is to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty, accounting for most of the eradication of poverty in the recent past. This achievement is rarely mentioned in the West.

Consider the simple consequences of that fact. China has a population of 1.36 billion and the United States has a population of 320 million. So if China is to have a per capita GDP equal to that of the United States, its total GDP must be more than four times the size of the US economy. Four times.

As we have known at least since Thucydides military power flows from economic power. That is also true of “soft” power, scientific discovery and technological achievement and capacity. (This week USA Today carries a story on the rapid growth of new and original patents in China., alarming the Pentagon.) Growth in China’s economic power therefore closes the door on US global hegemony. The only way for the U.S. to maintain the hope of such hegemony is for China to change course and accept a lesser standard of living. But China will not accept such second class status voluntarily.

First such a future is not just, nor will the Chinese perceive or accept it as just. Second such a course demands that an accomplished, talented and determined people with a great culture accept a daily life less prosperous than the developed world enjoys.

Hence if the U.S. Empire to remain the first of global military powers in a way that is beyond challenge, it has no choice but to keep China down. There is an unavoidable contradiction between U.S. military dominance and Chinese economic development. Moreover even China’s economic power by itself is at odds with the hegemonic maneuvers of the U.S. Sanctions on sovereign nations, embargoes and blockades by the US will not work if China is willing to trade with the threatened nations. This forecloses U.S. economic control of other, weaker nations.

However, there is no necessary conflict between the two nations, China and the U.S., or the two peoples. The prosperity of China does not preclude a high level of prosperity in the U.S. Economic development and prosperity is not a zero sum game. As the Chinese repeat at every turn, there can be a win-win situation for all nations of the world with China’s development. That has already proven true in the present Great Recession where the Chinese economy has been the main driver of the global economy, perhaps preventing the Great Recession from tumbling into the Great Depression. That is also true for the development of other nations, India for example.

So the question is whether the United States wishes to remain the dominant military power in the world and to bring China down. Unfortunately, such anti-China strategies have already been put in place by the U.S. and they will be intensified.. The “New Silk Road Strategy” in Central Asia has been put forward by Hillary Clinton to “contain” China. Since the first term of George W. Bush, at least, the U.S. has sought to enlist India to “counterbalance” China – with limited success. So far the Indians do not seem to be taking the bait. The “Pivot to Asia” espoused by Clinton, Obama and others in the higher spheres of U.S. foreign policy has attempted to enlist Australia, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea and Vietnam against China.

Some of this follows classic patterns in diplomacy. For example, as John Mearsheimer outlines in his book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, the goal of a regional hegemon is to prevent the rise of a regional hegemon in other parts of the globe. Mearsheimer points out that right now there is but one regional hegemon in the world, the U.S., which reigns supreme in the Western Hemisphere. The first tactic and the preferred one to accomplish the put down of another emerging hegemon is “buck passing.” In simple terms, that means getting another regional power to do the dirty work, sparing oneself the pain and cost. In that light consider the ravings from Japan’s Prime Minister Abe, backed up and encouraged, even incited by the American “think” tank, CSIS (The Center for Strategic and International Studies). And today, news arrives that Abe’s party, the ruling LDP (Liberal Democratic Party), has eliminated from its platform the pledge that Japan “will never wage war again,” a pledge in place since the end of WWII, causing considerable consternation in South Korea, China, Taiwan and elsewhere in the neighborhood!

Furthermore, the United States is in no danger from a powerful China. We are separated by a vast ocean from China, and the power of nuclear weapons makes a challenge to U.S. sovereignty impossible except on a suicidal basis. Additionally, the U.S. remains a largely self sufficient economy with resources aplenty. Only severe paranoia could lead us to fear an economically prosperous China. And more than that, as Henry Kissinger, like many others, points out in his book On China, the Chinese have no history of overseas expansion.

That was true even in the early 15th Century when China was the greatest naval power in the world, sailing giant ships to Africa and elsewhere long before Columbus set foot on a ship. There was trading, but no conquest and no enslavement. Conquest and enslavement turned out to be the work of European civilization. And even now with China the second largest economy in the world it has not a singly overseas military base even though it provides more UN peacekeeper personnel than any other nation. As Kissinger points out, American exceptionalism is missionary; it insists that all the world be like us. One can see one of the most fanatic incarnations of that in Hillary Clinton and other “humanitarian” imperialists, many regarding themselves as “progressives.” China’s exceptionalism, on the other hand, is a high self-regard for its culture but no desire to spread it. If the rest of us do not want to follow the Chinese way, then we have missed out and it is no business of the Chinese to change that in their view.

The bloody history of the U.S. over the last Century is quite a different matter. If the United States insists on its status as the dominant and unchallengeable military power, then we are on the road to conflict, certainly a new Cold War the beginning of which the “pivot” represents, and quite possibly we are on the road to WWIII. We in the United States are the ones who can control this and perhaps save the world from the very worst suffering and deadly conflict. The answer is to abandon Empire, dismantle our overseas bases, end our occupation of foreign nations, including South Korea, Japan and Germany, adopt a defensive strategy to protect our land and come home. Trade and talk, yes. Military intervention, no. We have a potential partner for peace in China. Let us give it a try. Establish trust and verify it. In short, Come Home America. A paradise awaits us here. Let us leave others in peace to construct their own.

John V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com He is a founding member of ComeHomeAmerica (www.ComeHomeAmerica.US ). At that site you can read the statement of CHA opposing intervention in Syria. It is a statement of principle and applies to every U.S. intervention.

As Ghana returns to a two-party political stream…

Nana Akuffo Addo

By Dr. Michael J.K. Bokor

Folks, Ghana is on course to return to a two-party political stream. There is no hope for any third force under the guise of the pro-Nkrumahist family. Sooner than later, pro-Nkrumahism will be no more.

A viable political party that wants to remain so does things to grow, not to disintegrate or give politics a bad name. Or create fertile conditions for its members to be poached by rival political parties. Unfortunately, the pro-Nkrumahist political parties aren’t functioning this way.

I have a big issue with them because they are more invested in tearing their own house apart than building it to face the challenges imposed on partisan politics by our democracy.

Since the overthrow of the CPP government in 1966 and strategic efforts made by the Nkrumah haters to erase his name and accomplishments from Ghana’s history, the CPP has not had things easy-going. Its victory at the June 1979 general elections to put the PNP in office didn’t change anything because the Limann government fell victim to military adventurism.

Then, when the ban on party politics was lifted in 1992, the CPP couldn’t bounce back as a united front. It did so in various configurations that have become history. Its main offshoot the National Convention Party flirted with Rawlings’ NDC and entered into a dangerous political marriage with the NPP called the Great Alliance that flopped terribly).

When the brand name (“CPP”) was unbanned, the Nkrumahist front re-emerged again in splinter groups, the main branch bearing that CPP tag, hotly taunted by its half-brothers (the late Dan Lartey’s Ghana Consolidated Popular Party and Dr. E.N. Mahama’s People’s National Convention). Each seemed to be interested in only bearing a slice of the “Convention” but not sharing anything concrete to return the pro-Nkrumahist front to power and glory. Or even rising up by its own bootstraps. Only irritating us with their occasional effusions about governance but doing nothing to take over the rein of governance.

They have attempted merging but not succeeded for reasons best known to their leaders. Sadly, the CPP has faded really fast (with one accidental representation in the current Parliament by virtue of a bye-election victory somewhere in Northern Ghana) while the PNC has had some since the emergence of the 4th Republic, meaning that it is worth recognizing as more viable than the CPP.

Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom still placards his Nkrumahist credentials but is little recognized as such, which is why splitting ranks and forming the People’s Popular Party—and performing abysmally at Election 2012—hasn’t raised him to any high pedestal. He is still making some noises on the flanks but nothing exists to show that his party is growing as a force to reckon with at future elections.

Truth be told, none of these mushroom pro-Nkrumahist parties is worth recognizing as a political force to be trusted to change the current political dynamics that have the NDC and NPP swapping places to be in power—the NDC doing so more than the NPP has done in this 4th Republic.

Now, here is the main issue. While the NPP is doing all it can to put its plans to good use in readiness for Election 2016, the pro-Nkrumahist parties are either crying over spilt milk or in total disarray, unsure of their role in Ghanaian politics. Its national chairman, Samia Nkrumah’s declaration of intent to contest Election 2012 as the CPP’s Presidential Candidate is the biggest joke ever. On the basis of a dead CPP?

The CPP is virtually in its death throes while the PNC is currently being torn apart by allegations against its 2012 Presidential Candidate, Hassan Ayariga. And the allegations have exposed the weaknesses of the party and created a nasty impression about it.

Credibility is gone!

It all began when the “Convention Forum” (a youth group in the party) demanded that the party’s leadership should account for Ghc1.6 million of campaign funds meant for the 2012 elections. The spokesperson for the group, Adam Akani, alleged that the money was to be used to pay the PNC party agents who policed the 2012 elections but the agents have still not been paid.

Then, David Apasara (the Treasurer of the PNC) specifically accused Mr. Hassan Ayariga of hijacking and hoarding the party’s cars and money. According to him, Mr. Ayariga received many cars, including Land Cruisers and pickups, as well as different amounts of money as donation in the name of the party but hoarded all of it to himself.

In his reaction, Mr. Ayariga has dismissed the allegations of embezzlement and said that he is not accountable to the party over monies spent during the 2012 electioneering period.

In an interview on Radio XYZ’s “Strict Proof” on Tuesday, he conceded receiving some monies for his campaign just like his fellow presidential candidates but added that all expenses for his 2012 campaign were borne by him without a cedi from the party.

He said that he was compelled to close down all his three restaurants because he had to channel funds from those personal businesses into his electioneering campaigns. He added that until he became the flagbearer of the PNC, the party was virtually dead and so could not have attracted any sponsorship from anybody or groups of people.

“The Chairman is the leader of the party, so if there’s money missing, I think they are the right people to explain to us where the money came from, who gave the money, and how much it was, and where it went to”.

Speaking to Joy News on Tuesday, Mr. Ayariga noted that if any money was directly given to him at all, then, it probably means that the money was not meant for the party.

MY COMMENTS

Mr. Ayariga has a big credibility problem to tackle; and no amount of huffing and puffing will do so for him. No “Ayaricough” or antics similar to “Ayarigate” will do so. It is serious business—to account for anything done or undone in the name of the party that he led at Election 2012. Accountability is the call.

Clearly, the pro-Nkrumahist family is virtually dead and will soon become history. The occasional effusions or misplaced critical assessments of happenings in Ghana coming from its agitated leaders won’t solve the internal problems tearing everything into shreds for them. Neither will knee-jerk public demonstrations of the kind that Dr. Nduom is organizing all over the place as if it is such demonstrations that will enlarge his party’s following.

As these parties waste time and resources splitting their own ranks, they give credence to the claim that the NDC and NPP will remain the strongest political parties to share political power in Ghana.

That returns Ghana to a two-party stream (that had been the case before the collapse of multi-partyism under Nkrumah’s agenda of the CPP’s being Ghana and Ghana’s being the CPP with himself as the Life President).

Interestingly, both the NDC and NPP have a collection of elements claiming to be Nkrumahists but gravitating more toward the gravy train than clinging to the umbilical cord that might nourish their ideological stream as Nkrumahists. They have become politically bastardized and cannot persuade me that they are still Nkrumahists who will do what Nkrumahists are expected to do to grow an Nkrumahist party.

With the return of the two-party stream in Ghanaian politics comes many challenges that the electorate should take note of and ensure that our democracy doesn’t falter. I will be happy to see all these so-called pro-Nkrumahist parties collapsed into the NDC (whose agenda for national development is not far different from that of the Great Osagyefo).

It will be a travesty of politics to have them troop to the NPP because both are ideologically incompatible, even though the dethroned Ellembele Mugabe (Freddie Blay) and Dr. Nduom have been in bed with this Danquah-Busia anathema over the years. Freddie Blay has even picked up a nomination form to contest the position of Vice Chairman of the NPP.

Such turncoats are laughable, not because they come across as political prostitutes but because they have no ideology to stand on and drift as the wind blows. They are not to be trusted.

When the two-party stream is consolidated, it will become necessary for laws to be passed to regulate funding of political parties and the state itself charged with supporting the two parties so a lasting regime for political organization can be established for our democracy.

Then, politics should be used to improve living conditions in the country, not to put in power any group of self-seekers. The game of musical chairs won’t grow our democracy!!

I shall return…

E-mail: mjbokor@yahoo.com

Join me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor to continue the conversation.

Ban’s partisanship risks UN existence

Ban Ki Mooon

Dr Webster G. Tarpley

The just-concluded first phase of the international conference on Syria in the Swiss cities of Montreux and Geneva has underlined a serious crisis in the collective security apparatus of the world. 

Because of his outrageous partisanship and animus against countries like Syria and Iran, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has manifestly lost the confidence of political circles the world over, and can no longer continue in office.  Ban’s incompetent and partial management of Geneva II is unquestionably one of the main causes for the meager results of this diplomatic effort so far.

The role of the secretary general should be to maintain an attitude of impartiality with a view to using good offices to mediate conflicts in accordance with guidance from the Security Council.  As the United Nations states on its website:  “One of the most vital roles played by the Secretary-General is the use of his ‘good offices’ -- steps taken publicly and in private, drawing upon his independence, impartiality and integrity, to prevent international disputes from arising, escalating or spreading.”  

But to speak of “independence, impartiality and integrity” in the same sentence with the name of Ban has now become grotesque.  Ban Ki-moon has always been a dubious figure on these points, but he has now crossed the line into partisanship and animus against two prominent anti-imperialist states.

The present writer issued a call for the Secretary-General’s impeachment in June 2012 because of Ban’s failing stewardship of the peace process for Syria, which was already obvious at that time.  Ironically, Ban Ki-moon had momentarily re-appeared as a possible honest broker for the Syrian conflict when, on Sunday, January 19, he announced his decision to invite Iran along with a number of other countries to take part in the preliminary session scheduled for Montreux the following Wednesday.  

It is not known what factors contributed to such a moment of lucidity on the part of Ban, but his reasonable conduct proved to be short-lived.  First, the Syrian National Coalition, a group of NATO puppets inhabiting expensive hotels who represent precious little beside themselves, bombastically stated that they would not participate in any conference where Iran was present.  The US State Department immediately began howling that Iran had to fulfill the precondition of endorsing the communiqué issued by the first Geneva conference on Syria, held in mid-2012.  But here Foggy Bottom ran into a palpable contradiction, since Iran had been deliberately excluded from Geneva I -- in large part because of US pressure.  So now Iran was expected to endorse a communiqué issued by a conference from which it had been shut out. No matter; the State Department obviously did not want the Iranian presence and Ban Ki-moon was told to find a way to keep Tehran’s envoys out.

Ban Ki-moon claimed that he had received informal assurances from Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif that Iran accepted the general proposition that the Syrian parties should agree on a transitional governing body for the country.  But now, Ban complained that public statements by Iranian officials had contradicted that undertaking.  Using this crude pretext, Ban rescinded his invitation to Iran -- a diplomatic affront of the first magnitude.  Earlier Secretaries General of the United Nations had of course played favorites, but seldom had they done so in such a primitive and insulting manner as Ban.
 
Lavrov called this disinviting of Iran a serious mistake, and obliquely criticized Ban, noting that his about-face on Iran “hasn’t helped strengthen the UN’s authority,” and that his behavior appeared “unseemly” -- a reminder that Ban had gone too far in his notorious role as a US puppet.  Lavrov correctly pointed out that the proper approach to organizing a peace conference is not to limit invitations to countries that one likes, but rather to secure the participation of all the countries whose cooperation is essential to arrive at a practical settlement.

The Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif stressed that Iran had never agreed to accept preconditions to be able to take part in negotiations on Syria, commenting:  “Mr. Ban Ki-moon contacted me several times last week and I stated to him explicitly that we don’t accept any preconditions for participating in the meeting.  We regret that Mr. Ban Ki-moon has withdrawn his offer (the Montreux-Geneva invitation) and believe that such an attitude is not appropriate for the status and dignity of the Secretary-General.”  

The State Department has been alleging for many months that Iran has become a direct party to the conflict in Syria.  If they really believe that, it would necessarily follow that Iran must be invited to the peace conference without any preconditions.  But today’s State Department appears gripped by a toxic mixture of hysteria, schizophrenia, and paranoia -- all radiating out from the erratic Secretary John Forbes Kerry of the infamous Skull and Bones Society of Yale University, to whom Ban Ki-moon is largely subordinated.

There can be no doubt that the blatantly servile behavior of Ban Ki-moon has done permanent damage to the office of United Nations Secretary-General.  The question is now how long the United Nations can survive as an institution if this kind of management is allowed to continue.

Ban-Ki moon’s bullying display in Montreux

During the proceedings at Montreux, Ban had still more antics up his sleeve.  He had already packed the list of 40 foreign ministers scheduled to make opening statements with countries toeing the US line of implacable hostility to the Assad government, combined with blatant softness towards the terrorist rebels.  His next step was to divide the available time equally among these diplomats, with the result that both faraway Australia and South Korea were each granted eight minutes, exactly the same amount of time assigned to Syria, the country at the center of all the attention.  

Syria was represented at Montreux by Foreign Minister Moallem, a figure of massive dignity with the courage to defend his country from the chorus of vilification deployed against Syria by so many US and Saudi client states.  First Ban attempted to impose his time limits by repeatedly ringing a little bell, but to no avail: Moallem continued his compelling exposition.  Then, Ban decided that it was time for a new diplomatic affront, and he interrupted Moallem like a teacher chastening and unruly schoolboy, leading to the following exchange:

Ban: Can you just wrap up please.
Al-Moallem: I came here after 12 hours in the airplane. I have a few more minutes to end my speech. This is Syria.
Ban: How much do you have left now?
Al-Moallem: I think 5-10 minutes.
Ban: No, no. I will give you another opportunity to speak.
Al-Moallem: No, I cannot divide my speech. I must continue ... I will do my best to be fast.
Ban: Can you just wrap up in one or two minutes?
Al-Moallem: No, I can't promise you, I must finish my speech. ... You live in New York, I live in Syria. I have the right to give the Syrian version here in this forum. After three years of suffering, this is my right.
Ban: We have to have some constructive and harmonious dialogue, please refrain from inflammatory rhetoric.
Al-Moallem: It is constructive, I promise you, let me finish.
Ban: Within 2-3 minutes please. I will give you another opportunity.
Al-Moallem: You spoke for 25 minutes; at least I need to speak 30 minutes.

Moallem had by far the greater moral authority, since every minute that he spoke had been dearly purchased at the price of the blood of soldiers in the Syrian Arab Army.  Ban’s hooligan conduct was nothing short of an international scandal.

Ban Ki-moon’s rowdy partisanship against Syria and Iran threatens the very existence of the United Nations. With a little imagination, we can see the definite possibility of the world body splitting into two opposed camps: on the one side, an imperialist UN operating lawlessly under the cynical cover of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect, made up of countries willing to subject themselves to the role of Anglo-American finance capital, with the NATO military alliance as an enforcer.  On the other side would be a United Nations of independent states, respecting the principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of its members as enshrined in the United Nations Charter, and grouped around the BRICS group of states.

In Article 100 of the United Nations Charter, we read:  “In the performance of their duties the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization.  They shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only to the Organization.”  There is a very strong case that Ban Ki-moon has flagrantly violated this provision, and should therefore be removed from office.

A mirror for Ban-Ki moon: Joseph Avenol, the Fascist secretary general of the League of Nations

Ban Ki-moon’s conduct recalls ssthat of Joseph Avenol, the French pro-fascist functionary who served as Secretary General of the old League of Nations from July 3, 1933 to August 31, 1940.  Avenol played a decisive role in promoting appeasement and support of fascist aggression.  After the Nazi regime had left the League of Nations, Avenol tried to suppress criticism of Hitler in order to get Germany back into the League.  He did the same for Japan, which departed after its invasion of Chinese Manchuria.  

When Mussolini attacked Ethiopia, Avenol tried to defend the image of fascist Italy rather than working to roll back aggression.  After the Franco-British sellout of Czechoslovakia at the Munich conference in 1938, Avenol purged the League of Nations Secretariat of functionaries opposed to the expansion of Nazi Germany.  Avenol thus gutted the personnel of the League, leaving it a hollow shell.  Avenol became an enthusiastic supporter of the Vichy regime of Marshall Pétain, although he never managed to convince the Nazis that he was reliable.  Here is the infamous tradition in which Ban Ki-moon is currently following.

Ban Ki-moon had already raised eyebrows at the United Nations because of his obstruction of anticorruption policies, and because of his unusual call for action Security Council against the DPRK of North Korea during the Cheonan crisis of May 2010.  The Secretary-General is supposed to represent the views of the Security Council, but Ban has always tended to ignore Russia and China in favor of obedience to the US, Britain, and France. 

No Secretary-General of the United Nations has ever been impeached, but this may be the territory which the world body will be compelled to explore if Ban-Ki moon continues on his present course.

Makeda, Queen of Shiba

The Forgotten History of African Women  

By Dr Gary K. Busch

There is a great deal of discussion these days about the need to promote gender equality in Africa. Indeed, the need is obvious as millions of women toil in dreary, largely unpaid and unfulfilling tasks, responsible for most of the farming, marketing and commerce of rural Africa in addition to their child-bearing and child-rearing responsibilities. Many more sit in desperation in refugee camps where they have been driven or shelter in the bush, trying to avoid the conflicts around them. In large tracts of Africa they are without a voice; without power; and the first victims of the civil conflicts which have beset warring African states. They are victims of rape, murder, virtual slavery as well as suffering from the diseases which debilitate African populations.

 This popular vision of a poor, oppressed and powerless African female belies a long and proud history of African matriarchs, queens, rebels and freedom fighters who were immensely powerful in their own societies. Their history has been overlooked; suppressed by the colonial powers and demeaned by the men who stole back their thrones from these mighty women.

There is a long history of powerful African queens, consorts and rebel leaders which seldom make it into current history books. The role of women in ruling African nations, fighting against colonial enslavement and supervising the policies of their heirs and offspring as they rose into political primacy is a suppressed and forgotten history. This is a history which deserves to be taught in the schools.

There were many societies in Africa which were matriarchal. Women were enshrined in positions of power. In most cases this matriarchal power was broken by the invasion of foreign nations who could not or would not deal with powerful women. In Guinée Bissau there were even matriarchal societies where women were the most important element.  On the Bijagos Islands they had queens. They were not queens because they were the daughters of kings. They had queens succeeding queens.  The religious leaders were women too.

The Historical Record

One of the earliest of the powerful African queens, whose history did survive the passage of time, was Makeda, the Queen of Sheba. Black women of antiquity were legendary for their beauty and power. Amongst these were the Queens of Ethiopia (also known as Nubia, Kush, Axum and Sheba.) One thousand years before Christ, Ethiopia was ruled by a line of virgin queens. The one whose story has survived into our time was known as Makeda, "the Queen of Sheba." Her remarkable tradition was recorded in the Kebar Nagast, or the Glory of Kings, and the Bible. The Bible tells us of the infatuation of King Solomon with this African queen  (1 Kings 10). She bore a child to Solomon, his first-born, called Menelik. Menelik and the Queen returned to Ethiopia with the blessing of Solomon and founded the dynasty which lasted until the mid-20th century and the triumph of the Dergue. The emperors of Ethiopia were known as the “Lions of Judah” to reflect their descent from Solomon and Makeda.

The royal women of Ancient Egypt wielded immense power. The Kemetic women (Kemet was the Egyptian name for Egypt) of the 18th dynasty wielded military as well as political power, starting with Ahhotep I who drove out the foreign occupiers who had attacked Upper Egypt. Another was Hatshepsut, who actually ruled as Pharaoh over all of Egypt. Hatshepsut held the throne for over 20 years, building magnificent temples and sending a famous naval expedition to trade with Somalia. Two other women ruled as pharaohs in their own right: Sobekneferu and Twosret.

After the Romans conquered Egypt they set out to expand their empire. Augustus sent troops to the south of Eygpt to invade the Kingdom of the Meroites (Ethiopia) in 322 B.C., led by their warrior-queen Candace. Her full name and title was Amnirense qore li kdwe li ("Ameniras, Qore and Kandake") Candace was one of the greatest generals of the ancient world. This formidable black queen was world famous as a military tactician and field commander.  Augustus could not entertain even the possibility of having his world fame and unbroken chain of victories marred by risking a defeat, at last, by a woman. He halted his armies at the borders of Ethiopia and did not invade. He refused to meet the waiting black armies with their Queen in personal command. He granted an audience to the representatives of Candace at the island of Samos and negotiated a peace deal with the Meroites, including a neutral buffer zone. This was the first recorded instance in the entire history of Africa when diplomats representing a Black African ruler, independent of Egypt, travelled to Europe to achieve a diplomatic resolution.

Another great queen was the North African Berber Queen al-Kāhina bint D̲j̲arāwa al-Zanāt, better known as Dihya. She was a Berber queen, a religious and military leader who led indigenous resistance to Arab expansion in Northwest Africa (the region then known as Numidia, known as eastern Algeria today). She was born in the early 7th century and died around the end of the 7th century. She was Jewish.  She was famous because, in her youth, she had freed her people from a tyrant by agreeing to marry him and then murdering him on their wedding night. Dihyā succeeded Kusaila as the war leader of the Berber tribes in the 680s and opposed the encroaching Arab armies of the Umayyad Dynasty. Hasan ibn al-Nu'man marched from Egypt and captured the major Byzantine city of Carthage and other cities. Standing in the way of his conquest of all of North Africa was Dihya. He marched into Numidia. Their armies met near Meskiana in the present-day province of Oum el-Bouaghi, Algeria. She defeated Hasan so soundly that he fled and retired to Cyrenaica (Libya) for four or five years before giving up his quest for North African hegemony.

There were many other powerful African queens whose actions shaped the destinies of their nations.  One of the most important of these African queens was Amina, the Queen of Zaria (1588-1589). She was queen of Zazzua, a part of Nigeria now known as Zaria where matrilineal equality allowed women to rule as well as men. She was born around 1533 during the reign of Sarkin (king) Zazzau Nohir; she was probably his granddaughter. Zazzua was one of a number of Hausa city-states which dominated the trans-Saharan trade after the collapse of the Songhai Empire to the west. Its wealth was due to trade of mainly leather goods, cloth, kola, salt, horses and imported metals.

At the age of sixteen, Amina became the heir apparent (Magajiya) to her mother, Bakwa of Turunku, the ruling queen of Zazzua. Although her mother's reign was known for peace and prosperity, Amina decided to immerse herself in military skills from the warriors. Queen Bakwa died around 1566 and the reign of Zazzua passed to her younger brother Karama. At this time Amina emerged as the leading warrior of Zazzua cavalry. Her military achievements brought her great wealth and power.

When Karama died after a ten-year rule, Amina became queen of Zazzua. She set off on her first military expedition three months after coming to power and continued fighting until her death. In her thirty-four year reign, she expanded the domain of Zazzua to its largest size ever. Her main focus, however, was not on annexation of neighbouring lands, but on forcing local rulers to accept vassal status and permitting Hausa traders safe passage. She is credited with popularizing the earthen city wall fortifications, which became characteristic of Hausa city-states since then. She ordered building of a defensive wall around each military camp that she established. Later, towns grew within these protective walls, many of which are still in existence. They're known as "ganuwar Amina", or Amina's walls. She is mostly remembered as "Amina, Yar Bakwa ta san rana," meaning "Amina, daughter of Nikatau, a woman as capable as a man.”[i]

With the arrival of colonialism the struggle took a different turn. When the British conquered and subjugated Ghana they captured the Asantahene, the paramount king of the Ashanti  The counter attack against the imposition of colonial rule was led by Yaa Asantewa the Queen Mother of Ejisu. Her fight against British colonialists is a story that is a key feature of the history of Ghana. She stiffened the resolve of the chiefs who feared to attack the British. One evening the chiefs held a secret meeting at Kumasi. Yaa Asantewa was at the meeting. The chiefs were discussing how they should make war on the white men and force them to bring back the Asantehene. Yaa Asantewa noticed that some of the chiefs were afraid. Some said that there should be no war. They suggested that they be delegated to go to beg the Governor to bring back the Asantehene King Prempeh. Then Yaa Asantewa stood up and spoke.

This was what she said: "Now I have seen that some of you fear to go forward to fight for our king. If it were in the brave days of, the days of Osei Tutu, Okomfo Anokye, and Opolu Ware, chiefs would not sit down to see thief king taken away without firing a shot. No white man could have dared to speak to chief of the Ashanti in the way the Governor spoke to you chiefs this morning. Is it true that the bravery of the Ashanti is no more? I cannot believe it. It cannot be! I must say this, if you the men of Ashanti will not go forward, then we will. We the women will. I shall call upon my fellow women. We will fight the white men. We will fight till the last of us falls in the battlefields."

This speech stirred up the men who took an oath to fight the white men until they released the Asantehene. For months the Ashanti, led by Yaa Asantewa, fought very bravely and kept the white men in their fort. Finally, British reinforcements totalling 1,400 soldiers arrived at Kumasi. Yaa Asantewa and other leaders were captured and sent into exile. Yaa Asantewa's war was the last of the major wars in Africa led by a woman.

Another ant-colonial fighter was Mbande Zinga, the sister and advisor of the king of Ngola (today Angola). She served as his representative in negotiating treaties with the colonial Portuguese. She became queen when her brother died in 1624 and appointed women, including her two sisters Kifunji and Mukumbu, to all government offices. She was a member of the ethnic Jagas a militant group that formed a human shield against the Portuguese slave traders. As a visionary political leader, competent, and self-sacrificing she was completely devoted to the resistance movement. She formed alliances with other foreign powers pitting them against one another to free Angola of European influence. When the Portuguese broke the peace treaty she led her largely female army against them inflicting terrible casualties while also conquering nearby kingdoms in an attempt to build a strong enough confederation to drive the Portuguese out of Africa. She accepted a truce and then agreed to a peace treaty in 1635. She continued to rule her people and lived to be 81. When Angola became an independent nation in 1975 a street in Luanda was named in her honour.

Rebellion was led by women in Central Africa as well. One of the most revered is Nehanda Mbuya (‘grandmother’) of Zimbabwe. When the English invaded Zimbabwe in 1896 and Cecil Rhodes began confiscating land and cattle, Nehanda and other Shona leaders declared war. Nehanda (1862-1898) was a priestess of the MaShona nation of Zimbabwe. She became a military leader of her people when the British invaded her country. She led a number of successful attacks on the English but was eventually captured and executed. She is one of the most important personalities in the modern history of Zimbabwe. She is still referred to as Mbuya (Grandmother) Nehanda by Zimbabwean patriots.

The Baulé nation of the Ivory Coast reveres a female founder: the Ashanti princess Abla Pokou, who led her people fleeing across the river from Ghana into Ivory Coast to carve out a territory for their settlement

Llinga was a warrior queen of the Ba-Kongo who, armed with axe, bow and sword fought the Portuguese in 1640, leading an army of both women and men against the colonialists. Women warriors were common in the Congo where the Monomotapa confederacy had standing armies of women.

Kaipkir was the warrior leader of the Herero tribe of southwest Africa in the 18th century. She led her people in battles against British slave traders. She had a standing force of armed women who would attack the slave traders and force them to give up their captives. There are records of Herero women fighting German soldiers as late as 1919.

Nandi (Nandi kaBhebhe eLangeni) was the warrior mother of Shaka Zulu., the famed leader of the Zulu in South Africa. She battled slave traders as well and trained her son to be a warrior. When he became King he established an all-female regiment which often fought in the front lines of his army.

Mantatisi was the warrior queen of the baTlokwas (the once famous 40,000- to 50,000-strong Sotho tribe). In the early 1800s, Queen Mantatisi became the first woman to rule as chieftainess over her people. She fought to preserve her tribal lands during the wars between Shaka Zulu and Matiwane. She succeeded in protecting the baTlokwas heritage although her son, who became King when she died, was eventually defeated by Mahweshwe.

A contemporary was Dzugudini, a grand-daughter of "the famous ruler Monomatapa,". She was the founding Rain Queen of the Lovedu. Her royal father was angry that she bore a child out of wedlock and drove her South to live among the Basotho. In the early 1800s, a leadership crisis was resolved by accession of the first Mujaji, a Rain Queen with both political and ceremonial power. She had no military, but even the Zulu king Shaka paid her tribute because of her rain power. Her successors have less authority, but still preside over womanhood initiations and other important rituals

Madam Yoko (Mammy Yoko) was a leader of the Mende of Sierra Leone. She ruled and led the army of the fourteen tribes of the Kpa Mende Confederacy, the largest tribal group in 19th century Sierra Leone. At that time at least 15% of all the tribes in Sierra Leone were led by women, today approximately 9% have women rulers. Her birth name was Soma, which she changed to Yoko after her Sande (women’s secret society) initiation. She was born around 1849 in the Gbo Chiefdom. She used her leadership of the Sande to augment her political contacts. In 1878 Yoko became the chief of Senehun and was recognised as the Queen by the British.

Menen Leben Amede was Empress of Ethopia. She commanded her own army and acted as regent for her son Ali Alulus. She was wounded and captured in a battle in 1847 but was ransomed by her son and continued to rule until 1853.

Seh-Dong-Hong-Beh was a leader of the Dahomey Amazons under King Gezo. In 1851 she led an army of 6,000 women against the Egba fortress of Abeokuta. Because the Amazons were armed with spears, bows and swords while the Egba had European cannons only about 1,200 survived the extended battle. In 1892 King Behanzin of Dahomey (now Benin) took up arms against the French colonists over trading rights. He led his army of 12,000 troops, including 2,000 Amazons trained by Seh-Dong-Hong-Beh into battle.

Despite the fact that the Dahomey army was armed only with rifles while the French had machine guns and cannons, the Amazons attacked when the French troops attempted a river crossing, inflicting heavy casualties. They engaged in hand to hand combat with the survivors eventually forcing the French army to retreat. Days later the French found a bridge, crossed the river and defeated the Dahomey army after fierce fighting. The Amazons burned fields, villages and cities rather than let them fall to the French but merely delayed Dahomey being absorbed as a French colony. [ii]

In the late 19th century Mukaya, the leader of the Luba people of central Africa whose nation stretched along the rain forest from Zaire to northern Zambia, led her warriors in battle against enemy tribes and rival factions. Initially she fought alongside her brother Kasongo Kalambo, after he was killed in battle she assumed sole control of the empire and the army.

Perhaps the most famous effort by women was thee Aba rebellion in southeastern Nigeria, This incident become known as the Igbo Women's War of 1929 (or "Ogu Ndem," Women's War, in Igbo. It was organized and led by the rural women of Oerri and Calabar provinces. People were outraged at the colonial government's plan to tax women, "the trees that bear fruit." In protest, Ibo women bound their heads with ferns, painted their faces with ash, put on loincloths and carried sacred sticks with palm frond wreaths. Thousands marched on the District Office, dancing, singing protests, and demanding the cap of office of the colonial chief Okugo.

This protest spread into a vast regional insurrection. The Ibo women's councils mobilized demonstrations in three provinces, turning out over 2,000,000 protesters. The British District Officer at Bende wrote, "The trouble spread in the 2nd week of December to Aba, an important trading centre on the railway. Here there converged some 10,000 women, scantily clothed, girdled with green leaves, carrying sticks. Singing angry songs against the chiefs and the court messengers, the women proceeded to attack and loot the European trading shops, stores, and Barclay's Bank, and to break into the prison and release the prisoners."

Elsewhere women protestors burned down the hated British "Native Courts" and cut telegraph wires, throwing officials into panic. The colonials fired on the female protesters, killing more than fifty and wounding more. The leaders of the protest in Oloko are known as the Oloko Trio: Ikonnia, Mwannedia and Nwugo. Nwanyereuwa played a major role in keeping the protests non-violent. Others included Mary of Ogu Ndem, Ihejilemebi Ibe of Umuokirika Village and  Ahebi Ugabe of Enugu-Ezike: "The Female Leopard".

Marches continued sporadically into 1930. These mass actions became known as the Aba Rebellion of 1929, or The War of the Women. It was one of the most significant anti-colonial revolts in Africa of that day. [iii]

There is a rich tradition of matriarchy in African societies; some still exist today Perhaps the most visible is the Queen Mother of Swaziland, the Indlovukazi (also known as the Great She-Elephant). Traditionally the Queen Mother is a co-regent with the King. The current Queen Mother is Ntombi laTwala, the mother of the current king Makhosetive Dhlamini, ruling as King Mswati III with his mother as Joint Head of State. As Queen Mother, Ntombi is seen as the spiritual and national head of state, while her son is considered the administrative head of state.[iv]

The history of Africa includes many important African women who used their power to shape their nations. However some women were powerful but considered to be very dangerous and evil by the colonial powers. The most famous of these was Queen Ranavalona I - The Mad Monarch of Madagascar (1782 - 1861). Contemporaries wrote about her) ‘She is certainly one of the proudest and cruel women on the face of the earth, and her whole history is a record of bloodshed and deeds of horror.’ – Ida Pfeiffer (explorer). This may well have been a biased view.

For centuries Madagascar was virtually unknown to foreign invaders. By the 18th century, this unspoiled and untamed land was discovered by European explorers who scrambled to claim the prime real estate for their very own. For the English, Madagascar was the perfect pit-stop on the long voyage to India. The French were eager to add Madagascar to their already burgeoning African portfolio. King Andrianampoinimerina believed that learning from the West would help his country. However, traditionalists and the priests weren’t too keen on the idea. His uncle took it one step further and tried to assassinate him. He was saved by the intervention of a local tribesman who alerted him to the plot. To say ‘thank you,’ the King decided to adopt the tribesman’s daughter, Ranavalona, bringing her to court as a possible wife for his son, Prince Radama. Soon Ranavalona became the first of Prince Radama’s 12 wives. They didn’t get on. She opposed reform; preferring the “old ways”

In 1810, Prince Radama succeeded his father as King. Ranavalona became increasingly frustrated at her inability to check her husband’s modernizing ideas. He was eager to bring his country into the 19th century. King Radama began to allow more foreigners onto the island, particularly British missionaries, who began efforts to convert the natives to Christianity. They built schools, and helped to develop a written language. Ranavalona watched in horror as the new religion slowly took root threatening the worship of the Malagasy gods.

In 1828, King Radama died after a long, debilitating illness. Two of his officers decided to keep the news out of circulation until they could place his nephew, Prince Rakatobe on the throne. But Ranavalona got wind of the plan and mobilized her supporters, which included the priests and the hard-core traditionalists. She spread rumours that the gods were telling her that she was destined to be the next ruler. After declaring herself Queen, she had all immediate rivals to the throne captured and put to death.

Once that was out of the way, Ranavalona decided to teach the foreigners polluting her nation a lesson. As far as Ranavalona was concerned, the only good foreigner was a dead one. She broke treaties with both the English and the French and banned Christianity. With a fanaticism that would have made the Inquisition proud, she came up with creative and inventive ways to eliminate any one caught practicing Christianity. They were tortured, boiled in water, poisoned, flung off cliffs or beheaded if they didn’t recant.

She also got rid of trial by jury and brought back good old fashioned ‘Trial by Ordeal’ which was decided by forcing the accused to drink the poisonous juice of the tanguena plant. If they survived, they were innocent. Both the French and the British spent considerable time and effort trying to dislodge Ranavalona from the throne but to no avail. After one successful battle against an invasion, Ranavalona cut off the heads of the dead Europeans, stuck them on pikes, and lined them up on the beach, to repel any future invaders. After that little display, the French and the English decided that were better off concentrating their efforts on other third world countries not ruled by insane females.

Ranavalona wanted her people to be self-sufficient but was well aware of her inherent military weaknesses. Divine providence brought her a French arms manufacturer whose boat was shipwrecked off the coast. He helped her to build up her arsenal, and became her lover as well. Before long Madagascar had built factories to produce guns, bullets, sugar, clothing and rum. She founded cities, and was one of the few African rulers to successfully hold off colonial rule.

However, independence came at a high prize. To boost the economy, Ranavalona turned to selling her own subjects into slavery. Those who were sold were considered traitors, spoils of war, or Christians caught practicing their religion in secret. She continued the wars of expansion, determined to bring the entire island under her thumb. Her actions decimated the population from a high of 5 million people down to 2.5 million at the end of her reign. It was estimated that 20,000 to 30,000 were killed a year for various offenses. Ranavalona died peacefully in her bed at the age of 79 in 1861, managing to survive a coup by her son.  It is difficult to treat her as a great African Queen.[v] She did, however, succeed against colonial takeover.

Problems Of Gender Equality

Despite the obvious problems of reaching gender equality in Africa there is one important area where gender equality has been achieved. Powerful African women: heads of state; cabinet ministers and businesswomen are as corrupt as their male counterparts. Today one can see a major investigation of corruption in Malawi, where President Joyce Banda is accused of mislaying some eighty million dollars. The President of Liberia, Ellen Sirleaf-Johnson is accused of a wide variety of corrupt practices. The recent linking of the wife of the former head of state in Guinea to her sponsorship of the national drug trade and the turning of the country into a narco-state has illustrated the temptations of unchecked power. The Nigerian President, Jonathan Goodluck, is beset by a gaggle of corrupt women – Diezani K. Alison-Madueke (the Oil minister), Stella Oduah-Ogiemwonyi (the Aviation Minister); Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala (the Finance Minister) and his wife Patience; all of whom are notorious for their forays into vulture capitalism. The wives of many African heads of state are famous for their excesses of personal spending meddling in political affairs for their own pecuniary ends – Chantal Biya, Grace Mugabe, to name but two. The female children sometimes excel their parents in their avarice and meddling in business as well as politics: Isabel Dos Santos is the richest woman in Africa; Valentina da Luz Guebuza is the second richest, running the family company Focus 21.

There are many prosperous African women who got their positions by marrying a “big man” who gave them oil concessions, banks to run and property to lease. Even those have been shown to have a predilection for shady business practices. In 2010  Cecilia Ibru, former CEO of Oceanic Bank, pleaded guilty to three of 25 counts of fraud and mismanagement and was  sentenced to six months in prison for fraud and ordered to hand over $1.2bn (£786m) in cash and assets. This was after she tried to skip out of Nigeria on a borrowed jet.

The point of this is that, given half a chance, the female African with power or linked to power is as corrupt as her male counterparts. A good reason for this is that there are very few African female role models who provide an alternative to this Jagua Nana behaviour. They have not been taught about the historical African females who struggled on behalf of their countries; fought colonialism and made sacrifices for their nations. In Swahili they say the women have chosen to fight to be  “wabenzi” (the people of the Mercedes-Benz) rather than to support the “wananchi” (the common people). The urban, educated African woman is capable of forcing a change in her society by example. The poor, disorganised rural women struggling for survival have no power to make changes but the educated, urban African woman has the power to make changes is she wishes to do so. So, perhaps she can reflect on the legacy of Amina of Zaria, Yaa Asantewa, Nehanda Mabuya and the others and spend some time fostering social justice in her own country.

It is a proud legacy and deserves to be better known.

 

---

[i] Assata Shakur, African Queens 2001

[ii] See Geni, Queens and Warriors of Africa 2012

[iii] Marissa K. Evans, Aba Women’s Riots (November-December 1929) at blackpast.org

[iv] Magongo, Ellen Mary, .Kingship and Transition in Swaziland 1978-1988, 2008

[v] Laidler, Keith, Female Caligula: Ranavalona: the Mad Queen of Madagascar. London 2005

Why do we argue over little things?

Do you too argue over just every small things?  – Wait a minute. Who say’s I argue over small things? Never,  that’s not my style.

That’s the instant reaction of anyone when confronted with this question. Little do we realize that by replying back instead of quietly acknowledging or side-tracking the question, that we are just starting 1 more small argument. The moment my editor asked me to write about this topic, I was itching to argue – Oh no! Why do I get such a difficult topic again?

But, on second thoughts I decided to quietly research and see If I can come up with something interesting. So read on about why do people incessantly keep arguing over little things and conveniently lose sight of the big picture. A phrase, which best describes such sort of people are ‘ Can’t see the wood from the trees’.  We get so caught up in fighting over details, when we are actually are agreeing on the bigger summary.
Why and What do we commonly argue about?

Let’s get our definitions clear first. What does argue mean? Argue means to fight with words. Is it the same as disagreement? Not necessarily, since you can agree to disagree without arguing.

Is it the same as physical fights and mental torture? Let’s say it’s a similar relationship like Smoke and Fire. Physical fights and mental torture usually start over small arguments, which never get resolved. Why do we argue with people? The simplistic explanation of this is because we want things to go the way we see it. If the way you see it, is not the way the other person sees it, you can guess what happens next right? An argument.  In a way, we are all quite selfish. ( I wouldn’t want to classify Mother Theresa in that list, but then one never knows if she also argued over petty things with her sisters or the lepers of her ‘Missionaries of Charity’). We always like things to be the way we say it should be.

Let us try recognizing the usual conflicts, which arise throughout our life , which start of as argument over trivial things.

1. Parents and Children

More popularly termed the ‘generation gap’. The daily nitpicking from mom about the way we mess things in the house or the constant grumble from dad about the friends we meet and the money we spend on a lifestyle not to his taste.

Why did u see TV instead of studying? Why did u go out with that cheap girl / guy? Why did you not say ‘Hello’ to Aunty Sheila in the mall? (The simplest reason was because Aunt Sheila had a bigger scowl on her face, but mom did not notice that).  The list goes on and on. The minute the child responds back to these questions with the same fierce tone, both get locked in an argument.

2. Boyfriend / Girlfriend / Husband / Wife

I’m sure the first thing Adam and Eve did after being banished from the Garden of Eden was  to have an argument. Adam must have cursed Eve for offering him the Apple and Eve must have taunted him for not being man enough to stand up to God. So from time immortal, man and woman have been at constant loggerheads during their courtship days and after marriage. When minor arguments keep repeating at regular intervals and flare up into bigger fights, the inevitable split or divorce has to happen. During courtship days, the arguments may center over ‘Why did you forget my birthday’. During the honeymoon, the argument may move on to toilet etiquette. The wife will remind the husband – ‘Please put the toilet cover back on after you finish?

Before the children come, the husband may grumble about the famine of sex during the wife’s periods or it could be the other way around when the husband has come back from a stressed business meeting with a wife wanting to flaunt her new teddy nightie

After the children come, the arguments center on how to raise the children. The mother worried about their security and studies, the father not getting to take them out as often as he wants. They say ‘Men come from Mars; Women from Venus but they sure do fight  a lot in Middle Earth’.

3. Siblings

Both the Hindu mythology epics ‘Mahabharat’ (Pandavas / Kauravas) and ‘Ramayan’ (Ram / Bharat) as well as the Old Testament (Kane / Abel) mention arguments between siblings.  Right from their toddler days when they fight over toys to their teen years when they fight over clothes or after they become adults, when they fight over property and parent’s inheritance, the small pin-pricks first lead to arguments and then name-calling and much worse.

4. Mother-in-law / Daughter-in-law

This is very common in cultures where the couple stay with the boy’s parents. In India, a super hit  soap-opera ‘Saas Bhi Kahi Bahu Thi (mother-in-law was once a daughter-in-law) highlights the constant bickering between this infamous pairing. Not that son-in-law / mother-in-law relationship is rosy as well. But men are smart to realize, if they don’t stand to win an argument with 1 domineering woman (the wife) , what chance do they have to argue with 2 domineering woman at the same time? So the son-in-law usually just mumbles in monosyllables or sulks away when the mother-in-law comes visiting.

5. Office colleagues / Friends

Most likely reasons why arguments happen in such pairings are invariably due to competitive life-styles or jealousy. Why did you come late for our gathering (among friends) or What were you  doing in the boss’s cabin and whispering in his ears (among office colleagues).

When Does An Argument Stop?

An argument can stop fairly quickly if in the disagreement, one is just plain wrong and after some time is smart enough to sense it. Initially, the person may have got the facts wrong or he felt no point trying to win the argument and throws in the towel in gesture sufficient to nip the argument in the infancy. A classic example is When the wife for the umpteenth time tells me to switch off the light in the room, when I don’t need it. Initially, out of self-defense I argue back, but later on after she presents me the previous electricity bill, I sheepishly tell her ‘Darling, I’m sorry . You are so right’.

The most difficult conflict to resolve is, when both feeling they are right. Neither wants to let go as both dig in their heels so confident they can’t be wrong. Children’s studies are a classic example. The wife always insecure about the future, wants the children to study more and expects the husband to also chip in. The husband (remembering his childhood) where his parents allowed him to be independent thinking and also needing some free time at home, feels the wife is piling pressure on the child un-necessarily.

Both actually have the same intention – Well-being of the child, but since they are looking at 2 different spots of the elephant (in the Blind Men and Elephant folktale) they never can agree to meet half-way. In such cases, hopefully through communication, if both come to an agreement on ‘What the final goal is?

The fundamental reason ‘Why people argue a lot ?’ is that they are having 2 different tracks to a common goal, but neither is putting themselves on the other’s shoes and so the differences between them simmer and come to a boil slowly, sooner or later.

An argument is like the debates in school with a key difference. In a debate, as both sides are usually strangers to each other and their focus is on the prize and there is very little anger to the other side. In an argument between 2 known people, the argument will be followed by anger. Anger could be at a low or high level. Low level anger arguments only have a nuisance value and time will be the main factor in resolving this. But once in an argument, one or both take anger to extremes then it can turn out to be a point of no return.

Are little arguments ‘avoidable’ or not?

What do you feel? Can 2 people live for hours / months / years with each other without stepping on each other’s toes constantly? Can an employee, who feels shortchanged in his company over lower pay, live with an ever-demanding boss? Can 2 political parties, both trying to form the government on their own, ever sometimes ignore to run the other party down? Do you agree – This was a well-researched article or not?

Lucky for me, I am not around to listen to your disagreement and argue back with you. Sometimes, it is just good to step back a bit and think of that age-old classic song ‘Que Sera Sera – What will be will be? The future is not mine to see. So why argue about the past. Enjoy the present’.