PROGRESS; Ghana Reduces Infant Mortality

Alex Segbefia, Ghana's Health Minister

By Regina Benneh

Ghana is making strong progress in its effort to reduce infant and child mortality, with the rate of death having been reduced to 42.8 per 1000 live births.

Dr. Luiz Octaviano Amoussou-Gohoungo, National Chairman of the District Directors of Health Services Group, said compared with the year 1993 high of 75.6 per 1000 live births, the achievement was significant.

Addressing the 24th annual general conference of the group in Sunyani, he indicated that maternal health care had also remarkably improved. 

He said available statistics showed that 98.5 per cent of pregnant women, was now receiving antenatal care – up from 82 per cent in 1988.

At the same time, women delivered by skilled attendants had shot up from 40 per cent to 74 per cent, while those with access to postnatal care in the first 48 hours, had climbed to 78.2 per cent.

The four-day meeting was held under the theme “From the Millennium Development Goals to the Sustainable Development Goals - the role of the district health system”.

It provided the platform for the Directors to review their performance, shared ideas and discussed effective ways to achieve set targets.     

       

Dr. Amoussou-Gohoungo underlined the group’s commitment to work hard and with passion to help fulfill the mission and vision of the Ghana Health Service (GHS).

It was determined to ensure that more children and women were saved from preventable deaths, he added. 

Dr. Ebenezer Appiah-Denkyira, the Director-General of the GHS, in a speech read for him, reminded the Directors to work closely with their health management teams to protect the gains made in guinea-worm eradication.

He asked that they continued to improve the disease surveillance system at all levels.

He urged that, as managers of the health system, they also developed innovative strategies to mobilize more resources to support quality healthcare delivery.

Editorial

HELP FISHERMEN

Fishermen in the Western Region are complaining about the impact of the oil industry on their lives and are crying out for redemption.

A Ghana News Agency report carried on page 5 of today’s edition of this paper claims that the number of accidents at sea have increased as a result of high tidal waves caused by the exploitation of oil resources.

It also claims that the exclusion zones created to enhance oil exploitation is hampering the business of fishermen.

The Insight calls for full investigations into these claims with a view to helping the fishermen to overcome their problems.

 The exploitation of oil resources needs to bring joy to all Ghanaians including the fishermen.

Livelihoods of fishermen sacrificed on the altar of crude oil

The Jubilee oil field in Ghana

By Godwill Arthur-Mensah

The discovery of crude oil in commercial quantities in Ghana in 2007 and subsequent production of the commodity in 2010 initially brought joy and high expectations from Ghanaians, especially the residents of the Western Region.

The people had high prospect of employment opportunities, potential reduction in prices of petroleum products in the country, reduce poverty levels, enhance the general welfare of the people and increase access to healthcare.

They also hoped that it will improve road networks in the oil enclave and access to water, as well as the electrification of communities to the National Grid, school infrastructure and the economic well-being of the people.

Fishermen along the six coastal districts of the Region stretching from Shama, Sekondi-Takoradi, Ahanta West, Nzema East, Ellembelle and Jomoro districts were among people with high aspirations.

However, five years down the lane, the expectations of the people have been dashed as most fishermen who spoke to the GNA expressed their unhappiness with the impact of oil production, saying their livelihoods had been snapped from their hands.

Even though the oil companies undertook Environmental and Social Impact Assessment before commencement of work on the oilfield, none of them undertook Fisheries Impact Assessment as required by the Fisheries Act of 2002 (Act 625).

The Fisheries Impact Assessment clearly defined the plan or measures a particular oil company has put in place to avert negative impact on the fish stock and how it would support fishermen in the event that its operations adversely affects the fisheries resources.

It would be recalled that since 2009, there have been more than 30 dead whales washed ashore on the coastline of the country, particularly in the Western Region.

In addition, seaweeds are occasionally spotted in large quantities along the sea shore of some coastal communities in the Region, which have had negative impact on the activities of fishermen.

Nana Kwesi Acheampong, a fisherman at Lower Dixcove told journalists that the location of the Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) Vessel on the sea had restricted fishermen from fishing near the vessel because of the danger posed to the oil installations and fishermen themselves.

He stated that in view of the light around the FPSO, it attracted fishes to the facility any time they cast their nets.

Also, the sea waves moved the nets towards the facility and naval personnel patrolling the oil installations seized their nets.

Moreover, the restriction had prevented them from venturing into areas that are rich with fish stock and that had restricted their movements and woefully affected fish catch.

”We cannot pay our children’s school fees and our wives have divorced us because we cannot provide them housekeeping money,” Mr Acheampong said.

Mr Benjamin Kwofie, the Health and Safety Officer of the Petroleum Commission, said about  500 metres from the oil rig is a “no go area” because fishing activities posed danger to the rig because the fishing gear like the nets could entangle the oil installations installed under the seabed.

He said the Commission had recorded 320 incursions per months in recent times and therefore warned fisher folks to exercise restrain before a disaster strike.

An independent investigations conducted by the GNA revealed that the premix fuel, which the government had subsidized for fisher folks was fraught with a lot of corruption.

Some premix committee members who are authorised to sell the commodity deliberately hoard the products and sell them to other fishermen in other fishing communities thus, leading to temporary shortage of the product in the designated landing beach site.

A number of residents in the coastal communities had experienced high tidal waves, which have been destroying structures and buildings along the coastline and forced its way to the communities thus, making them live in constant fear.

The situation had been attributed to climate change due to global warming therefore resulting in the rise of the sea.

Nana Acheampong from Lower Dixcove claimed that the high tidal waves claimed one or two lives every year because it capsized boats and canoes that tried to berth at the beach while those embarking on fishing expedition also had their canoes capsized.

He also alleged that some fishermen in other fishing communities were still using light for fishing, which was having detrimental effect on fish stock; however the security agencies had not taken a firm decision to stop the illegal practice.

Mr Kwesi Adolf Johnson, a Community Relations Officer of Friends of the Nation, a non-governmental organisation, interested in the usage of the natural resources and environment, said there was an urgent need to create fish reserve areas where oil exploration and production would be prohibited so that fishermen could undertake fishing expedition there.

Nana Kweku Assifuah, a spokesperson of the Chief Fisherman of Lower Dixcove, claimed supply vessels have been crashing their canoes and destroying their fishing gears and equipment without any compensation.

Some fishermen mend their nets

On the back of the oil discovery, Ghana went to the Britton Wood Institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to borrow money for development projects with 10.17 percent interest rate.

How much of the funds borrowed from those institutions have been spent on fisher folks in providing alternative livelihood programme in order to improve their lives and their dependents?

Currently, the country is spending one-third of its annual budget to service debts from the Britton Wood Institutions thus leaving little for developments.

The situation could be attributed to the fall in the market prices of crude oil and other commodities on the world market.

Against this backdrop, the country is not getting sufficient funds from the sale of its raw materials on the world market.

What contingency measures did the managers of the economy put in place to cater for such economic downturn? Are we becoming a nation that does not have plan “B” and thus, put all our eggs in one basket?

Although there are some physical infrastructure such as roads, health facilities, sea defence walls and school managers blocks that the government had undertaken in the Region, what about social interventions that have direct bearing on the livelihoods of the fisher folks?

Madam Joana Koomson, a government appointee assembly member, indicated that the concerns of fishermen have been neglected, despite constant reminder to the authorities to support fishermen had fallen on deaf ears.

It’s about time the of the economy put in place pragmatic measures to resource the fisher folks whose sources of income had been snatched away from them before they start agitating because “the devil finds work in an idle hands”.

Per experiences in rich-resource nations across the globe, militia groups easily recruit economically vulnerable persons for their mischievous activities such as bombing of oil installations and causing mayhem in the society, Ghana our dear nation must exercise caution and not take the people for granted since “a word to the wise is enough”.

GNA

IGNORE AKUFO-ADDO

Kofi Adams

By Delali Adogla-Bessa

The National Democratic Congress (NDC) Flagbearer, President John Mahama, has no plans to reduce the price of petroleum products ahead of the 2016 elections.

This is according to the Campaign Coordinator of the NDC’s 2016 Campaign, Kofi Adams, who denied assertions by the New Patriotic Party (NPP), that President Mahama is set to reduce prices of petroleum products in a desperate move to remain in office.

While speaking to students of the Sunyani Polytechnic over the weekend, the NPP Flagbearer, Nana Akufo-Addo, alleged that President Mahama would soon announce the reduction.

But Mr. Kofi Adams, told Citi News the opposition was merely using the issue to keep their their candidate in the news cycle, as he explained that, a President could not regulate fuel prices.

“How do we fix fuel prices in this country again? Are we not living in a deregulating situation? So how does Mahama now come and announce fuel prices in a deregulated market,” he retorted.

“Presidents don’t reduce taxes. That is supposed to be Parliament; because it is parliament that approves it. You are aware that Parliament has gone on recess. Next time Parliament is going to come back is after the elections.”

Mr. Adams also noted that, government’s advanced budget for the first quarter of 2017 did not factor in a reduction in petroleum prices.

“The Finance Minister just presented budget estimates for the first quarter of next year. He gave no such indication, and so when their candidate is not flying, their candidate is being rejected then they want to continue trending on lies.”

There was widespread criticism towards government after the passage of the Energy Sector Levy by Parliament in December 2015, which led to fuel prices going up by between 22 percent and 27 percent.

The criticism mainly stemmed from the fact that, the price of fuel on the international market was lower at the time.

South Sudan: US Empire Stirs Violent Brew Of Blood & Oil As China Threatens Western Hegemony

South Sudanese President Salva Kiir

By Eric Draitser  

The ongoing civil war in South Sudan has left at least 50,000 dead and nearly 3 million displaced. While incidents of rape, torture, and bloodshed ebb and flow with the tides of war, the conflict, and especially its political context, remains little understood in the mainstream media.

Indeed, the war in South Sudan has been flung down the memory hole with the typical neo-colonial disregard for the African continent and its people that has been the hallmark of Western imperial policy (and Western consciousness) there for the past five centuries.

As Western leaders wax poetic about the need for humanitarian assistance, mediation, and all the other buzzwords of allegedly human rights-centered foreign policy, they deliberately obscure and distort their own complicity in the creation and proliferation of a war meant to prevent a rising China and other non-Western nations from securing oil contracts and other vital economic arrangements. And while the political establishment and its public relations appendages in the corporate media provide some window into the chaos in South Sudan, they do so without the context necessary for their audiences to truly understand the issue.

Put simply, the corporate media, along with the think tanks and other organs of Western foreign policy thought, have whitewashed the simple and incontrovertible fact that the war in South Sudan is a creation of Washington and its allies, a weapon wielded in an asymmetrical geopolitical and strategic war with China in Africa.

Why a war in South Sudan?

On the surface, the civil war in South Sudan seems to be a straightforward power struggle between President Salva Kiir and his former deputy, Riek Machar. However, as with all conflicts in Africa, the truth is far more complex and rooted in neo-colonial interests on the continent. In this case, South Sudan is merely the latest victim of the curse of oil–that sad reality that countries with oil resources are always going to be targets for the U.S.-NATO Empire. This is doubly true in this case, considering the centrality of the Sudan region to China’s long-term ambitions both on the continent and globally.

It is no secret that the last decade has seen a monumental expansion of Chinese investment throughout Africa. As Professor Deborah Brautigam, the world’s leading expert on Chinese engagement and investment in Africa, noted in her 2013 report “Chinese Investment in Africa:”

“Chinese imports and exports, outbound investment aid, and export finance are all sharply on the rise. For example, trade between China and Africa rose from $10 billion in 2000 to $166.3 billion in 2011. … [In 2012] Chinese leaders announced a goal of $20 billion in finance to African countries by the year 2015. If carried out, an average of between $6 and $7 billion would flow to Africa per year, most likely on a non-concessional basis.”

Brautigam’s numbers illustrate the fact that China is rapidly challenging U.S. economic hegemony in Africa. Having invested in a variety of sectors from mining and oil, to telecommunications and banking, China has made itself into a viable alternative to U.S., World Bank, and IMF investment and aid. Naturally, this has upset the political and corporate establishment in the United States, which view China as a threat to their power.

And perhaps nowhere is China’s African engagement strategy more apparent than in the Sudan.

Indeed, by 2011, when the United States and its allies ultimately divided the nation of Sudan in two, with the oil resources having been incorporated into the new South Sudan, Sudan had become essential to China’s investment and economic development. In fact, Sudan accounted for 8 percent of China’s total oil imports (China being the recipient of a whopping 78 percent of total Sudanese exports). This makes it quite clear that any attempt to divide Sudan into two countries was a de facto attempt to deprive China of a principal trading partner.

And with the 2011 partition of Sudan and the creation of the independent nation of South Sudan, Washington and its allies believed they had dealt a serious blow to Beijing’s aspirations in Africa. But this was not to be, as Beijing moved quickly to establish important economic ties with the newly constituted South Sudanese government under President Kiir.

Since 2011, Beijing has entrenched itself as the dominant trading partner and economic benefactor behind South Sudan, with tens of billions invested, especially in the oil sector.

Further, China has committed a significant contingent of troops as peacekeepers in South Sudan as Beijing tries to hold together the fragmented nation. Essentially, South Sudan represents a significant escalation in China’s projection of soft power in Africa amid Beijing’s efforts to elevate itself to the status of a global superpower capable of investment of both economic and, increasingly, political capital.

In many ways, Sudan and South Sudan have become principal footholds for the Chinese in Africa and, as such, the United States and its allies are necessarily unleashing chaos as a weapon, as they have countless times before all over Africa and beyond.

A covert war waged by the US-NATO Empire

The reality of the civil war in South Sudan is sheer brutality. From rapes and kidnapping to wholesale slaughter carried out in the name of “armed resistance,” it seems that wherever U.S. foreign policy’s tentacles reach, chaos and death are sure to follow.

U.S. diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks reveal that Riek Machar, the former vice president under Kiir who is now leading the Kiir opposition, has been involved in multiple attempts to usurp control of South Sudan, dating back to at least 2006 when his faction was ousted from power by now-President Kiir and his Government of South Sudan. The fact that Kiir is today racking up frequent flyer miles between Juba and Beijing points to a rather obvious motive for the United States and its allies to bring about regime change. Considering the long and bloody history of U.S.-backed “rebel” leaders waging civil wars in Africa, this one could last years, with countless dead piling up on all sides.

The CIA is undoubtedly involved up to its eyeballs in this conflict, but the agency is not alone. It is an open secret that Israeli intelligence, and the apartheid state of Israel generally, is deeply entwined in the killing in South Sudan and has been for more than 20 years. Consider the March 1994 discovery of a cargo plane load ofweapons from Israel, bound for Uganda, with the weapons destined for the killing fields of Sudan. That was 23 years ago, so what is Tel Aviv up to in recent years? Nothing good.

In fact, recent years have seen countless reports of Israeli arms trafficking into the war zone in South Sudan. There is, of course, the rather damning U.N. report which concluded that Israeli weapons–and, by extension, Tel Aviv–are directly involved in fueling the war. Consider also the use of infrastructure and humanitarian aid as cover for militarization and arms sales by Israel, such as the 2012 deal to allegedly build desalination, irrigation, water transport and purification infrastructure. This sounds nice, except for the fact that it was Israel Military Industries Ltd., a weapons manufacturer, which signed the deals, not the official, relevant Israeli government ministry.

Just as the violence was just beginning in 2012, Israeli media also reported that Israeli aircraft loaded with missiles were seen landing nightly in South Sudan. Seeing as how arming combatants in a civil war is a war crime, Israel should, in theory, have to answer for this. Of course, with the United States doing precisely the same thing all over the world, it’s unlikely that Israel has much to worry about.

The Israeli state has consistently intervened in Sudan, alleging that it’s part of an arms smuggling network to Gaza. While the veracity of that assertion is questionable, what is documented fact is that Israel has repeatedly broken international law by bombing sovereign Sudanese soil. Essentially, Israel has become a dominant behind-the-scenes player in South Sudan, and it is complicit in the myriad war crimes being carried out there.

Somewhere in the disputed, oil-rich border territory of Abyei, there are Chinese peacekeepers in close proximity to rebel fighters, Sudanese irregular forces, and U.S. and Israeli covert agents. Somewhere in Juba, President Kiir is on the phone with his contacts in Beijing. Somewhere in Sudan, Machar is on the phone with his contacts in Addis Ababa and Langley. And somewhere, there is a mother crying over her dead son.

That is the reality of South Sudan, the world’s youngest nation, whose entire history is one of greed, blood and death. Sadly, this is all too common in Africa, where the U.S.-NATO Empire must always have the last laugh. 

Trump's Israel policy not different from Obama

Donald Trump

Israel's expansionist agenda has consistently created a major roadblock to the Middle East peace initiatives. Israeli ministers have in recent days drawn much criticism by putting forth a bill aimed at legalizing thousands of settlements built on private Palestinian land in exchange for compensation. Meanwhile, the election of Donald Trump to US presidency has raised a lot of questions as to how a new president in the White House will set the tone of relations with long-time ally Tel Aviv. In this edition of The Debate, we have asked our guests whether or not Trump’s presidency would embolden Israel to go into high gear with its illegal settlement projects.

Zafar Bangash, the director of Contemporary IslamicThought Institute, views Israel as an illegitimate entity which always stands against international law and UN resolutions with support and protection from the United States.

“When we have an illegal regime, as we have in the occupied Palestine the Zionist regime, it is in fact not surprising at all that they would indulge in this kind of activity. The Zionist regime has never cared for international law or legality. Therefore they are proceeding with confiscating more Palestinian land in the West Bank and also introducing other restrictive bills that are totally contrary to international law as well as the interests of Palestinian people,” Bangash said.

The analyst acknowledged that the Jewish people suffered terribly in the Second World War, arguing however that Muslims are in no way responsible for their suffering. "If the Israelis want to have a state, they are more than welcome to have their state in Germany or anywhere else in the world than in Palestine."

“I do not buy this notion that somehow Palestine is the historical homeland of the Jewish people. If we look at history, there were two prophets: David and Solomon whom the Muslims also considered to be their prophets and they ruled for a total of 73 years 2,500 years ago. This is a ludicrous assertion for anybody to make that just because two prophets, that the Jewish people revere, ruled that land for 73 years 2,500 years ago, that entitles them to this land,” Bangash argued.

He then drew an analogy to the situation of the native population in North America who were displaced from their motherland around 400 years ago. "But nobody says that they should come back to the region and all of the European settlers should be expelled," even though, according to him, such an argument would have much more credibility than the argument the Zionists are presenting.

Asked to comment on US President-elect Donald Trump’s hostile comments regarding the Palestinian people, he said that it is not surprising that American politicians and their advisors use such a rhetoric.“If it wasn't for billions of dollars that was shoveled into this bottomless pit that is called the Zionist state of Israel, that state would have withered away a long time ago.”

Bangash further emphasized that, in his opinion, Trump's election would create no deviation in Washington's Israel policy, despite the fact that he is trying to portray himself as a distinguished politician who easily breaks the cherished norms.

President Benjamin Netanyahu, terrorist of the Middle East

The United States considers Israel as "a linchpin in the Middle East" and in fact, it is through the creation and support of Israel in the occupied Palestine that America pursues its policy of selling hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons to the Arab regimes, because those regimes are also illegitimate, the analyst said.

Bangash concluded, “I don't think that the Palestinian people can hope for anything positive coming out of the United States. The only option they have is to continue struggling, continue mobilizing world public opinion. And of course [it is necessary] for justice-loving people and freedom-loving people around the world to rally for the Palestinian cause because it is a just cause. I don't think just because they are weak, just because they are friendless, that should mean that we should abandon them. Civil society groups should continue to strive for the rights of Palestinian people.” 

However, the other panelist on the show, Geoffrey Alderman, a London-based political commentator, maintained that the election of Donald Trump in the US is a green light for Israeli officials to pursue their ambitions to establish "a Jewish state" without fearing any international prosecution.

“With the election of Mr. Trump, who is now president-elect of the USA, the green light has been given to the Israeli government in Jerusalem to go ahead with the reclamation of what historically was the Jewish homeland in the British Mandate Palestine and that is clearly what is happening. I should explain it that the bill has not yet been passed. All that has happened is that the ministerial committee has approved a bill to put before the Knesset. But I would wager that such a bill will be passed and there would be no adverse reaction from the new president of the US,” Alderman said.

He also refused to accept the claim that Trump would follow the same strategy as President Obama, saying that the world is going to witness a great deal of change in Washington's Israel policy. 

"I think it's very very significant that when Barack Obama became president in 2008, the first phone call he made to an international head of state was to Mahmoud Abbas. When Mr. Trump's election was confirmed, the first head of state that he telephoned was Bibi Netanyahu. So, I don't think that we're going to see more of the same as my colleague [Bangash] has just said. I think we're going to see a different American policy. Under President Obama from time-to-time half-hearted and badly executed pressures have been put on Israel and this will end.Mr. Trump will signal to the Arab world that really the solution of the Israel-Palestine problem, though it's important, is not top of his agenda."