 |
| Former President John Dramani Mahama |
There are very strong indications that
former President John Dramani Mahama will be the Presidential Candidate of the
National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the 2020 elections.
Although Mr Mahama has repeatedly said that
it is too early to announce his intentions persons close to him are sending
clear signals that it is not over yet.
Madam Hannah Tetteh, former Minister of
Foreign Affairs said publicly only last week that she would support a Mahama candidacy.
Before her others like former Deputy
Minister of Education, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa and Mr Kofi Adams National
Organiser have said that former President Mahama is the best bet for the party
for 2020.
Some party insiders say that he is likely to
get as much as 80 per cent of votes at the NDC’s primaries.
 |
| Professor Joshua Alabi, can he do the do? |
So far only former Member of Parliament Nii
Amasah Namoale has had the courage to declare publicly that he will join the
contest for presidential candidature of the NDC.
It is believed that Professor Joshua Alabi,
former Vice Chancellor of the University of Development Studies (UDS), Mr Ekow
Spio-Gabrah, former Minister of Trade and Mr Sly Mensah, former Chief Executive
Officer of the National Health Insurance Scheme are secretly lacing their boots
for the contest.
Although Mr Gussie Tanoh, a former cadre of
the NDC is announced to be interested in the race, he has to jump over a
qualification hurdle given his exit from the party in the year 2000.
Former President Mahama appears to be
keeping his cards too close to his chest with the former Chief of Staff Julius
Debrah reported to be very active in his corner.
Editorial
TEACHING FRENCH
President Nana Addo Danquah Akufo-Addo has threatened
that his administration is about to make the teaching and learning of French at
the Senior High School level compulsory.
The rational for this policy is that Ghana is surrounded
by former French colonies who use French as their official language.
The compulsory learning of French in Ghana is meant to
promote better interactions with citizens of our neighbouring countries.
Our position is that learning French cannot be bad. The
acquisition of all knowledge is positive and we would encourage that.
However given the fact that students at the SHS level
cannot learn everything and anything, national policy about what to learn and
not to learn must necessarily be discriminatory.
We wonder why the teaching of African history is not far
more important than the teaching of French.
In any case is Hausa not a more binding language in West
Africa than French?
AHMADIYYA MOVEMENT ON MORAL DECADENCE
 |
| Mr Nasir Ahmad Bonsu |
By
Afedzi Abdullah
The
Ahmadiyya Muslim Movement has called on religious, political and societal
leaders to make the conscious effort to weed out the increasing spate of
indiscipline among the youth in the country.
It
said the collapse of the moral fibre of the society in recent times, must be a
concern for all as it poses a threat to the future and development of the
country.
The
movement said moral decadence was worse than a complex and serious disease with
devastating consequences and should be prevented from being functional in the
society.
Mr
Nasir Ahmad Bonsu, National President of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association
(Majlis Khudam-ul-Ahmadiyya), in Ghana, said these at the 36th annual rally of
the Central-West Region.
The
three-day annual rally which was on the theme:” Mobilising for Ghana’s future,
the role of the Ahmadi youth”, was aimed at working towards improving the
spirituality, moral, social and physical development of members to increase
their faith in Allah.
Mr
Bonsu said crimes such as corruption, alcoholism, prostitution, murder and
other vices like laziness, the quest to become rich overnight among others,
which persisted in the society were inimical to our development.
“Moral
degradation has destroyed individuals, families, dynasties and nations alike
from within. It starts slowly with seemingly harmless choices by some
individuals and spreads like an epidemic affecting the whole society,” he said.
He
said mobilizing for Ghana’s future must entail mobilizing for high moral values
among the youth while they were made to realise the need to be morally upright
and eschew all forms of negative practices.
Mr
Bonsu noted with regret that the ‘secular society’, in the name of freedom of
choice was unwilling to condemn the spread of moral degradation in the society.
He
said a nation could not be reformed without the reformation of its youth and
stressed that, it was imperative for the youth to be given the necessary
opportunities and training in order to bring the desired change.
Mr
Bonsu bemoaned what he described as “utter disregard to authority” citing the
activities of the Delta Forces, Invincible Forces and other vigilante groups.
He
said there is the need to imbibe in the youth the spirit of total submission to
authority.
“Today
in Ghana, there seem to be utter disregard for authority. Hooliganism,
disorderliness, rebellion, lawlessness and disrespect for the elderly is almost
eating up the structures in our homes, offices, families and society at large,”
he said.
He
urged the Muslim youth to eschew all negative tendencies, sacrifice themselves
towards the growth of the society, be selfless and role models to be able to
contribute meaningfully to the development of the country.
Mr
Dawood Aboagye, the Presiding Member of Assin South District Assembly, speaking
as the Guest of Honour, admonished the youth to endeavor to contribute their
quota towards the development of the country irrespective of their religion,
culture and political affiliations.
He
said rendering such services, which contributed to the faith of a believer, would
go a long way to entice other people to join Islam Ahmadiyyat.
Mr
Aboagye urged the youth to bring to bear the knowledge and skills acquired as
followers of the Holy Prophet Mohammed in their lives to embrace peace and
tranquility to ensure sanity the society.
As
part of this year’s rally, the movement earlier donated 19 pants of blood to
the Mankessim Catholic Hospital.
GNA
Russia broadens
economic ties with Africa
 |
| President Vladimir Putin |
From
Kester Kenn Klomegah, Moscow Bureau Chief
With
the worsening relations with the United States and the Western European
countries, Russia is seen broadening its economic and trade ties with Asian and
African countries.
Sergei
Dankvert, the Head of Russia’s Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary
Control in Moscow, said Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Iran, Uruguay, Chile,
Vietnam, Egypt, Tunis, Serbia and Morocco were among countries that had
increased deliveries of their products during the effective period of sanctions
against Russia.
Over
the past few years, Russian authorities have been looking for potential
agricultural products exporters in Latin American, Asian and African Regions.
As
gathered over the past few months, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Egypt,
Tunisia and Morocco have shown their preparedness to cooperate and are still
looking at the possibility to boost exports of agricultural products especially
fruits and vegetables to Russian food market to help fill in the gap after
President Vladimir Putin slapped sanctions that severely limit food imports
from foreign countries.
South
Africa has been a promising partner in Southern African Region while Morocco is
one of the leading trade partners of Russia in North Africa.
Morocco
has already exported some of its agricultural items especially fruits and
vegetables to the burgeoning market.
Philip
Mundia Githiora, the Minister Counsellor at the Kenyan Embassy in Moscow,
pointed out explicitly in an interview that Russia offered a large market for
Kenyan agricultural products and that Kenya already exported some agricultural
products including cut-flowers, tea and coffee to the Russian Federation.
Nyaniso
Isaac Miti, Minister Counsellor in charge of Agricultural Affairs at the South
Africa Embassy in Moscow, also stressed that South Africa’s agricultural export
basket was also dominated by citrus fruit, grapes and apples, and Russia had
stated its readiness to increase the purchase of those products.
The
Russian Federation has offered customs preferential depending of the volumes
the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) can meet.
The
only challenge thus far is the exportation of meat and fish products from South
Africa to Russia, the Minister Counsellor in charge of Agricultural Affairs
explained.
Elena
Nagornaya, Chief Executive Officer and Founder of Kenny Group of Companies and
Africa Trade Alliance (ATA) said exporters from Europe, America and Asia had
long appreciated the Russian market.
“There
are a number of Africa countries, especially those in northern, eastern and
southern Africa that are present in Russia.
“Amid
the embargo, the question of considering a wide-range of imported agricultural
products from some African countries is becoming a reality. Now, it is a unique
opportunity for raising the agricultural supplies to Russia from Africa,” she
pointed out.
GNA
Creating the new man in Africa
 |
| Captain Thomas Sankara |
How
do we create new men in Africa? A process of consciousness raising, or the
journey of men increasing their self-awareness of patriarchy or male
domination, is required. The new man should be able to experience empathy, to
care for others, show compassion and to discuss their emotions openly.
Imagine
a poster with the words: “New men wanted in Africa!” Most people would find the
statement amusing, but that is what Africa urgently needs. This specific demand
has to be part of a radical transformation in attitudes and outlooks that the
continent must undergo, alongside fundamental socio-economic development as the
21st century continues to unfold.
Thomas
Sankara, the Burkinabé revolutionary who was committed to socio-economic and
political change in his country, had the courage to state that the waging of
revolution would also “upset the relations of authority between men and women
and force each to rethink the nature of both.” (emphasis mine) He was also
correct in declaring that “… the revolution cannot triumph without the genuine
emancipation of women.” Equally, I would like to argue, that the revolution
cannot triumph without a transformation in the thinking, mentality, attitudes,
or consciousness of African men/boys. And for that to happen, we need to
address male domination in African societies.
Human
beings are born not to question male domination. Both boys and girls are
socialised into accepting that boys are to be loud and girls are to be quiet.
Boys
can be angry and aggressive and girls are allowed to cry and show a “soft” and
nurturing side.
Boys
can be inquisitive and ask questions whilst girls are expected to be passive
and submissive. Boys and men can certainly NOT cry for that is being
“emtional”, which only girls and women are allowed to be. These are some of the
gendered stereotypes and expectations of how boys/men and girls are expected to
behave in Africa (and around much of the globe). In academia, the term employed
to describe this phenomenon of male superiority and female inferiority is
“patriarchy.”
In
Africa, many cultural expectations are ingrained through socialisation and
unquestioned cultural customs and practices to reinforce patriarchy and
gendered expectations. Patriarchy is a system of ideas that intersects with
other forms of domination such as class, homophobia, sizeism and racism.
Patriarchy is invisible; it is like the air we breathe that we do not recognise
and feel its presence; yet it surrounds us and is unconsciously (and
consciously) ingrained in our thought patterns and actions. It manifests itself
in Africa in many ways such as the predominance of male political leaders,
despite AU protocols and the fact that several African parliaments such as
Rwanda, Mozambique, Uganda, and Senegal, have a large number of female
parliamentarians. Men continue to disproportionately occupy top leadership
positions; the bulk of agricultural work in Africa is carried out by women in
the rural areas and it is women who dominate the informal economy whilst the
“formal” economy is dominated by African men. Conflict in Africa, particularly
war, is waged by men and when we see images of peace negotiations it is two men
from opposing sides and not women that we see shaking hands. Women are absent
in photo-ops in all peace negotiations (unless it is a woman who is behind the
camera taking the shot? But I doubt it). Yet, who creates and fuels war?
We
need therefore to creatively “rethink” – as Sankara urges us - the nature of
what it means to be male and female. But more importantly, we must begin to
bring up our children differently in a de-patriarchal manner, in which, we do
not for example scold boys for crying and girls for being “tom-boyish” or “too
forward” in being outspoken in their views in school or outside of school. This
will be a long-term undertaking that takes courage and commitment by parents,
educators and the community.
Rethinking
the nature of “male” and “female”, or “de-patriarchizing society,” also
requires men who are genuine and serious about radical transformation to
re-evaluate their own behaviour and thought patterns in respect to empathy and
ethical considerations. For most African men (to generalise here) are
consciously or unconsciously under societal and cultural pressures to conform
to some notion of a “hegemonic masculinity” – that is, an African man is aggressive,
strong, competitive, in control, dominant and active. These are cultural ideas
that are variously expressed in the myriad of diverse cultures that make up the
African continent. Girls/women are expected to embody the socially valued
behaviours of being nurturing, emotional, subordinate, passive, gentle, and to
be receptive.
 |
| Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah |
In
order to create new African men, a process of consciousness raising, or the
journey of men increasing their self-awareness of patriarchy or male
domination, is one that has to operate on a number of levels. It must operate
on a societal level, whereby those progressive elements in the media, the
church, mosque, trade unions and other institutions take up the issue not only
in rhetorical policy declarations but in their actions and training within
their institutions. Another level is that of the family, as the first social
unit in which human beings are born. The family needs to socialise boys and
girls differently. This extends to the wider extended family and peer group who
are also very in-fluential in legitimating negative and positive behaviour,
norms and values.
It
will involve men/boys having the courage and confidence to confront the
sexist/patriarchal views and attitudes of other boys and men whether openly or
on a one to one basis. An example of this is when men/boys hold each other
accountable for their language and behaviour. Such men need to provide new
models of what a “real man” looks like i.e. not one who is “macho”, “tough”,
“silent” and unable to express his emotions. Related to this is the fact that
such men/boys should embody emotional literacy. Generally, most men lack
emotional engagement, emotional caretaking and relational skills, which are too
often qualities and skills relegated as the domain of women. Hence, boys/men
growing up are only able to express rage and anger which often lead to violence
i.e. domestic abuse and violence and in countries where there is conflict; it
is channelled into armed militaries and rape/sexual assault of women (as in the
DRC and elsewhere).
New
men are able to experience empathy, to care for others, show compassion and
discuss their emotions openly. The African-American cultural critic and
feminist, bell hooks, defines a “feminist masculinity” as comprising of
“integrity, self-love, emotional awareness, assertiveness” and relational
skills. The adverse impact of patriarchy is that men and boys are forced to
wear a mask concealing their inner selves; denying their emotions for
displaying the emotions of “toughness”, “strength.” The requirement by a
patriarchal and capitalist society compartmentalises the psyche, thoughts, and
actions and thereby creates schizoid humans. In the Western world, for example,
in the UK this has led to a high incidence of mental illness and suicides among
males.
As
there is no blueprint for creating a new non-sexist, anti-imperialist,
anti-capitalist world, our strategies will be based on an evolving basis of
theory and practice. One first and crucial step, must involve men remaining
silent and genuinely listening to the women around them.
*
Dr Ama Biney is a historian and political scientist and former editor-in-chief
of Pambazuka News. This piece was previously published by Speaking Truth
to Power, The Steve Biko Transformative Education Project online
newsletter, Volume 1, Issue 2 April 2017.
References
See
Thomas Sankara Speaks, p. 202. Ibid, p.219.
See
bell hooks The Will to Change p. 118.
See
‘Professor Green reveals his personal battle with depression” http://www.express.co.uk/celebrity- news/606548/Professor-Green-depression-
mental-illness
It’s time to
lift the ideological haze in debates about Africa’s middle class
The
so-called middle class appears to be a “muddling class”. Rigorously explored
differentiation remains largely absent – not to mention any substantial class
analysis. Fortunately, though, the debate has created sufficient awareness
among scholars to explore the fact and fiction of the assumed transformative
power of a middle class.
The
middle classes in the Global South gained growing attention since the turn of
the century, mainly through their rapid ascendancy in the Asian emerging
economies. A side effect of the economic growth during these ‘fat years’ was a
relative increase of monetary income for a growing number of households.
This
also benefited some lower income groups in resource-rich African economies.
Many among these crossed the defined poverty levels, which were raised in late
2015 from US$ 1.25 a person a day to US$ 1.90. As some economists
had suggested, from as little as US$2 they were considered as entering
the “middle class”.
The
ominous term was rising like a phoenix from the ashes to characterise this
trend. It added another label to the packaging of a neo-liberal discourse. By emphasising the
free market paradigm as creating the best opportunities for all, it suggests
that everyone benefits from a laissez-faire economy.
But
the middle class concept remained vague and limited to number crunching. The
minimum threshold for entering a so-called middle class in monetary terms was
critically vulnerable to a setback into impoverishment. After all, one sixth of
the world’s population has to make a fragile living on US$ 2 to 3 a day.
The
African Development Bank played a defining role in promoting the debate. Using
the US$2 benchmark, it declared some 300 million Africans (about a third of the
continent’s population) as being middle class in 2011. A
year later it expanded its guesstimates to 300 million to 500 million. It also
set them up as being very important.
Such
monetary acrobatics aside, the analytical deficit which characterises such
classification is seriously problematic. The so-called middle class appears to
be a “muddling class”. Rigorously explored differentiation remained largely
absent – not to mention any substantial class analysis. Professional
activities, social status, cultural, ethnic or religious affinities or
lifestyle as well as political orientations were hardly (if at all) considered.
But
lived experiences matter if one is in search of how to define a middle class as
an array of collective identities. Such necessary debate has in the meantime
arrived in African studies. And the claim to
ownership is also reflected in a just published volume that documents the need to
deconstruct the mystification of the middle class being declared as the
torchbearers of progress and development.
Politics, economic
growth and the middle class
As
alerted in a paper by UNU-WIDER, a new middle class
as a meaningful social actor does require a collective identity in pursuance of
common interests. Once upon a time this was called class-consciousness, based on a “class
in itself” while acting as a “class for itself”. After all, which “middle” is
occupied by an African “middle class”, if this is not positioned also in terms
of class awareness and behaviour?
Politically
such middle classes seem not as democratic as many of those singing their
praises assume. Middle classes have shown ambiguities - ranging from
politically progressive engagement to a status-quo oriented, conservative approach
to policies (if being political at all). African realities are not different.
In
South Africa, the only consistency of the black middle class in historical
perspective is its political inconsistency, as political scientist Roger
Southall has suggested. They are no more
likely to hold democratic values than other black South Africans. In fact, they
are more likely to want government to secure higher order needs such as proper
service delivery, infrastructure and rule of law according to their living circumstances rather than
basic, survival needs.
It
remains dubious that middle classes in Africa by their sheer existence promote
economic growth. Their increase was mainly a limited result of the trickle down
effects of the resource based economic growth rates during the first decade of
the 21st century since then in decline. This had hardly economic potential
stimulating productive investment that contributes towards sustainable economic
growth.
There’s
also little evidence of any correlation between economic growth and social
progress, as a working paper of the IMF concludes. While during the
“fat years” the poor partly became a little less poor, the rich got much
richer. Even the African Development Bank admits that the income discrepancies
as measured by the Gini-coefficient have increased, while six among the ten
most unequal countries in the world are in Africa.
Nancy Birdsall, president emeritus of the Centre for
Global Development, is among the most prominent advocates and protagonists of
the middle class. She argues in support of a middle class rather than a
pro-poor developmental orientation. But even she concedes that a sensible
political economy analysis needs to differentiate between the rich with
political leverage and the rest.
She
remains nevertheless adamant that the middle class is an ingredient for good
governance. This is based on her assumption that continued economic growth
reduces inequalities. She further hypothesises that a growing middle class has
a greater interest in an accountable government and supports a social contract,
which taxes it as an investment into collective public goods to the benefit
of also the poor. Dream on!
Time to lift the
ideological haze
It
remains necessary to put the record straight and lift the ideological haze.
Already the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development 2013 report, which also
promoted the middle class hype,
predicted that 80% of middle classes would come from the global South by 2030,
but only 2% from Sub-Saharan Africa.
Recent
assessments claim that it’s not the middle of African societies which expands,
but the lower and higher social groups.
According
to a report by the Pew Research Centre only a few
African countries had a meaningful increase of those in the middle-income
category.
And
the Economist, which earlier shifted its doomsday visions of a “Hopeless
Continent” towards “Africa Rising” and the “Continent of Hope”, now concludes that
Africans are mainly rich or poor but not middle class.
Fortunately,
the debate has created sufficient awareness among scholars to explore the fact
and fiction of the assumed transformative power of a middle
class. This also includes the need to be sensitive towards ideological
smokescreens which try to make us believe that a middle class is the cure. In
reality, little has changed when it comes to leverage and control over social
and political affairs.
The
current engagement with the African middle class phenomenon is nevertheless
anything but obsolete. Independent of their numbers, middle class members
signify modified social relations. These deserve attention and analysis with
the emphasis on social relations.
Cambridge
Economist Göran Therborn stresses that
discourse on class is always of social relevance. The boom of the middle class
debate is therefore a remarkable symptom of our decade. Social class will
remain a category of central importance, and bringing the class back in can do
no harm.
*
Henning Melber is Extraordinary Professor, Department of Political
Sciences, University of Pretoria and the editor of a new volume, The Rise of Africa’s Middle Class. This
article originally appeared in The Conversation.
Source;
Pambazuka News
South Korea Refuses
to pay for THAAD Missile Shield
© AP Photo/ U.S. Force Korea
South
Korea said it won't pay for the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) system in the country after US President Trump said in an
interview with Reuters he would like to get $1 billion from Seoul for
protecting it from Pyongyang's possible attacks.
But
South Korea’s Defense Ministry says the United States should pay the costs
of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, local media
reported.
The
military’s statement, seen by the Yonhap news agency, reiterated that its
position on the deployment of a US anti-missile system on Korean
soil remained unchanged, meaning Washington had to pay.
The
response came after President Donald Trump said, in an interview
with Reuters, he wanted South Korea to pay for the $1-billion
defense system, stationed in the country to shield it from a
possible missile attack by North Korea.
Belgium ‘regrets’
helping elect Saudi Arabia to UN women's rights panel
Belgium’s vote in favor of appointing Saudi
Arabia to a United Nations women’s rights commission was due to a regrettable
diplomatic mix-up, said Prime Minister Charles Michel, after the decision
sparked a firestorm of criticism at home.
“If we could do it again and if we would
have the chance to discuss it at government level, I of course would have
argued that we not approve this,” Michel told parliament on Thursday.
“I regret the vote,” he added.
Saudi Arabia was expected to have its
accession to the 45-member commission rubber stamped as the number of nominees
matched the exact number of available seats.
But when the US called for a sudden vote,
Michel explained that Belgium’s UN representative did not have sufficient time
to consult with Brussels, and pushed through Riyadh’s bid.
While Saudi Arabia managed to easily gain a
place with 47 votes out of 54, the election of a state that does not even allow
women to drive, treats their evidence as less valuable in court, and forces
them to obtain a permission from a male guardian to travel or undergo a medical
procedure, caused a resonance.
“There is a regret but there is a missed
opportunity to make a strong gesture for the right of women today trampled on
by an act that has dishonored our country,” said Gwenaelle Grovonius of
the opposition Socialist Party, who also demanded that foreign minister Didier
Reynders, who had said he was unaware of the vote at the time, resign for the
imbroglio.
“Belgium is generally active in defending
women’s rights and expresses its views on this issue, so I was surprised to
learn that it had supported a country with no regard for women and which
continually flouts their rights. At first I thought it was not
possible,” said Viviane Teitelbaum of the Council of Francophone women, an
activist group.
 |
| Saudi Women |
“Human rights activists everywhere ought to
accept this rare apology,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the
non-profit UN Watch, “provided that it is matched with a real commitment
to ending the UN’s routine elevation of gross human rights abusers to
influential human rights bodies, which only empowers the regimes, not the
victims.”
UN Watch, whose coverage drew attention to
what may otherwise have been a quiet backroom vote, called on other democratic
states that voted for Saudi Arabia in what was a secret ballot, to reveal their
decision, and follow Belgium’s example.
“Saudi Arabia may have a large part of the
world’s oil wealth, but their contempt for the basic rights of women should
never be legitimized by UN bodies or by liberal democracies such as
Belgium,” said Neuer.
Trump’s Political
Suicide Pushes China, Iran and Russia Closer
 |
| Presidents Putin, Xi Jinping and Rohani |
The first aspect to consider, following the US attack on
Syria, is what Putin, Xi, and Rohani, leaders of the Russian Federation,
the People’s Republic of China, and Iran respectively, thought while American
Tomahawks were hitting the Syrian air base of Shayrat.
The last three years of the Obama presidency highlighted
two very different strategies being advanced simultaneously by the US and the
nations opposing its imperialistic overreach, principally Russia, China and
Iran. The latter have been seeking cooperation, while the US, with its big
hammer, has characteristically been on the search for nails to hammer. Yet the
management of international relations has always sought to maintain wide
diplomatic channels, even putting in place precautions in the military arena,
such as direct communication lines at the height of tensions of 2014 in
Ukraine.
With the DPRK, Obama adopted an attitude of
strategic patience rather than the posture being employed by Trump of
military bullying. With Iran, Obama’s team negotiated a nuclear deal that
included a lot of diplomacy between Moscow, Beijing and Washington. One could
almost say that, with the exception of Ukraine and Syria, relations between
Washington and major chancelleries in Eurasia had their ups and downs, but they
rarely reached the levels of concern that were seen in the first days the Trump
presidency.
Let us take Syria as an example. Obama resisted pressure
to bomb the country following a false-flag chemical attack done by al
Qaeda-type rebels. The media and intelligence accused Assad, but Obama saw
through this and decided against further entanglement in the Syrian quagmire.
Facing a similar situation, Trump instead decided to proceed and bomb a
sovereign nation, creating a ripple effect whose ultimate results are at this
stage difficult to discern.
Surely one of the first results has been the
cancellation of any kind of cooperation between the US and Russia in Syria.
This means that any nations operating against Islamist terrorism in Syria will
be reluctant to grant further concessions to Washington. In recent weeks,
Moscow and Damascus have preferred to hit Daesh and Nusra Front while
inflicting relatively little damage to the Islamists in the country controlled
by Washington and its allies, normally the FSA and its affiliates. This Russian
posture was in deference to Kerry’s original request to Lavrov that a clear
distinction be made between terrorists and so-called moderate rebels.
Moscow was aware from the beginning that there is no
substantial differences between Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda, and other minor Daesh
acronyms gathered around the FSA. All groups are armed and fighting against the
legitimate Syrian government, making them legitimate targets, especially
following America’s unilateral bombing of Syria.
The strategy of Damascus, Tehran and Moscow was
aimed at finding a common understanding, from the diplomatic point of view, in
order to bring Washington to the negotiating table. Concessions by both parties
were necessary, and from the perspective of Russian forces, focusing on Nusra
Front and Daesh was a good bargaining chip to use.
After Trump’s actions in Syria, all kinds of cooperation
has been suspended, and it is anticipated that Damascus’s allies will
specifically target US proxy forces in Syria as a response. The consequence
will be that the US will have even less influence in Syria then before lobbing
its 60-or-so missiles. In addition to this, Trump’s intention in the bombing
should be seen as seeking to increase his negotiating position with Moscow on
the question of Syria. What does not appear clear to the American president is
that his actions may have the opposite effect. Putin is certainly not the type
of person who lets others intimidate him or put him in a weak situation. If the
intention of Trump was to create the ideal conditions for Tillerson and Lavrov
to establish a cooperative relationship, perhaps it would be appropriate to ask
what kind of understanding Trump has of international relations.
After this reckless action in Syria, Trump will have
greater difficulty carrying out his plan to defeat Daesh, if this is still the
plan. And so another election promise – the one to wipe Daesh off the map – is
likely to be broken. This is not to mention that the SDF, the Kurdish forces,
will from now on be viewed with more hostility by the Syrian and Russian
forces, being ground troops who are undeclared by the US military.
Given the unpredictability of the US, Damascus cannot
rule out the possibility that Washington’s final intent is to further the
original plan of partitioning Syria as proposed by the Brookings Institute and
embraced by the neocons and liberal-interventionist crowd. Moscow and Damascus
cannot trust Washington, and this precludes many opportunities for Trump to
pursue a foreign policy that aligns with his election promises.
President Xi during the Syrian bombing was at a
diplomatic meeting with Trump and was told about the military action at the end
of the meeting. It is likely that Trump wanted to send a message to the Chinese
president and, indirectly, to Kim Jong-un, the leader of the DPRK. For the
American president, this was all about a show of force, aimed at restoring the
US role in the world and dictating the diplomatic conditions on which to agree
for the resolution of various conflicts or areas of tension around the world.
It is an approach that has almost entirely eliminated any possible cooperation
with Beijing and Moscow.
Putin, Xi, and Rohani must leave behind any hopes for
cooperation with Washington. It is important for them to send a strong message
to Trump that the front opposing US imperialism is compact and ready to respond
in the case of further provocations. Of course such a response need not
necessarily be with military action but rather with all the alternatives
available, such as with the areas of finance, the economy and diplomacy.
Until a few weeks ago, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran aimed
at a resolution of problems with Washington in order to find a strategic
balance in international relations. At this point in time, it should be clear
that this strategy will not work. We are in a multipolar world that is
synonymous with instability. The ideal conditions for a balance of political
forces lie in a joint duopoly that recalls the situation that obtained during
the Cold War. Even the unipolar moment guaranteed greater stability in a
certain sense, given the unfortunate disproportion of force that the US enjoyed
throughout the 1990s. What Trump finds hard to understand is that in a
multipolar reality, the chances of clashes increase significantly.
Trump is meddling directly or indirectly in a lot of
situations, ranging from Iran’s involvement in Syria, threatened by American
partners such as Saudi Arabia; to the use of Russian forces in Syria; passing
by the perennial crisis in Ukraine; and instability in the Caucasus and Central
Asia. In China we have the autonomous region of Xinjiang, the South China Sea,
and not to forget tensions with New Delhi as well as the explosive situation in
the DPRK. If Trump is confident in being able to test the waters in each of
these situations, even with the use of the military, to arrive at better
negotiating positions, it is best that we all prepare for a nuclear winter.
The key issue for China, Russia and Iran must
necessarily be to place emphasis on increasing cooperation in several areas,
such as finance, the economy, the military, and politics. Up until a month ago,
as a result of Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton, all three of these nations
aspired for cooperation in the field of international relations with the US on
equal terms. After what happened in Syria, they have fully understood that this
opportunity is now threatened by a clear desire by Trump to risk everything in
order to improve his negotiating position. This is the reckless attitude of an
unprepared POTUS.
Only a strong unity of purpose, under the economic
umbrella of a jettisoning of the dollar as a reserve currency, can change the
situation dramatically. In addition to this, the US dollar must be excluded in
trade deals between cooperating nations. Another important effort lies with
stocking up as much gold as possible. With these methods, it will be possible
to stand up to the US’s pressure without it leading to a military conflict.
Organizations such as the BRICS, SCO, Eurasian Union and One Belt, One Road
must necessarily take up the challenge thrown down by Trump with the launch of
59 missiles on Syria, and show what consequences Trump has brought on himself
through his rash actions. Moscow, Tehran and Beijing have an impetus to finally
overcome any lingering hesitation and to completely disengage from the western
system. Instead of creating alternative ways to operate in the economic and
financial sphere, they should try to replace the current one, making it
irrelevant and inconvenient for other nations.
The primary objective for these three nations must be
from now on to resolve every dispute between them and form an alliance that
goes beyond the mere question of economic or financial convenience. The goal
should be to create a cultural and social system that can represent an
opportunity for other third countries vis-a-vis a predatory capitalism and a
rampant imperialistic approach that Trump appears to have signed onto.
Trump’s actions ultimately worsened the US State of the
World. The failure of the military operation involving the launch of the
Tomahawks showed the US to be more of a paper tiger today than the unbeatable
war machine it depicts itself to be. Decades of corruption at the highest
levels of the military-industrial complex have finally started to affect the
United State’s ability to wage war. It is an observation that is a taboo
amongst the US and its allies, who need to maintain the illusion for
deterrence, as well as to allow for the gravy train to continue to line the
pockets of those who profit from this corrupt system. Reality shows us that in
any real conflict, the United States vulnerability and lack of combat readiness
shows.
In a situation like this, the strategy of Moscow and its
allies is to produce weapons systems capable of inflicting considerable damage
to the United States at low cost, given that Moscow cannot simply print more
money and pour debt on the rest of the world in order to finance its wars. A
great example of this can be seen with the anti-ship missiles Moscow possesses,
which are capable of destroying American aircraft carriers, considered the
backbone of the US war strategy. A missile that costs hundreds of thousand of
euros can cause damage to an aircraft carrier worth tens of billions of
dollars, inflicting a mortal blow to the credibility of American military
posture.
If Trump will continue down this destructive path, such
as with encouraging the entrance of Montenegro into NATO after an election
campaign where he labelled the Atlantic alliance obsolete, he will only get the
opposite effect to the one desired, which is to say worse negotiating positions
with peer American competitors like Moscow and Beijing. Maybe it is time to
wonder whether Trump is really keen on a de-escalation model of international
relations, aimed at brokering deals from positions of strength, or whether his
ultimate aim is simply to preserve America’s unipolar moment in any possible
way, even with war. It is a perspective that should be discussed widely by
nations such as Iran, Russia and China in order to find a perfect asymmetrical
response through economic, financial, political and social means that avoid a
direct conflict. The war between the American elites seems to have come to an
end and the neoliberals and neocons seem to have won. Wars and chaos will continue,
as with the last decades of US foreign policy. It is a sad prospect that the
nations opposing Washington will have to deal with.
Korea’s “Sunshine
Policy”:The Reunification of North and South Korea
 |
| North and South Korean Flags |
With
the Trump administration and the mainstream media gleefully beating
the war drums for a military attack on North Korea, there’s crucial historical
context missing from the corporate media coverage of this issue. I suspect most
Americans have never heard of of Korea’s “Sunshine Policy” (1998-2008), aimed
at eventual reunification of North and South Korea. We certainly heard about it
here in New Zealand, thanks to the mass revolt in Bush’s diplomatic corps when he deliberately sabotaged
this policy to isolate and provoke North Korea into amping up their their
nuclear weapons program.
On
learning of the Sunshine Policy, my Americans friends are shocked to learn that
North Korea moved from active engagement in 1998 in nuclear disarmament and
negotiations towards Korean reunification to announcing the their first nuclear
weapons test in 2006. They also have no idea of the deliberate steps the
Bush/Cheney administration took to sink the Sunshine Policy, nor their devious
motives for doing so.
Carter’s
1994 Agreed Framework and the Origins of South Korea’s Sunshine Policy
The
Sunshine Policy grew out of a treaty (the Agreed Framework) former
president Jimmy Carter negotiated with late North
Korean President Kim Il Sung in 1994. In return for North Korea
agreeing to cease its nuclear weapons program and permitting the return of
International Atomic Energy (IAEA) inspectors, the US agreed to replace the
power lost when North Korea closed its Yongbyon reactor with oil shipments and
two modern nuclear plants.
The
North Koreans kept this agreement, and in 1998 South Korean president Kim
Dae Jung began his Sunshine Policy aimed at lessening tensions and
building reconciliation between North and South Korea. In June 2000, leaders of
the two countries held a historic three-day summit in Pyongyang (the first in
50 years) and signed a pact in which they agreed to work towards reunification.
Among other provisions, the agreement included
substantial South Korean humanitarian aid to address North Korea’s chronic food
shortages, loosening of restrictions on South Korean investment in North Korea,
the opening of North Korea’s Kumgang Tourist Region to South Korean visitors,
the establishment of a family reunification program, the opening of rail links
through the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) and a worker exchange program permitting
South Korean workers to work at North Korea’s Kaesang Industrial Park.
In
2000, Kim Dae Jung won the Nobel Peace Prize for his successful implementation
of the Sunshine Policy.
Why
Bush Deliberately Sabotaged the Sunshine Policy
Unfortunately George
W Bush, who took office in 2001, had very different plans for the Korean
peninsula. In his view, a paranoid militarist North Korean threatening US
allies South Korea and Japan was the most potent argument he had to justify his
obsession with building a missile defense system. Once Japan joined the effort
to normalize relations with North Korea, the neocons in his administration also
had real concerns about the potential threat to US strategic dominance in the
region.
In “Blame Bush for
North Korea’s Nukes”, journalist Barbara O’Brien gives
a blow by blow description of Bush’s calculated efforts to derail the Sunshine
Policy, starting with his refusal to meet with Nobel Prize Winner Kim Dae Jung
during his March 2001 visit to Washington. In January 2002, Bush would make his
infamous Axis of Evil speech, including North Korea with Iraq and Iran as
states deliberately sponsoring terrorism and seeking weapons of mass
destruction. In October 2002, a month after Japan joined the diplomatic effort
to normalize relations with North Korea, he accused the latter (with even
flimsier evidence than his administration put forward for Iraq’s weapons of
mass destruction) of secretly developing a program to enrich uranium to weapons
grade and unilaterally cut off oil shipments the US committed to under the 1994
Agreed Framework.
Bush
would go on to pull US troops out of North Korea, where they had been working
cooperatively with the North Korean Army searching for the remains of US army
personnel killed in the Korean War.
As
O’Brien asserts in her series, the immediate trigger for these moves was a
visit by Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi to North Korea in
a first effort to normalize relations between the two countries. In the view of
the Bush administration, an independent economic-political block consisting of
Japan and a unified Korea posed a serious strategic threat to US dominance in Asia
and had to be stopped. Her arguments make sense in view of the fact that direct
US military occupation of South Korea only ended in 1994, a year after the South Korean
people overthrew the last US-installed puppet dictator.
Provoking North
Korea into Resuming Their Nuclear Weapons Program
In
the face of growing belligerence and military threats from the US, in 2003
North Korea announced they were withdrawing from the Nuclear Non Proliferation
Treaty and restarted the nuclear reactor frozen by the 1994 Agreed Framework.
They also announced they were restarting their nuclear weapons program and long
range missile testing. In 2004, they would announce they had successfully
manufactured a nuclear weapon and in 2006 test their first nuclear weapon
Whereas
there was no evidence they had nuclear weapons in 2002 when Bush first leveled
accusations against them, by 2004 he managed to convince them their regime was
under sufficient threat they needed nuclear weapons to defend themselves – he
also managed to convince Congress that the North Korean threat justified
massive expenditures on a wasteful and questionably effective missile defense
system.
Meanwhile
despite growing tensions related to North Korea’s decision to resume their
nuclear weapons program, the Sunshine Policy would limp along until 2008. A
shooting incident at the Mount Kumgang tourist region (in which a South Korean
tourist was shot by North Korean soldiers) effectively ended it.
Dr.
Bramhall is a retired American psychiatrist and political refugee in New
Zealand. She has published a free, downloadable non-fiction ebook 21st Century Revolution. Her first book The
Most Revolutionary Act: Memoir of an American Refugee describes the
circumstances that led her to leave the US in 2002. Email her at: stuartbramhall@yahoo.co.nz. Read other articles by Stuart Jeanne, or visit Stuart
Jeanne’s website.
No comments:
Post a Comment