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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Professor Emmanuel Quaye, Chairman of the National Biosafety Committee

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

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

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

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

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

For Life, The Environment, and Social Justice,

By Ali-Masmadi Jehu-Appiah,

Chairperson, FSG

Editorial

POOR MAHAMA!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poor President Mahama!

Snowden's father grateful to Putin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington Thinks You Are Stupid

US President Hussein Obama

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China Is Winning the Space Race

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

Chinese President Xi Jinping

By John Hickman 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr J.B Danquah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Snowden's father grateful to Putin

Edward Snowden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fallacies of J. B. Danquah’s Heroic Legacy

Dr. J. B Danquah

By: Botwe-Asamoah, Kwame, (2006-06-04)

(Introduction)

It is one thing adoring one’s kin and/or mentor regardless of his or her nefarious deeds and treasonable acts, and it is another thing trying to impose such an individual on a nation as a hero. Every nationalist, seeker of truth, sincere scholar and student of Ghana’s political history should have been deeply startled and traumatized by the sudden public utterances by President Kufour and the Okyehene Amoatia Ofori Panyin in February 2005, and the subsequent articles by Dr. Kwame Okoampa Ahoofe in a desperate attempt to turn Dr. J. Danquah into a “compatriot saint of Ghana.” In fact, the arguments they advanced in support of their mendacious claims suffer from a severe historical amnesia.

Criteria of National Heroes

An inventory of history shows that people who build social movements to wage protracted national liberation struggles against colonial and imperialist governments, as well as settler regimes are the ones who attain the status of national heroes.

Out of the struggles emerge outstanding personalities who, by their visions, intellectual astuteness and exemplary personal sacrifices, effectively inspired and articulated the wishes and aspirations of the oppressed people. Such struggles in Africa after the Second Imperial War produced historical personalities as Eduardo Mondlane, Agostinho Neto, Nelson Mandela, Jomo Kenyatta, Amilcar Cabral and, of course, Kwame Nkrumah.

Critical to their protracted non-violent and/or armed struggles was the active agency of the ordinary people—women and men alike. As such, they advanced nationalist agenda that embraced all people irrespective of their ethnicities, social classes, gender and religious beliefs. Furthermore, such historical personalities invariably committed revolutionary suicide towards the freedom of African people. T

hese are the criterion that J. B. Danquah’s place in Ghana’s political history ought to be investigated and judged. Otherwise, dirty politics, false claims and public pronouncements by President Kufour and the Okyehene, as well as Dr. Okoampa’s simple-minded articles regarding Danquah as a “great patriot” and his alleged “criticism” of Kwame Nkrumah can seriously lead to falsification of history to achieve a short-term gain, as has been the case of the traitor Emmanuel K. Kotoka.

Dr. J. B. Danquah: The Prime Minister Ghana Never Had?

What is shocking about the campaign was President Kufour’s ill-mannered rewriting of Ghana’s political history in order to adore, as well as honor his political ancestor, Dr. J. B. Danquah. The president’s melancholic statement that “Danquah was the best Prime Minister Ghana never had” was an insult to the dignity and integrity of Kwame Nkrumah who uncompromisingly championed the course of Ghana’s independence at his personal sacrifice (violent attacks).

Also, the claim that Danquah was a “pathfinder, who blazed the trail for the country's independence” is out of sync with the facts of history. In Governor Burns’ constitutional reform in the late 1930s, Danquah pressed for the creation of an Office of Minister of Home Affairs for himself. But his prospect was jeopardized by his involvement in the barbaric murder of Odikro Akyea Mensah of Apedwa (one of the Amantoo-mmiensa towns) in February 1944. Odikro Akyea Mensah was one of the (over 80) children of Ofori Atta I, and had served as his personal clerk and tribunal Registrar.

His murder was to supply blood for the “blackening” of the ceremonial stool of the deceased and providing companion for the Omanhene in his journey to the under world. This barbaric act brought Danquah into conflict with judicial and executive authorities, thereby making him a persona non grata with Governor Allen Burns.

Defending the convicted criminals (four) sons of the late Ofori Atta I and four other royal members to the hilt were J.B. Danquah and Edward Akuffo Addo. After repeated appeals before the Privy Council in London to overturn the guilty verdict, Danquah went to the extent of mobilizing his political connections in England to obtain stay execution of the death sentences.

Hereafter, any effort by Danquah to secure personal representation of the non-traditional groups (farmers, trade unions and the Youth Congress) in the Legislative Council was doomed to failure. What a compatriot saint!

On hindsight, President Kufour’s lamentation over J. B. Danquah’s rejection by the people in the electoral votes to become their “best Prime Minister” in the Gold Coast or Ghana is a serious indictment of the Danquah himself. After the birth and popularity of the CPP, the Working Committee of the UGCC meeting in Saltpond in 1949 passed a vote of no confidence of Dr. J. B. Danquah’s leadership. And shortly after the CPP victory in the 1951 election, the UGCC collapsed. The CPP won 34 out of the 38 seats. Even, Danquah’s election to the Legislative Assembly in 1951 was through the municipal election/electoral collage and not by popular vote. The 1950 Coussey Constitution, which Danquah wholeheartedly endorsed, was not designed for the Africans to take over the Government. It was formulated “as an adaptation of the principle of indirect rule,” whereby “change would come through and with the consent of the traditional authorities.”

Furthermore, the office of Leader of Government Business had been set aside for the Attorney-General, an office for a British official. But through pressures from Nkrumah, the Governor, on March 5, 1952, addressed the Legislative Assembly that “the Leader of Government Business should disappear from the Constitution and that the Office of Prime Minister should be formally recognized.” Dr. J. B. Danquah not only opposed it, but he also characterized it as window dressing.

In his September 1, 1955 proposal to the Akyem Abuakwa State Council, Ofori Atta II warned that any stool heir in the state and royal member of Kyebi dynasty who supported the CPP would be committing subversive activities against the “chiefs and “Chieftaincy.” In the process, the Akyem Abuakwa State resources were mobilized in support of Danquah. The Okyeman’s great oath was also administered to 140 chiefs to declare their allegiance to Danquah and the NLM. Yet still, Danquah was defeated in the 1956 general election by his nephew, Kofi Asante Ofori Atta of Tafo. So, how could Danquah have become the best Prime Minister after the electorate in his Akyem Abuakwa Central constituency rejected him in the 1954 and 1956 general elections, including losing the votes in his hometown, Kyebi? What a heroic legacy!

Danquah the Anti-Nationalist and Secessionist

Perhaps, the best way to show Danquah’s anti-nationalist and secessionist stance is to pose the following questions: First, aside from his loyalty and collusion with the unlawful British colonial government and imperial British crown, what drastic measures did J. B. Danquah take to end colonialism in the Gold Coast? Second, how was he a national hero when he collaborated with his brother “Sir” Nana Ofori Atta I and the colonial government to suppress the Aborigines Rights Protection Society (ARPS) and the National Congress of British West Africa?

Third, in view of his total contempt for the ordinary people in the country, especially the so-called immigrant Kwahu, Ga, Krobo, Ewe, Northern, Juaben and Akwapim people in Akyem Abuakwa, how was he a nationalist? Fourth, was he not the one who called for Nkrumah’s neck and also rejoiced over Nkrumah’s imprisonment in connection with the Positive Action campaign in 1950? Fifth, did not Danquah and his brother, Sir” Nana Ofori Atta 1 use their convivial relationship with the colonial government to deport Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe from the Gold Coast in 1936, characterizing him as a nuisance in the country?

Sixth, why would the “nationalist” Danquah form the Gold Coast Youth Congress, a loose organization of literary club to the exclusion of the radical Wallace Johnson’s Youth League, the coastal intelligentsia and ARPS under Kobina Sekyi? Seventh, how on earth would the “doyen of Gold Coast” politics weep in jail like a child in connection with the national uprising against colonial injustices, and then blame his comrade “Ako Adjei for his part in recommending” Nkrumah to the UGCC?

Eighth, what were Dr. J. B. Danquah and his brother Nana Ofori Attah II doing at the Ga State Council where Nkrumah had been summoned to be reprimanded for his planned Non-Violent Positive Action against the British colonial government in June 1950? Ninth, notwithstanding his systematic campaign to banish Kwame Nkrumah from Accra as a “stranger,” as well as his repeated violent campaigns and collaboration with the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of Kwame Nkrumah between 1951 and 1964, how was Danquah a “compatriot saint?”

Finally, how did the “great patriot” Danquah end up on the CIA payroll? The fact is, Danquah and his comrades did not only oppose everything that Kwame Nkrumah and his government proposed, did or stood for, but they also sought every means possible to deport Nkrumah from Accra as well as eliminate him physically from the political scene. Therefore, Dr. J. B Danquah’s so-called criticism of Nkrumah is a sham.

As history shows us, the dreadful traditional ruler Nana Ofori Atta I was very instrumental in the creation and implementation of the draconian indirect rule system in the colony. And it was to legitimatize and entrench Ofori Atta’s despotic rule in the three Akyem states that he asked Danquah to write the “Akim Abuakwa Constitution.” In fact, all the political actions that Danquah took were at the behest of the Ofori Atta dynasty, for the benefit of few educated elite and his own selfish interest.

On March 14, 1956, for instance, Danquah and his brother Ofori Atta II told a visiting parliamentarian delegation to Kyebi that “Party politics was an alien political form which” had “created civil strife and violent dissension between father and son.” Accordingly, if the British showed no understanding, Akyem Abuakwa would secede from the country “as a sovereign and independent state with the only rival of the Ashanti country.” A compatriot saint indeed!

Naming the University of Ghana after Danquah?

The call by the Okyehene to rename the premier university of Ghana after Dr. J. B. Danquah is the most absurd of the public statements. In 1951, it was Danquah who vehemently and steadfastly opposed the 1951 Local Council Ordinance Bill and the establishment of Cocoa Marketing Board introduced by Nkrumah’s internal-self government.

Thus, if Danquah had won the debate, the Kwame Nkrumah government would not have generated the requisite revenue for the first five-year development plan, containing the construction of the Volta River Project, Tema Harbor and City, Adomi Bridge, Okomfo Anokye Hospital, democratization of education, the Medical School and the planning and construction of the University of Ghana at Legon. In fact, the prerogative to rename the premier university of Ghana after any Ghanaian of repute, if necessary, belongs to the people of Labadi via their king and the Ga State Council and NOT the Okyehene Nana Amoatia Ofori Panyin and his Chief of Staff of Akyem Abuakwa. It was the king of Labadi who gave the land, La Goon (La Hill) to Kwame Nkrumah’s Government to construct the University of Ghana at its current site. 

On my list of such great persons of national importance are: 1) Nii Ayi Kushi, the founder of the Ga State by 1500; 2) Nii Kwabena Bonne, (by tradition the Oyokohene of Takyiman) who, in 1948, organized a nationwide boycott of European goods and the colonial injustices; 3) Sgt. Adjetey, a martyr and the leader of the Ex-Servicemen, who marched in 1948 to the Castle to demand the promises given them by the British government before the Second Imperial War; 4) Nana Dr. Kobina Nketsia, the Omanhene of Asikado, who was jailed for his protest against the imprisonment of Kwame Nkrumah in connection with the 1950 Positive Action campaign.

Furthermore, he served as the first Vice-Chancellor of the newly restructured University of Ghana and its separation from the University of London; and 5) Nana Akumfi Ameyaw of Takyiman, the leader of the Bono-Kyempem. It was due to his fortitude that saved the country from a bloody civil war, which was manifested in the declaration of secessionism by the NLM and the Northern Peoples Party (NPP) on November 20, 1956. We must bear in mind that President Kufour’s competitor for the 2000 NPP presidential candidate Nana Akufo-Addo and J. B. Danquah, both MPs representing two Akyem Abuakwa constituencies are directly or indirectly related to Dr. J. B. Danquah.

 So, the sudden public adoration of Danquah at the beginning of President Kufour’s second term comes as no surprise to some of us. For instance, after the CIA inspired military coup that overthrew the government of Kwame Nkrumah on February 24, 1966, this same Danquah-Busia camp via the military junta named the uncompleted Ghana’s international airport after Africa’s traitor Col. Emmanuel Kotoka.

Later, honorary doctoral degrees were conferred upon Major Afrifa and the Police Commissioner Harley for their traitorous act on behalf of the NATO block (read John Stockwell, Opoku Agyeman works and Komer’s report for details). In addition, Obetsebi Lamptey (partly responsible for the rapid bomb explosions in Accra between 1961 and 1962 that killed over three hundred children) and J.B. Danquah were named after two circles constructed by Kwame Nkrumah. What an Irony?

Indeed, imposing Dr. J. B. Danquah on the nation “as a compatriot saint” is a mockery of Ghana’s unitary government that Kwame Nkrumah fought so hard to achieve.

▲Dr. Botwe-Asamoah is the author of the Cheikh Anta Diop Award for excellence in scholarship book, Kwame Nkrumah’s Politico-Cultural Thought and Policies, published by Routledge.

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

ELECTION PETITION

WHO IS TALKING WHAT JUSTICE?

Dr Kojo 

By Ekow Mensah.

The 1992 constitution is very clear on who dispenses justice and what it is.

In article Chapter 1, Article (1) the constitution states inter alia “The sovereignty of Ghana resides in the People of Ghana in whose name and for whose welfare the powers of government are to be exercised in the manner and within the limits laid down in the constitution”.

In article 125 (1) the constitution is emphatic that “Justice emanates from the people and shall be administered in the name of the Republic by the Judiciary which shall be independent and subject only to this constitution.”

 Article 127 deepens the independence of the judiciary when it stipulates that “In the exercise of the judicial powers of Ghana, the judiciary, in both its judicial and administrative functions, including financial administration , is subject only to this constitution and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority”.

The implications of these provisions are obvious, Justice is what the Supreme Court says it is and there cannot be any justice beyond the Supreme Court.

 It is indeed from this perspective that political leaders who are screaming that there can be no peace without justice in relation to the election petition before the Supreme Court ought to be seen.

 In reality what these politicians are saying is that they would only accept a verdict which favour them and that is blatantly subversive of the constitution.

 This is so because the constitution says without a doubt that justice can only be found in the judiciary and the ultimate power of the judiciary lies in the Supreme Court.

 Indeed, those who say that if the Supreme Court does not give them justice, then they will resort to other means of obtaining justice only betray their contempt for the 1992 constitution and their preference for anarchy and mayhem.

Perhaps, it is time to tell those blazing anarchists that the law enforcement agencies are ready for them.

The Supreme Court will make a determination in the case and it will be binding on all citizens of Ghana unless or until that decision is reviewed by the Supreme Court itself.

The doomsayers and anarchists are by their words and deeds exposing themselves.

Pope Francis

Francis' Message to Muslims for End of Ramadan

Promoting Mutual Respect Through Education

It gives me great pleasure to greet you as you celebrate ‘Id al-Fitr, so concluding the month of Ramadan, dedicated mainly to fasting, prayer and almsgiving.

It is a tradition by now that, on this occasion, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue sends you a message of good wishes, together with a proposed theme for common reflection. This year, the first of my Pontificate, I have decided to sign this traditional message myself and to send it to you, dear friends, as an expression of esteem and friendship for all Muslims, especially those who are religious leaders.

As you all know, when the Cardinals elected me as Bishop of Rome and Universal Pastor of the Catholic Church, I chose the name of “Francis”, a very famous saint who loved God and every human being deeply, to the point of being called “universal brother”. He loved, helped and served the needy, the sick and the poor; he also cared greatly for creation.

I am aware that family and social dimensions enjoy a particular prominence for Muslims during this period, and it is worth noting that there are certain parallels in each of these areas with Christian faith and practice.

This year, the theme on which I would like to reflect with you and with all who will read this message is one that concerns both Muslims and Christians: Promoting Mutual Respect through Education.

This year’s theme is intended to underline the importance of education in the way we understand each other, built upon the foundation of mutual respect. “Respect” means an attitude of kindness towards people for whom we have consideration and esteem. “Mutual” means that this is not a one-way process, but something shared by both sides.

What we are called to respect in each person is first of all his life, his physical integrity, his dignity and the rights deriving from that dignity, his reputation, his property, his ethnic and cultural identity, his ideas and his political choices. We are therefore called to think, speak and write respectfully of the other, not only in his presence, but always and everywhere, avoiding unfair criticism or defamation. Families, schools, religious teaching and all forms of media have a role to play in achieving this goal.

Turning to mutual respect in interreligious relations, especially between Christians and Muslims, we are called to respect the religion of the other, its teachings, its symbols, its values. Particular respect is due to religious leaders and to places of worship. How painful are attacks on one or other of these!

It is clear that, when we show respect for the religion of our neighbours or when we offer them our good wishes on the occasion of a religious celebration, we simply seek to share their joy, without making reference to the content of their religious convictions.

Regarding the education of Muslim and Christian youth, we have to bring up our young people to think and speak respectfully of other religions and their followers, and to avoid ridiculing or denigrating their convictions and practices.

We all know that mutual respect is fundamental in any human relationship, especially among people who profess religious belief. In this way, sincere and lasting friendship can grow.

When I received the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See on 22 March 2013, I said: “It is not possible to establish true links with God, while ignoring other people. Hence it is important to intensify dialogue among the various religions, and I am thinking particularly of dialogue with Islam. At the Mass marking the beginning of my ministry, I greatly appreciated the presence of so many civil and religious leaders from the Islamic world.” With these words, I wished to emphasize once more the great importance of dialogue and cooperation among believers, in particular Christians and Muslims, and the need for it to be enhanced.

With these sentiments, I reiterate my hope that all Christians and Muslims may be true promoters of mutual respect and friendship, in particular through education.

Finally, I send you my prayerful good wishes, that your lives may glorify the Almighty and give joy to those around you.
Happy Feast to you all!
From the Vatican, 10 July 2013

FRANCISCUS

(August 02, 2013) © Innovative Media Inc.

The Story of South African Farms

President Jacob Zuma

By Christopher Webb

In 2011 an investigation by Human Rights Watch into working conditions on South Africa’s wine and fruit farms drew international attention. The report documented numerous instances of human rights and labour abuses, including instances where workers faced physical abuse from farmers and were exposed to toxic chemicals. While the report was criticized by many in the agricultural sector for unfairly tarring all farmers with one brush, it played a crucial role in highlighting the prevalence of farm worker abuse in rural areas. It is clear that this violent facet of rural life has not disappeared.

The recent brutal assault of Flip Engelbrecht and his son, Flippie, by a farmer in Robertson in the Western Cape is illustration of this fact. In a Youtube video made and distributed by the family’s lawyer, Engelbrecht’s wife alleges that a wine farmer assaulted Flip and his son on two separate occasions. The brutal assault resulted in the son going deaf and developing epilepsy. During a seizure the son fell into a fire and was badly burned. Both of his hands had to be amputated.

Labour conditions in South Africa’s wine industry have received significant attention in recent years, largely due to the rise in wine exports and grower certification schemes. Many of these are aimed at improving working conditions for farm workers (particularly those with fair trade accreditation), although some have also been criticized as marketing opportunities preventing greater transformation. Labour groups in Sweden, a major importer of South African wine, have recently called attention to labour abuses on farms and have called on the state monopoly wine agent (Systembolaget) to tighten its purchasing guidelines. The following article by Mikael Delin appeared in the daily newspaper "Dagens Nyheter" (which was translated for us and kindly reprinted here):

Sweden’s Favorite Wines Made Under Poor Conditions

Some of Sweden’s favorite wines are made under lousy conditions on South African wine farms. Sweden has already consumed 16 million liters of South African wine this year, but workers may not taste the proceeds of the sale. Despite Systembolaget's ethical guidelines there are continuing problems of low pay and poor working conditions on wine farms in South Africa’s Western Cape province.

Just last year Swedes consumed nearly 34 million liters of South African wine. South Africa is the second largest wine exporter to Sweden, beaten only by Italy.

The working conditions of those South African workers supplying thirsty Swedes with wine have long been abysmal. According to Mr. Karel Swart of the Commercial, Stevedoring, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union (CSAAWU), farm worker’s salaries are not enough to live on, there are long working hours, and union members are threatened and persecuted. While the white vineyard owners drive expensive cars and live in luxury villas the workers are forced to work like slaves and live in leaky shack, he said.

The problem with the South African suppliers is not new for Systembolaget. To improve working conditions on South African farms, Systembolaget adopted a code of conduct on January 1, 2012 along with other Nordic alcohol monopolies. The code includes demands that suppliers comply with minimum wage laws, decent working hours, and have the right to join trade unions.

But the work has been slow. This year Systembolaget followed up with nine South African producers and found numerous deviations from the Code of Conduct. Improper overtime and a noncompliance with health and safety regulations were common.

Lena Rogeman, head of Systembolaget's sustainability efforts, is still positive. It shows that the guidelines make a difference, as we discover shortcomings. But we also see that it means very hard work. South Africa has had these problems for a long time, there is no quickfix, she says.

Union man Karel Swart says he sees no difference at all: The only major change in South Africa is raising the minimum wage, an increase of 52%. The increase came after months of strikes and violent protests. But the South African workers could not rejoice for long. While wages were raised farmers began to restructure their labour force and began to evict workers. For many workers rent increased, electricity costs tripled and free transportation was canceled. Increased wages was a great victory, a victory farm owners now are stealing from us, says Karel Swart.

Although employers control the living conditions of permanent farm workers almost as much as their working conditions, living conditions are not covered in the Systembolaget purchasing guidelines. But that may change, says Lena Rogeman. The employer raising the cost of living is a real problem that we think it is a severe problem, she says. We are involved in a project to update the code. Among other things, we are looking at including living conditions.

Those suppliers who get caught paying and treating their workers poorly risk much. This is a process of development, we are not trying to trap anyone. It is clear that if there is no sign of improvements, then we can remove the wine from the shelf. But we have never done that, it has not been needed, said Rogeman.

Is there God for test tube people?

By Yuri Nosovsky

How do religious morality and achievements of science coexist? Can we consider godly, for example, a scientific goal to achieve immortality by depriving an individual of the right to life after death? How is artificial fertilization, an analogue of Immaculate Conception, regarded from a religious point of view? Answers to these questions are sought not only by theologians.

There is no point in denying the influence of religion on certain social norms and scientific and technical progress. However, definitive conclusions should not be made either. The attitude of various religions to certain phenomena depends on many factors. First, it depends on a varying level of influence of the different views within the community, and second, changes from a historical perspective.

For example, in "good old England" where the Inquisition was eliminated along with the Catholic Church back in the 16^th century, up to the 19^th century there was a law demanding that those who attempted suicide and were saved at the last moment were to be executed based on a court sentence.  

Secret theft of corpses from graves by medical students who wanted to study the anatomy has long been a talk of the town. Now, however, Christianity is much more tolerant when it comes to the use of corpses as a teaching tool, and does not object organ transplantation. However, under Sharia law, autopsy even in forensic medicine is perceived extremely negatively.

Muslim jurists seem to be more progressive on the "in vitro fertilization" in case of infertility. For example, recently a fatwa (an Islamic version of a court decision) was adopted by the Islamic Center of Tajikistan about artificial fertilization for Tajik Muslims. It states that IVF is permitted, provided only husband and wife's embryonic cells are used. This is understandable, as the use of someone else's (or donor's) sperm for the procedure can be regarded as adultery not permissible under Shariah. In such cases, an alternative would be either a divorce (not welcomed by religions) or adoption.

This progressive for religious thinkers decision was due to the Islamic norm that the soul permeates a human fetus not immediately, but sometime after conception. Not all agree with this, because in the course of IVF several embryos are fertilized 'in vitro,' and in the event of failure of the first attempt, what should be done with the rest embryos? In Islam, by virtue of the above provision, there are no special ethical issues.

Christianity considers that the soul enters the embryo at the very moment of conception. While Russian Orthodox Church is fairly liberal with regard to "family planning" (in comparison with Catholicism, where all contraceptives are strictly forbidden) there is a negative attitude towards certain types of contraceptives. For example, "Intrauterine" that does not allow an already fertilized egg to penetrate the wall of the uterus.

The same principle lies in the basis of a negative attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church towards IVF. They say that leaving "leftover" embryos unused constitutes murder, therefore, this method of dealing with infertility cannot be used by devout believers.

Perhaps for these reasons, the birth rate in Tajikistan, and in general in the Islamic world, is very high, while Europe and Russia are simply dying out. Should some religious canons be brought in line with the objective reality and the desire of the congregation to have children conceived with the help of science?

It is clear that we have to be careful about any innovations in this highly sensitive area of ​​religion. Otherwise, it can take you too far. For example, now there is a popular idea of ​​"churching" of homosexuality among American Catholics, including the attempts to adjust the Scriptures in order to mitigate the terrible promises for the fans of "sodomy."

But what if they manage to recognize sodomy and prevalent in modern Western society hedonism as acceptable from a religious point of view? The retribution in this case will not even be tar and sulfur from the sky, as in the case of the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah, but simple extinction of the population over reasonable time periods, as it was in the case with the Serbs in Kosovo simply overtaken by Muslim Albanians in terms of growth in less than a century.

What was the result of "modernizing" of the religious attitude towards progress in the military sector? In the Middle Ages the Roman Pope published a special document prohibiting use of crossbows that greatly improved the accuracy and lethal outcome of shooting. Today, Hindus in Delhi, Muslims in Karachi and Tehran, Jews in Tel Aviv, not to mention the Judeo-Christians in Washington who were the first to drop nuclear bombs on civilian populations in Japan, are quite tolerant to nuclear weapons.  

It is hard to deny that only the remnants of a religious worldview do not allow modern Western society to use bare rational in the most sensitive areas. Execution of the failed victims of suicide like in medieval England is wrong. But what makes the modern society hospitalize survivors of suicide in "crisis units" of psychiatric hospitals, and not follow the increasingly popular trend in the secular civilization of the "human right to free choice," including the right to suicide? The answer would be the eternal religious beliefs about the sanctity of human life.

In some countries euthanasia is legal. So far, however, it is a legalized murder hidden under non-binding clauses like "severe suffering," which can be bypassed by any competent lawyer if we are talking about an inheritance from a long-living grandfather.

Although often religious norms may look archaic, their deep moral sense is even in a greater demand and relevant in our time of the collapse of moral standards. After all, faith is not only a mystical revelation, but the millennial experience of our ancestors. As a saying goes, we should not be shooting at the past so the future does not shot at us.

An economy is sustainable only when it respects the principles of ecology

It was the market that formed the current devastating economic model that, because it sustains itself on a scale of increasing production to "meet" exaggerated consumption levels, it squanders the main ecosystem services, depleting environmental resources above the regeneration capacity of the ecological system.

Marcus Eduardo de Oliveira (*)

Even this level of consumption is not being extended to all, it is seen to be concentrated in a few hands, and injures natural heritage substantially. The numbers that make this argument are illustrative: Just over 250 people, with assets exceeding $1 billion each, together have more than the combined gross product of the 40 poorest countries, where 600 million people live. The wealthiest 16% of the world are responsible for 78% of total world consumption. And 92,000 people accumulate in tax havens over $20 trillion. The 500 million richest people on the planet are responsible for 50% of the emission of carbon dioxide, exacerbating the greenhouse effect.

According to the report "The State of the World" (elaborated by the Worldwatch Institute) in 2008 68 million vehicles, 85 million refrigerators, 297 million PCs and 1.2 billion mobile phones were sold worldwide. The consumption in goods and services rose from U.S. $4.9 trillion in 1960 (calculated in USD at 2008 values), to U.S. $23.9 trillion (1996), reaching $30 trillion (2006), and $41 trillion, in 2012.

The sumptuous consumption, conspicuous in the " Economese language " rages apace, "consuming" the planet's natural capital. Spending on cosmetics annually in the U.S.  alone reaches the importance of U.S. $9 billion. Europe (with 740 million inhabitants) spends on cigarettes, also yearly, more than $50 billion and a further $105 billion is spent on alcoholic beverages. The annual global expenditure on armaments and military equipment is approaching $900 billion, while only $9 billion (so 1% of the sum that the major powers spend to kill innocent people) would be enough to bring water and sanitation for all the world's population.

This economic model of high production "fed" with exaggerated consumption, as we said, is destructive of the ecosystem's services. It is enough to see the widespread damage in the four ecosystems that provide our food - forests, grasslands, fisheries and farmland. Specifically, in these last two, the economic activity has manifested itself over time as being very invasive. Of the 17 known ocean fish stocks worldwide, 11 of them have withdrawal rates greater than the capacity to restock. Four billion hectares of the world's land surface are damaged. The last 50 years of economic activity account for 60% of the damage to ecosystems.

Related to this, population growth and hence their "needs", present at a faster rate than nature can bear. Excluding the deaths, every day 220,000 new people are born in the world - that  is, 80 million per year. Over the past 112 years, the population has grown more than 350%, from 1.5 billion in the year 1900 to the current 7 billion. Therefore, from 1980 until now, the global consumption of resources has increased 50% - each year 60 billion tons of resources are extracted.

When the material consumption exceeds the required level, well-being consequently declines. Perhaps this explains the need to create a new economy, a new economic model designed for the Earth - not for the market - and one which is considered sustainable, within the meaning of the term, only, and necessarily, if ecological principles are respected. Reaching this new stage of economic model it is necessary, beforehand, to change the modus operandi of the economic system.

It is unacceptable to keep it the way it is, creating increasing futile needs. That's how this model is supported, not worrying about fully meeting the needs of the population, but in continuing to create new productions to feed consumerism in general, of futility, while maintaining a high level in these "needs". For this, economic output is stimulated at a breakneck pace, "offering", as a sort of "reward", to the biosphere more pollution, more ecological degradation.

Programmed obsolescence (mechanism to shorten the life of the products thus forcing new sales) occupies considerable space in this dynamic. Just to illustrate: only in 2012, the Brazilian population discarded (threw in the trash) 200 million mobile phones.

Together with the insidious advertising industry (the second largest world budget, second only to military spending) the capitalist dynamics "surfs" that consumerist wave more and more. The one who suffers from it is the planet whose surface is scratched by the claws of this voracious consumption, albeit restricted to just a few hands.

Cardinal Appiah Turkson

CATHOLIC BISHOPS SPEAK

A STATEMENT ISSUED AT A PRESS CONFERENCE IN ACCRA

GREETINGS

"May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Cor. 13:14).

Fellow Ghanaians, our dear brothers and sisters In Christ Jesus and all men and women of good will, we, your Bishops, bring you greetings of peace and blessing.

At our extraordinary Plenary held in Accra, from August 6 to 8, 2013 to discuss issues relating to Church and State, we deem it important, necessary and urgent to address this message to you,our fellow countrymen and women, at this time when our nation is preparing to receive the verdict of the Supreme Court on the petition challenging the 2012 Presidential election results.

GRATITUDE TO GOD

God has been gracious to our nation, Ghana, and has blessed our country with peace and stability. For many years we have enjoyed peace in the midst of violent conflicts in neighbouring countries occasioned mostly by ethnic and electoral disputes, We thank God for the peace we enjoy and pray that He will continue to bless our nation with peace even as we the citizens, work to promote peaceful co-existence.

ELECTIONS AND ELECTION PETITION HEARING

Since the Fourth Republic began in 1992, Ghana has gone to the polls six times and on each occasion we have acquitted ourselves creditably earning the respect and admiration of the international community.

Today, Ghana is perceived as a functional African democracy and a model stable State. While we take individual and collective credit for this feat and seek ways of consolidating Ghana's democratic gains, the time has come for us to guard against political complacency which can derail the gains we have so far made.

For the first time in our electoral history, the election of a sitting President has been challenged in the Supreme Court, the highest court of our land. Having heard the petition, the Supreme Court is preparing to give its verdict and the nation is waiting.

As Shepherds of God's people, we believe that we have a divine duty imposed on us by our Lord and Master to be the prophetic voice and an instrument of peace in our country and to work with all stakeholders to ensure that Ghana develops in a peaceful environment. We have accomplished this duty over the years.

To this end, we wish to call on all citizens to continue to pray, work and champion the cause of peace before and after the verdict of the Supreme Court.
We, on our part, assure all citizens that we are praying for our country and all its citizens.

PEACE - INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

We believe that each one of us can and must contribute to greater justice and peace by reflecting seriously on our personal and collective responsibility in the current state of uneasy calm in our country.

We know that justice and peace go together. Indeed, there can be no peace without justice. In our democratic system of government, justice is dispensed through the judicial system. We are confident that our nine Justices of the Supreme Court will offer justice to the nation in their judgment. It is our prayer that in discharging this all-important duty, they will be guided by the Holy Spirit and that God will endow them with the necessary strength and courage to give the right verdict without fear or favour.

As we await the Court's decision, we encourage all Ghanaians to prepare their minds and hearts to receive the judgment that the Supreme Court will give in good faith and to see it as a victory for Ghana's democracy.

We wish to appeal to all Ghanaians not to celebrate or join any celebration after the verdict of the Court but to continue their normal daily duties to develop our country.

We call on the leadership of all political parties, particularly, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and New Patriotic Party (NPP), to accept the Court's verdict in good faith and to encourage their supporters to do the same.

We appeal to all Ghanaians to be calm before and after the verdict and refrain from provocative actions and utterances that can lead to violence and conflicts.

In this way, we will succeed in sending out a clear message to the world that our nation is at peace with itself and that it is a nation whose citizens live together and work together in spite of their differences.

We appeal to all media houses and social commentators to be circumspect in their commentaries on the case and to use their media platform, after the verdict, to encourage reconciliation and peaceful co-existence among all Ghanaians.

We trust in the ability of Ghanaians to remain calm in all circumstances especially in moments such as this and the ability of our security agencies to maintain peace and order at all times.

THE WAY FORWARD AFTER THE VERDICT

We wish to make a humble and passionate appeal to all Ghanaians that in whatever we do, we must always THINK GHANA FIRST. Our forebears sacrificed to bring our country to this position and it is now our turn to work together to safeguard the unity and stability that our country is enjoying.

In this regard, we encourage the eventual winner(s) to seek ways of building consensus and shared responsibility in tackling the core problems of our nation, namely, unemployment, corruption, polarization etc. This will eliminate the winner-takes-all syndrome in our body politic and unite all Ghanaians as one people.

We need not remind ourselves that we have only one nation called Ghana and we owe it a sacred duty to preserve It In peace and develop It for today and for posterity.

CONCLUSION

Fellow countrymen and women, brothers and sisters, peace is not just a gift to be received; it is also something to be worked for. Therefore, peace must be cultivated and people must be educated to work for it. We call on all Ghanaians and residents of our country to be involved in preaching, educating and advocating the cause of peace now and at all times. From now on, we call on all Catholics and all people of goodwill to continue to pray and make the Peace Prayer of st. Francis of ASSlSl their own:

"Lord, make me an instrument of your peace

Where there is hatred, let me sow love;

Where there is injury, pardon; where there is discord, union;

Where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope;

Where there is darkness, light and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not seek so much to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive. It is in pardoning that we are pardoned. And it is in dying that we are born to Eternal life. "

With st. Paul, we your Bishops say, "Brothers and sisters, be happy; try to grow perfect; help one another. Be united; Live in peace and the God of Love and peace will be with you" (2 Cor. 13:11).

God bless our homeland Ghana and make our nation great and strong. Thank you and God bless you all.

MOST REV. JOSEPH OSEI-BONSU

BISHOP OF KONONGO-MAMPONG & PRESIDENT, GHANA CATHOLIC BISHOPS' CONFERENCE