Where is the conscience of the international community?

The Washington Post of Sunday April 16, 1995 quoted oa high-level US official in Ghana as saying that "the only way to make people have confidence in this country is to stick to a constitutional democracy. PEOPLE SAID RAWLINGS COULDNAET LIVE BY A CONSTITUTION BUT SO FAR HE HAS" (caps ours).

This is the view generally prevailing within western diplomatic circles in Ghana. The same article, written by


Stephen Buckley of the paper's foreign service, reported that Rawlings receives high praise from foreign donors and diplomats. They credit him with establishing Ghana's stability in a region dotted with countries - Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Togo, Liberia - engulfed by political and economic crises.


In their writings and adulations the Western press and diplomatic community hardly ever refer to the PEOPLE of Ghana. It is always the perceived goodness of Rawlings to the people of Ghana. Some commentators have even hinted at some kind of kith and kin politics of the West with regards to Ghana. They see Jerry Rawlings one on them. The son of Scotsman (even if that parentage is in doubt) seems to be preferable to the Lynda Chalkers as a ruler of an African nation.


The international community in Ghana have exhibited remarkable lack of savvy since they adopted Jerry Rawlings as the show boy of Africa. They have treated opinions of the independent press and non-NDC politicians with contempt. Indeed, some of them have been heart to posit that they do not see an alternative to Rawlings. All of that has contributed to create the quintessential demagogue, tin god and autocrat, the kind of character that the West, with great justification frowns, upon.


Rawlings is a danger not only to himself but also the people of Ghana. The Radio Eye demonstrations last November and the Kume Preko march of last Thursday have confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that Ghana is not as stable as the West would want the whole world to believe. Rawlings has proved that he is more of a warlord with a private army than a serious minded democrat. On both occasions it has been Rawlings's armed militias, whether they are called commandos or ACDRs, who have shown intolerance and attacked people expressing their constitutional rights.

Things can get as bad as in Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and other bloody spots in Africa if care is not taken to diffuse tensions whilst they are still simmering. In this case it is the West which has that responsibility to call Rawlings to order. If people cannot march peacefully without being shot at by armed militias, what democracy are we pursuing?


Meanwhile, it is becoming evident that people are going to take arms, where necessary, to defend their political rights. They will not remain sitting ducks for RawlingsAEs militias. That is the beginning of the apocalypse. Blood has been split. All the evidence points to Rawlings and some of his lesser warlords who were actually seen distributing firearms to the culprits. The US Embassy cannot say it is not aware. The British High Commission cannot turn a blind eye. The German Embassy cannot bury its head in the sand.


The Swiss Embassy cannot afford to be partisan..... The Italians, the Spaniards, the Dutch and all of those developed countries that profess democracy.


Another African country is on the brink. Step in now. Tell Rawlings the truth. It is the authority of a tolerant democrat that fuels democracy and not the power of the gun.