Atta-Mills Is Right On Cote D’ivoire

By Ekwow Spio-Garbrah, former

Ambassador to the USA & Mexico

At his New Year’s Press Conference, H.E. President

John Evans Atta-Mills presented Ghana’s foreign policy stance on Cote d’Ivoire

as one which respects the territorial sovereignty of its neighbor, seeks to use

peaceful diplomatic means to resolve the ongoing electoral dispute, and puts a

priority on the interests of Ghanaians. President Atta-Mills also said in his

“personal opinion” he did not believe that military force will be beneficial in

resolving the conflict in Cote d’Ivoire and therefore was opposed to a military

invasion of Cote d’Ivoire. After the press conference many Ghanaians in Cote

d’Ivoire, those in many parts of Ghana, as well as in the Diaspora, breathed a

sigh of relief. Some dubbed the president’s wise stance a ‘dzi wo fie asem’ foreign

policy, in contrast to the George W. Bush-style “democracy-at-the-barrel-of-a-gun”

policy being promoted by the Akufo-Addo-led NPP.

Following President Atta-Mills’ statement, former

President Jerry John Rawlings, who is Ghana’s longest-serving head of state,

and whose tenure saw the preservation of peace in Ghana at a time when most of West

Africa was engulfed in crises, issued a statement in support of the government.

Former President John Agyekum Kufour, who also during his tenure sought to

douse the flames of war in Cote d’Ivoire, remained silent and refused to

criticize the cautious and wise policy of President Atta-Mills. But the

opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP), under the leadership of Nana Akufo-Addo,

has decided to mount their 2012 election campaign on a radical new non-African

doctrine that mimics the ‘George W. Bush-inspired democracy-at-the-barrel-of- a-gun

policy.’ The NPP has been telling Ghanaians that its new radical policy is

rather what has been truly the mainstay of Ghanaian foreign policy practice.

They argue that the measured, constitutionally and historically proper policy

of President Atta-Mills and the NDC government is misguided. Where does the NPP

get these notions from? The preamble to Ghana’s Constitution says it was adopted

“in a spirit of friendship and peace with all peoples of the world.”

Furthermore, Section 40 of Ghana Constitution’s

Principles of State Policy states that “in

its dealings with other nations, the Government shall (a) promote and protect

the interests of Ghana; (b) seek the establishment of a just and equitable

international economic and social order; (c) promote respect for international

law, treaty obligations and the settlement of international disputes by

peaceful means; (d) adhere to the principles enshrined in or as the

case may be, the aims and ideals of: i) the Charter of the United Nations; ii)

the Charter of the Organization of African Unity; iii) the Commonwealth; iv)

the Treaty of the Economic Community of West African States; and v) any other

international organization of which Ghana is a member.” Clearly the Constitutional

burden on President Atta-Mills is FIRSTLY “to promote and protect the interests

of Ghana” before seeking “to promote respect for international law, treaty

obligations and the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means.” So if

anyone has to go back and re-read their

constitution, it’s the NPP and its conspicuously befuddled leader Nana Akufo-Addo.

The same New Patriotic Party (NPP), which in the

1960s called for a “constructive engagement” with Apartheid South Africa, today

calls for war on our neighbor Cote d’Ivoire to resolve a simple internal electoral

dispute. Such a reckless gun-toting policy of the NPP will not be faithful to

the Ghana Constitution or be keeping with either the theory or practice of

international relations. One would have expected that since the NPP is now led

by a former foreign minister of Ghana the NPP would have played a more

constructive role in Ghana’s foreign policy formulation and practice at such a

critical time. Unfortunately, the Akufo-Addo-led NPP has shown that it lacks

the balanced judgment and seasoned equipoise in foreign affairs matters that even

the Kufour-led NPP generally showed.

The oath which Prof. Atta-Mills took when he was

sworn as President in January 2009 was not to defend the territorial integrity

of Cote d’Ivoire or the foreign policy aims of Nigeria, Benin, Sierra Leone or

other West African states, but to defend Ghana and Ghanaians no matter where

they reside. The Presidential Oath of Allegiance enjoins President

Atta-Mills to “bear

true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Ghana as by law established; [and]

uphold the sovereignty and integrity of Ghana; and preserve, protect and defend

the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.”

Does the NPP want the president to disregard his

oath and ignore the prospect of a potential reprisal attack on the nearly 1

million Ghanaians who live in Cote d’Ivoire? Is the NPP not aware that already

marauding militias are roaming the streets of Abidjan and have been accused by

the UN of even killing armed peacekeepers? Is the NPP not aware that Ghana’s

Jubilee oil fields is just a stone throw away from the Ivoirian border and

could be attacked if Ghana invades Cote d’Ivoire? Is the NPP willing to levy new

taxes to

collect the hundreds of millions of dollars that Ghana will need to properly

deploy its military to Cote d’Ivoire? Is the NPP not aware that the ECOMOG

deployment to Liberia in the early 1990s was a major financial drain on Ghana’s

finances and that the international community only came in much later to

relieve the situation? Is the NPP ready with measures to contain the massive

humanitarian catastrophe that could occur in Cote d’Ivoire if a military

invasion triggers a civil war? Is the NPP not aware that Ghana already has more

than 400 of its soldiers in Cote d’Ivoire under UNOCI command? Is that not

enough of a contribution from Ghana, when there are more than 100 UN member

countries that could also contribute troops to enhance the UN presence there?

President Atta-Mills has chosen a wise policy

and we all as Ghanaians should be grateful that at such a critical time in our

history we have ‘Nana Asomdweehene I’

as our president who is cool headed and

wise enough to not plunge the country into a senseless war with its neighbors.

ECOWAS, at its December 24, 2010 Extraordinary

Summit, issued a communiqué N°: 192/2010 which stated inter alia that: “(9).The

Heads of State and Government regret the

fact that the message sent by the ECOWAS Chairman on behalf of the Authority on

17 December 2010 has not been headed by Mr. Gbagbo. In this season of peace,

the Summit decided to make an ultimate gesture to Mr. Gbagbo by urging him to

make a peaceful exit. In this regard, the Authority decided to dispatch a

special high-level delegation to Côte d’Ivoire. (10). In the event that Mr.

Gbagbo fails to heed this immutable demand of ECOWAS, the Community would be

left with no alternative but to take other measures, including the use of legitimate

force, to

achieve the goals of the Ivorian people.” A simple textual analysis of

the communiqué clearly shows that ECOWAS

did not say it will invade Cote d’Ivoire to impose democracy as the NPP claims,

but it simply aggregated and

reconciled the views of all

the presidents present at that summit (viz - H. E. Thomas Boni Yayi, President of

the Republic of Benin; H. E.

Blaise Compaore, President of Burkina Faso; H. E. Pedro Verona Rodrigues Pires,

President of the Republic of Cape Verde; H. E. John Evans Atta-Mills, President

of the Republic of Ghana;H. E. Malam Bacai Sanhá, President of the Republic of

Guinea Bissau; H. E. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, President of the Republic of Liberia;

H. E. Ebele Goodluck Jonathan, President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; H.

E. Maître Abdoulaye Wade, President of the Republic of Senegal; H. E.

Ernest Bai Koroma, President of the

Republic of Sierra Leone; H. E. Faure Essozimna Gnassingbe, President of the

Togolese Republic; H. E. Mamadou Tangara, Minister of Foreign Affairs,

International Cooperation and Gambians Abroad, representing the President of

the Republic of the Gambia; H. E. Moctar Ouane, Minister of Foreign Affairs and

International Cooperation, representing the President of the Republic of Mali).

It is clear from the

ECOWAS resolution that while legitimate force was contemplated, it was also

seen as a very last resort. Nor did

the ECOWAS Resolution imply that unless Ghana specifically sent additional

troops under an ECOWAS/ECOMOG command, ECOWAS could not act. So for the NPP to

say that President Atta-Mills contradicted himself in his New Year News

conference is to misunderstand the modern practice of foreign policy as opposed

to some archaic textbook theories of foreign policy which clearly the NPP wants

Ghana to endure, even if it will lead to the deaths of hundreds of Ghanaians in

Cote d’Ivoire and threaten our oil fields. ECOWAS mediators led by Ghana’s

distinguished diplomat, James Victor Gbeho, in his capacity as ECOWAS

Commission President, are still in Abidjan seeking all peaceful means to

resolve the conflict. The AU-appointed mediator, Kenyan Prime Minister Raila

Odinga, has tried shuttle diplomacy in an effort to ease the crisis. But, even

before all negotiations could be

said to have failed, the NPP wants President Atta-Mills to declare war on our

neighbor. Before Ghanaian troops are deployed

anywhere President Atta-Mills is required by Article 214 (1) of the Constitution to

consult the “The Armed

Forces Council [which] shall advise the President on matters of policy relating

to defense and strategy including the role of the Armed Forces.” President

Atta-Mills says he has consulted

the Armed Forces Council and they have advised him against an invasion. Does

the NPP want the president to violate the Constitution? Does the NPP want the

president to commit an impeachable offense? Where in the treaty setting up the

Economic Community of West African States does it require all its members to

form a mini NATO to invade fellow African countries?

My interest in Cote d’Ivoire spans more than three decades. I first

visited Cote d’Ivoire in 1976. My wife’s father is from Cote d’Ivoire, her

mother is from Cape Verde and she herself was born in Senegal. My children are

true ECOWAS nationals, being part Anglophone, part Francophone and part

Lusophone. I also had the privilege, like many Ghanaians who have worked at the

African Development Bank, to live and work in Abidjan for years. I therefore

have some understanding of the Ivorian mind-set and the country’s current

socio-political crises. Indeed, I know personally many of the actors involved

in the current Ivoirian crisis. Also, as a former Ghanaian diplomat myself, it

would be unconscionable for me to sit unconcerned for the NPP to goad Ghana

into a needless, reckless and potentially tragic war. The Ivoirian crisis is

not one which should lead to the suffering of its entire population. If

President Gbagbo can be persuaded to give up power, and given whatever

assurances he needs, the entire crisis can end peacefully. Of course, if

President Gbagbo continues to be uncooperative, the international community has

a battery of other non-war instruments—economic, financial, trade, immigration,

legal, communication-- to compel him to lose power and exit. The military

option always exists for the UN and ECOWAS, but it cannot be Ghana’s unilateral

priority.

For me, as it is for countless other Ghanaians living across the border

in the Western, Brong Ahafo, Northern and Upper West regions, the crisis in

Cote d’Ivoire has a personal dimension with the lives of many extended

relatives at stake and therefore requiring not mere textbook theory.

The President and the NDC government are absolutely right on this matter!

The NDC and ordinary Ghanaians are grateful for the government’s wisdom. Please

ignore the barrel-of-a-gun policy of the NPP. President Kufour please re-educate

your party leaders on how to apply wisdom in foreign policy matters.

By Ekwow Spio-Garbrah, former