Can Kofi Annan Factor in This Time?

Written by Konongo Fordjour

There is an issue that has been bothering a large section of Ghanaian community in the USA. The question here is: how do modern Ghanaians see themselves? Has there been awareness, with regard to nationalism - an instrument to nation building, trust, pride, knowledge, respect and unity through collectivist national development - or are we still abysmally buried in our unquestioning attitude (of giving to anybody of "aburokyire" experience regardless of the personality of that individual) inherited from the old folks?

In numerous of our deliberations, in search of good governance for Ghana (of African origin); and continuity of the good work initiated by President Kufuor and his NPP government, participants in the debate came up with variety of issues to think about. The main point on the floor that keeps recurring is that the respected Ghana’s former United Nations Secretary General should be voted for to become the next President of Ghana after Mr. Kufuor to enable continuity of practical democracy, investor confidence to attract copious foreign direct investments, and the man's own contributions in whatever it takes.

Two issues were critically identified: First, proposing to Mr. Annan to take the job is one thing; and whether or not he would accept the top post is another. An anonymous confidant from Mr. Annan's quarters predicts that there will be of course some noises made initially, but at the end of the day he will jump for it since he would have nothing to do now. The second issue that many Ghanaians have pros and cons on Mr. Annan's presidential proposition is: "Why Kofi Annan?" This is where contributions from the home front are badly needed since you have a fair view of Mr. Annan's contribution to the state Ghana, if any at all.

Those for the motion argue that: one, he is in a position of influence and can easily create an environment for his UN cronies to invest that is badly needed for a nation campaigning so hard to become a hub, attracting international business to the housefly-cum-mosquito infested and 'oven-heated' equatorial African subcontinent. Two, Mr. Annan, they argue, has many years of administrative experience, conducting the affairs of a large body, bigger than Ghana put in the context, and hence would be an excellent ticket in this smaller instance. And three, they conclude that, counting on Mr. Annan's UN Secretarial predecessors' success stories back in their own countries of origin, Ghana also stands to succeed in the same way.

The audience needs to be informed that Dr. Kurt Waldheim of Austria retired home and became a successful president, although he was attacked by his youthful role played in the Nazi atrocities on Jews. The almost perfect instance is the quiet South American state of Peru previously in the hands of military thugs, as it was in Gun-man Jerry Rawlings' era of Ghana, and then handed to Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar to govern. Peru has advanced so fast that people there do not want to make noise of their newly founded developments. Mr. de Cuellar was succeeded by the Egyptian Boutros Boutros Ghali as the UN Secretary General. After a short spell of time, the Afro-centric USA former President Clinton, paved way for Ghana's Kofi Annan. Mr. Annan's first UN term was so good that he emerged almost unopposed in his second term of office. But the question is: would managing the body's affairs equate governing a sovereign state? By the way is Kofi Annan the same as Perez de Cuellar or Kurt Waldheim? Of course not!

First, looking at their contributions to their individual countries prior to, during and after their UN assignments, critics see a hollow Kofi Annan. Mr. Annan's critics think that with or without Kofi Annan Ghana can make inroads into global recognition. Dr. Nkrumah fought single-handedly and made profound contribution to mother Ghana, which was even a pride in the eyes of giant foreign institutions that supervised his predicaments. Therefore with or without UN background, Ghana can make it. It requires good governance instead. Mr. Kufuor has no UN background and yet he is scoring good points in the global political administration.

Second, Mr. Annan has difficulty in identifying with his homeland, Ghana. In a 2002 profile on Mr. Annan through the Newsweek magazine, prior to the hostilities in Iraq, the people Mr. Annan calls his own friends find him too queer. The report stated that Mr. Annan is an excellent parrot and can go to the extent of even recalling all the names of the children of his diplomats and aides but he will never allow any of them to know his own let alone inviting them for Annan's family tea party. The report stated that Mr. Annan does not open up to anybody, which literally implies that he does not trust anybody and would not entertain anybody - a rather more of an inward looking fellow. His critics believe that that will not augur well with state governance. Well he may get away with such a self-conceited attitude in check-your-shoulders New York, definitely not in Ghana, critics conclude.

Third, critically looking at the contributions made by Mr. Annan to Ghana and Ghanaians, a different view is perceived. Perez de Cuellar and Kurt Waldheim set the system for mass entry of their Southern Spanish folks and middle European folks, respectively, into the UN top jobs. Kofi has definitely not reciprocated our campaign and vote for him in this regard and therefore cannot be entrusted with another top job back home this time round.

Fourth, he is out of touch of the ordinary Ghanaian. His critics think that Ghanaians of today must look more to the real breed from Ghana itself and jettison the colonial mental fabric of automatic magnetization of top jobs for 'aburokyire' experienced folks irrespective of their personalities, a condition that has plagued Ghanaians from colonial rule to date. Ghana requires a culture that will blend into nationalism resulting to statutory responsibility, honesty and development, and not by merely learning functional performances to the amusement of our Western observers. Kofi Annan will definitely not be the choice.

The 'out-of-touch' Annan even fails to appear as a true Ghanaian. Just take a look at his official appearances. Click on 22 Jan 2004 ghanaweb.com website and take a close look at Secretary General Annan in Western suit for an award. To the ridicule of his critics, even his African-American woman member on his entourage was in full African (Ghanaian kente) regalia as with the other Africans except Mr. and Mrs. Annan. Take a tour to the UN Plaza on First Avenue at 42nd Street in New York City to see the colourful Nigerian agbada in UN sessions, so beautiful it hurts. But never ever did we see the Americanized Kofi Annan in the ‘oppressed’ African clothes. Put a Nigerian or a Senegalese into Kofi Annan's position. Do you think any of these two African children will wear suits 24 hours in 35 years of UN experience? Many of his critics think he is a lost child and definitely not a material for presidency.

Perhaps Mr. Annan's critics have gotten it all wrong and not making objective analogy of his contribution that may have been done or may be on-going through a third party or country for that matter in a secret way. The point in motion is that: Assuming Mr. Kofi Annan throws in a bid for 2008 Ghanaian Presidential contest whether on a political party ticket or as an Independent candidate, would you vote for him?

This is just a presentation of what some Ghanaians on this side of the planet think about the political direction of Modern Ghana. A large number of the academics, professionals, and laymen on the streets of Bronx, Brooklyn, Atlanta-Georgia, Denver-Colorado, St. Louis-Minnesota, Dallas-Texas, Boston and Worcester-Massachusetts, and some counties in New Jersey contributed to the debate. The overall result is against Kofi Annan, meaning should Mr. Annan decide to contest for a post in any form in Ghana in the future, they will travel home to physically campaign against him.

Interestingly, the latest developments in the country featuring current spate of independent parliamentary bids, such as Wireko-Brobbey, Osei-Tutu, and Abraham Osei-Aidoo and Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu's heartaches in the former’s failed parliamentary ambitions have signaled that expected shocks in the forthcoming general elections are not far from us. Should Mr. Annan remain a revered plenipotentiary diplomat of all times and witness many other "Rwandas" recurring and remain helpless as he did in 1994, or take a presidential position in Ghana and turn things around with fellow African leaders to benefit Africa? Can Busumuru Annan seriously factor in this time? What is your pick? Are you for the motion or against it? Let us hear your side of the story. Cheers!

Konongo Fordjour,
Global Analytica, Boston-USA
Email: koafordjour@yahoo.com