Ghana Shall Not Go To War ...

* **

Part One: **

**Ghana Shall Not Go To War Over A Disputed Election Anywhere Near The Ivory

Coast! *

Feature Article | by Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro.

*Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheOdikro*

"Some of us believe in quiet diplomacy, and that is exactly what we are

doing. There are some who have expressed reservations about the success of

the intended military operation. As a person, I do not think that this

military operation is going to bring peace to La Cote D'Ivoire. Indeed, my

oath to the people of Ghana is to protect our territorial integrity and then

the safety of Ghanaians. So many allegations have been made. Ghana is not

taking sides. My brothers and sisters, it is not for Ghana to choose a

leader for La Cote D'Ivoire. But Ghana should support any measures to

implement the democratic ideals that we all cherish."

- His Excellency President John Evans Atta-Mills, President of the Republic

of Ghana, in an interaction with with editors and media owners at the Osu

Castle Friday, 7 January 2011, to mark the end of his second year in office.

Cats Don't Trust Cat-Hunters

From the above sub-title, it is obvious that the main reason why

"cat-hunters" cannot negotiate with "cats" is basically one of trust. On the

23rd of Dec 2010, senior Ouattara adviser Amadou Coulibaly said of Gbagbo:

“Mice don't trust smiling cats,” So apparently Gbagbo is the cat, and

Alhassan Ouatarra with the support of France, US, UN, ECOWAS is rather the

little mouse. The story gets muddled too fast for my liking, we shall see

the length of this frog only after a rigor mortis or death stiffness! In the

meanwhile we must proceed very gingerly. The field is mined. I can smell war

in my nostrils from the whiffs of lies and systematic distortions in the

corporate media. And as usual, Truth is the first casualty.

First of all, let me make my position very clear from the beginning. Even if

it were completely clear that Alhassan Ouatarra had won the elections and

Gbagbo is simply refusing to step down, it defies all logic to go to war for

such a reason. What compounds and confounds the issue furthermore is that it

is not even clear that Ouatarra really won the elections. The UN was not

sent to the Ivory Coast simply to be fair to both parties in the conflict

there, but to be seen by all to be fair. In my humble estimation they have

failed woefully on both grounds. There are reports of discrepancies even in

their own voter list certifications between the first and the second round

of the Presidential elections. It would have helped a lot if the UN

representative had demonstrated statistically how he arrived at the

conclusion that Ouatarra won the elections, taking into consideration the

number of registered voters, and how he accommodates the thousands of votes

cast that far exceeded the number of registered voters in the North. This

failure of an empirical demonstration made the UN less transparent and

opened the door wide open for all sorts of suspicions to enter into the

fray. I shall dwell extensively on this aspect later in the Part Two of this

article.

Anyway, talking about cats, there is a famous NDC adage which says, "There

are so many ways of killing a cat". It follows therefore that a clever cat

would be circumspect and alert enough to avoid these myriads of traps, if it

is to stay out of harm's way. A desperate Laurent Gbagbo is not going to sit

around idle and accept Ouatarra, France, The US, the UN and the ECOWAS'

Orwellian double-talk of "Your Excellency, this is not a war, it is just a

little military commando operation. We just want to kidnap you a little bit,

please, Mr. President, no bloodshed, sir!' Here is a quote from Toussaint

Alain, Adviser to Laurent Gbago, which shows that Gbagbo is definitely a

very experienced and well-alert cat in the game. "The UN is trying to

manipulate public opinion and is looking for a pretext for a military

intervention,” he is reported to have said.

Just as the cat has the right to be extremely suspicious of cat-hunters,

Gbagbo can only be kidnapped peacefully if we manage to convince him that

this does not amount to a declaration of war. But whether Gbagbo sees it as

a declaration of war or not, is also quite another matter. What the

consequences of such a determination by Gbagbo may mean to you and I and to

over a million Ghanaians living directly in La Cote D'Ivoire, in military

terms is one of the things I am certainly not in a hurry to find out!

War At The Behest Of Our "Development Partners":

This war is clearly not Africa's war. The real war-mongers are hiding behind

the ECOWAS, the AU and the UN. The reason is no different from the same old

boring imperialist interests! I was not in the least surprised to hear the

shrill voice of the Kenyan Premier, Mr. Railla Odinga from far away Kenya,

assuming authority over and above the genuine concerns that Ghana has had

the occasion to air out publicly, perhaps, after silent diplomacy seemed to

have been lost in the decibels of the drums of war that was already beating

at the ECOWAS headquarters at the behest of our "development partners".

Those who do not agree with the president simply fail to appreciate the

implications that we cannot have our own minds about issues intimately

linked to our very security.

The call to follow the ECOWAS bandwagon even if we have the strongest of

reservations, elevates the ECOWAS to be even more important than whether we

live or die. As a convinced Pan-Africanist, I believe that no institution

whose decisions have direct consequences on our lives, has raison d'etre,

with us as members, if the objectives of these organizations have no

connection with our peace of mind, development and social progress.

Following them for the sake of following even at the expense of our lives

and for no justifiable reasons certainly do not form a part of the reasons

why we joined any of these organizations in the first place.

I heard an interview on Myjoyonline, of some so-called "experts" horrified

and declaring that the Professor John Evans Arthur-Mills "goofed" in

breaking ranks with the ECOWAS, the AU, and the UN. Such people should be

ashamed of themselves. For all those who care to follow closely what is

going on, no one was surprised with what the President had to say on this

issue at the recently held "Meet the Press Conference." It has already been

in the news that President Mills did not favour a military solution to the

political impasse in the Ivory Coast. As a front-line state, we ought to

have been actively and vigorously consulted with our voice carefully

weighted. This apparently speaks volumes about what is going on in the

ECOWAS.

Relations With The AU, The UN and The US:

As for the AU and the UN, they are supposed to close ranks with us. We must

definitely know a thing or two about this problem than they could ever

imagine possible, simply because we are the neighbours! Is it not

impertinent on the part of those trying to impose the military option on us,

without our input, even though we are going to bear the brunt of such a

monstrosity? When the US President, Mr. Barak Obama came to Accra, Ghana, he

said:

"It is an honor for me to be in Accra & to speak to the representatives of

the people of Ghana. I am proud that this is my first visit to sub-Saharan

Africa as President of the US. The 21st century will be shaped by what

happens not just in Rome or Moscow or Washington, but by what happens in

Accra as well."

- President Barak H. Obama, Parliament House, Accra, July 11, 2009.

Here is an issue over life and death in which we have our own minds. We

expect people of goodwill and not shady war-mongers to join us in our

obvious eagerness to seek a lasting solution to a problem facing a very

close and important African sister-country. In the absence of the US

consulting us over this and supporting our efforts, the irony here is that

the US is supposed to be angry because they wanted Ghana to think very

differently about the problem in the Ivory Coast! USAfrica even reports:

"Ghana's president John Mills has expressed his opposition to any military

intervention in Ivory Coast, led by the ECOWAS or the international

community, seeking to force controversial incumbent Laurent Gbagbo out of

office... He stated today January 7, 2011 that: ”I do not think the military

operation will bring peace to the nation.” This was a jolt to many of the

leaders of the west African regional bloc, ECOWAS and to the expectations of

the U.S administration of President Barack Obama. Two days earlier, on

January 5, 2011, the U.S Assistant Secretary of State for African affairs

Johnnie Carson had called for increased pressure on Gbagbo with a stronger

demand for him to leave and making the point it is broad fight by the region

for democracy and should not be left as a domestic issue. President Mills is

strongly arguing the opposite position — to the surprise of the U.S and the

international community (supporting opposition candidate Outtarra against

Gbagbo).

Mills who hosted the Obamas on July 11, 2009 in Accra, said today that “It

is not for Ghana to choose a leader for Cote D'ivoire. I have spoken to both

Ouattarra and Gbagbo and I cannot make it public.”

Diplomats, international security experts and interested parties are

wondering: what informed Ghana's blunt and clear position against a forced,

military attack against Gbagbo's outgoing, stalemated presidency?'"

- USAfrica, January 7, 2011.

I am sure the leaders of the world, including the ECOWAS are a little bit

aware of the geography of West Africa, and have taken sufficient notice of

fact that of the only three strong nations capable of mounting a military

challenge to the Ivorian Army in West Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, and Senegal,

only Ghana is a front-line state. If those who are clamouring for war have

any respect for us they would also have come to find out our position on the

matter before beating the war drums and taking us for granted.

What do the Imperialists Want?

I think to understand this very well, we have to go back to "the first time,

the two concepts—'Africa' and 'U.S. national security' were "used in the

same sentence in Pentagon documents". Read carefully what Donald Norland,

former U.S. Ambassador to Chad told a Congressional subcommittee on this for

an explanation from the horse's own mouth:

"In May 2001 the Cheney report warned that the U.S. would grow increasingly

dependent upon foreign oil in the years to come and recommended that as a

matter of policy the Bush Administration work to increase production and

export of oil from regions other than the Middle East, noting that Latin

America and West Africa were likely to be the fasting growing sources of

future U.S. oil imports.[48] Africa supplies about 15% of U.S. oil imports,

but with African production growing at twice the global rate, it could be

supplying the U.S. with as much energy as the Middle East within a

decade.[49] Three months later, Assistant Secretary of State for African

Affairs Walter Kansteiner declared that African oil "has become a national

strategic interest.[50] " This statement is particularly noteworthy in that

it uses the language of the Carter Doctrine in the Middle East, in which

President Carter went on to declare that the U.S. would intervene by any

means necessary to protect its national interest in Middle Eastern oil. In

April 2002, Donald Norland, former U.S. Ambassador to Chad told a

Congressional subcommittee: "It's been reliably reported that, for the first

time, the two concepts—'Africa' and 'U.S. national security'—have been used

in the same sentence in Pentagon documents."[51] Having declared African oil

to be of strategic interest to the United States, the Bush Administration

has not taken the second step to actually apply the Carter Doctrine to

Africa. This has left U.S. policy open to criticism from both sides. The

Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on U.S. policy in Africa has

criticized it for failing "to make a geopolitical shift to pay sufficient

attention to West Africa's energy rich Gulf of Guinea,"[52] while others see

a neo-imperial push unfolding in the sub-region.[53] " - Letitia Lawson,

U.S. Africa Policy Since the Cold War, Strategic Insights, Volume VI, Issue

1 (January 2007) US Naval Postgraduate School.

Ann Talbot writes: "The strike call in Ivory Coast is a cynical manoeuvre,

intended to give Ouattara some semblance of popular legitimacy, while

possibly providing the pretext for a foreign military intervention. If the

strikers came under attack from the Ivorian military, which is still loyal

to Gbagbo, then an invasion by West African troops with French and US

backing could be presented as a humanitarian operation." (See; Ivory Coast

general strike call portends further foreign intervention).

She adds:

"France and the US are eager to see Ouattara in the presidential palace

because they see him as the ideal candidate to push through economic

measures that will make Ivory Coast the key to developing the entire region

as a supplier of raw materials. Their outright backing for Ouattara

represents a shift from their previous preference for a power-sharing

agreement between the northern, mainly Muslim, and the southern, mainly

Christian, Ivorian factions."

Crossed Crocodiles writes: "Although some fear the US State Department

supports Gbagbo, citing particularly Lanny Davis and his close relationship

with the Clintons, Ouattara appears to be the current darling of the US and

France:

“He is a former International Monetary Fund (IMF) economist. He was deputy

managing director of the IMF from 1994 to 1999 and governor of the Bank of

Central African States. He [Ouattara] was prime minister of Ivory Coast from

1990 to 1993 and is closely identified with the free market policies

introduced under an IMF structural adjustment plan that removed price

subsidies and deregulated the labour market. State-owned enterprises were

privatized and tariff barriers removed.

The economic and social tensions that were ultimately to break out into

civil war can be traced in part to the process of economic liberalisation

that began in the 1990s. President Félix Houphouët-Boigny, who ruled Ivory

Coast from its independence in 1960 until his death in 1993, was able to

maintain a degree of stability by sharing patronage among rival sections of

the country's elite. Under his successors tensions became increasingly

acute. Falling commodity prices hit Ivory Coast's chief export of cocoa, and

structural adjustment reduced the amount of patronage available."

We must be extremely wary of being sent into a senseless war for imperialism

in which our nation shall never emerge as a winner but as a loser from the

inevitable blow-backs that such misadventures normally entail. Having

clearly shown to them that the masses of Africa want nothing to do with the

USAfricom Project, they have apparently changed tact. We do not see them,

yet they have their finger-prints all over the place! These busy-bodies want

to turn us into something worse than slaves. They want to use us as cannon

fodders for their greedy economic interests to prosper.

Say "No!" To A Silly Proxy War!

Crossed-Crocodiles writes in"Obama's African Rifles –

Partners/Surrogates/Proxies":

"With the gigantic imbalance between military and civilian spending, and the

huge presence and activity of the Africa Command around the continent, and

the US not doing much else, all African problems as viewed by the US are

likely to be treated like nails requiring a military hammer. With the

present imbalance in military to civilian spending, a military hammer is

about the only tool on offer from the US.

Through its various security assistance programs, the United States now

seeks to build both the capability and willingness of African states to

employ military force throughout the region in a manner that supports US

strategic interests and precludes the requirement for direct US military

intervention. The United States, in effect, is seeking to develop

surrogates."

He continues:

"Maj Shawn T. Cochran wrote Security Assistance, Surrogate Armies, and the

Pursuit of US Interests in Sub-Saharan Africa published in the U.S. Air

University's Strategic Studies Quarterly Spring 2010 v.4 #1 (PDF). He is

quite interesting on the subject of US surrogates and partners in Africa,

and on historic and current US efforts to create and use African

partners/surrogates/proxies.

In the words of a senior US military officer assigned to AFRICOM, the United

States seeks to enhance regional military forces because, “We don't want to

see our guys going in and getting whacked . . . We want Africans to go in.”

One thing he points out early on is: "There is no official DoD definition

for surrogate force, the second key concept. For many, the term proxy may be

more familiar. Within the military realm, the terms proxy and surrogate are

largely interchangeable. The use here of the latter reflects a desire to

establish a degree of distance from the related, yet viscerally more

contentious, concept of proxy war. Given the African experience, any

allusion to proxy war will likely elicit recollections of how external

powers, both in the colonial and Cold War eras, competed by initiating,

escalating, and exploiting local conflicts. Today, many who wish to

denigrate a given foreign policy in Africa simply apply the label “proxy

war” for dramatic effect

I am one of those who uses the label proxy war not just for dramatic effect

but to keep in mind an accurate historic context for viewing current US

military adventurism in Africa.

"… a surrogate force is defined as an organization that serves the needs or

interests of a secondary actor—the sponsor—by employing military power in

place of the sponsor's own forces. Implicit within this definition is the

requirement for the sponsor to fund, equip, train, or otherwise support the

surrogate. The sponsor also must exercise at least some form of control or

influence over the surrogate."

It is deja vu all over again! Are we ready for it this time around?

As Xcroc puts it: "Differences over Ghana's foreign policy caused the US to

engineer and support the coup that overthrew Nkrumah. What new kind of

interference may we be looking at? With whom is the US Africa Command

partnering? US Embassies are actively engaged in spying on African countries

and citizens, collecting:

-- Biographic and biometric data, including health, opinions toward the US,

training history, ethnicity (tribal and/or clan), and language skills of key

and emerging political, military, intelligence, opposition, ethnic,

religious, and business leaders. Data should include email addresses,

telephone and fax numbers, fingerprints, facial images, DNA, and iris

scans.09STATE37561

"

These revelations come from a "directive" sent by the State Department to US

Embassies in Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chad, The Gambia, and Mali,

Mauritania, Niger, and Senegal. There is a separate directive indicated also

called "The West African Littoral Directive", which covers the West

Africancoastal countries to the south (Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Sierra

Leone,

Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Togo, and Benin. This should throw more light

on what is going on. Unfortunately it has not yet been released by

Wikileaks.

Others include that may throw further light include:

¶C. UN Peace and Peacebuilding Operations.

1) Africa (FPOL-1).

-- Plans and intentions of UN leaders and member states regarding peace

operations, especially in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia,

Chad/Central African Republic, Burundi, Cote d,Ivoire, and Liberia.

-- UN peacekeeping plans and intentions regarding military operations

against rebels based in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the

Congo.

-- Early warning information available to the Secretariat on potential

threats to peace and security.

-- UN views on the role of AFRICOM in African conflict resolution and

post-conflict capacity building.

-- UN expectations of US military involvement in African peacekeeping

missions and how this may influence UN willingness to establish, curb, or

end missions.

-- Extent to which UN peace operations in Africa are straining the resources

of the UN and member states; impact of current operations on future

operations and readiness. -- UN views on peacekeeping mission creep and

pressures to expand the UN role in African conflict zones, either in the

form of more comprehensive "peacemaking" mission mandates or in areas where

security threats demand more aggressive and timely UN-led multilateral

intervention.

-- Details on views of the UN Department of Peacekeeping STATE 00080163 012

OF 024 Operations on operational plans, including the ability of the UN and

its member states to build capacity in Africa, including by working with the

AU or other regional organizations and NGOs.

-- Efforts by China, France, Iran, and others to gain influence in Africa

via UN peace operations.

-- Information on extent of support and capabilities for peace operations by

the AU and the Economic Community of Western African States (ECOWAS). --

Official stance on deploying HIV positive troops and actual practice.

-- Degree to which official peacekeeping reporting matches unofficial

communications of events; views on those discrepancies.

-- Views of African states that host peacekeepers regarding UN peacekeeping

troops and troop contributing countries.

-- Attitudes and intentions of Ghana and Rwanda concerning UN peace

operations in Africa and perception of their relative ability to contribute

to such efforts.

-- Attitudes of other African States to Ghana/Rwanda participation and

leadership.

I am speechless, but Crossed Crocodiles again managed to bring out the

feeling to my satisfaction; "It seems like US foreign policy can be summed

up with a line I heard in a cartoon this week: A friend is just an enemy who

has not attacked yet"!

*Forward Ever! Backwards Never!!!*

*Cheers!*

*Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro*

*Give me a follow and let's exchange views on what I call "a grammar of

Pan-Africanism and its manners of articulation in an ever-changing world"!**

*

*E-Mail: nanaakyeamensah@gmail.com*

*Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheOdikro*