So the “agreement” has been ratified by our parliament! After all the warnings and discussions (based on rational arguments and sheer conjecture in some cases) Ghana has given its sovereign seal of approval to what has been seen as serious arm twisting by the government of the United States of America for some paltry top change. How sad! Those who spilled their blood for our independence must be singing a dirge in their graves, seeing what our nation has become in this era of globalization.
My beef with the agreement is hinged on the realities of our so-called benefits from appending our national rights to that document. A comparative analysis in this instance would hopefully suffice to underpin a rethinking of how cheaply we have collectively sold Ghana (and this is without prejudice to those who abstained in Parliament). Sitting astride Asia, Europe and the Middle East is a secular state called Turkey. Turkey is 95% Muslim and happens to be the only predominantly Islamic populated state having full NATO membership. It has been fighting “terrorists” since the mid-1980s when the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) took up arms in exercise of their right to self-determination. Before America went back to the primary school dictionaries to look-up what terrorism was, Turkey had been practically living with it as evidence by the murder of 35000 people during the course of the PKK insurgency. Turkey also shares a border with Iraq.
In March 2003, the Turkish Grand National Assembly voted overwhelmingly to refuse the United States of America the use of its military facilities especially air bases (Incirlik) in its war against Iraq. This is interesting when juxtaposed against the backdrop of the facts that:
- 1. Turkey is a NATO member
2. Turkey signed up to fight the war against terrorism on the side of the US
3. 1/3 of Turkey’s national budget goes to the military and security services
4. Turkey’s security needs would be better served by insulating the state from secessionist movements situated in and operating from Northern Iraq
5. The US government had just given the Republic of Turkey $20 billion to “help the economy against the unforeseen effects of the war”
So the “agreement” has been ratified by our parliament! After all the warnings and discussions (based on rational arguments and sheer conjecture in some cases) Ghana has given its sovereign seal of approval to what has been seen as serious arm twisting by the government of the United States of America for some paltry top change. How sad! Those who spilled their blood for our independence must be singing a dirge in their graves, seeing what our nation has become in this era of globalization.
My beef with the agreement is hinged on the realities of our so-called benefits from appending our national rights to that document. A comparative analysis in this instance would hopefully suffice to underpin a rethinking of how cheaply we have collectively sold Ghana (and this is without prejudice to those who abstained in Parliament). Sitting astride Asia, Europe and the Middle East is a secular state called Turkey. Turkey is 95% Muslim and happens to be the only predominantly Islamic populated state having full NATO membership. It has been fighting “terrorists” since the mid-1980s when the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) took up arms in exercise of their right to self-determination. Before America went back to the primary school dictionaries to look-up what terrorism was, Turkey had been practically living with it as evidence by the murder of 35000 people during the course of the PKK insurgency. Turkey also shares a border with Iraq.
In March 2003, the Turkish Grand National Assembly voted overwhelmingly to refuse the United States of America the use of its military facilities especially air bases (Incirlik) in its war against Iraq. This is interesting when juxtaposed against the backdrop of the facts that:
- 1. Turkey is a NATO member
2. Turkey signed up to fight the war against terrorism on the side of the US
3. 1/3 of Turkey’s national budget goes to the military and security services
4. Turkey’s security needs would be better served by insulating the state from secessionist movements situated in and operating from Northern Iraq
5. The US government had just given the Republic of Turkey $20 billion to “help the economy against the unforeseen effects of the war”
Ghanaian foreign policy has been one of mutual respect and upholding of the rule of law but it does appear that we are gradually being thrust into the labyrinths of pawns in the chess games of the US. If it is our collective will that offenders are not extradited to the ICC because we have an agreement with the US not to do so, what is our moral justification in calling for attention or screaming ourselves hoarse about our democratic credentials and upholding international legal principles? Are Americans more human than Rwandans or Liberians? Or do we mean to say that it is good insofar as it is the US and its citizens. The agreement is a crafty way of avoiding a guilty conscience based on our lack of decisiveness to say “NO” to Washington. One cannot gloss over the fact that there are other underlying factors to this move, the most important of which as a political-economist I would deem to be the almighty veto of the US at the IMF in these our HIPC days ! but at least we should be open and transparent enough to tell our people what is really going on instead of feeding the good people of Ghana with such infantile widows fables as “we shall lose the $4 million”. In the spirit of South-South cooperation, even the Government of South Africa and/or Libya could give us hundred times more of the facilities that together make up the sum.
Legal pundits can worry about the connotations of this agreement regarding the issue of jus cogens but what matters is that Ghana has indeed placed itself in an awkward position. We have tarnished our envious image by kowtowing to the threats of the hawks straddling the corridors of power in Washington. How for instance would we have the “nerve” to ask warring factions in the sub-region to come to the negotiating table for legality to prevail when we have been adorned with the garb of double standards by this agreement? It is indeed distressing that we have sold ourselves so cheap, not because of the monetary issues involved but for the dishonour and damage we have done to our image and prestige by ratifying this piece of “indemnity clauses”. And did I read Prof. George Sarpong right that! agreements made under threat and intimidations are null and void? Would anyone take up this issue by challenging the legality of the agreement in the first place? Somewhere in our national anthem are the words “bold to defend forever, the cause of freedom and of right”. Have we done the right thing? Have we “resisted oppressors rule with all our will and might”? The dirges go on and on and on….
Views expressed by the author(s) do not necessarily reflect those of GhanaHomePage.
