January 1,2008
By Kofi Akordor
We have heard a lot about refugees. We have seen images of refugees whether in Darfur region of The Sudan, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda or Eritrea, all victims of armed conflicts.
In Ghana, the civil war in Liberia brought us very close to the refugee menace when thousands of Liberians came here to seek refuge. A new township called Buduburam has become a historical monument to that war. However, generally speaking, apart from scattered communal conflicts and natural havocs such as the recent floods which displaced people, we have been spared the massive exodus of people running away from war.
At least that was the case until two weeks ago when over 2,500 Muslim brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers got stranded in Accra, while on their way to Mecca, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to perform this year’s Hajj. Apparently having been assured that they need not spend even extra one minute before boarding their aircraft, these pilgrims from every part of the country came to Kotoka International Airport without any preparation whatsoever in case things went wrong.
Members of the Hajj Board and the agents did not prepare any reception centre for the pilgrims in their belief that everything will be on schedule. That was where they failed and inflicted such pain on the pilgrims. The hallmark of every planning is the provision for contingencies. That was why if you are organizing an outdoor programme even at the peak of the dry season, you still need to make provision for canopies should the unexpected happens. Members of the Hajj Board had history to guide them and, therefore, had excuse for their lack of foresight.
When the aircrafts failed to land, everything went haywire and the pilgrims had nowhere to go but to seek refuge on the lawns of the Aviation Social Centre. It was a pathetic sight. Come to think of it. Adult men and women sprawled on the lawns, eating, drinking and discharging the waste material all in the open. And this is happening in the 21st Century.
Admittedly, the organisers may escape blame for the failure of the aircrafts to arrive as scheduled. They cannot, however, have cover for abandoning the pilgrims the way they did in the open like that. At least when the first signals of a possible disappointment started to show, they should have quickly organize a reception centre with the basic facilities of toilet, bath and sleeping tents for the pilgrims. That they failed to do that was an indictment on their organizational capabilities.
The last minute frantic efforts to get aircraft for the pilgrims even with presidential intervention bring to mind the collapse of Ghana Airways, the national carrier. After the intervention of President J.A. Kufuor, we were told that the aircrafts that were secured including those of Ghana International Airlines did not have landing rights at the Jeddah International Airport.
Ghana Airways, when it was in existence, was flying pilgrims to Jeddah in the past. This means if the national carrier were to be alive, it would have filled the void created by the chartered aircrafts. This is why sometimes certain institutions are there not only to serve profit motives but to undertake critical national assignments when the exigency of the occasion demands.
If we think the ordeal of the pilgrims is over, then we are in for another shock. We have been told that due to flight problems, the first batch of the pilgrims could only return home 25 days after they had completed the Hajj. Granted that the government is prepared to feed and accommodate them during that long period, what about the time spent there when they should have been back at home to be pursuing their legitimate businesses?
What will be the fate of those who might have asked permission from their employers for a limited period to undertake the pilgrimage? We surely have missed Ghana Airways at this crucial moment and the damage to the nation by its collapse is clearly visible.
The decision to investigate this year’s Hajj and apply sanctions where necessary is good. However, the probe will be better if it will go beyond this year’s Hajj and find out why the annual pilgrimage has become a period of suffering for the pilgrims.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Who wins Legon race?
By Kofi Akordor
The list is quite tall but at the end of the day, only candidate gets the nod to defend the flag of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the 2008 presidential elections. That is the Herculean task confronting the over 2,300 delegates who vote the party’s delegates’ congress this weekend to elect the party’s presidential flag bearer.
By the close of nomination, there were 19 candidates. This number reduced by one after the vetting exercise with Mr. Nkrabea Effah Darteh falling by the roadside through the axe of the party’s vetting committee. The rest who made it to congress include; Alhaji Aliu Mahama, the Vice President; Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, Papa Owusu-Ankomah, Dr Kwame Addo-Kufuor, Dr Kofi Konadu Apraku, and Professor Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng.
The rest are Dr Barfuor Adjei-Barwuah, Prof. Mike Ocquaye, Messrs Alan John Kwadwo Kyerematen, Dan Botwe, Yaw Osafo-Maafo, Felix Owusu-Adjapong, Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, Kyeremateng Agyarko, Kwabena Agyepong and Hackman Owusu-Agyeman.
This is quite a formidable team to select one person from as against the six candidates who contested the Convention People’s Party (CPP) flagbearership, the four candidates who contested that of the National Democratic Congress (NDC); and the two who vied for that of the People’s National Convention (PNC).
One could argue that the large number of presidential aspirants is a credit to internal democracy existing in the New Patriotic Party, which allows for diverse opinions and freedom of choice. It could also be an indication that the party is rich in human resources, a pool of human wealth out of which several presidential materials could be found.
But for their styles, there is very little to separate the candidates. Their campaign messages were a monotonous cacophony of the standard promises made by politicians to the electorate. Almost in unison, they all pledged to fight corruption, and as a people who were once in government or are still in it, they know every bit of what they are talking about. They were also quite uniform in their determination to fight unemployment, hunger and disease, improve educational and health infrastructure, build good roads and remove tribalism, nepotism and cronyism from our body politic. I even heard one of them promising to build a state university in all the regions.
These are fantastic promises that any nation yearning for development will welcome, but as we all know they are easier made than done. As President J.A. Kufuor’s second and final term heads towards an end, we are still waiting the fulfillment of some very important promises. These include the modern fishing harbour promised to the people of Jamestown in Accra and the nationally or even sub-regionally important and strategic Accra-Paga Railway Project promised the nation.
That means campaign promises alone are not enough to determine who should be elected as the party’s flag bearer. What the nation expects from the delegates is a choice not only for the party but a choice which will be an asset for the nation.
As leading motivational speaker, Mr. Emmanuel Dei-Tumi, observed in Daily Graphic of Wednesday, December 12, 2007, what the nation lacked over the last 50 years is a sustainable national vision for socio-economic transformation. All the campaign promises are valid. What the nation wants is a leader who can harness all available resources, both human and material to activate these promises and transform them into national developmental goals. We want a leader, who, as soon as elected as President of the land, will look beyond party supporters, loyalists and interests and begin to see Ghana as his party and Ghanaians as his constituents.
We want a leader whose promises do not end on political platforms but go beyond that to crystallize into national monuments. We want leaders who dream into the next 50 to 100 years and not just four or eight years of their tenure. A leader who will challenge the scientific and technological community to come out with inventions that will bring us out of perpetual mediocrity and revolutionise the industrial landscape of the country.
Ghana’s problems over the last 50 years could not be attributed to lack of resources. They have more to do with those who were at helm of affairs. A lot of had to do with the disjoined programmes that have characterized our national life with each successive government trying to undo what was done by its predecessor and initiating its own programmes. That is why we want a leader who will not throw overboard what others before him have done but will build and improve upon them. That was why Mr. Dei-Tumi noted that there was a difference between vision and policy and that a lot of what past governments referred to as national visions were rather policies which often emanated from the ideologies of political parties. In short, we want movers and achievers.
Visionary leaders driven by the desire to leave a legacy for their people are not easy to come by. However, if the delegates will think beyond the weight of their pockets, ethnic and religious biases, they are more than likely to find some one who will fit into this description or at least come very close to it.
The campaign itself started on a very civil note, but as things started to gather momentum, elements of acrimony, back-biting and suspicion began to show signs. In the last few days to the D-day, we wish to appeal to all the candidates and their supporters to maintain cool heads to ensure that the party emerges from the congress stronger and more united.
Our prayer is they will give us a leader who will set the country on a path of development and transform it from the near beggar-status into a truly independent, vibrant and proud nation.
The list is quite tall but at the end of the day, only candidate gets the nod to defend the flag of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the 2008 presidential elections. That is the Herculean task confronting the over 2,300 delegates who vote the party’s delegates’ congress this weekend to elect the party’s presidential flag bearer.
By the close of nomination, there were 19 candidates. This number reduced by one after the vetting exercise with Mr. Nkrabea Effah Darteh falling by the roadside through the axe of the party’s vetting committee. The rest who made it to congress include; Alhaji Aliu Mahama, the Vice President; Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, Papa Owusu-Ankomah, Dr Kwame Addo-Kufuor, Dr Kofi Konadu Apraku, and Professor Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng.
The rest are Dr Barfuor Adjei-Barwuah, Prof. Mike Ocquaye, Messrs Alan John Kwadwo Kyerematen, Dan Botwe, Yaw Osafo-Maafo, Felix Owusu-Adjapong, Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, Kyeremateng Agyarko, Kwabena Agyepong and Hackman Owusu-Agyeman.
This is quite a formidable team to select one person from as against the six candidates who contested the Convention People’s Party (CPP) flagbearership, the four candidates who contested that of the National Democratic Congress (NDC); and the two who vied for that of the People’s National Convention (PNC).
One could argue that the large number of presidential aspirants is a credit to internal democracy existing in the New Patriotic Party, which allows for diverse opinions and freedom of choice. It could also be an indication that the party is rich in human resources, a pool of human wealth out of which several presidential materials could be found.
But for their styles, there is very little to separate the candidates. Their campaign messages were a monotonous cacophony of the standard promises made by politicians to the electorate. Almost in unison, they all pledged to fight corruption, and as a people who were once in government or are still in it, they know every bit of what they are talking about. They were also quite uniform in their determination to fight unemployment, hunger and disease, improve educational and health infrastructure, build good roads and remove tribalism, nepotism and cronyism from our body politic. I even heard one of them promising to build a state university in all the regions.
These are fantastic promises that any nation yearning for development will welcome, but as we all know they are easier made than done. As President J.A. Kufuor’s second and final term heads towards an end, we are still waiting the fulfillment of some very important promises. These include the modern fishing harbour promised to the people of Jamestown in Accra and the nationally or even sub-regionally important and strategic Accra-Paga Railway Project promised the nation.
That means campaign promises alone are not enough to determine who should be elected as the party’s flag bearer. What the nation expects from the delegates is a choice not only for the party but a choice which will be an asset for the nation.
As leading motivational speaker, Mr. Emmanuel Dei-Tumi, observed in Daily Graphic of Wednesday, December 12, 2007, what the nation lacked over the last 50 years is a sustainable national vision for socio-economic transformation. All the campaign promises are valid. What the nation wants is a leader who can harness all available resources, both human and material to activate these promises and transform them into national developmental goals. We want a leader, who, as soon as elected as President of the land, will look beyond party supporters, loyalists and interests and begin to see Ghana as his party and Ghanaians as his constituents.
We want a leader whose promises do not end on political platforms but go beyond that to crystallize into national monuments. We want leaders who dream into the next 50 to 100 years and not just four or eight years of their tenure. A leader who will challenge the scientific and technological community to come out with inventions that will bring us out of perpetual mediocrity and revolutionise the industrial landscape of the country.
Ghana’s problems over the last 50 years could not be attributed to lack of resources. They have more to do with those who were at helm of affairs. A lot of had to do with the disjoined programmes that have characterized our national life with each successive government trying to undo what was done by its predecessor and initiating its own programmes. That is why we want a leader who will not throw overboard what others before him have done but will build and improve upon them. That was why Mr. Dei-Tumi noted that there was a difference between vision and policy and that a lot of what past governments referred to as national visions were rather policies which often emanated from the ideologies of political parties. In short, we want movers and achievers.
Visionary leaders driven by the desire to leave a legacy for their people are not easy to come by. However, if the delegates will think beyond the weight of their pockets, ethnic and religious biases, they are more than likely to find some one who will fit into this description or at least come very close to it.
The campaign itself started on a very civil note, but as things started to gather momentum, elements of acrimony, back-biting and suspicion began to show signs. In the last few days to the D-day, we wish to appeal to all the candidates and their supporters to maintain cool heads to ensure that the party emerges from the congress stronger and more united.
Our prayer is they will give us a leader who will set the country on a path of development and transform it from the near beggar-status into a truly independent, vibrant and proud nation.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Will President Bush Silence his war drums?
December 11,2007
Will President Bush silence his war drums?
By Kofi Akordor
IN 2002, President George W. Bush took the world by storm with his incessant war drums.
“Saddam must be punished.” “The world must not wait.” “Time is running out.” These were some of his battle cries.
President Bush was then flying on euphoria of public support after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York, the Pentagon, America’s defence headquarters, and an aborted one which, according to intelligence report, was heading for the White House.
Not only had the whole of America but a big part of the world as well, with one voice, declared war on terrorism. That was when the American President took advantage of the situation to launch an attack on Afghanistan, which was then under the control of the Talibans, considered to be hardened Islamic fundamentalists.
The justification for the attack on Afghanistan could not still be established, except for the fact that Osama Bin Laden, the person suspected by America to be the brain behind the September 11 attacks, was said to be operating from Afghanistan.
As you read this piece, the war in Afghanistan is still raging, after five years, and there is yet no evidence that Osama, whose capture or death was the motive for the war, has been touched.
While the war on terrorism was receiving support in several places, especially in Europe and the Middle East, President Bush saw another opportunity to start a long-cherished campaign against countries he described as the Axis of Evil. These are Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Iraq was the most vulnerable and so naturally it became the first in the line of fire.
A story had to be created to justify an attack on Iraq. That was when the charge that Iraq was amassing weapons of mass destruction became the rallying message sold to the world. The Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, was painted as a monster who was roasting his compatriots with chemical weapons and the battle cry was that if he was not stopped early, Saddam would annihilate the human race with his weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam denied the accusations by opening all factories, warehouses, laboratories and even residential palaces to weapons inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for scrutiny. The verdict was clear and unambiguous, that there was nothing that came near a weapon of mass destruction, nor were even materials for that purpose found.
President Bush was upbeat in his determination to go to war. He virtually cajoled the whole world into submission and, against all voices of moderation, diplomacy and dissent, President Bush managed to put together a frightening arsenal, with the support of his Western allies, and marched on Iraq in March 2003. Even the late Pope John Paul II could not hide his revulsion at such blatant display of raw power and total disregard for human feeling. He remarked before the start of the war that it would be a great injustice for anyone to attack Iraq under the circumstances.
That wise counsel and numerous others went unheeded. Saddam was finally hanged on December 30, 2006 to end an era during which Saddam was at various times an ally to the West and the East power blocs.
But whether Iraq is a better place now than as Saddam left it is for all to judge. Suffice it to say, the streets of Baghdad have become killing fields where fragmented bodies of men, women and children are removed on a daily basis. One thing is also not in dispute — the war was not to destroy any weapons of mass destruction which did not exist but for a regime change and the realignment of geo-political forces to serve American and Israeli interests.
The Americans thought they could finish the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns quickly to go to the next stage of attacking Iran, another emerging superpower in the Gulf. Things did not work according to plan, as the resistance in both countries was woefully unanticipated. The wars have also brought some diplomatic setbacks to the US, as countries which were hitherto allies are gradually coming under severe domestic pressure to end those senseless wars. The latest casualty in the growing discontent against the war was John Howard, the former Australian Prime Minister and key Bush ally, who lost miserably in his country’s general election two weeks ago. Immediately, the man who vanquished him, Kevin Ruud, has taken certain major decisions, including troop withdrawal from Iraq.
In spite of the mounting opposition to America’s wars of attrition, the political leadership is still looking for an excuse to cause trouble in Iran. This time too, the Bush Administration is using Iran’s nuclear programme as a pretext to canvass for support to carry out its ambition to ensure that only Israel remains a strong military force in the Middle-East and Gulf region.
Despite persistent denials by Iran that it is pursuing a nuclear weapon programme, the US and its allies continue to see differently. They have already managed to force through two resolutions on sanctions against Iran at the UN and were closing in on the crucial third when the jolt came. Two days after the US and the other major allies had met in Paris to discuss a third compromise sanctions resolution, an intelligence report from the unholiest of places – the US – came out to stun President Bush and his advisors.
The report from the National Intelligence Agency of the US concluded that Iran, since 2003, has abandoned its nuclear weapons programme and had since not showed any signs of resuming it.
That bit of information brought welcome relief to Iranians and their allies.
“This is a declaration of victory for the Iranian nation against the world powers over the nuclear issue,” Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, said when he addressed what Iranians considered a victory rally last Wednesday.
The reaction from Russia and China, two permanent members of the UN Security Council, is an indication that the US had to step up another diplomatic effort to achieve its aim. According to the Russian Foreign Minister, the report’s findings undermined Washington’s push for a new set of sanctions against Iran.
The head of the IAEA, Mohammed El-Baradei, said the report had brought a ‘sigh of relief’ because its conclusion agreed with the agency’s own findings.
Iraq was not so lucky.
It is good that the report exonerating Iran came from US sources. Even, then, President Bush is not conceding. The only thing is that there is a change in tune from ‘Iran is developing nuclear weapons’ to ‘It is capable of developing them in future’.
The so-called fight against terrorism has rather made the world unsafe and dangerous. This time you cannot tell whether the handsome passenger sitting by you and wearing a long beard has concealed in his gown a grenade ready to explode. That is why the world should plead with President Bush to hush his war drums a bit and give diplomacy a chance.
Will President Bush silence his war drums?
By Kofi Akordor
IN 2002, President George W. Bush took the world by storm with his incessant war drums.
“Saddam must be punished.” “The world must not wait.” “Time is running out.” These were some of his battle cries.
President Bush was then flying on euphoria of public support after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York, the Pentagon, America’s defence headquarters, and an aborted one which, according to intelligence report, was heading for the White House.
Not only had the whole of America but a big part of the world as well, with one voice, declared war on terrorism. That was when the American President took advantage of the situation to launch an attack on Afghanistan, which was then under the control of the Talibans, considered to be hardened Islamic fundamentalists.
The justification for the attack on Afghanistan could not still be established, except for the fact that Osama Bin Laden, the person suspected by America to be the brain behind the September 11 attacks, was said to be operating from Afghanistan.
As you read this piece, the war in Afghanistan is still raging, after five years, and there is yet no evidence that Osama, whose capture or death was the motive for the war, has been touched.
While the war on terrorism was receiving support in several places, especially in Europe and the Middle East, President Bush saw another opportunity to start a long-cherished campaign against countries he described as the Axis of Evil. These are Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Iraq was the most vulnerable and so naturally it became the first in the line of fire.
A story had to be created to justify an attack on Iraq. That was when the charge that Iraq was amassing weapons of mass destruction became the rallying message sold to the world. The Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, was painted as a monster who was roasting his compatriots with chemical weapons and the battle cry was that if he was not stopped early, Saddam would annihilate the human race with his weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam denied the accusations by opening all factories, warehouses, laboratories and even residential palaces to weapons inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for scrutiny. The verdict was clear and unambiguous, that there was nothing that came near a weapon of mass destruction, nor were even materials for that purpose found.
President Bush was upbeat in his determination to go to war. He virtually cajoled the whole world into submission and, against all voices of moderation, diplomacy and dissent, President Bush managed to put together a frightening arsenal, with the support of his Western allies, and marched on Iraq in March 2003. Even the late Pope John Paul II could not hide his revulsion at such blatant display of raw power and total disregard for human feeling. He remarked before the start of the war that it would be a great injustice for anyone to attack Iraq under the circumstances.
That wise counsel and numerous others went unheeded. Saddam was finally hanged on December 30, 2006 to end an era during which Saddam was at various times an ally to the West and the East power blocs.
But whether Iraq is a better place now than as Saddam left it is for all to judge. Suffice it to say, the streets of Baghdad have become killing fields where fragmented bodies of men, women and children are removed on a daily basis. One thing is also not in dispute — the war was not to destroy any weapons of mass destruction which did not exist but for a regime change and the realignment of geo-political forces to serve American and Israeli interests.
The Americans thought they could finish the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns quickly to go to the next stage of attacking Iran, another emerging superpower in the Gulf. Things did not work according to plan, as the resistance in both countries was woefully unanticipated. The wars have also brought some diplomatic setbacks to the US, as countries which were hitherto allies are gradually coming under severe domestic pressure to end those senseless wars. The latest casualty in the growing discontent against the war was John Howard, the former Australian Prime Minister and key Bush ally, who lost miserably in his country’s general election two weeks ago. Immediately, the man who vanquished him, Kevin Ruud, has taken certain major decisions, including troop withdrawal from Iraq.
In spite of the mounting opposition to America’s wars of attrition, the political leadership is still looking for an excuse to cause trouble in Iran. This time too, the Bush Administration is using Iran’s nuclear programme as a pretext to canvass for support to carry out its ambition to ensure that only Israel remains a strong military force in the Middle-East and Gulf region.
Despite persistent denials by Iran that it is pursuing a nuclear weapon programme, the US and its allies continue to see differently. They have already managed to force through two resolutions on sanctions against Iran at the UN and were closing in on the crucial third when the jolt came. Two days after the US and the other major allies had met in Paris to discuss a third compromise sanctions resolution, an intelligence report from the unholiest of places – the US – came out to stun President Bush and his advisors.
The report from the National Intelligence Agency of the US concluded that Iran, since 2003, has abandoned its nuclear weapons programme and had since not showed any signs of resuming it.
That bit of information brought welcome relief to Iranians and their allies.
“This is a declaration of victory for the Iranian nation against the world powers over the nuclear issue,” Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, said when he addressed what Iranians considered a victory rally last Wednesday.
The reaction from Russia and China, two permanent members of the UN Security Council, is an indication that the US had to step up another diplomatic effort to achieve its aim. According to the Russian Foreign Minister, the report’s findings undermined Washington’s push for a new set of sanctions against Iran.
The head of the IAEA, Mohammed El-Baradei, said the report had brought a ‘sigh of relief’ because its conclusion agreed with the agency’s own findings.
Iraq was not so lucky.
It is good that the report exonerating Iran came from US sources. Even, then, President Bush is not conceding. The only thing is that there is a change in tune from ‘Iran is developing nuclear weapons’ to ‘It is capable of developing them in future’.
The so-called fight against terrorism has rather made the world unsafe and dangerous. This time you cannot tell whether the handsome passenger sitting by you and wearing a long beard has concealed in his gown a grenade ready to explode. That is why the world should plead with President Bush to hush his war drums a bit and give diplomacy a chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)