ON December 17, 2010, a young man set himself on fire in protest against the harsh conditions necessitated by poverty and unemployment that were prevailing in his country, Tunisia. That singular act might have been the trigger which released the pent-up feelings of the youth of Tunisia, manifested in street demonstrations.
At first, President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali did what many in his show would have done — he released the security agents to confront the demonstrators with brute force. As the days rolled by, it became more and more obvious that the demonstrators were not ready to be cowed into submission. The more they fell from the bullets and truncheons of the police, the more determined and uncontrollable they became.
As 2010 headed for a close, President Ben Ali began to adopt a defensive posture, having failed to suppress the uprising that was unfolding before him after many years of having had his own way.
Panic set in and Ben Ali began to cave in with a series of decisions. First, he reduced the prices of staple foods, whose high prices had triggered the demonstrations in the place. He also pledged not to contest the next election scheduled for 2014.
When the pressure did not show signs of easing, he declared a state of emergency, dissolved the government and promised new legislative elections within six months.
President Ben Ali’s reign had come to an abrupt end. On the day he announced his latest reforms, his Prime Minister, Mohammed Ghannouchi, was on air to announce his take-over of the administration.
Ben Ali’s reign came to an end as abruptly as that of Habib Bourguiba, the man he had succeeded in 1987, had. Bourguiba, who until that time had not experienced any serious challenge to his government, having led Tunisia to independence from French colonial rule in 1956, woke up one day and was told he was no longer President because he had grown senile.
The mantle fell on Ben Ali, who started well with a lot of economic and political reforms which made Tunisia, in comparative terms, a model democratic state in a region of monarchies and autocratic regimes.
With time, Ben Ali got consumed by power and began drifting towards the path of democratic dictatorship. First, he closed all doors to political dissent. Changes were made to the constitution which allowed him to extend his rule. He, therefore, contested elections in 2004 and 2009 with near absolute margins. Possibly, he would have contested the 2014 elections but for the uprising which became known as the Jasmine Revolution.
Ben Ali’s crime was not restricted to political intolerance and media repression, including Internet censorship. He was also accused of presiding over a corrupt regime of gigantic proportions, nepotism and what had been described as kleptocracy.
According to a study conducted by The Economist — Democracy Index of 2008 — Tunisia was ranked 141st out of 167 countries studied. In terms of freedom of the press, Tunisia was ranked 143rd out of 173 countries. Such was the situation that when the protests, led by industrial workers and professionals, gathered steam, there was little the state security apparatus could do about them.
Any hope that life will return to normalcy after Ben Ali had fled to Saudi Arabia is fading. Prime Minister Ghannouchi, who took over power from his former boss, is doing everything to placate the angry mob that has become a regular feature on the streets of Tunis without success.
First was the announcement that all political prisoners are to be freed and others granted amnesty; then the recognition given to all banned political groupings and the promise to hold free and fair elections within six months.
Tunisians will have none of these. They want to do away with Ben Ali and everything he represented on the political landscape of Tunisia.
Now the ripples of the Jasmine Revolution are being felt not only in North Africa but the whole of the Arab world where democracy has remained a distant dream in many countries.
The most important thing, however, is that what is happening in Tunisia is a signal to all dictatorships and other repressive regimes that no matter how hard and long you suppress the people and deny them their fundamental rights, the day of reckoning will come when the people’s power will prevail.
The Tunisian model has also shown that change — the real one — will come not through the goodwill of a few people wielding guns and declaring themselves redeemers, liberators or revolutionaries who, with time, constitute another group of oppressors, but through the collective will and resistance of the people.
As the legendary Robert Nester Marley said: “You can fool some people some time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”
The war cry of the people of Tunisia now is: “Down with poverty, inflation, corruption, injustice, oppression, torture, fraud and tyranny” and the ripples will be felt in all other places where the interest of the majority is mortgaged for the comfort of a few.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
DANGERS OF HATE SPEECHES (JAN 18, 2011)
in far away Tucson, Arizona, USA, on Saturday, January 8, 2011, a young man opened fire with his semi-automatic weapon and by the time he emptied the magazine, six people lay dead, with a dozen or so wounded. Among the dead were Christina Taylor Green, a nine-year-old girl, and a federal judge.
Jared Loughner, 22, engaged in that shooting spree outside a supermarket while Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords was on her way to address a constituency event. She escaped death but got seriously wounded when a bullet went through her head.
Loughner, according to those close to him, had shown traces of mental instability and, therefore, the shooting incident could be described as an irrational behaviour by somebody mentally unhinged. That has left many Americans wondering whether the world’s sole superpower has in place an efficient mental health system.
For a young man whose mental stability was under suspicion to find in his possession such a powerful weapon also brought to the fore federal and state laws as to who should own or possess what weapons.
While these two issues, especially the one on gun ownership, are already subjects of debate by politicians and social commentators, a third element in Loughner’s shooting spree which has pricked the conscience of many Americans and sent the alarm bells ringing is the fear that the country is intensely becoming politically polarised, to the extent that people are beginning to react violently on matters purely political.
In other words, Loughner may have his own mental problems and might have taken advantage of liberal laws on gun ownership to gain access to a dangerous weapon, but the act on that Saturday morning had a lot to do with politics.
Some people are linking the sad incident to political rhetoric. This was rebuffed by Sarah Palin, the former Alaska Governor, who was specifically criticised by some commentators for using an online graphic presentation of crossbar symbols that marked targeted Democratic districts in the US mid-term elections.
At a memorial service last Wednesday for victims of the shooting in Tucson, President Barack Obama, already well-known for his powerful speeches, made an emotional delivery which left many in no doubt that America was gradually heading towards a direction that might not be good for the health of the nation and appealed to Americans to heal divisions opened by “sharply polarised” political debate.
“But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarised, at a time when we are too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it is important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds,” he said.
Obama soothingly went on: “Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and to remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bond together.
“We recognise our own mortality and are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this earth, that what matters is not wealth or status or power or fame but rather, how well we have loved and what small part we have played to better the lives of others.”
America is a sophisticated society. At least the majority of the people can tell the difference between political pranks and the reality. They are more equipped to draw the line between those things said merely on political platforms to provoke opponents or excite supporters and those that carry the true meanings of the words said. Even there, they are realising rather tragically that they are becoming victims of their own freedoms.
They say if you see a neighbour’s house on fire, you must start preparing for any eventuality. If, after many years of practising democracy which has become the measure for judging others, Americans cannot tolerate dissent and accommodate racial differences, then we in Ghana cannot afford to take things for granted.
We have, for some time now, noticed a creeping culture of intolerance in our politics. At first it could be attributed to the natural consequences of our infant democracy. Gradually we are realising that no subject gains any national attention unless it is painted in political colours. It must either be in the colours of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) or the New Patriotic Party (NPP).
It is now easy for a crime suspect to wear political colours and that immediately turns his prosecution into persecution. It is now easy for people to be applauded for using abusive language against a perceived political opponent.
We have become such political fanatics that we are blind to the naked truth. Serious national issues on health, education, energy, water and sanitation, agriculture and many others have been reduced to political pranks, to the extent that we seem not to appreciate the national interest as against parochial or self-serving interests.
The most dangerous trend lies in the language some of the men and women who claim to be our political leaders use, some bordering on vulgar and others with ethnocentric undertones.
We have been blessed in several ways. There is hardly any family in Ghana today which can claim it has no blend of another tribal blood in it. Through a deliberate policy of Ghanaianisation introduced by the first President, Dr Kwame Nkrumah, and which was pursued by other leaders, Ghanaians of different tribal and ethnic backgrounds are developing gradually into a unit. Even then, some people still want to make distinctions and scorn others.
Our democracy may be the envy of others, but we know we still have a long way to go. We can make it stronger and better if we collectively begin to identify the common enemies. They are not the political opponents. They are the reckless statements we make, using abusive and inflammatory language; they are the lies we tell to deceive and undermine; they are the things we say and do which, instead of bringing us together, drift us apart.
We do not need to wait for a Loughner to surface from nowhere and start pumping bullets into us before we awaken to the reality that our paths are intertwined, leading to the same destination, and the earlier we begin to accept one another, the better. Some of the things we say may sound ordinary but they can turn into ammunition tomorrow to devastate us.
Let us beware of hate words.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Jared Loughner, 22, engaged in that shooting spree outside a supermarket while Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords was on her way to address a constituency event. She escaped death but got seriously wounded when a bullet went through her head.
Loughner, according to those close to him, had shown traces of mental instability and, therefore, the shooting incident could be described as an irrational behaviour by somebody mentally unhinged. That has left many Americans wondering whether the world’s sole superpower has in place an efficient mental health system.
For a young man whose mental stability was under suspicion to find in his possession such a powerful weapon also brought to the fore federal and state laws as to who should own or possess what weapons.
While these two issues, especially the one on gun ownership, are already subjects of debate by politicians and social commentators, a third element in Loughner’s shooting spree which has pricked the conscience of many Americans and sent the alarm bells ringing is the fear that the country is intensely becoming politically polarised, to the extent that people are beginning to react violently on matters purely political.
In other words, Loughner may have his own mental problems and might have taken advantage of liberal laws on gun ownership to gain access to a dangerous weapon, but the act on that Saturday morning had a lot to do with politics.
Some people are linking the sad incident to political rhetoric. This was rebuffed by Sarah Palin, the former Alaska Governor, who was specifically criticised by some commentators for using an online graphic presentation of crossbar symbols that marked targeted Democratic districts in the US mid-term elections.
At a memorial service last Wednesday for victims of the shooting in Tucson, President Barack Obama, already well-known for his powerful speeches, made an emotional delivery which left many in no doubt that America was gradually heading towards a direction that might not be good for the health of the nation and appealed to Americans to heal divisions opened by “sharply polarised” political debate.
“But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarised, at a time when we are too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it is important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds,” he said.
Obama soothingly went on: “Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and to remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bond together.
“We recognise our own mortality and are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this earth, that what matters is not wealth or status or power or fame but rather, how well we have loved and what small part we have played to better the lives of others.”
America is a sophisticated society. At least the majority of the people can tell the difference between political pranks and the reality. They are more equipped to draw the line between those things said merely on political platforms to provoke opponents or excite supporters and those that carry the true meanings of the words said. Even there, they are realising rather tragically that they are becoming victims of their own freedoms.
They say if you see a neighbour’s house on fire, you must start preparing for any eventuality. If, after many years of practising democracy which has become the measure for judging others, Americans cannot tolerate dissent and accommodate racial differences, then we in Ghana cannot afford to take things for granted.
We have, for some time now, noticed a creeping culture of intolerance in our politics. At first it could be attributed to the natural consequences of our infant democracy. Gradually we are realising that no subject gains any national attention unless it is painted in political colours. It must either be in the colours of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) or the New Patriotic Party (NPP).
It is now easy for a crime suspect to wear political colours and that immediately turns his prosecution into persecution. It is now easy for people to be applauded for using abusive language against a perceived political opponent.
We have become such political fanatics that we are blind to the naked truth. Serious national issues on health, education, energy, water and sanitation, agriculture and many others have been reduced to political pranks, to the extent that we seem not to appreciate the national interest as against parochial or self-serving interests.
The most dangerous trend lies in the language some of the men and women who claim to be our political leaders use, some bordering on vulgar and others with ethnocentric undertones.
We have been blessed in several ways. There is hardly any family in Ghana today which can claim it has no blend of another tribal blood in it. Through a deliberate policy of Ghanaianisation introduced by the first President, Dr Kwame Nkrumah, and which was pursued by other leaders, Ghanaians of different tribal and ethnic backgrounds are developing gradually into a unit. Even then, some people still want to make distinctions and scorn others.
Our democracy may be the envy of others, but we know we still have a long way to go. We can make it stronger and better if we collectively begin to identify the common enemies. They are not the political opponents. They are the reckless statements we make, using abusive and inflammatory language; they are the lies we tell to deceive and undermine; they are the things we say and do which, instead of bringing us together, drift us apart.
We do not need to wait for a Loughner to surface from nowhere and start pumping bullets into us before we awaken to the reality that our paths are intertwined, leading to the same destination, and the earlier we begin to accept one another, the better. Some of the things we say may sound ordinary but they can turn into ammunition tomorrow to devastate us.
Let us beware of hate words.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
WHO WANTS WAR NEXT DOOR? (DAILY GRAPHIC, JAN 11, 2011)
The first troops of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) landed at the Freeport of Monrovia on August 24, 1990 at the invitation of Master-Sergeant Samuel K. Doe, President and Commander-in-Chief of the Republic of Liberia who was then under siege from the rebel forces of the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL), led by Charles Taylor.
The then President Doe had invoked Article 4 (b) of the Mutual Defence Assistance Protocol of the ECOWAS which was signed in Freetown on May 29, 1981. That provides for a non-standing military force to be used to render mutual military aid and assistance to a member state that falls victim to external aggression.
Article 4 (b), under which Doe applied for the intervention of the ECOWAS military support, spells out a collective response where a member state is a victim of internal armed conflict that is engineered and supported actively from outside and which is likely to endanger the peace and security of other member states.
Article 18 (2) of the Protocol makes it clear that member states are not entitled to intervene militarily, if the internal armed conflict poses no danger outside the borders of the afflicted state, and if it is supported from outside.
In order to secure the military intervention of the sub-regional group, the Protocol demands that the head of state of the country desiring assistance should put it in writing to the chairperson of ECOWAS. This force will then be known as the Allied Armed Forces of the Community (AAFC).
At the time President Doe made the request, it was commonly suspected that Libya, which trained the combatants, Cote d’Ivoire, whose President, Felix Houphouet-Boigny, was Taylor’s in-law, and Burkina Faso, whose leader, Blasé Compoare, had a Libyan backing, were supporting the NPFL.
It was, therefore, not possible for ECOWAS to put together the AAFC for military intervention in Liberia. However, at an ECOWAS Standing Mediation Committee Meeting in Banjul, The Gambia, four countries, namely; Nigeria, Ghana, Guinea, Sierra Leone and The Gambia, decided to send a peace-monitoring group to Liberia.
Notwithstanding the initial setbacks of the group, the success story of ECOMOG, as it became to be known, when it was led into action by its first commander, General Arnold Quainoo of Ghana, had placed it on record as the first credible attempt at a regional security initiative since the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) tried to establish an Inter-African force in Chad in 1981.
Apart from stabilising the conflict situation in Liberia culminating in the election of Charles Taylor as President of Liberia on July 19, 1997, ECOMOG, which qualified to be described as the military wing of ECOWAS, carried out other operations in Sierra Leone (1997), and Guinea Bissau (1999).
In Sierra Leone, ECOMOG forces intervened to stop the combined forces of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) led by Major Johnny Koromah from succeeding with a military coup against President Ahmed Tejan Kabbah while in Guinea Bissau, ECOMOG troops again went into battle when fighting broke out between troops loyal to President Bernado Viera and those of his army chief, Brigadier Ansumane Mane. ECOWAS, through ECOMOG, played a major role in brokering a peace deal leading to a general election on November 28, 1999.
ECOMOG, in its nearly 10 years of peace-keeping and conflict resolution in the sub-region, has brought about a new evolution in inter-African affairs and rekindled hope that sub-regional conflicts could be handled without recourse to external involvement.
This might have been the reasoning behind the decision by ECOWAS leaders to resort to military intervention after diplomatic efforts have failed to settle the electoral impasse in Cote d’Ivoire. Maybe with time, ECOWAS leaders could only see the success of ECOMOG without recounting the very demanding conditions under which it operated.
Right from the word go, ECOMOG did not receive the unanimous recognition and support of the whole ECOWAS group for obvious reasons as stated earlier. There were serious operational command problems as field commanders were divided between taking orders from home authorities and operational commanders on the ground.
Again, heads of state had not established any guidelines, principles or rules of engagement for managing internal conflicts and more seriously, not all states were willing to work together or within institutions to ensure a regional response to conflicts.
It is instructive to remember that at the time ECOMOG was conceived, the sub-region was virtually under military dictatorship or autocratic civilian governments that had very little regard for democratic credentials. It was, therefore, very easy for leaders at the time to take decisions that suit their individual interests and what to them constituted the common good.
The two major players in the ECOMOG operations were undoubtedly Nigeria and Ghana under General Ibrahim Babaginda and Flt Lt Jerry John Rawlings respectively, both military dictators. Other military/civilian dictators at the time include General Gnansigbe Eyadema of Togo, Capt Blasé Campaore of Burkina Faso, General Lansana Conte of Guinea, Houphouet-Boigny of Cote d’Ivoire and the rest who were virtually answerable to no one within or without.
Things have changed considerably since those days and some of the countries in the sub-region cannot commit troops for international campaigns without getting the necessary backing of their elected representatives who must be convinced of the legitimacy and justification for such operations, as peace-keeping missions are not the same as combat operations.
In 1990, it was easy for President Doe to seek military assistance from ECOWAS, based on Article 4 (b) of the Mutual Defence Assistance Protocol, because Charles Taylor’s Christmas Eve attack launched from the soil of Cote d’Ivoire and tacitly supported by the President of that country at the time and other African countries qualified it to be an external aggression to justify an intervention.
How justifiable is it to qualify an electoral impasse as an external aggression to necessitate invoking Article 4 (b) of the Mutual Defence Assistance Protocol? As of now, Allassane Ouattara is not a President and has not written to ECOWAS as the Protocol requires to apply for military support to fight an enemy aggression. So wherein lays the legitimacy of any such action?
For now, the moral strength of ECOWAS is found in the determination of the sub-regional body and for that matter other bodies to safeguard and protect democracy first in West Africa, and then on the continent. That is the wish of many if not all.
If a free and fair election is considered one of the essential pillars of democracy, who determines what constitutes a free and fair election among ECOWAS countries? Nigeria, the sub-region’s superpower, and the country to spearhead any military operation, should it become ECOWAS’ final trump card, cannot stick out its neck on such a matter, remembering vividly, the 2007 general election in that country which brought Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar’dua and the now President Jonathan Goodluck to power.
Nobody could forget so soon how Faure Gnansigbe came to power by succeeding his father, the late General Eyadema, who himself was in power for well over 35 years till death took him away. In Burkina Faso, Ghana’s northern neighbour, Campaore has been in power since 1982 and recently won another term as a democratic ruler whose term seems not to have any constitutional limit.
So who are going to cast the first moral stone at Cote d’Ivoire and pass the democratic test? Ghana and Benin so far have the best results in terms of adherence to constitutional provisions of electoral practice and succession even though Ghana’s case, as is evident, cannot be said to be smooth-sailing.
These are moral questions ECOWAS leaders have to ponder over as they try to solve the problem in Cote d’Ivoire. Morality and legitimacy aside, the military option which seems so fluid on the lips of some people has its own questions begging for answers.
Who pays for the military operation? Who bears responsibility for the thousands who will die and the millions who will be displaced? How do we reconcile the parties involved after the military might of the sub-region had been put on display?
By the way, is ECOWAS going to set the record as being the first sub-regional body that went to war against itself to enforce an electoral decision?
The Americans can afford to beat the war drums in far away Washington DC, the French can do so in Paris. Can we in Ghana so soon forget what led to the creation of a new township called Buduburam in the Central Region? Do we remember that the Liberian conflict killed an estimated 200,000 people including 50,000 children?
These are just a few questions that should engage our attention as we confront the Ivorian crisis. People like Laurent Gbagbo should not be tolerated, lest what they stand for becomes an addiction that will destroy all of us.
But they can still be handled not necessarily through military confrontation, which, as the Americans will admit, is a long a journey easy to embark upon but which hardly comes to an end with desired results. Total isolation, if religiously enforced, can do the trick at a lesser cost.
Those far away can afford the luxury of trumpeting the virtues of military expedition. Ghana, unfortunately, cannot afford international war next door when we have just been told we have turned middle-income and ready to enjoy the fruits of being an oil-exporting country.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
The then President Doe had invoked Article 4 (b) of the Mutual Defence Assistance Protocol of the ECOWAS which was signed in Freetown on May 29, 1981. That provides for a non-standing military force to be used to render mutual military aid and assistance to a member state that falls victim to external aggression.
Article 4 (b), under which Doe applied for the intervention of the ECOWAS military support, spells out a collective response where a member state is a victim of internal armed conflict that is engineered and supported actively from outside and which is likely to endanger the peace and security of other member states.
Article 18 (2) of the Protocol makes it clear that member states are not entitled to intervene militarily, if the internal armed conflict poses no danger outside the borders of the afflicted state, and if it is supported from outside.
In order to secure the military intervention of the sub-regional group, the Protocol demands that the head of state of the country desiring assistance should put it in writing to the chairperson of ECOWAS. This force will then be known as the Allied Armed Forces of the Community (AAFC).
At the time President Doe made the request, it was commonly suspected that Libya, which trained the combatants, Cote d’Ivoire, whose President, Felix Houphouet-Boigny, was Taylor’s in-law, and Burkina Faso, whose leader, Blasé Compoare, had a Libyan backing, were supporting the NPFL.
It was, therefore, not possible for ECOWAS to put together the AAFC for military intervention in Liberia. However, at an ECOWAS Standing Mediation Committee Meeting in Banjul, The Gambia, four countries, namely; Nigeria, Ghana, Guinea, Sierra Leone and The Gambia, decided to send a peace-monitoring group to Liberia.
Notwithstanding the initial setbacks of the group, the success story of ECOMOG, as it became to be known, when it was led into action by its first commander, General Arnold Quainoo of Ghana, had placed it on record as the first credible attempt at a regional security initiative since the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) tried to establish an Inter-African force in Chad in 1981.
Apart from stabilising the conflict situation in Liberia culminating in the election of Charles Taylor as President of Liberia on July 19, 1997, ECOMOG, which qualified to be described as the military wing of ECOWAS, carried out other operations in Sierra Leone (1997), and Guinea Bissau (1999).
In Sierra Leone, ECOMOG forces intervened to stop the combined forces of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) led by Major Johnny Koromah from succeeding with a military coup against President Ahmed Tejan Kabbah while in Guinea Bissau, ECOMOG troops again went into battle when fighting broke out between troops loyal to President Bernado Viera and those of his army chief, Brigadier Ansumane Mane. ECOWAS, through ECOMOG, played a major role in brokering a peace deal leading to a general election on November 28, 1999.
ECOMOG, in its nearly 10 years of peace-keeping and conflict resolution in the sub-region, has brought about a new evolution in inter-African affairs and rekindled hope that sub-regional conflicts could be handled without recourse to external involvement.
This might have been the reasoning behind the decision by ECOWAS leaders to resort to military intervention after diplomatic efforts have failed to settle the electoral impasse in Cote d’Ivoire. Maybe with time, ECOWAS leaders could only see the success of ECOMOG without recounting the very demanding conditions under which it operated.
Right from the word go, ECOMOG did not receive the unanimous recognition and support of the whole ECOWAS group for obvious reasons as stated earlier. There were serious operational command problems as field commanders were divided between taking orders from home authorities and operational commanders on the ground.
Again, heads of state had not established any guidelines, principles or rules of engagement for managing internal conflicts and more seriously, not all states were willing to work together or within institutions to ensure a regional response to conflicts.
It is instructive to remember that at the time ECOMOG was conceived, the sub-region was virtually under military dictatorship or autocratic civilian governments that had very little regard for democratic credentials. It was, therefore, very easy for leaders at the time to take decisions that suit their individual interests and what to them constituted the common good.
The two major players in the ECOMOG operations were undoubtedly Nigeria and Ghana under General Ibrahim Babaginda and Flt Lt Jerry John Rawlings respectively, both military dictators. Other military/civilian dictators at the time include General Gnansigbe Eyadema of Togo, Capt Blasé Campaore of Burkina Faso, General Lansana Conte of Guinea, Houphouet-Boigny of Cote d’Ivoire and the rest who were virtually answerable to no one within or without.
Things have changed considerably since those days and some of the countries in the sub-region cannot commit troops for international campaigns without getting the necessary backing of their elected representatives who must be convinced of the legitimacy and justification for such operations, as peace-keeping missions are not the same as combat operations.
In 1990, it was easy for President Doe to seek military assistance from ECOWAS, based on Article 4 (b) of the Mutual Defence Assistance Protocol, because Charles Taylor’s Christmas Eve attack launched from the soil of Cote d’Ivoire and tacitly supported by the President of that country at the time and other African countries qualified it to be an external aggression to justify an intervention.
How justifiable is it to qualify an electoral impasse as an external aggression to necessitate invoking Article 4 (b) of the Mutual Defence Assistance Protocol? As of now, Allassane Ouattara is not a President and has not written to ECOWAS as the Protocol requires to apply for military support to fight an enemy aggression. So wherein lays the legitimacy of any such action?
For now, the moral strength of ECOWAS is found in the determination of the sub-regional body and for that matter other bodies to safeguard and protect democracy first in West Africa, and then on the continent. That is the wish of many if not all.
If a free and fair election is considered one of the essential pillars of democracy, who determines what constitutes a free and fair election among ECOWAS countries? Nigeria, the sub-region’s superpower, and the country to spearhead any military operation, should it become ECOWAS’ final trump card, cannot stick out its neck on such a matter, remembering vividly, the 2007 general election in that country which brought Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar’dua and the now President Jonathan Goodluck to power.
Nobody could forget so soon how Faure Gnansigbe came to power by succeeding his father, the late General Eyadema, who himself was in power for well over 35 years till death took him away. In Burkina Faso, Ghana’s northern neighbour, Campaore has been in power since 1982 and recently won another term as a democratic ruler whose term seems not to have any constitutional limit.
So who are going to cast the first moral stone at Cote d’Ivoire and pass the democratic test? Ghana and Benin so far have the best results in terms of adherence to constitutional provisions of electoral practice and succession even though Ghana’s case, as is evident, cannot be said to be smooth-sailing.
These are moral questions ECOWAS leaders have to ponder over as they try to solve the problem in Cote d’Ivoire. Morality and legitimacy aside, the military option which seems so fluid on the lips of some people has its own questions begging for answers.
Who pays for the military operation? Who bears responsibility for the thousands who will die and the millions who will be displaced? How do we reconcile the parties involved after the military might of the sub-region had been put on display?
By the way, is ECOWAS going to set the record as being the first sub-regional body that went to war against itself to enforce an electoral decision?
The Americans can afford to beat the war drums in far away Washington DC, the French can do so in Paris. Can we in Ghana so soon forget what led to the creation of a new township called Buduburam in the Central Region? Do we remember that the Liberian conflict killed an estimated 200,000 people including 50,000 children?
These are just a few questions that should engage our attention as we confront the Ivorian crisis. People like Laurent Gbagbo should not be tolerated, lest what they stand for becomes an addiction that will destroy all of us.
But they can still be handled not necessarily through military confrontation, which, as the Americans will admit, is a long a journey easy to embark upon but which hardly comes to an end with desired results. Total isolation, if religiously enforced, can do the trick at a lesser cost.
Those far away can afford the luxury of trumpeting the virtues of military expedition. Ghana, unfortunately, cannot afford international war next door when we have just been told we have turned middle-income and ready to enjoy the fruits of being an oil-exporting country.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
AMAKYE DEDE...A combination of talent and character (JAN 4, 2011)
The man was billed to perform at one of the annual Ghana Journalists Association (GJA) awards nights at the plush Labadi Pleasure Hotel. By the time the programme got going, the musician many were expectantly waiting for could not register his presence. Meanwhile, the organisers kept assuring fans that the special guest artiste was on the way and would surely be performing.
Eventually the man arrived and he was very profuse with apologies for delaying the programme and keeping his teeming fans on tenterhooks. Any person who knows him very well will tell you that he is not pretentious and is as transparent as humanly possible. That is Amakye Dede, the man popularly known in showbiz circles as Abrantie.
When he plunged into business, he made for lost time and sent electric vibes of his music flowing through the ecstatic fans. Music is business and Abrantie is SEEE-RIOUS when on stage.
On Monday, December 27, 2010, Abrantie held his first major solo performance at the Accra International Conference Centre and the attendance and genre of those present were a testimony not only of the acceptance of his music which has outlived time but very significantly, his person.
Amakye Dede has come to represent something which is being pushed to extinction by many of our public figures — HUMILITY — whether in entertainment, sports, politics or any other public service. Many start as servants but with time forget their humble beginnings and begin to play lord.
Amakye Dede has been in active musical career for close to three decades but his stature has neither diminished nor had his music dimmed in any way. Those of the younger generation who may not know may think they were dancing to a song recorded only yesterday but which may be 30 years old.
Good and vibrant music aside, what has kept Amakye Dede going, and which is the message of this piece is his humility and his sense of realisation that he belongs to a place of rich cultural heritage. Amakye has never succumbed to the iniquities of foreign cultures which adore obscenity and profanity. What others may say with filthy vulgarity, Amakye will weave in intricate proverbs and wise sayings of our great forebears and arrive effectively with the same meaning without any offence.
When he sings love, he does so with passion and the conviction that love conquers all and when it is about sorrow or the vicissitudes of life, he does so with the appreciation of the fact that life can never be one way, and that we should accept misfortunes as they come our way and surmount them with fortitude.
With all the huge popularity, Amakye Dede has remained very simple and will walk pass you without vibrating the air around you. But if you should recognise him and shout ABRANTIE, the man will turn towards you and literally try to kiss your feet. Everybody can pretend some of the time, but you cannot pretend to be what you are not all the time. So it is easy to say Amakye Dede is real.
We have seen a lot of young musicians who fell by the way even before they attained any national recognition because of foolish pride and arrogance. We know many who do not respect their fans, forgetting that whatever fame or wealth they have, came from those fans.
We have seen some of these performers talking to themselves on the streets because they have soaked themselves in hard drugs and alcohol. You find these people in other areas. For example, some of our young footballers have become swollen-headed and lost direction and focus at the dawn of their career because they failed to manage the fame that came with their early success.
Some of our budding politicians have turned tin gods even before they have matured into experienced national leaders. There are many others in public service who have been consumed by self-glorification and self-conceitedness. Many never reached their peak before floundering.
We do not need to wait and eulogise people only when they are lying in state. We must say it while those with exemplary qualities are still available to serve as a beacon of light to brighten the gloom for others to redirect their faltering steps.
Amakye Dede has proved that it is possible to be successful in one’s chosen career and remain an ordinary human being. He has proved that music, like any other human endeavour, can bring fame and honour once approached with seriousness, dedication and professional competence. He has proved that it is possible to carry those who were on the ground with you along to the peak as long as you are mindful of the fact that they are part of your success story.
On December 27, 2010, the attendance was great and even among the multitude, one could still pick a few faces. They include former President J.A. Kufuor; Professor Agyeman Badu Akosa, the renowned pathologists, a former Director General of the Ghana Health Service and a man still nursing the ambition of becoming Ghana’s next President on the ticket of the Convention Peoples Party (CPP); Mr Kwame Peprah, board chairman of the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) and senior member of the National Democratic Congress (NDC); Nana Oye Lithur, a human rights activist; Nana Kofi Asante Bediatuo, a lawyer and strong member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), and Ambassador Kabral Blay Amihere, a diplomat, journalist and Chairman of the National Media Commission.
All these distinguished personalities are journeying through life on their own chosen paths. But they were all brought together under one roof by Abrantie Amakye Dede because they share one thing in common — they appreciate and like good music rich in lyrics — something which is missing in the songs of our young artistes who want to be described as musicians.
Amakye Dede has not only got talent as a musician but character as a humble and disciplined performer, a combination that has made him not only a role model, but a powerful magnet that could bring great men and women together.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Eventually the man arrived and he was very profuse with apologies for delaying the programme and keeping his teeming fans on tenterhooks. Any person who knows him very well will tell you that he is not pretentious and is as transparent as humanly possible. That is Amakye Dede, the man popularly known in showbiz circles as Abrantie.
When he plunged into business, he made for lost time and sent electric vibes of his music flowing through the ecstatic fans. Music is business and Abrantie is SEEE-RIOUS when on stage.
On Monday, December 27, 2010, Abrantie held his first major solo performance at the Accra International Conference Centre and the attendance and genre of those present were a testimony not only of the acceptance of his music which has outlived time but very significantly, his person.
Amakye Dede has come to represent something which is being pushed to extinction by many of our public figures — HUMILITY — whether in entertainment, sports, politics or any other public service. Many start as servants but with time forget their humble beginnings and begin to play lord.
Amakye Dede has been in active musical career for close to three decades but his stature has neither diminished nor had his music dimmed in any way. Those of the younger generation who may not know may think they were dancing to a song recorded only yesterday but which may be 30 years old.
Good and vibrant music aside, what has kept Amakye Dede going, and which is the message of this piece is his humility and his sense of realisation that he belongs to a place of rich cultural heritage. Amakye has never succumbed to the iniquities of foreign cultures which adore obscenity and profanity. What others may say with filthy vulgarity, Amakye will weave in intricate proverbs and wise sayings of our great forebears and arrive effectively with the same meaning without any offence.
When he sings love, he does so with passion and the conviction that love conquers all and when it is about sorrow or the vicissitudes of life, he does so with the appreciation of the fact that life can never be one way, and that we should accept misfortunes as they come our way and surmount them with fortitude.
With all the huge popularity, Amakye Dede has remained very simple and will walk pass you without vibrating the air around you. But if you should recognise him and shout ABRANTIE, the man will turn towards you and literally try to kiss your feet. Everybody can pretend some of the time, but you cannot pretend to be what you are not all the time. So it is easy to say Amakye Dede is real.
We have seen a lot of young musicians who fell by the way even before they attained any national recognition because of foolish pride and arrogance. We know many who do not respect their fans, forgetting that whatever fame or wealth they have, came from those fans.
We have seen some of these performers talking to themselves on the streets because they have soaked themselves in hard drugs and alcohol. You find these people in other areas. For example, some of our young footballers have become swollen-headed and lost direction and focus at the dawn of their career because they failed to manage the fame that came with their early success.
Some of our budding politicians have turned tin gods even before they have matured into experienced national leaders. There are many others in public service who have been consumed by self-glorification and self-conceitedness. Many never reached their peak before floundering.
We do not need to wait and eulogise people only when they are lying in state. We must say it while those with exemplary qualities are still available to serve as a beacon of light to brighten the gloom for others to redirect their faltering steps.
Amakye Dede has proved that it is possible to be successful in one’s chosen career and remain an ordinary human being. He has proved that music, like any other human endeavour, can bring fame and honour once approached with seriousness, dedication and professional competence. He has proved that it is possible to carry those who were on the ground with you along to the peak as long as you are mindful of the fact that they are part of your success story.
On December 27, 2010, the attendance was great and even among the multitude, one could still pick a few faces. They include former President J.A. Kufuor; Professor Agyeman Badu Akosa, the renowned pathologists, a former Director General of the Ghana Health Service and a man still nursing the ambition of becoming Ghana’s next President on the ticket of the Convention Peoples Party (CPP); Mr Kwame Peprah, board chairman of the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) and senior member of the National Democratic Congress (NDC); Nana Oye Lithur, a human rights activist; Nana Kofi Asante Bediatuo, a lawyer and strong member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), and Ambassador Kabral Blay Amihere, a diplomat, journalist and Chairman of the National Media Commission.
All these distinguished personalities are journeying through life on their own chosen paths. But they were all brought together under one roof by Abrantie Amakye Dede because they share one thing in common — they appreciate and like good music rich in lyrics — something which is missing in the songs of our young artistes who want to be described as musicians.
Amakye Dede has not only got talent as a musician but character as a humble and disciplined performer, a combination that has made him not only a role model, but a powerful magnet that could bring great men and women together.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)