Feint & Margin

03/03/2019

There is more to Ghana than slay queens and pimps

https://www.classfmonline.com/1.12232466 -is-more-to-ghana-than-slay-queens-and-pimps

We can, as a society choose to believe this narrative about our men and women or we can decide to look beyond this microcosm in our society...

23/02/2019

THERE's MORE TO GHANA THAN SLAY QUEENS AND PIMPS

We can as a society choose to believe this narrative about our men and women or we can decide to look beyond this microcosm in our society.

Having the right perspective is vital when such revelations come to the fore. When I arrived in Ghana almost 9 years ago for the first time since I left in Jan '89 I notice a very disturbing pattern that our social fabric was adopting. These past 9 years has culminated in the explosive revelations of some character on social media called fatpu**sy.

Under normal circumstances I wouldn't comment on such salacious issues, but I feel compelled to do so because of the responsibility I have to this nation as a citizen. We all have that duty to speak up when we notice that our society is veering off the beaten path to proper development.

Personally, I'm not surprised by what's been written by a certain Ola Michaels only because I have seen this albeit in the early days of my return to Ghana from these so called A list celebrities and their entourages.

But that's not the focus of this post.

We can as a society choose to believe this narrative about our men and women or we can decide to look beyond this microcosm in our society which is the entertainment industry.

Ghana is made up of 30 million men, women and children. Our entertainment industry is just one of many micro communities which makes up the social fabric of our society. There are so many others which our flawed media industry ignores but we so desperately need to highlight if we truly wish for Ghana's prosperous development.

When I step out each day and get stuck in traffic I see young men and women who spend hours daily under our scorching sun trying to sell their wares so that they can put food on the table.

In the evenings I see young men and women taking out their tables to sell their eggs, Milo and indomie so that they can create a better life for their children. I see young girls carrying loads on their heads selling boflot, nkosua and meko or pure water and young men selling sweets and credit just so they can afford a safe place to lay their heads.

The young women and men who have learned a trade barbering, hairdressing and sewing. The many kiosks and containers dotted across our towns and cities will tell you that our youth want to work and are striving for a better life.

If we are going to use the men and women in our pseudo entertainment industry as a yardstick to determine the character of our young men and women, I believe we would be doing a disservice to the strength our youth have in spite of the limited support from our Government to support them.

Yes, there is a dark underworld in Ghana and many of our so called celebrities are complicit along with those who have created these prostitution markets; pimps, corrupt business men and politicians. It's found everywhere. The difference between Ghana and the rest of the world is that we have made this behaviour mainstream. We have bloggers, news papers, radio and TV stations giving platforms to these shady characters, they in a way romanticize this despicable behaviour.

Ghana's slay kings and Queens should not be elevated neither should their lifestyles be amplified by our media.

The ball is in the courts of our media houses. What are your editorial policies, who and what ideals are you promoting and projecting? GHOne made that difficult decision on one of their programs called the Late Aftenoon Show when some of us drew their attention to projecting people who lead questionable lives and are proud of it. They did very well to change their editorial policy. They now have a show that's informative, interesting and contributes to our social development. Ghana deserves better from the rest of our media houses and blogging communities.

18/02/2019

Feint & Margin

Kate Tutu writes:

JOHN DUMELO SHOULD BE CONTAINED

I sometimes get queasy when I see posts from guys on my timeline advocating for polygamy just because it's part of our culture as Africans.

I don't believe in accepting social norms just because it's deemed to be part of who we are. I prefer probing and understanding things for what it is and then apply it to my reality as a final litmus test to determine whether it's worth accepting as a 'norm'

Polygamy (a.k.a womanizing, harem keeping) is not a trait in men we should be encouraging or rewarding in our society.

I'm particularly disturbed by men like John Dumelo who seems to be given a free pass and big media platform to share such potentially damaging promotion of certain behaviour such as womanizing. Listen to the discussion aired on JoyNews between him and Kojo Yankson and another regarding marriage and polygamy.

So it's extremely worrying for me to see how men and some women happily cheer him on when he shares his misguided opinion on man and their right to be polygamous. It's just plain irresponsible!

1. There's no better substitute than a two parent household to raising children
2. Most men who are polygamous end up alone, bitter and unhappy in their later years.
3. Family is the simplest building block to nation building, majority of polygamous households are built confusion and hurt, it's a direct threat to cohesive family structures.
4. It's an excuse for ill disciplined men to womanise.

Just by looking at our societies, neighborhoods and immediate families that practiced polygamy, can we honestly say that polygamy was beneficial?

Our grandparents and great grandparents were polygamous how did that help the generations which followed them? Are we better off?

Between a two parent household and a polygamous household who benefits when it comes to care, taking care of material needs of children? The only party who benefits albeit temporarily from polygamy is the man. It comes from gross selfishness and illusions of grandeur. Any man who proudly advocates for this behaviour is one that should be treated with the utmost suspicion.

Monogamy is our best choice if our aim is to build a safe, cohesive society for all. John Dumelo is a threat this because of the influence he has on our modern culture.

18/02/2019

Kate Tutu writes:

JOHN DUMELO SHOULD BE CONTAINED

I sometimes get queasy when I see posts from guys on my timeline advocating for polygamy just because it's part of our culture as Africans.

I don't believe in accepting social norms just because it's deemed to be part of who we are. I prefer probing and understanding things for what it is and then apply it to my reality as a final litmus test to determine whether it's worth accepting as a 'norm'

Polygamy (a.k.a womanizing, harem keeping) is not a trait in men we should be encouraging or rewarding in our society.

I'm particularly disturbed by men like John Dumelo who seems to be given a free pass and big media platform to share such potentially damaging promotion of certain behaviour such as womanizing. Listen to the discussion aired on JoyNews between him and Kojo Yankson and another regarding marriage and polygamy.

So it's extremely worrying for me to see how men and some women happily cheer him on when he shares his misguided opinion on man and their right to be polygamous. It's just plain irresponsible!

1. There's no better substitute than a two parent household to raising children
2. Most men who are polygamous end up alone, bitter and unhappy in their later years.
3. Family is the simplest building block to nation building, majority of polygamous households are built confusion and hurt, it's a direct threat to cohesive family structures.
4. It's an excuse for ill disciplined men to womanise.

Just by looking at our societies, neighborhoods and immediate families that practiced polygamy, can we honestly say that polygamy was beneficial?

Our grandparents and great grandparents were polygamous how did that help the generations which followed them? Are we better off?

Between a two parent household and a polygamous household who benefits when it comes to care, taking care of material needs of children? The only party who benefits albeit temporarily from polygamy is the man. It comes from gross selfishness and illusions of grandeur. Any man who proudly advocates for this behaviour is one that should be treated with the utmost suspicion.

Monogamy is our best choice if our aim is to build a safe, cohesive society for all. John Dumelo is a threat this because of the influence he has on our modern culture.

01/02/2019

Jason Tutu writes: Are there no adults left in this country?

https://www.classfmonline.com/1.12201917 -tutu-writes-are-there-no-adults-left-in-this-country

The two major political parties seem armed and arming up; and they each continue to provide a reason to push each other to still arm-up some...

16/01/2019

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF DISAGREEMENT?

The way the world wide web is structured does not put people that disagree with each other in dialogue in a meaningful way. The amount of negative content and responses on the internet has increased exponentially as a result.

Most of us are involved in some form of advocacy work. If your primary goal is to ensure success in what you are advocating for, remember that you will need to preach to everyone and not just to the converted. As a result you will encounter people with opposite views to yours. If you can't have a civil discourse with those who disagree with you, how successful do you think your advocacy work will be? Unless our motives are to gain relevance, score political points, or intentionally hurt another for a perceived grievance you may have with them.

Can you remain calm when other people say things you dislike?

Can you comfortably accept when someone reaches different conclusions on a controversial issue than you might have reached?

Do you become emotional when you’re having a hard time explaining why you think another person’s views are wrong?
Have you ever lashed out at another person during an argument?

Being disrespectful is not engaging in civil discourse. Profanity, name-calling*, derogatory terms (stupid, ignorant…), shouting or other attempts at intimidation, insulting body language (such as eye-rolling), insulting tone of voice (baby talk, speaking “down” to a person), open hostility, ridicule, biting sarcasm, any other disrespectful acts or ad hominem/ad feminem attacks, threats should never be our default response.

Showing good character requires one to be above/beyond any entrenched positions we may have. Not everyone will agree with your views, but at the very least show some decorum, disengage if you feel you'll become abusive.

What's I've experienced and witnessed in our interactions on important national issues here on social media indicates that we have a long way to go when it comes to our debating style. Sadly our inability to change how we disagree with each other will result in a lack of progress in our development.

May 2019, be a year we all make changes in how we engage with one another. Not everyone will agree with your views. You can disagree, but you don't have the right to be disrespectful, vengeful, rude, and intimidating. We should all be encouraged to speak and engage, that's the only way we can grow and refine our thinking. Let's not leave this space for a few noisy people to bully the majority from expressing their views.


Written by: Kate Tutu

26/04/2018

IAAF World Athletics Club

26/04/2018

IAAF World Athletics Club

12/04/2018

Written by Jason Tutu.
-8 minute read and worth every minute

AN OBSERVER’S VIEW OF 21ST CENTURY GEOPOLITICAL INFLUENCES ON GHANA’S ECONOMY:

The dawn of the new century coincided with a watershed moment in Ghana’s political development. There was a successful and relatively uneventful transfer of political power from one political party to another. The reins of governance shifted, from the National Democratic Congress; a party that considers itself a Social Democratic one, (at least in rhetoric, but remains more of a laissez faire agglomeration of personalities in essence), to the New Patriotic Party (NPP). The latter on hindsight could be fairly described as a sort of ‘Tokenist Welfare Party’.
However, the focus of this article will not be on the ideological inclinations of the two major political parties in Ghana. The two have switched roles in governance since the re-commencement of multiparty democracy; and have continued into the 21st Century. The purpose of this overview in substance, is to surmise how geopolitical, and to a great extent geo-economic, considerations have affected the fortunes of Ghana; during the respective periods of governance of these two parties since the year 2000.

The central dogma of this article is that the mainstay of external influence on the Ghanaian economy in the new century has been from Europe and America, on the one part; and on the other, China in particular and loosely to an extent the BRICS.

One can put it somewhat that, in the year 2000, the proverbial 'familiarity breeds contempt' syndrome alloyed the masses (both the haves and the have-nots) to ease the then incumbent President, Jerry John Rawlings, and his long serving P(NDC) out of office.

In came John Agyekum Kufuor (aka the Gentle Giant). During the 'Gentle Giant's' term, there was appreciable movement in economic indicators. Many will want to attribute it to policy aptitude; and some, many other reasons. But I dare say, whether it was due to governmental efficiency or not, Kufuor remains the luckiest leader of the modern times in Ghana (take it as you may).

He came to office at a time when the US (global) economic bubble was dangling on its crest - easy money flowed out of Western economies - trickling into Africa and for that matter Ghana. Not to mention that Kufuor was brazenly pro-western, and took great prestige in sipping tea with the Queen. Need I say he was the poster child African leader of choice for the Bretton Woods establishment? Assistance in the form of Grants and other forms of Aid poured into Ghana in various shapes and forms. However it must also be mentioned that, there was commensurate reciprocity – from several billions of Cedis worth of debt cancellation, as well as initiatives such as MiDA that gave us land mark projects like the N1 Highway; Ghana, in exchange, provided for sweet heart deals like the sort that characterized the negotiations around our oil discovery.

But one must also be fair to credit Kufuor for not missing the glimmer of Beijin’s lights in his side view; despite his keen focus on the Western largesse. At the time of Kufuor’s reign was when domestic growth in China looked to have plateaued and begun to stutter. The rational switch of strategy then was for the stumbling far east economic giant to shift focus to growing their Gross National Product (GNP). Great attention was therefore on Beijing’s aggressive investments in other territories. At this moment, the economic dragon didn’t have much by way of allegiances in Africa. So they dined with any country that was willing. Kufuor was smart enough to ride on the crests of this wave; and in the end, projects like Bui came to fruition. The surging incursion of the other BRICS got us a Presidential Palace, among others.

However, at the tail end of Kufuor’s tenure, around 2006/7 -2008; the economic bubble in the West had climaxed and burst. These countries therefore became more inward looking; to preserve the little of what was left in order to stabilize their economies. Free assistance wasn’t as forth coming, and Ghana was faced with tough times. As is legendary of our improvidence and lack of innovation in times of crisis, Kufuor would go ahead to hand out national assets like Ghana Telecom; in a bizarre deal that appeared almost like a dash, to keep the Ship of State afloat.

Aboard the wings of the global economic meltdown and the end of Kufuor’s honey moon term; came the NDC, who jettisoned themselves into political office - only to land right in the hot lava of scanty inflow of the usual foreign largesse, coupled with bearish global markets.

In his restlessness to undo some of the romantic transactions that Kufuor had established with the West, the late Prof. John Evans Atta –Mills, the new President, threatened the abrogation of a number of deals; including that of the sales of Ghana Telecom to Vodafone, as well as the terms of our Oil and Gas negotiations. The NDC went on, what could in the end be described as a wild goose chase, to invoke financial propriety agencies such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) or so I believe; to look into the deal between Kosmos Energy and the Government of Ghana. John Mills threatened the Vodafone deal as well; meanwhile oiling better ties with China; birthing their greater involvement in Ghana, which led to the likes of Synopec and their development of the Ghana Gas plant at Atuabo.
But characteristic of our puppy-like yelps at the West, Mills was brought under control, and the Dragon and Eagle learnt to perch side-by-side in Ghana’s economic space; more likely out of expedience than mutual approval. This was mainly because, China was yet to fully establish its foot hold in the region; and Western economies weren’t doing rather too well, let alone get embroiled in a Beijing – Washington standoff elsewhere in far off Africa.

In that time, recession in the West drove many businesses to Africa. I was then working with an Investment Banking and Real Estate concern; and the rush in at our Labone office was like a stream; of businesses, from Portugal to Alaska - all booking meetings to see what they could do in Ghana. This economic expedition to Africa, especially Ghana (though short-lived), coupled with the commencement of our oil and gas exports in commercial quantities; saw this country become one of the fastest growing economies (if not the fastest) in the world in the year 2010 thereabouts.

However, before the general elections of 2012, we suffered a painful loss of John Mills; and as fate will have it, Ghana was encumbered yet again with another John, called Dramani Mahama. Obviously, the world economic system was emerging from a recession at this time, and most Western Economies were sort of stabilizing but weren't fully out of the woods. The West, which happens to be our bigggest donor, was no longer willing to splash free money without adequate accountability.

On the other hand, China and her fellow BRICS had adequately established their presence in Africa; and were aggressively prowling for markets with less regard for due process. As such, the New John launched into an Asia/BRICS alliance, either intentionally or out of convenience, to the chargrin of the West. The heights of this ‘West-Snub’ posturing of John Mahama came to a fever pitch when the American media decided to throw a fit, after it was discovered that a US-Flagged Plane owned by a Community Bank in Utah, and leased to the brother of the Ghanaian President, had been spotted on the runways of Tehran; ostensibly to conduct business. This seriously infuriated the Americans, due to their long-standing feud with Iran.

The result of this indifferent posturing of the Mahama government towards the powers that saw Ghana as their traditional playground led to the withholding of several forms of donor funding, mostly from Western Partners; under the pretext of mismanagement of such funds by government - a charge which the Mahama government can also not completely absolve itself of. The West then waged an economic battle of attrition, and coupled with the not so tidy domestic economic policies of the government then, The Ghanaian economy was only a few months short of being completely brought down to its knees.

A key point the Mahama Administration missed when it came to office was that, as washed as the Western economies may seem, they still hold the trump card to economic ratings and other key institutions that provide indicators which drive the markets – including ratings of how countries' performances are assessed globally - which concomitantly affects inflow of investments into various regions.

It was thus very unfortunate, if not sad, to find our Finance Ministry at the time; almost always going toe- to- toe with the likes of Moody's and Fitch - when the fact remains that we were starving from donor support (which we were hooked on to) on one hand; and on the other, squandering easy money from the East - without much accountability. If only the Mahama Government knew the dual-power these rating agencies wield; and the good or bad that their actions could portend (with a view on their role in the sub-prime events that led to the global market crash); he and his gang of infant economists would have proceeded with more caution in their dealings with these agencies. There were points at which government officials claimed they had their own economic figures, and in essence sought to rubbish those indicators churned out on Ghana by these rating agencies; as though their internally churned figures had anything to do with the price of butter in the global markets.

Nonetheless, the Mahama government got a geopolitical awakening in the last half of his tenure, albeit a little too late, and decided to quit playing aloof with the West. However, the tag of an unfriendly regime had been sort of formed against his government already. Their West's economic and other media attack machinery had been set into motion; and the Ghana Government then was the unwitting recipient of a well choreographed ‘undermine campaign’. The last effect of this attack network was unleashed by the Scottish Media on Mahama himself and the then Foreign Minister, Madam Hannah Tetteh, on their visit to that Country.

Well, despite their strenuous efforts at erecting various infrastructure around the country; their overt flirtatious gestures with the West, ostensibly to make up for time lost, got the likes of China to hold on a little to the store of goodies, such as the other half of the CDB Loan; to show Ghana that they too could not be taken for granted. But I can bet my bottom dollar that this entire chess game was lost on my compatriots in government. The awkward geopolitical maneuverings of the government had left it between a rock and a hard place. Coupled with their general administrative and financial mismanagement (which I must indicate isn’t unique to them); the concerted manufacturing of both local and international media consensus against their reign saw the NDC swept out of power - after a single term in office, an event never before witnessed since Ghana began its, almost three decades old, journey on the paths of Multiparty Democracy.

Today, the NPP government has been returned to govern, at a time when China has its feet well planted within the affairs of Africa. Not to make matters any better, the United States has in Office the most bellicose of leaders. The NPP therefore must be aware that it cannot enjoy the nascent-stage luck of the Kufuor era, in the current geopolitical space. Serving Washington and pleasing Beijing has become more complicated than it could ever be; especially when the two economic super powers are threatening a trade war.

Our Presidency and Foreign Affairs directorate, therefore, cannot take the words of these respective countries at face value, especially the Chinese, who pride themselves in the art of indirection – Giving you a penny here while denying you a pound there, and in effect destabilizing your plans; while keeping you tethered to their apron strings all the same. The government must therefore look at the bigger strategic picture; and see how it can leverage both domestic and other external dynamics. This must be done dispassionately, if this government will ever get to live up to half of its myriad promises. It’s time for those expending our tax monies to put on their thinking caps; and begin working out the matrices, if the geopolitical game plan hasn’t been laid out already.

06/04/2018

404 - Not found

A comprehensive analysis on the real issues surrounding the US-Military Defence agreement with Ghana.
Written by Jason Tutu

BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE

Barking up the wrong tree – This is an age old idiom, meaning; to pursue a mistaken or misguided line of thought or course of action. “The term originally comes from the nocturnal pursuit of raccoon-hunting with the aid of dogs. Occasionally a raccoon fools the dogs, which crowd around a tree, barking loudly, not realizing their quarry has taken a different route.”
The above expression accurately describes the relentless hunt for the substantive information, in the Ghana-US Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA), which supports the establishment of a US military base in Ghana. But the truth of the matter is, you won’t find it. But does that mean the said defense agreement should give Ghanaians no cause for concern? Well, I’ll not say that. I believe the raccoon is still in the thick of those pages of the DCA; we just have to figure out the new turn it has taken.

Route of the Raccoon:

Currently, the practice of setting up what is typically described as a ‘military base’ is something the US is no longer pursuing. First of all, it remains uneconomical to continue establishing town size military bases across the globe. Secondly, it defeats the more strategic art forms of war; which emphasize formlessness and extreme adaptability. In fact, the new onslaught of US foreign military establishments rely on what is termed; ‘Lily Pads’. To fully understand how this new strategy works, you may want to read David Vines write up titled; “The Lily-Pad Strategy: How the Pentagon Is Quietly Transforming Its Overseas Base Empire and Creating a Dangerous New Way of War.” Click link below:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/10347-the-lily-pad-strategy-how-the-pentagon-is-quietly-transforming-its-overseas-base-empire-and-creating-a-dangerous-new-way-of-war

Therein, he details what you need to know essentially, about this new phenomenon. Those who may find this less appealing to their scholarly taste may want to find the study relating to this subject matter; by the Watson Institute of Brown University, titled; “The Cost of War.”
Does the DCA Establish a Lily Pad in Ghana?

To answer this question, do not look into the agreement for mention of the phrase ‘Lily Pad’, just as you’re certainly bound not to find any trace of the phrase ‘military base’ in this agreement. In fact, as Vine indicates in his article, knowing that there’s a Lily Pad in your country is in itself something that its establishers frown upon. That’s why they will be happy all day long when the debate goes on about a military base; something their politician friends can come forward months or years after and posture - you see, we told you there’ll be no military base; if you still disagree, show us one.
However, more important to retaining the anonymity of the existence of a Lily Pad in a host country is aptly captured by Mark Gillem, author of America Town: Building the Outposts of Empire, where he explains; "avoidance" of local populations, publicity, and potential opposition is the new aim” of switching to these Lily Pads.

So to clearly determine whether the DCA will make Ghana a Lily Pad destination; you may want to see if you can find in the agreement what is needed to establish one. The basics are these; facilities for the US to establish a surveillance system, access to airport runway with some specific dimensions to enable the landing of their military carriers, a non-descript undisclosed location to store their cache of weapons, secrecy in the transport and handling of these weapons, among others. It’s up to you to check if the DCA meets any such prescriptions.

Does Ghana Need Pervasive Military Aid of This Kind?
Central to the argument of expanding the comparatively limited military cooperation between Ghana and the US is the threat of terrorism, and the risk of other forms of instability. However, trends around the world, where the US provided such levels of expansive military aid has shown negative correlations, more than a positive outcome.

While the published aim of US military aid is to help recipient nations enhance human rights and protection against violent extremism, the data tells a different story. In his doctoral thesis, Arthur Gibbs III, came to the conclusion that; “military aid demonstrated a consistent and statistically significant negative effect on human rights in recipient countries…The first is that U.S. military aid actually encourages human rights abuses by recipient regimes….the fact that recipients of military aid still appear to get worse rather than better after receiving American equipment and training provides strong ammunition for critics of military aid.”

Even in countries of open security issues where it appears military aid is a necessity, studies reveal that such aid has been less than helpful. In their paper titled; “Bases, Bullets and Ballots: the Effect of U.S. Military Aid on Political Conflict in Colombia”, Oeindrila et al, 2010; established their findings “suggest that foreign military assistance may strengthen armed non-state actors, undermining domestic political institutions... Using detailed political violence data, we find that U.S. military aid leads to differential increases in attacks by paramilitaries (who collude with the military).”
The trend is no different with other forms of military interventions by the US and its allies in the Sahel, with the effects boiling right down to our borders in Burkina Faso. Ostensibly, they are here with the message to help us contain that threat. But have we really analyzed the trends, to establish whether such a proposition is for the best? Because in the North Dakota Law Review (Vol. 84:383), Elizabeth Powers explains the conscious or maybe unintended outcome of such assistance in the Congo and the developing world. In her paper titled “Greed, Guns And Grist: U.S. Military Assistance And Arms Transfers To Developing Countries”. She surmises;

“Military assistance (i.e., government-to-government military aid) pours additional billions into the arms and military services industry. Weapons sales and military assistance are the lifeblood of many corrupt leaders. These leaders line their coffers with government money meant to be used for military assistance purposes, and use the acquired weaponry to engage in international antagonism and the REPRESSION OF THEIR CITIZENS.” - Emphasis mine.

In our case, it appears Ghana has a less corrupt and measured crop of leaders; who do not show up with defense accoutrements and threats of abuse and actual abuse, anytime citizens decide to protest against what they perceive as corrupt or unjust political leadership. Maybe demonstrators of Occupy Ghana, Let My Vote Count Alliance, and those who recently went to Parliament on the DCA issue; can attest to how congenial our state security apparatus has been towards citizens; upon the least provocation.

An Untidy Agreement:

While it will be infantile to summarily dismiss any sort of military cooperation, the nature of such cooperation cannot be left to take just any form or shape. That is why it is crucial that the DCA be placed under the microscope of scrutiny, to check if it will actually be of benefit to Ghana; and whether the agreement does not leave us open to many unintended consequences of US military aid, a number of which have been cited above.
In this regard, let’s for a second, assume the joint military exercises being proposed in the DCA are harmless in themselves; or worth our while by way of security support. Let’s also assume the tax exemptions in this agreement aren’t worth much; and may be reclaimed by way of the annual 20million dollars worth of aid (which in effect isn’t free, but let’s make that concession for discussion purposes). Finally, let’s again assume the US will help improve our counter terrorism preparedness. Let’s assume all that.

But what I do not understand is the sort of thinking that led us to swallow; lock, stock and barrel, a template agreement which:
a. Allows a foreign country unfettered access to our radio frequency and further still the freedom to establish theirs for military purposes; without any prescribed limitations or monitoring by us.
b. The importation of weapons without any inspections nor restrictions by our authorities as to the nature of these weapons and what they are intended for; and most crucially,
c. We don’t have the power in this agreement to place restrictions on end users of these weapons or equipment; and in whose hands they may finally end up.

The entire world is privy to the facts of the likes of the Al-Nusra Front terrorists, using US-made TOW anti-tank rockets, as a consequence of the support programs of the US government in that region. In Pakistan for instance, Patricia Sulivan, an Associate Professor of Public Policy, University of South Carolina; makes the case of billions in U.S. military aid dollars which are channeled to extremist groups by political agents. It appears in Ghana, we believe that our systems are so secure that our so called ‘big men’ cannot and are not involved in stoking the fires in any form, regarding internal conflicts. I am sure we can boldly beat our chests and swear that the ‘big men’ are not engaged in arming various factions in the latent conflicts in northern parts of Ghana, or in the Volta region. I am sure when they come to have freewheeling weapons that no one is compelled to account for, which they can distribute like toffees, their ethical instincts will kick in. It must be our strongest believe that these elements are currently encouraging conscientious disarmament of their kinsfolk; in our country and within the region. It is clear we have made it a taboo to speculate any projections from what could happen in the future based on our current attitudes. Therefore until such untoward occurrences happen, we must stay mute and keep the bliss.

It is such insularity in our assessment of initiatives that worries me the most. And that may explain why we seem to have closed our eyes to the reality that in the name of helping fight terror, US weapons have ended up stocking the Arsenals of some of the most violent terrorist and separatist groups to have ever scourged the surface of the earth - like ISIL currently and the Mujahideen of Afghanistan in the 70s and 80s. The image of hood wearing, American assault rifle wielding terror gangs cruising in US military humvees on the sand dunes of the Middle East is no secret image globally.

It therefore leaves us no room for excuse when we do not ensure that any weapon brought into our territory by the US is met with restrictions on end user groups; and grave liabilities on the importer in case of default. We have failed to exercise any form of caution or due diligence in our consideration of this undertaking. It’s not only embarrassing but quite worrying, I must say.

Geopolitical Outlook:

I have come to the realisation that Ghana often goes into many bilateral arrangements with a silo mentality; ignoring any ramifications it may have on our engagements with other partners. We lose sight of the necessity of analyzing the effect of any arrangement we may have with any country on our trade relations and ties with others.

Not long ago, Europe was by no means amused by the US National Security Agencies’ tapping into the conversations of over 70million of their citizens, and senior officials of the EU; including Angela Merkel. Such happenings cannot be delinked in any way from the ubiquitous presence of US military and intelligence installations in that part of the world.

In response to this, the European Commission went as far as backing proposals suspending the transatlantic bank data sharing agreement. Europe, which happens to be our biggest trade partner, will not turn a blind eye to their security concerns and the privacy of their dealings in Ghana. It will therefore not come as a surprise if they hold back on the extent of their cooperation with us in some areas; based on perceived vulnerabilities occasioned by the pervasive nature of the DCA.

Meanwhile, this far reaching agreement will also not be taken lightly by other trade superpowers; like China, who are currently locked in a pending trade war with the US. We should not be surprised if such a country sees a weakened spot in our ability to keep the integrity of our engagements with them. It therefore comes as no surprise when negotiations for their support in establishing the One District One Factory Initiative fell through.

Nonetheless, we still have other forms of trade MoUs with them; regarding the likes of our integrated bauxite project. But it’s said that if something bad happens to you, apprehend something worse. Will China come through for us regarding their other promises, despite our exhibition of such unabashed ‘Americophilia’? Well, they many not indicate their change in intent in black and white; but maybe we have to relook at some of these issues carefully, and begin re-oiling talks again.

Are Critics Throwing Away the Baby with the Bathwater?

In many such high level government to government arrangements; there are many unseen variables that result in the finalization of decision making. It therefore becomes crucial for leadership to hint to the overarching needs which underpin of such decisions; enough to be satisfactory to the citizenry, but without compromising the bigger strategic outlook. This becomes relevant, and quite so, when such matters become one of public contention.
I was therefore under the impression that, following weeks of silence, the President in his speech addressed to the nation was certainly going to enumerate some key points that may probably be lost on Ghanaians. Unfortunately, the speech can be essentially reduced to a castigation of political opponents who went too far in rattling the Presidential Cage in the wake of the furore.

Currently, no cogent reasons have been given to alleviate fears and suspicions. The apprehension that Ghana may become like one of the other third world countries who have suffered from unintended consequences, as a result of expansive militarization of their territory by the US. I believe leadership may want to relook at the permutations that surround this agreement, and see if there’s actually any net benefit to Ghana. What is the nature of the decision tree that has led our political leaders to conclude that we will not be confronted with a rather grave situation of opportunity cost, either soon or in the near future? The communication so far has been less than satisfactory.