THE RANTS OF AN UN-MATURED LEGAL AND POLITICAL MIND. A MIND AS CONFUSED AS THE PLACES WHERE IT HAS RESIDED, NAMELY, GHANA, THE UK AND THE U.S. ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU MAY FIND VARIOUS THOUGHTS ON THE STATE OF THE WORLD, THE FACTS OF LIFE AS I KNOW AND SEE, AND THE AUDACITY TO BELIEVE THAT AFRICA WOULD SOON LIVE OUT ITS DREAMS!

Sunday 22 November 2009

Human Rights: Law or Just Statements of Aspiration?

One of the purposes of the United Nations as stated in its Charter is to “promote and encourage respect for human rights,”[i] thereby instilling a legal obligation on member States to do all possible to ensure the achievement of the goals. Thus, the assumption that human rights are statements of aspirations and not law does not reflect the purposes of the Charter, or the developments of HR law over the past 50 years.[ii] The result of decades of human rights activism and campaign has led to an increasing amount of State ratification of HR treaties and compliance.[iii] On the other hand viewing human rights merely as law equally does little justice to the non-judicial mechanisms of human rights enforcement.[iv]

HR law, however, as a component of international law is gripped by the same inconsistencies as those that lie in the system of international law. Namely; that States sovereignty still plays a vital role[v], a flaw which has allowed even State parties to human rights treaties to systematically violate them[vi] without reasonable redress. For the system to be more efficient HR monitors need to address these concerns.[vii]

Although the impact of treaties and special procedures has elevated the status of the individual as actor,[viii] the HR machine has only slightly breached the levee of State sovereignty[ix]. This fault lies with the inability of HR to adequately tackle the issues of treaty breach, leading to countries being rewarded for positions rather than effects, the result being that “governments can take the positions that they do not honour and benefit from doing so.”[x]

Moreover the argument that even though there are no adequate enforcement capabilities governments still feel compelled to perform what is requested of them[xi] is not a sufficient enough reasoning for the maintenance of the status quo. This view also fails to consider the instances where a States may not feel compelled to act as is required, and unfortunately there are too many of such instances.[xii]

Some have proposed a European-like court system[xiii] in replacement of the Human Rights Council, with the view that States will no longer be given the discretion to implement HR’s.[xiv] This is a worthy approach but does not come without critique. The European system falls under a backdrop of regional integration. Majority of the European states are aligned with strong liberal democracies.[xv] The proposal of such a system on an international level (though not impossible) would require a heavy dose of state agreement. In our European example the European Union was the incentive for signature onto the European Convention on Human Rights. How would this quid-pro quo system work on the international level?

Perhaps the increase in regional judicial bodies is the answer.[xvi] However, where you have regional institutions, those States who are not members of regional blocks[xvii] risk exclusion. If the idea is that HR’s are a “basic requirements in any society and a pre-requisite for human progress and development,”[xviii] then limiting the call for universal rights to regional institutions will not suffice.

The protective roles of national human rights institutions (NHR’s) have also been duly welcomed.[xix] Internal independent bodies have proved to be “one of the more promising developments in global efforts to uphold human rights.”[xx] But as is with its international counterpart NHRI’s have often been dubbed “toothless bulldogs” because majority of them are created without the vital enforcement mechanisms.[xxi]

Europe has proved that HR institutions can be successful and even more so addressed the notion that HR’s are not merely inspirational goals. The United Nations treaty bodies continue to establish ground breaking mechanisms for state compliance,[xxii] (Bleir v Uraguay[xxiii]). To a large extent the “shame” mechanism has gotten State attention. However, in the long run the achievement of universal human rights as envisaged by the Charter cannot be based on such uncertain grounds. Helfer and Slaughter argue that the Human Rights Council places itself under the tutelage of the ECtHR to develop tools necessary for an effective supranational adjudicative body.[xxiv] I propose this, but also an amalgamation of all the other suggestions.


[i] United Nations Charter Art. 1(3), also see: Art. 56, 62, 68 and 76

[ii] The very development of treaty law in human rights field can hardly be ignored. Human rights remains the only area of law whose treaties have been ratified by all States in the world

[iii] See for instance: Oyama v California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948), the application of UN Charter Art. 55 and 56

[iv] Koh, Harold ‘How is International Human Rights Law Enforced?’ Addison C. Harris Lecture, 1998, they are enforced through a complex, little-understood legal process that I call the transnational legal process”

[v] Delbruek, Jost ‘International Protect of Human Rights and State Sovereignty’ Indiana Law Review, vol.57 (fall ’82), p.g. 567-78

[vi] Neumayer, Eric, ‘Do International Human Rights Treaties Improve Respect for Human Rights?’ Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 49, (May 1, 2005), p.g. 6. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=607681 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.607681

[vii] Helfer and Slaughter, ‘Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication’ Yale Law Journal, vol.107 p.g. 273, (1997)

[viii] See: The Ad-hoc tribunals on the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda

[ix] Traisbach, Knut (2006) Reframing Human Rights III ‘The Individual in International Law’ [Workshop] p.g. 1

[x] Hathaway, Oona A.,Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference? Yale Law Journal, vol. 111, 2002, p.g. 1941; Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=311359

[xi] Weissbrodt and La Vega (2007)‘International Human Rights Law: An Introduction’ University of Pennsylvania Press, p.g. 251

[xii] Examples include, Iran, China, Russia, Sudan, Iraq, DRC

[xiii] European Convention on Human Rights (1950)

[xiv] See: Art.2 Optional Protocol on Economic Social and Political Rights

[xv] Helfer and Slaughter, ‘Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication’ Yale Law Journal, vol.107 p.g. 274

[xvi] Conference of Ministers of Justice/Attomey General on the Establishment of an African-Court on Human

and Peoples' Rights, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 12 December, 1997, Draft Protocol to the Afiican Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights.

[xvii] Either not signed to the documents establishing a regional body, or is by some form of geographical anomaly not integrated within a community

[xviii] Secretary General Talks Open in Addis Ababa on Establishing African Human Rights Court. DEUTSCHE

PRESSE-AGENTUR, December 12. 1997. available in LEXJS. News Ubrary. Curnws Rle.”

[xix] The Paris Principles, Resolution 1992/54 of 1992 and General Assembly, Resolution 48/134 of 1993

[xx] Ramcharan, Bertrand (2003) ‘The Protection Role of National Human Rights Institutions’ Leiden, Boston, p.g. vii

[xxi] Ramcharan, Bertrand (2003) ‘The Protection Role of National Human Rights Institutions’ Leiden, Boston, p.g. 43...see: The Ghana Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, and the Fiji Human Rights Commission as illustrative on this point

[xxii] Art. 2 Optional Protocol to Economic Social and Political Rights, the procedure for individual complaint

[xxiii] Bleir v Uraguay, 30/1978 (R.7/30)...Human Rights Council individual complaint hearing

[xxiv] Helfer and Slaughter, ‘Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication’ Yale Law Journal, vol.107 p.g. 273, (1997)

Tuesday 14 July 2009

Charles Taylor; Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Maybe..

On July 14th former President of Liberia Charles Taylor took to a seat to defend himself from Charges of "war crimes" and other "crimes against humanity." A trial set by the Special Court of Sierra Leon (SCSL), held at the Hague. Mr. Taylor, before the trial started (on January 7th 2008) and until now still maintains his innocence (as many defendants in such cases usually do). I have just a few thoughts on this trial and of the man in general but perhaps it is important for those who do not know very much about the case to give just a brief background on the case and on International Law (what I dub IL) in general.

Just briefly on why there is a "Special Court" at all to begin with. International Law has come a long way, from the pre-world war II era where the only major actors at the IL stage were States, hence, sovereignty was the rule of the day..along with Sovereignty came state immunity (which still exists by the way), along with State immunity comes Sovereign immunity, i.e. one State cannot prosecute another State or State representative for a crime (quite different with civil cases which is not at all the case at hand, maybe we shall discuss international civil law later). Essentially, things (as they usually do with the evolution of reason) began to change post-world war II. The War was vital I would say in helping humanity see how far human cruelty can extend. A major reason being the fact that war was not as primitive as it used to be, now there is such things as mas weapons, extremely destructive machinery designed to cause nothing more than mass extermination and human grief.

The Nuremberg trails post war offered the first most realistic trial against State officials for crimes committed while in office, such crimes (now known as war crimes and crimes against humanity are now stipulated in the Geneva Conventions). The veil of Sovereignty could no longer be used as an excuse (or at least it seemed)...More and more advocates of "equality, fair treatment, and the ban on the use of force" came forward, and in the early 50's and onwards these advocates seemed more to be newly independent States vying for equal status on the world stage, this was mostly evident in the signing of and ratification of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties where a clause in it stipulated that no treaty would override a peremptory norm or "jus cogens" (a norm which is of universal application, e.g. banning of torture) such a treaty would be void...believe it or not these new independent States with the help of the Soviet Union really fought hard for such status (as at that time it was in their vital interest). So since then of course, not only have peremptory norms been held to higher a standard, (many say they are in fact the highest source of IL) but anyone who violates them are subject to be prosecuted on the international scene. An area which received more attention was the law related to conduct during war and the treatment of civilians especially during these times..bringing with it those human right norms and the striking down (at least for the most part) the veil of sovereignty. Through these laws, individuals have been elevated as key players on the international stage, depending on what kind of individual you are this could be a great deal or something extremely annoying (tell that to Charles Taylor). Coming with this is the notion of "individual criminal responsibility" which holds those responsible for these crimes to account, there is no longer a protection of the State behind the individual. The Rwandan and former Yugoslav trials, paved way for what is now the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court, and later after the atrocities during the Sierra Leonian war the Special Court of Sierra Leon was created, a hybrid court designed to mix local and international law to try perpetrators of those atrocities.

So we fast forward to Taylor, he was arrested in 2006 by Nigerian security forces while trying to cross the border (during his exile in Nigeria...the cheek of him). He did this knowing that there had been an indictment in 2003 by the SCSL, charging the former leader with "Crimes against humanity and war crimes." Anyway, he was handed over to the Sierra Leonian court but later upon several debates transferred to the Hague upon fears that his presence in Sierra Leon would cause security issues.

The crimes he faces include:

Five counts of war crimes: terrorizing civilians, murder, outrages on personal dignity, cruel treatment, and looting;

Five counts of crimes against humanity: murder, rape, sexual slavery, mutilating and beating, and enslavement; and

One count of other serious violations of international humanitarian law: recruiting and using child soldiers.

Now you are wondering how ONE person could have possibly committed all these crimes, well see this is the exciting thing about international criminal law, in that, the person who actually committed the crime need not be the one on trial (although he/she could) but his superiors who actually ordered those crimes are held to be as criminally responsible as the principle perpetrators, that is, without those direct controls (especially in a military settings) such crimes may not ( or may) have been committed, basically no head of State can get away for ordering genocide for instance, even though he played no part in the actual killings..Novel is it not? Hmm..not really

The evidence against Taylor in my view is quit solid. According to the prosecutor, he was responsible for planning, instigating and and ordering them and he even went further in aiding and abetting by supplying the weapons needed by the Rebels in Sierra Leon to commit those crimes. There is strong evidence that Taylor had strong ties with the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) who was allied with the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), a force in Sierra Leon whose leaders have also been indicted by the Court. In 2003, a shoot-out occurred after the indictment between Liberian forces (Taylor's) and the RUF which killed its leader Bockarie, evidence points to the fact that Taylor needed him "gone" after all he would probably testify against him later on...hmmm. "Why the hell is Taylor meddling in Sierra Leonian affairs" you might as, does the word DIAMOND ring a bell ??

The prosecution so far has brought 91 witnesses, no less victims in themselves who have experienced anything from rape to mutilation and professionals who have brought their own evidence from Sierra Leon. It has been incumbent on the prosecution not just to show that atrocities occurred but also the vital link between those forces who committed the atrocities and Taylor, like any criminal case, this vital link needs to be proven without any reasonable doubt, unfortunately for the prosecution the witnesses linking forces with Taylor were far less than those showcasing the trauma victims went through. But is this a bad thing? After all "quantity is not quality," for it seems the prosecution is trying to prove that Taylor's relationship with Sankoh leader of RUF started long before Taylor became president at a meeting in Lybia in the 80's, where they both professed their undying love for each other..just kidding, but at least there is evidence that they did at an early stage promise to help each other, of which it seems Taylor kept up his half of the bargain. One stick in the mud though is that there is no evidence of Taylor actually having been to Sierra Leon, but then again in modern times communications might prove enough to establish responsibility.

So anyway, he (Taylor) decides to take to the stage and profess his innocence by stating that he has always been a "humanitarian" (not in his exact words but "all my life trying to pursue justice" does not fall far from the tree). He claimed he was rather a "peace-maker," he would have been superman to try to control Liberia and Sierra Leon at the same time...hmm, I beg to differ, Hitler was no super man and he controlled many European States (of course this was before his demise). Moreover, diamond money can surely get someone to feel like superman, so frankly I don't buy it. And I wonder why he spends his time saying that he tried to fix the war torn country (Sierra Leon) when his own country was no better (at the time) than Sierra Leon, I guess the old saying "take the stick out of your own eye before you point to another's" was not resounding in his ears during his "humanitarian" days.

Despite my obvious disdain for the guy, as they say "one is innocent until proven guilty." This means that I am willing to indulge his defence of "these are lies" "these are lies," although, if I was his lawyer, I would plead with him to either not speak or quit saying that the prosecution is lying as his ONLY evidence, for that can only take one so far, legally it means jack (or jill whichever rocks your boat). So while I do not (and oh how I wish I did) have all the evidence in front of me, I will trust in the positive role that the special court is playing in restoring some level of justice to people whose lives have been all but taken away without any apologies.

For those who wing and whine, with the usual "why are westerners after African leaders?" (with my response being blah blah blah), I say to them refer back to my earlier brief but hopefully concise history of this kind of International Law. It was advocated for by us, yes us, our leaders on the verge of independence advocated for this kind of justice..and no, it is not a shame that those that kill, torture, maim, rape, commit genocide are brought to justice, what is a shame is that we even have to debate about it. If Charles Taylor is innocent and if there is apparently no evidence against him, then I am sure that he will be exonerated, if not then oh well, he will await his fate, but to do nothing at all proves nothing, we are not a people who lavish in the glory of injustice. Let us not forget that the Special Court for Sierra Leon bares its name because it is commissioned by the Sierra Leonian people and governed mainly by the law of Sierra Leon with the help of International criminal proceedings. So all the nay sayers of justice, I say to you...well, I actually have not much to say to you.

At this point all I have to say is, when the heck are we going to have Prosecutor v. Al Bashir, my skin is itching from the long wait.



Saturday 11 July 2009

Ye Ma Wo Akwaaba Wofa Obama!

Please find below Obama's speech earlier today. In my own opinion it was a very well thought of, beautifully delivered (as usual), tough, straight to the point and held no prisoners. This speech offers African leaders only one option, join the chariot of democracy and respect of basic human rights or be left behind. I know as a fact that almost all the youth of Africa listened to this speech but more importantly I pray that all African leaders tuned in attentively, this message more than any other was designed specifically for them. Is it not embarrassing for those Mugabe's, Yar' Adua's and the Kibaki's of Africa to sit while their younger brother (yes I said younger brother to those American haters out there) preaches common sense into their deaf ears? Frankly if I were them I would resign after hearing this speech...We were taught that our elders are usually wiser (and most of the time this is true) but Obama's speech brought home the chickens and allowed them to roost in our living rooms. For those cynics who view this visit as nothing but just another way for the US to assert its dominance over Africa, I say quit with your pessimism, Africa doesn't need your sour words, your words fuel those prideful leaders who are looking for people like you to legitimize their lame existence. The speech was neither domineering nor over-stated, it was genuine and pure and came from a US president whose own story makes him the only person ripe enough to give such a speech. Obama yen nyinara ye be sisa mu (we will all make a change).

Here is the speech...

Good morning. It is an honor for me to be in Accra, and to speak to the representatives of the people of Ghana. I am deeply grateful for the welcome that I've received, as are Michelle, Malia and Sasha Obama. Ghana's history is rich, the ties between our two countries are strong, and I am proud that this is my first visit to sub-Saharan Africa as President of the United States.

I am speaking to you at the end of a long trip. I began in Russia, for a Summit between two great powers. I traveled to Italy, for a meeting of the world's leading economies. And I have come here, to Ghana, for a simple reason: the 21st century will be shaped by what happens not just in Rome or Moscow or Washington, but by what happens in Accra as well.

This is the simple truth of a time when the boundaries between people are overwhelmed by our connections. Your prosperity can expand America's. Your health and security can contribute to the world's. And the strength of your democracy can help advance human rights for people everywhere.

So I do not see the countries and peoples of Africa as a world apart; I see Africa as a fundamental part of our interconnected world - as partners with America on behalf of the future that we want for all our children. That partnership must be grounded in mutual responsibility, and that is what I want to speak with you about today.

We must start from the simple premise that Africa's future is up to Africans.

I say this knowing full well the tragic past that has sometimes haunted this part of the world. I have the blood of Africa within me, and my family's own story encompasses both the tragedies and triumphs of the larger African story.

My grandfather was a cook for the British in Kenya, and though he was a respected elder in his village, his employers called him "boy" for much of his life. He was on the periphery of Kenya's liberation struggles, but he was still imprisoned briefly during repressive times. In his life, colonialism wasn't simply the creation of unnatural borders or unfair terms of trade - it was something experienced personally, day after day, year after year.

My father grew up herding goats in a tiny village, an impossible distance away from the American universities where he would come to get an education. He came of age at an extraordinary moment of promise for Africa. The struggles of his own father's generation were giving birth to new nations, beginning right here in Ghana. Africans were educating and asserting themselves in new ways. History was on the move.

But despite the progress that has been made - and there has been considerable progress in parts of Africa - we also know that much of that promise has yet to be fulfilled. Countries like Kenya, which had a per capita economy larger than South Korea's when I was born, have been badly outpaced. Disease and conflict have ravaged parts of the African continent. In many places, the hope of my father's generation gave way to cynicism, even despair.

It is easy to point fingers, and to pin the blame for these problems on others. Yes, a colonial map that made little sense bred conflict, and the West has often approached Africa as a patron, rather than a partner. But the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants. In my father's life, it was partly tribalism and patronage in an independent Kenya that for a long stretch derailed his career, and we know that this kind of corruption is a daily fact of life for far too many.

Of course, we also know that is not the whole story. Here in Ghana, you show us a face of Africa that is too often overlooked by a world that sees only tragedy or the need for charity. The people of Ghana have worked hard to put democracy on a firmer footing, with peaceful transfers of power even in the wake of closely contested elections. And with improved governance and an emerging civil society, Ghana's economy has shown impressive rates of growth.

This progress may lack the drama of the 20th century's liberation struggles, but make no mistake: it will ultimately be more significant. For just as it is important to emerge from the control of another nation, it is even more important to build one's own.

So I believe that this moment is just as promising for Ghana - and for Africa - as the moment when my father came of age and new nations were being born. This is a new moment of promise. Only this time, we have learned that it will not be giants like Nkrumah and Kenyatta who will determine Africa's future. Instead, it will be you - the men and women in Ghana's Parliament, and the people you represent. Above all, it will be the young people - brimming with talent and energy and hope - who can claim the future that so many in my father's generation never found.

To realize that promise, we must first recognize a fundamental truth that you have given life to in Ghana: development depends upon good governance. That is the ingredient which has been missing in far too many places, for far too long. That is the change that can unlock Africa's potential. And that is a responsibility that can only be met by Africans.

As for America and the West, our commitment must be measured by more than just the dollars we spend. I have pledged substantial increases in our foreign assistance, which is in Africa's interest and America's. But the true sign of success is not whether we are a source of aid that helps people scrape by - it is whether we are partners in building the capacity for transformational change.

This mutual responsibility must be the foundation of our partnership. And today, I will focus on four areas that are critical to the future of Africa and the entire developing world: democracy; opportunity; health; and the peaceful resolution of conflict.

First, we must support strong and sustainable democratic governments.

As I said in Cairo, each nation gives life to democracy in its own way, and in line with its own traditions. But history offers a clear verdict: governments that respect the will of their own people are more prosperous, more stable and more successful than governments that do not.

This is about more than holding elections - it's also about what happens between them. Repression takes many forms, and too many nations are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the port authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end.

In the 21st century, capable, reliable and transparent institutions are the key to success - strong parliaments and honest police forces; independent judges and journalists; a vibrant private sector and civil society. Those are the things that give life to democracy, because that is what matters in peoples' lives.

Time and again, Ghanaians have chosen Constitutional rule over autocracy, and shown a democratic spirit that allows the energy of your people to break through. We see that in leaders who accept defeat graciously, and victors who resist calls to wield power against the opposition. We see that spirit in courageous journalists like Anas Aremeyaw Anas, who risked his life to report the truth. We see it in police like Patience Quaye, who helped prosecute the first human trafficker in Ghana. We see it in the young people who are speaking up against patronage and participating in the political process.

Across Africa, we have seen countless examples of people taking control of their destiny and making change from the bottom up. We saw it in Kenya, where civil society and business came together to help stop postelection violence. We saw it in South Africa, where over three quarters of the country voted in the recent election - the fourth since the end of apartheid. We saw it in Zimbabwe, where the Election Support Network braved brutal repression to stand up for the principle that a person's vote is their sacred right.

Make no mistake: history is on the side of these brave Africans and not with those who use coups or change Constitutions to stay in power. Africa doesn't need strongmen, it needs strong institutions.

America will not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation - the essential truth of democracy is that each nation determines its own destiny. What we will do is increase assistance for responsible individuals and institutions, with a focus on supporting good governance - on parliaments, which check abuses of power and ensure that opposition voices are heard; on the rule of law, which ensures the equal administration of justice; on civic participation, so that young people get involved; and on concrete solutions to corruption like forensic accounting, automating services, strengthening hot lines and protecting whistle-blowers to advance transparency and accountability.

As we provide this support, I have directed my administration to give greater attention to corruption in our human rights report. People everywhere should have the right to start a business or get an education without paying a bribe. We have a responsibility to support those who act responsibly and to isolate those who don't, and that is exactly what America will do.

This leads directly to our second area of partnership - supporting development that provides opportunity for more people.

With better governance, I have no doubt that Africa holds the promise of a broader base for prosperity. The continent is rich in natural resources. And from cell phone entrepreneurs to small farmers, Africans have shown the capacity and commitment to create their own opportunities. But old habits must also be broken. Dependence on commodities - or on a single export - concentrates wealth in the hands of the few and leaves people too vulnerable to downturns.

In Ghana, for instance, oil brings great opportunities, and you have been responsible in preparing for new revenue. But as so many Ghanaians know, oil cannot simply become the new cocoa. From South Korea to Singapore, history shows that countries thrive when they invest in their people and infrastructure; when they promote multiple export industries, develop a skilled work force and create space for small and medium-sized businesses that create jobs.

As Africans reach for this promise, America will be more responsible in extending our hand. By cutting costs that go to Western consultants and administration, we will put more resources in the hands of those who need it, while training people to do more for themselves. That is why our $3.5 billion food security initiative is focused on new methods and technologies for farmers - not simply sending American producers or goods to Africa. Aid is not an end in itself. The purpose of foreign assistance must be creating the conditions where it is no longer needed.

America can also do more to promote trade and investment. Wealthy nations must open our doors to goods and services from Africa in a meaningful way. And where there is good governance, we can broaden prosperity through public-private partnerships that invest in better roads and electricity; capacity-building that trains people to grow a business; and financial services that reach poor and rural areas. This is also in our own interest - for if people are lifted out of poverty and wealth is created in Africa, new markets will open for our own goods.

One area that holds out both undeniable peril and extraordinary promise is energy. Africa gives off less greenhouse gas than any other part of the world, but it is the most threatened by climate change. A warming planet will spread disease, shrink water resources and deplete crops, creating conditions that produce more famine and conflict. All of us - particularly the developed world - have a responsibility to slow these trends - through mitigation, and by changing the way that we use energy. But we can also work with Africans to turn this crisis into opportunity.

Together, we can partner on behalf of our planet and prosperity and help countries increase access to power while skipping the dirtier phase of development. Across Africa, there is bountiful wind and solar power; geothermal energy and bio-fuels. From the Rift Valley to the North African deserts; from the Western coast to South Africa's crops - Africa's boundless natural gifts can generate its own power, while exporting profitable, clean energy abroad.

These steps are about more than growth numbers on a balance sheet. They're about whether a young person with an education can get a job that supports a family; a farmer can transfer their goods to the market; or an entrepreneur with a good idea can start a business. It's about the dignity of work. Its about the opportunity that must exist for Africans in the 21st century.

Just as governance is vital to opportunity, it is also critical to the third area that I will talk about - strengthening public health.

In recent years, enormous progress has been made in parts of Africa. Far more people are living productively with HIV/AIDS, and getting the drugs they need. But too many still die from diseases that shouldn't kill them. When children are being killed because of a mosquito bite, and mothers are dying in childbirth, then we know that more progress must be made.

Yet because of incentives - often provided by donor nations - many African doctors and nurses understandably go overseas, or work for programs that focus on a single disease. This creates gaps in primary care and basic prevention. Meanwhile, individual Africans also have to make responsible choices that prevent the spread of disease, while promoting public health in their communities and countries.

Across Africa, we see examples of people tackling these problems. In Nigeria, an interfaith effort of Christians and Muslims has set an example of cooperation to confront malaria. Here in Ghana and across Africa, we see innovative ideas for filling gaps in care - for instance, through E-Health initiatives that allow doctors in big cities to support those in small towns.

America will support these efforts through a comprehensive, global health strategy. Because in the 21st century, we are called to act by our conscience and our common interest. When a child dies of a preventable illness in Accra, that diminishes us everywhere. And when disease goes unchecked in any corner of the world, we know that it can spread across oceans and continents.

That is why my administration has committed $63 billion to meet these challenges. Building on the strong efforts of President Bush, we will carry forward the fight against HIV/AIDS. We will pursue the goal of ending deaths from malaria and tuberculosis, and eradicating polio. We will fight neglected tropical disease. And we won't confront illnesses in isolation - we will invest in public health systems that promote wellness and focus on the health of mothers and children.

As we partner on behalf of a healthier future, we must also stop the destruction that comes not from illness, but from human beings - and so the final area that I will address is conflict.

Now let me be clear: Africa is not the crude caricature of a continent at war. But for far too many Africans, conflict is a part of life, as constant as the sun. There are wars over land and wars over resources. And it is still far too easy for those without conscience to manipulate whole communities into fighting among faiths and tribes.

These conflicts are a millstone around Africa's neck. We all have many identities - of tribe and ethnicity; of religion and nationality. But defining oneself in opposition to someone who belongs to a different tribe, or who worships a different prophet, has no place in the 21st century. Africa's diversity should be a source of strength, not a cause for division. We are all God's children. We all share common aspirations - to live in peace and security; to access education and opportunity; to love our families, our communities, and our faith. That is our common humanity.

That is why we must stand up to inhumanity in our midst. It is never justifiable to target innocents in the name of ideology. It is the death sentence of a society to force children to kill in wars. It is the ultimate mark of criminality and cowardice to condemn women to relentless and systematic rape. We must bear witness to the value of every child in Darfur and the dignity of every woman in Congo. No faith or culture should condone the outrages against them. All of us must strive for the peace and security necessary for progress.

Africans are standing up for this future. Here, too, Ghana is helping to point the way forward. Ghanaians should take pride in your contributions to peacekeeping from Congo to Liberia to Lebanon, and in your efforts to resist the scourge of the drug trade. We welcome the steps that are being taken by organizations like the African Union and ECOWAS to better resolve conflicts, keep the peace, and support those in need. And we encourage the vision of a strong, regional security architecture that can bring effective, transnational force to bear when needed.

America has a responsibility to advance this vision, not just with words, but with support that strengthens African capacity. When there is genocide in Darfur or terrorists in Somalia, these are not simply African problems - they are global security challenges, and they demand a global response. That is why we stand ready to partner through diplomacy, technical assistance, and logistical support, and will stand behind efforts to hold war criminals accountable. And let me be clear: our Africa Command is focused not on establishing a foothold in the continent, but on confronting these common challenges to advance the security of America, Africa and the world.

In Moscow, I spoke of the need for an international system where the universal rights of human beings are respected, and violations of those rights are opposed. That must include a commitment to support those who resolve conflicts peacefully, to sanction and stop those who don't, and to help those who have suffered. But ultimately, it will be vibrant democracies like Botswana and Ghana which roll back the causes of conflict, and advance the frontiers of peace and prosperity.

As I said earlier, Africa's future is up to Africans.

The people of Africa are ready to claim that future. In my country, African-Americans - including so many recent immigrants - have thrived in every sector of society. We have done so despite a difficult past, and we have drawn strength from our African heritage. With strong institutions and a strong will, I know that Africans can live their dreams in Nairobi and Lagos; in Kigali and Kinshasa; in Harare and right here in Accra.

Fifty-two years ago, the eyes of the world were on Ghana. And a young preacher named Martin Luther King traveled here, to Accra, to watch the Union Jack come down and the Ghanaian flag go up. This was before the march on Washington or the success of the civil rights movement in my country. Dr. King was asked how he felt while watching the birth of a nation. And he said: "It renews my conviction in the ultimate triumph of justice."

Now, that triumph must be won once more, and it must be won by you. And I am particularly speaking to the young people. In places like Ghana, you make up over half of the population. Here is what you must know: the world will be what you make of it.

You have the power to hold your leaders accountable and to build institutions that serve the people. You can serve in your communities and harness your energy and education to create new wealth and build new connections to the world. You can conquer disease, end conflicts and make change from the bottom up. You can do that. Yes you can. Because in this moment, history is on the move.

But these things can only be done if you take responsibility for your future. It won't be easy. It will take time and effort. There will be suffering and setbacks. But I can promise you this: America will be with you. As a partner. As a friend. Opportunity won't come from any other place, though - it must come from the decisions that you make, the things that you do, and the hope that you hold in your hearts.

Freedom is your inheritance. Now, it is your responsibility to build upon freedom's foundation. And if you do, we will look back years from now to places like Accra and say that this was the time when the promise was realized - this was the moment when prosperity was forged; pain was overcome; and a new era of progress began. This can be the time when we witness the triumph of justice once more. Thank you

Thursday 9 July 2009

Is Aid Dead? Not to Those Who Think It Alive....


During this years G8 summit I think it only fit to discuss one of the main pressing questions that have gained enormous momentum since the release of the critically acclaimed "Dead Aid" by Dambisa Moyo, that is, the question of "AID" is aid dead in Africa as Ms. Moyo claims or is it the duty of the worlds richest economies to continue to sustain those that are "slacking behind." Now when we phrase it like that the obvious answer would be "of course Africa should be self-sustaining, sure the West cannot keep giving us free money annually."

I would argue the contrary, in fact I would have to respectfully disagree with Ms. Moyo's thesis. She starts her literally piece by first giving a historical account of the economic development and the impact of Aid in Africa. She underlies her economically saturated AFRICAN HISTORY with some useful numbers, designed to supposedly back up her argument, that historically aid has been a detriment to Africa, the lack of any political, social or contextual analysis immediately debilitates her thesis. Africa's story can hardly be analysed in a swift economic recant. In fact, taking such a "class-room" based outlook on such a topic only further distances the author from the people who she seeks to speak on behalf of (the African people). Paul Collier explained very eloquently in his book "The Bottom Billion," that too often "aid" is viewed from too much of a partisan lens, an approach which so often reiterates the old saying "viewing the world from your own lenses." "What is it about aid that causes such intense political disagreement?" he says "It seems to bring out the worst in both left and right. The left seems to want to regard aid as some sort of reparations for colonialism. In other words, it is a statement about the guilt of Western society, not about development...The right seems to want to equate aid with "welfare scrounging." In other words, it is rewarding the feckless and so accentuating the problem."

Ms. Moyo falls under the latter. Ms. Moyo's answer to Aid, is to replace it with the so called “free market”, i.e, let capitalism pave the way out of poverty, very often forgetting that Capitalism never was and never will be concerned with the poor (as if Flint Michigan was not a wake up call , Marx would be turning in his grave). The basis for her argument is essentially "corruption", since aid regimes (in her view) have no regulatory structures annexed to them, they are free to be abused by the leaders and therefore aid doesn't work, nor does it drive innovation (I wonder where the cause and effect is, aid and leadership are mutually exclusive, if access to aid is stifled by corrupt leadership then surely we cannot say that AID in itself is the problem?). But wait CAPITALISM is the answer, let the market rule after all no one is wiser than that of the market. This should be viewed with great concern especially us Africans, who like Moyo all desire the betterment of our continent. It is as if Moyo has not been living in this world the past couple of years where this so called market has not necessarily regulated itself.

Free Trade, Free Trade is the underlying mantra of "dead aid," it is advocated as a path for encouraging exports. But this in itself has not be proven, Ghana is used as a successful example, but she refuses to comment on the effects it had in the over-valuing the Ghanaian cede and making exports expensive, once exports are expensive interest in export declines. Not to forget the much too publicized effect of free trade, i.e, unfair trade practices which more than often puts developing countries at a disadvantage. Going back to seeing from one's own lenses, contrary to what Moyo states, according to Collier the middle ground should be (that is, not the leftist or rightist approach) what he dubbs "the thin silver of sanity called aid for development," after all that is essentially what the goal is. As much as I may grin from cheek to cheek at the fact that the Colonialists are paying back Africa's version of reparations, essentially what is important is whether this so called reparation goes towards development. Collier takes his stance from the perspective of the BOTTOM BILLION, those bottom poor of the world to whom without AID destitution would be a wish, to those bottom billion (of which majority of the African nations fall under), a reasonable estimate is that "over the last thirty years it has [AID] added around one percent point to the annual growth rate of the bottom billion." he continues "This does not sound like a whole lot, but then the growth rate of the bottom billion over this period has been much less than 1percent per year- in fact, it has been zero. So adding 1percent has made the difference between stagnation and severe cumulative decline." Come again Moyo?

Perhaps her most daring statement was that "the Chinese are our friends." Reading these few lines my skin flinches and I start to develop this allergic reaction, on close examination I come to find that I am allergic to the juxtaposition of the words "the Chinese are our friends," in explaining Africa's current economic relationship with China. This seems to me more hypocritical than any, amid the shameful acts of human rights abuse in Africa supported by no less than Chinese arms dealing and transference of power play from the West to the Far East, Ms. Moyo seems to think that somehow China would be much kinder to us than their Western counterparts? Where is this proof? But obviously in interviews where this question is raised she shrugs of this genuine concern with once again this idea that Africa is a supposed equal partner and "open to all." If the Dalai Lama's refusal of visa to South Africa (for the fear that China may reverse it funding for the World Cup games) does not ring a disturbing bell in one's ears I would not know what will, perhaps we shall finally wake up when all our currency reads "made in China."

It is a shame that Moyo does not go directly to those rural areas where aid programs are particularly designed merely to sustain life (and do in fact work), to bring but a new day for another, those rural areas where class-room based economics means nothing but just a way to feed one's child just for another day in hope for a brighter future. On the question of how aid programs actually help those in need, those who cannot wait another minute let alone another day for a structured government system to be designed, she conveniently shrugs it off and goes back to the stump speech "aid is not working."

I rest on Collier's thesis, the problem with poverty in Africa cannot be explained by elaborate one area themed approach, Collier has gone further in analysing the various traps through which a nation can remain in poverty, aid is effective given certain preconditions, often aid is carried out by aid agencies, which has according to Collier proved to be more successful than resource rents (e.g. Oil). On the other hand, the step into the right direction is a dialogue among all those concerned as to the future of Africa..It is refreshing to have young intellectuals like Moyo come on-board ready to offer alternative approaches, and I believe there should be a lot more Moyo's, Africa more than anything needs new ideas...for in the famous words of Tu Pac "the old way isn't working so it's on us to do what we have to do..to survive".

Sunday 5 July 2009

Why Obama Chose Ghana...Ahead of July 10th


It should be no surprise that Obama chose Ghana for his first trip as U.S President to Sub-Saharan Africa. What seems more of a surprise is the supposed outrage coming out of nations such as Kenya and Nigeria, or even South Africa. The populist rants on facebook and other social networking spaces makes me feel nauseated, "what's so great about Ghana? Nigeria is after all the most popular nation in Africa and guess what we have oil," or " how can he betray Kenya, his father was born here, are we no longer good for him" seems to be the order of the month. But wait what makes Ghana any less worthy than Kenya or Nigeria? We are seriously missing the point (as usual we (Africans) love to criticise and very rarely sit, scratch our heads in view of the context within which we "doth protest.")

First of all Kenya has become an embarrassment, a shame really, this is not personal it is all politics. Kenya was once the pride of Africa, now it is its laughing stock. Do women really need to restrict sex as a last hope for political action? You know your case is hopeless when even this last desperate attempt does not work. In a world where a politician can claim a suit against his wife for denying him sex all that can be said is that "they really do not get it." South Africa with Zuma’s elections and rising violence does not ring a hopeful tune in the ears of the man whose campaign slogan was that of HOPE.
As for Nigeria, let me not even go there...I will however, discuss why it is more than fitting for the US president to visit a nation like Ghana...Yes I will dare to defend this decision.

The small nation of Ghana (barely the size of Oregon), since independence has been the gateway to Africa. Ghana's African record setting has been unmatched, since the fateful day of March 6 1957, Ghana has given Africa many gifts including Nkrumah, who introduced and spent his life promoting the novel idea of Pan-Africanism. Ghana powered West Africa with the first Dam of its kind. The very name Ghana (Warrior King), embodies historical prowess. The engraved sense of self-determination won us our independence from our European counterparts (the first Sub-Saharan African nation to do so). Yet it is not only Ghana's history which makes it so unique, nor what sets it apart for the honour of being the first nation to be visited by the first Black African United States president. It is Ghana's future, it is the will of the people to always be in charge of their future which makes Ghana ripe for such a visit, the need to defile any such myths that African's cannot be lovers of peace and democracy is what lies at the heart of Ghana's future.

Now the cynics would say "ahh but guess what Ghana just discovered oil, so it is no surprise that Obama chose to visit Ghana." BUT why have we come to look at natural resources with such disdain? Obama surely has the interest of the United States in mind on his trip to Ghana (as he should, after all he is US president), but so long as the Ghanaian leadership have the interest of Ghana at heart, any such agreement with the US should be for the sole reason of elevating Ghana to the status of an equal world partner, not one dependent on handouts from foreign governments and certainly not one to be hung on a string ready for manoeuvring. If Obama wanted an oil producing country where he can gain access to hundreds of barrels of oil for a cheap price negotiated secretly inspite of its countries interests, Ghana surely would not have been first stop (we are forgetting a country two borders away from Ghana where such a transaction is the order of the day). No offense, but this cynical approach to international relations is frankly narrow-headed and extremely disrespectful to Ghana, because at its heart lies the premise that Ghana would surely not be receiving such a visit were it not for its oil find, this is absurd!

Obama's trip will seek to mix the past with the future, he will come to represent his African American brothers and sisters whose ancestors were brutally removed from the continent centuries ago....encapsulated by the planned visit to the Cape Coast Castle a historical fortress which marked the biggest passage ways for the Atlantic Slave trade. The Irony, however, is that Obama's history is that linked to Kenya, his ancestors were not slaves, but this experience in a way would be a time of reflection and a chance to gain more of an insight into the history of the people who made his election a reality.

So finally why Ghana? Because Ghana is Africa in every way, Ghana is its history, and Ghana is Africa's future, Ghana is where others should be and the story of Ghana is the story of the Africa very rarely published in world news. Obama's visit should be a point of pride for every African because the optimism of Ghana will show that a new Africa has arrived and will be here to stay.