Kayiѐ’s World..... “As I See It”!

A Critical Overview of Ghana's Petroleum Revenues Management Bill 2010

2010-12-04T11:25:00.000-08:00

As Ghana gears towards ‘first oil,’ 15 December to be exact, its law and policy-makers scramble to create legal regimes designed to stand the test of time and set Ghana (unlike its African counter-parts) towards the non-resource curse path. To achieve this end, the government and its policy advisors over the past year have intrigued the populace with an array of policy options, some designed to provoke public debate, others clearly not, but all with the hope of pointing the country towards a prudent and well-managed natural resource sector. Included in this list of policy alternatives is the design of a revenue management regime for the country’s nascent petroleum sector. As well as a thoughtful and well conceived licensing regime and contractual basis, the management of natural resources like Greek columns should ideally be supported by concrete revenue provisions.

It is on this background that the Petroleum Revenues Management Bill (PRMB) was recently put before the Ghanaian Parliament’s Select Committee on Mines and Energy. Unlike its sister, the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Bill 2010, the PRMB has sparked tremendous controversy and public opinion, not least because at the heart of the PRMB lies its core aim, that is how revenues accruing from the petroleum rents would be managed and allocated. So far buzz words are determining the agenda; “no to collateral,” “yes to Collateral,” “public accountability,” “transparency.” Buzz words, it seems, that have left the general populace mystified by the whole process. A general note to a friend recently ended with “so what is the situation on ground like in Ghana at the moment?” His reply, “Oh, cloud-cuckoo land mostly!” Cloud cuckoo land indeed!

To bring us all back from the brink of cloud-cuckoo land, it would perhaps be prudent to take a detailed glance at the Bill section by section to ascertain some major areas that might be of concern, and where a close scrutiny, it is presumed, might offer a discerning and more informed public discourse. As one author posited in the renowned publication by Joseph Stiglitz and co, in Escaping the Resource Curse, a “resource dependent economy, the magnitude of [resource] receipts, and the difficulties of control suggest the need for [a] special legislation directed to the particular problems posed by such revenues.” The publication is designed to offer a comprehensive analysis of essential aspects needed in any forward looking revenues management law, a sort of best practices manual so to speak. The authors’ focal point is to ascertain how governments can structure their laws so as to build effective revenue management institutions. In comparing the recommendations from various such publications and looking at particular country specific case studies, this note is intended to share with the reader international best practice models in relations to analysing the strength and deficiencies in the current PRMB. My findings therefore are as follows:

First glance of the PRMB makes a good read. Overall the "PRMB" makes a fair attempt at covering all the necessary provisions needed for a nascent oil and gas industry, while at the same time attempting (though in some cases not succeeding) to pay attention to a Country specific design, that is, not being viewed as a copy-paste publication. However novel this attempt is, the novelty wears out when one discovers a seemingly novel Bill that lacks in some parts Greek columns to hold them up. That is, there were certain best practice provisions that, without having to employ the copy-paste design, were either missing or frankly vague at best. So let’s take a step by step approach in analysing the provisions of the Bill as it stands.

1. Given the central importance of Oil Revenues, the management, transparency, the protection of oil funds may be enhanced by the establishment of separate segregated accounts: SECTION 2(1) of the Bill does so by first establishing the Petroleum Account, a general account to be designated at the Bank of Ghana which receives and disburses Petroleum Revenues due to the Country (including royalties, profit oil share, income taxes, participation funds and any other amounts related). Best practice stipulates that such a fund should be generally utilised predominantly for development funding. For a developing country (or as some would prefer, emerging economy) such projects would include the improvement of healthcare, infrastructure development, access to education, investment in non-resource based sectors and so on.

SECTION 10 (1) (2) establishes the Ghana Petroleum Funds, a general fund serving two purposes. First, it provides for a Stabilisation Fund, revenues from which are used only to restore budgetary imbalances, during times of fluctuating or low oil prices and or crises. Essentially when prices are high often times spending increases due to increased rents; when prices are low, however, such high spending cannot be sustained. This results in a stop-go form of development, the resulting effect being increased pressures to borrow, providing evidence as to why majority of resource rich countries become heavily indebted. Such a fund, thus, with its annual spending limits, is designed to avoid this problem since the formulas act to smooth expenditures even during periods of significant price fluctuations. Second, it provides for a Heritage Fund, a generational fund so to speak. Due to the non-renewable status of Petroleum resources, the Heritage Fund is designed for future generations as a revenue source when oil resources ran out. Without having to spell it out clearly, these provisions provide the back-backbone for a strong Bill.

2. In general one would expect the definition of revenue to be as comprehensive as possible. SECTION 6 makes such provisions. The definition of revenues in the section encompasses oil receipts, rents, government participation and so on. Another strong provision in the sense that, items not included in the general definition of the term would ideally be left out, creating avenues for revenue haemorrhaging, the first tell tale signs of corruption.

3. So far the bells of transparency have been ringing, another buzz word thrown around for public sentiment, but rarely ever explained. Transparency? Where? Are we discussing contract transparency? or is transparency a general term, thrown in because it sounds great and complies with international best practice? The Bill approaches transparency in several manners, mostly not clothed in the language of transparency but essentially achieving the same end. The first is designed to tackle the issue of transparency at the terminalling point, that is, at the point where funds are received to the account. To enhance transparency and to avoid possible diversion or delay, payments to the general account which receives the Petroleum revenues are stipulated to be made by transfer directly into the account by the entity bearing the payment obligation. SECTION 3 to that effect stipulates that the Petroleum Revenue assessed as due in each month shall be paid by DIRECT TRANSFERS into the Petroleum Account... Now considering the need for high levels of accountability and transparency a stronger provision would envisage payments to the account only by means of ELECTRONIC transfer so as to avoid cash-in-hand situation, yet another avenue for corruption. Electronic transfers enhance transparency as no physical monies passes through the bureaucratic arms of government or individual players. NOTE: The PRMB does not make provision for transfer by ELECTRONIC means, merely that it should be by DIRECT TRANSFER...Clearly this provision must be strengthened to state specifically ELECTRONIC.

4. While ordinary accounts may be subject to electronic transfer orders simply from the Central Bank, an oil account requires a more formal structure to provide protection where institutions are not strongly and deeply entrenched (such is the case in Ghana). In the Sao Tome and Principe case, for example, (which provides an excellent backdrop since in part the PRMB was modelled after Sao Tome’s), signatures of four officials from different government departments are required on withdrawal orders. Additionally in the Sao Tome example, it is even possible to delay the time between the withdrawal requests to actual receipt of funds outside the designated account. The present PRMB makes no such provisions, as such whereas strong transparency language may have provided a backdrop, the so called tooth needed to back up the seemingly strong animal is essentially missing.

5. It is also vital that any such revenue management regime provides mechanisms that deal with payments of the expenses relating to the funds as they are. These would include Custodial Charges, Payments of Investments Advisors, Transaction Charges and Possible Refunds (for instance, where over-payments have been made). In principle and practically, these are essential for a number of reasons. As the old saying goes, a job well paid is a job well done. This mantra is even more relevant in the Petroleum sector. A comprehensive detail of a compensation mechanism and the treatment of expenses for those to whom the country entrust its resource revenues seem only too natural. SECTION 9 addresses the expenses of the Bank of Ghana, who according to the PRMB is charged with the day-to-day management of the Petroleum Funds.

Now another buzz item in the news recently has been whether Ghana should vest such funds in-house or direct them to a Custodial institution outside the country. Though the author has opinions on this matter it seems an issue that deserves to be treated in much greater detail and therefore beyond the scope of this piece. However, in our present case, unless the Bank of Ghana has been known in the past or currently to have been mismanaged and or be corrupt, the author sees no reason, in this regard, to simply copy and paste international best practices.

6. A further control which might or might not be included in the instructions to the Custodial institution is the limit to which funds are to be transferred from the general account to the budget. International best practice would suggest a single annual withdrawal. Though this is one of the cases in which Country specific circumstances might stipulate different treatment. In Norway for example, there is no cap as such, withdrawals from the Oil Fund are set equal to the deficit in the budget, and the build-up of the permanent fund depends solely on annual discretionary decisions regarding the budget. The Saotomean Law establishes a limit by setting a single annual withdrawal to a certain percentage. The appropriate choice for Ghana would require country specific determinants. Setting a cap or limit to on annual withdrawals ensures over-spending is avoided; though another justification might be made for the Norwegian path and would suggest that for a developing country like Ghana where often budgetary deficits are common, flexibility should be the ultimate goal, a more flexible regime might be required to meet changes in annual spending patterns. Once again a very careful analysis keeping abreast of the situation on ground is ideal to drawing the best conclusions. As it currently stands the PRMB.

SECTION 19, attempt at addressing these concerns in sub-sections 1 and 2 which stipulate that “Beginning the year 2011, the Annual Budget Funding Amount from petroleum revenues shall be set within the range of fifty to seventy percent of the Benchmark Revenue…. The exact percentage of the Benchmark Revenue which shall be adopted as the Annual Budget Funding Amount shall vary from year to year guided by a medium-term development strategy aligned with a long-term development framework, the economy’s absorptive capacity and the need for prudent macroeconomic management.” It seems in this case the framers of the Bill attempted a middle-ground solution, where, though for the year 2011 the funding from the petroleum revenues accrued to the budget is limited to a range of 50 – 70% benchmark revenue, the Bill attempts flexibility for the determination of annual revenues to the budget from the petroleum account in the subsequent years: a fusion it seems of the Norwegian and Sao-Tome examples. A stronger provision would however attempt at creating flexibility even with the limits for the succeeding years.

7. Additionally a PRM Law must specify restrictions as to areas of use. Again, this follows the trend of international best practice. SECTION 22 makes such provisions, spending from the Petroleum Revenues are restricted to certain areas, including: agriculture, human resource development, infrastructure, and so on. Ideally, the trend should follow a national development plan, and or poverty reduction strategy, such as the case in Sao Tome, though the Sao Tome provisions are broad and make no specific arrangement for sectoral allocations. On the other hand, the Alaskan model of direct distribution to citizens should be avoided. A direct distribution plan “would work only if it were managed in ways that are uncharacteristic of most-rich developing country governments,” a main characteristic of which is the rent-seeking behaviour, which in the case of direct distribution would be shifted from government to citizens. One consequence of such a model would be to encourage large-scale migration, where new immigrants try to enter to benefit from such rents. The Alaskan model works in a sense because harsh weather conditions and the cost of moving has shielded Alaska and prevented large-scale migration from other U.S States. Therefore in the Alaska case, direct distribution is justifiable since on an annual basis there exists high predictability in population trends.

8. A PRM Law must also provide a clear governance structure covering the main oil fund asset management functions: that is, an Investment Policy, Selection and Oversight of Investment Managers, Selection of Custodial Institution. Coupled with lucid mandates these management functions should include a compensation policy and governance rules for oversight committees. SECTION 31 - 38, of the PRMB addresses rules governing the investment committee and its functions. SECTION 42 addresses the oversight and reporting of the Committee.

9. The Minister of Finance in particular plays a key role in the management of the Petroleum revenues. This includes his role in advising or approving investment decisions with the operational management of revenues delegated to the Central Bank, pursuant to a Management Agreement. The Minister of Finance’s duties will amount to general overseer of petroleum revenues, and his functions should amount to no less than a co-trustee. SECTION 26-27 makes provisions for these functions.

10. Furthermore, an oil revenue Law should limit an oil funds investment to certain secure and non-speculative instruments. SECTION 29 of the BILL deals with such provisions. Note, however, that the Ghana BILL does not stipulate the prohibition of investment within the country. Doing so would help limit political influence in the funds choice of investment. SECTION 5 does, however, prohibit borrowing against Oil revenues, a provision which is currently vulnerable. Basic understanding of the issue is being clouded by emotional sentiment and not necessarily prudent assessment. Simply put, by collateralising Oil revenues, the country will be setting itself up for vulnerability during hard times. For instance, in times of high oil prices it might seem agreeable to borrow heavily and vest much of that against the countries oil revenues, save for the fact that oil prices are highly volatile, this essentially means when prices drop as they have done time and time again, our spending patterns change, hence, the need for a stabilization fund (discussed above) during such times to balance the budget during the shortfall. Collateralising vests future revenues in the hands of lenders meaning that in times of hardship there will be no alternate avenue for fall-back, such that to give credibility to continued developmental projects which have the consequence of annual budget increases, the country would continue to borrow until borrowing can no longer be sustainable. Now this is a cycle can be avoid. A clear prohibition on borrowing against oil revenues is the surest way to avoid such a mishap.

11. Given the significance of oil revenues and the limitations on existing institutions, it may also be desirable to consider the establishment of additional oversight groups, especially groups that encompass the ideal of public participation, including civil society and other stakeholders, elements not represented in government. SECTION 53-59 authorises the establishment of the "Public Interest and Accountability Committee" (another provision currently under parliamentary attack). This section has come a long way from its infancy to its current state, the committee has shifted from being envisioned as a simple advisory body to an entity tasked with oversight duties, providing yet another avenue for custodial oversight. To be more effective, however, the Committee should be accorded decision-making powers or be conferred influential powers with regard to the direction of Petroleum revenues investment. Without such decision-making powers such a body can easily be overlooked.

12. Internal, External and Independent Auditing is covered by SECTION 46-50. Such auditors provide additional oversight but outside the ambit of government and public sector control. Their independence therefore must be assured. A detail stipulation of auditor independence is therefore essential.

13. No provisions are made in the current Bill for private pronouncement of rights or Judicial Controls. It is important that the roles of all arms of government are stipulated in the Bill. This includes the Judiciary and the limits of their powers, if any. Legal Sanctions are, however, provided for under SECTION 61.

14. Overall, the transparency provisions are much too vague and although section on ministerial discretion for determination of confidentiality was rectified (ministerial discretionary powers have been limited, to the extent that confidentiality may not be declared without Parliamentary approval), it seems overall the transparency features of the Bill are vague at best. A clear separation of items that might fall under the determination of confidential should be highlighted and like-wise items that do not fall under-confidentiality should be stipulated to further curb discretionary powers and limit opportunities to over-use such discretionary powers. SECTION 51 sets the transparency agenda.

Slight "Qualification" On An Earlier Note!

2010-10-23T12:34:00.000-07:00

Okay so I was a little perturbed after reading Moyo's book. But it seams in fact my frustration at Moyo's peace did not exist in a vacuum, it seems even Jeffrey Sachs (if you don't know him google him), sympathises with my frustration. In a recent conference held at St. Andrews, Scotland (of which I attended), he was equally disturbed by the sudden disregard for the good AID has done, citing various developmental projects that have in fact helped alleviate the devastating effects of poverty. To that end, my basic disconnect from Moyo's peace still stands...

This is where I may slightly modify my stance, my previous comments again as a recap:

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."

First of all, the Chinese are in no way responsible for our Human Rights abuses, responsibility lies solely with our leaders and our leaders alone...NOTE, however, that if weapons are supplied by the Chinese to aid in any such acts of abuse, or where their association with despots emboldens them to continue acts of human disregard, THAT, I have a problem with (and this goes for the West as well as the Chinese).

Secondly, "the Chinese are our friends," I still flinch at this slightly naive interpretation of economic partnership, that's unless Moyo actually meant it as a form of sarcasm, then I would understand. The crucks of the matter is as follows, The Chinese are interested in economic expansion, this means conquering new markets and forming economic partnerships world-wide, this is especially so with resource rich countries. Purely strategic moves designed to secure Chinese economic dominance and ensure energy security. This is not EVIL, no it's actually what every country aims for. These interests need not be mutually exclusive to Africa's interest for the simple fact that the Chinese need what we have (i.e. natural resources) and they have what we need (i.e. cash money and lots of it). I do still stand by this phrase "Moyo seems to think that somehow China would be much kinder to us than their Western counterparts? Where is this proof?" Indeed there is absolutely no proof, but this is besides the point. Ultimately, where the West and East compete for our resources we are the resultant winners; there should be a slight caveat here, which is, if we notice this competition and act in our best interest to get the best deal out of it....START WITH SMART NEGOTIATION SKILLS.

In conclusion, I still don't want to wake up one day to find "made in China" on my currency, but Chino-African relations hardly needs to be painted in such simple terms for the relationship is more complicated and intricate than we might at first assume. In this modern age, any African government that allows its resources to be hijacked by Western or Eastern interests can hardly cry the good old song of NEO-COLONIALISM.

Human Rights: Law or Just Statements of Aspiration?

2009-11-22T11:07:00.000-08:00

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)

Charles Taylor; Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Maybe..

2009-07-14T17:31:00.000-07:00

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.

Ye Ma Wo Akwaaba Wofa Obama!

2009-07-11T09:39:00.001-07:00

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

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

2009-07-09T09:36:00.000-07:00

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".

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

2009-07-05T05:30:00.000-07:00

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.

On June 25th 2009....I Cried

2009-07-04T19:16:00.001-07:00

Sometime on June 25th I cried, I cried for my childhood and I cried for his too. I cried and cried and cried till I could not cry any longer..I cried because I knew that a part of me was gone, I cried becuase he only wanted to be loved, I cried because he was a precious gift, yet we only got to learn that too late. I cried because he wasn't like the rest of us and needed our patience, I cried because I my dream to meet him had vanished..yet I cried because he was so close to me, I cried because I was conflicted and yet still I cried because he was never confused about who he was but we always wanted to put him in a box.

Can I possibly cry anymore? Oh yes, becuase for me crying is the only way to let out all that I feel...I feel too much. MJ you were not just another artist, to me you were EVERYTHING.

I realise now that I took you for granted, that I always thought you would be with me when I needed you, after all whenever you needed me to defend you I was there ... "no of course he did not bleech his skin" I would rant, so you could not just hang around just a little longer for me? (maybe that's a selfish thought), but at least you should have tried harder to stay, but could you? You were too tired, we wanted tooo much of you..you had given us all a human being could give and yet we wanted so much more..we sucked it all out of you.

"Gone too soon," couldn't see you do your last moon walk, you just went too soon, but they say that you are still with us..but where? I want to be where you are if you are still with us. Did you hide somewhere? Michael? are you playing your games again? I know you like to play practical jokes and I hope this is one of them, tell me so I can come looking for you becuase I cannot stop crying.

Come back...

Marx on the Finanicial Crisis!

2009-01-31T06:38:00.000-08:00

This article was written by one of my Professor's, August Nimtz from the University of Minnesota. It offers a different insight into the current economic crisis. Enjoy!

Marx on the Financial Crisis

Never has the fate of so many been impacted by the actions of so few. Such is what the collapse of the world's stock markets beginning in the second week of October 2008 demonstrated. While no one can say for certain where the current crisis is headed in the short run, what occurred was in fact a historic moment for world humanity. It revealed that our destinies are intertwined in ways that only a few were able to foresee. Until recently many in Europe thought that the crisis, which began apparently with the U.S. sub-prime mortgage boondoggle, was just an American problem. They like others throughout the world have learned the hard way what the young Karl Marx saw as early as 1848--that capital has no borders. In its insatiable need to penetrate every nook and cranny of the globe in quest of profits, capital unites all of humanity but without consciousness and, thus, plan.

While recognizing the dynamism of capitalism, its unprecedented productive capabilities, Marx and Engels, also in the Communist Manifesto, pointed to its inherently destabilizing character. The very prescient observation that with the new economic system came "everlasting uncertainty"--"all that is solid melts into air"--has resonance as never before.

Most striking about the crisis is that the individuals who actually packaged and sold the belatedly acknowledged toxic mortgage securities, along with, their "insurance," the so-called credit default swaps, probably number no more than a few thousand, if that. Squirreled away in the recesses and board rooms of investment houses like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers, this most exclusive club helped erect a house of cards whose collapse threatens the livelihoods of hundreds of millions.

As the layers surrounding the roots of the crisis are being peeled back, it's clear that the mortgage shell game was merely the outer face of the deeper and real problem. Nothing testifies better to this than the almost incomprehensible fact that the market value of all derivatives--basically, bets--of which credit default swaps are a major component, is somewhere in the neighborhood of five hundred trillion dollars! A half quadrillion dollars or, 35 times the size of the GNP of the U.S.! Marx had a name for such financial instruments, "fictitious capital".

What explains such disconnect with the "real economy"? Quite simply, capital always gravitates to where returns on investments are higher. Over time, the production of goods and services under capitalism, as Marx argued, is less remunerative--the tendency for the average rate of profits to decline. The massive flow of capital into speculation, be it sub-prime mortgages or whatever the fantasy du jour, and not the production of goods and services that could actually serve humanity, is the necessary response to this tendency. This is all the more true when such risky behavior is "insured"--what credit default swaps promised. The chickens have yet to come home to roost on that ruse.

But what is most instructive about the crisis is the inherently undemocratic nature of capitalism. The many did not and could not vote for the few whose decisions are so life-determinant. As long as capital is private property, the very foundation of capitalism, its owners are virtually free--what they mean by "freedom" and "liberty"--to do with it whatever they think is in their interests regardless of the consequences for the rest of us.

But what about those for whom the many can vote, the president who appoints the head of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Secretary, the head of regulatory agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the members of congress? Aren't they supposed to represent the interests of the rest of us? I leave aside the fact that those living beyond U.S. borders but impacted by Washington don't have this right--a source of seething resentment.

If this crisis has taught working people a lesson they didn't already know, it's that the political system in place, not only in Washington, but elsewhere where capital reigns, is one of the rich, for the rich and by the rich. The still young American republic taught the young Marx in 1843, on his road to communist conclusions, that inequalities in wealth made for unequal political outcomes. Originally, it was government of the slave owners, followed later, after the Civil War, by government of the industrial capitalists. The seven-hundred billion dollar bailout simply confirms what has existed for more than three-quarters of a century--government of, specifically, finance capital. That both capitalist presidential candidates voted for the package--with Obama taking a more active role to ensure its passage--against the will of the majority simply registers this fact. Workers, therefore, won't be administering the properties, the banks and AIG, they unwillingly bought. Finance capital will do that--precisely why this isn't the nationalized property of workers.

Until the working class has its own political system, it will be forced to shoulder the crisis--the socialization of the costs of the bailout while the profits are privatized or, "socialism" for the rich. The stop-gap measures being put in place may slow the free fall in the stock exchanges that began in the second week of October, but they won't prevent what will be the deepest downturn in capitalist economies since the Great Depression and perhaps ever. A sober reminder: New Deal policies didn't end the collapse--the Second World War did. Fifty million dead and the New American Century! Plus ça change, plus c'est la mème chose.

(By the way, whoever claims to know where the crisis is headed should be asked the following question: what were you saying a year, two or even five years ago about the health of the economy? The only surprise for most who call themselves Marxists is that it has taken so long for the bubble to burst and trigger the real turmoil, on so-called "Main Street." Drawing on the two-decade old analysis by the U.S. Socialist Workers Party--the lessons of the 1987 stock market crash--I wrote in 2002, "it's not a question whether recession or depression will come to the shores of the United States but only when.")

History makes clear that only when the working class acts in its own interest, independent of capitalist parties--including, yes, the Democratic Party--can it make gains. Never should it be forgotten that it was in the midst of the Depression, a shrinking economy, when U.S. rulers, led by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, made concessions in the form of social security, unemployment insurance, and aid to families of dependent children (AFDC). Ruling elites saw the light because they felt the heat of mass working class protests in the streets of Minneapolis and elsewhere--actions they thought could challenge the system of capitalism itself. But such concessions are always tenuous as long as workers do not constitute the actual rulers of society. Witness the demise of AFDC at the hands of the Democratic Clinton administration in 1996.

Ninety miles off their southern shores U.S. workers are being offered another lesson. In the aftermath of hurricanes Gustav and Ike, in which Cubans lost a third of their food stuffs and tens of thousands of their homes, but only seven deaths, an organized effort is under way that ensures that no one starves and no one is homeless. That's possible because not only did Cubans challenge capitalism, but they replaced it with a socio-economic and political system--certainly a work in progress--that prioritizes the interests of workers and farmers.

As the economic crisis deepens in the U.S., that is, as the backs of working people are increasingly pushed against the wall and the inevitable resistance develops, the lesson Cuba offers will have--provided there are those willing to make the case--real currency. Like capital, as Marx and Engels declared, labor too has no borders. If Cuba, a society with far less resources, can meet the minimal needs of all its citizens--as well as those of other countries where its teachers and medical personnel serve--there is no excuse why the U.S. with so much more cannot do qualitatively better. The fundamental obstacle, I argue, is a political system, a state, that advances first and foremost the interests of the wealthy minority at the expense of the majority--what the Cuban revolution ended after 1959.

Little wonder that Washington, in the interest of its capitalist patrons, maintains an almost fifty year-old policy--which won't change with whoever won the presidency on November 4--that prevents U.S. workers travelling freely to the island to learn and make up their own minds about a working class alternative to, literally, business as usual.

August Nimtz, Professor of Political Science, University of Minnesota; animtz@tc.umn.edu. Last book: Marx, Tocqueville and Race in America: The 'Absolute Democracy' of 'Defiled Republic'.

Bipartisanship......Is anyone worried??

2009-01-29T13:22:00.000-08:00

Okay let's get one thing clear. I understand the need for bipartisanship and I equally understand the need to fulfil this campaign promise inter alia. BUT President Obama, goodness has not this bipartisan crap gone too far???

President Obama has pulled all the strings, dispatching his top economic advisor's to sooth the ego's of the party which refuses to accept defeat, inviting them along to talks intended only for his economic team, cocktails, all this to get SOME Republicans to wake up and smell the coffee and realise that these times we are in are bigger than their egos by signing on to this urgent fiscal bill, intended to shore up the economy and get millions of people back to work or on their feet.

In sticking to his campaign promise to reach out to the other side, Obama compromised many great projects, the chance to employ many in repairing and refurbishing the national mall, family planning programmes (not only to create jobs, but because the least we need in this economy are any more unwanted babies), slashing down the infrastructure budget (extremely bad idea after the bridge Collapse in Minnesota in 2007, the loss of energy recently to millions of households all due to bad electrical lines which are apparently non-resistant to snow....God knows many roads and bridges are 50 years due for repairs)...ALL this to please the Republicans and guess what..... ZERO percent vote by republicans for a bill which has been watered down to make them feel better.....You're kidding me!

I hope the Obama administration has learnt a lesson from this. I completely respect the need for bipartisanship BUT Americans voted for a change for many reasons, one of which is for the new administration not to be anything like its predecessor on policy grounds..The republicans cannot have their way since their numbers in both houses would not permit.....SO why is President Obama pandering to these nutheads? Like Obama rightly said a few days ago when these same people tried to shut him down, " I WON" he said. So Mr. President act like you won and please, please... send these people back to political exile....

With all due respect!

"This house believes we should give unconditional free AIDS medicines to Africa"

2008-12-05T04:38:00.000-08:00

To all those who attended the debate earlier this evening, thanks for coming. There was a lot I wanted to say but time did not permit. I have thought about the implications of this particular proposition for many years now and have came to the conclusion that due to Africa's current state of affairs free antiretroviral drugs would be the easiest solution to sustaining life, lives that are so vital to the development of the continent. Now, there are those who will claim that anti-aids drugs do not prevent hiv/aids and I will have to agree BUT who said that providing free health care and access to education need be mutually exclusive?

I voted for the proposition for many reasons but I suppose the most fundamental being that as a human being of African descent I cannot possibly sit aimlessly debating politics while I watch my continents workforce wasted away by this unwanted enemy. Those who argue that free drugs to Africa is impractical obviously do not know that some countries in Africa have already started offering free medication to its citizens and the failure or success of these programs have been with regards to how they are implemented and not their pure existence.

During the debate I was quite amazed at the flawed argument given by my Zimbabwean friend, arguing for the opposition, and using ZIM and Botswana as his ONLY examples, he gave two similar numbers of hiv/aids prevalence in these two countries, with Botswana offering HIV/AIDS medication to its citizens and ZIM not. He argued that because of this offering free medication to Africa is in his words "frankly a waste of money". My Zim friend on the other hand, failed to take into account that while Botswana had given free medication to its citizenry, it failed to combine this with adequate preventative education thereby making the situation worse, so while on one hand you have individuals living longer with the disease because of medication more and more people are contracting the disease because of lack of adequate education. My Zim friend also conveniently left out (perhaps for lack of knowledge) the fact that Uganda is also another country which has offered free antiretroviral drugs to its citizens and this program combined with adequate preventative educational system has seen drastic decreases in the numbers of newly infected and the number of deaths in that country. More recently however, Uganda’s shift in prevention policy away from the former "ABC" process towards a US-backed abstinence only program has been responsible for an increase in risky behaviour, why is this? Well, because the lack of comprehensive sex education and condom promotion are no longer preached in the mainstream, so since the ABSTINENCE program HIV/AIDS rate in Uganda has actually increased but not due to access to free medication. There has been no proven link between giving access to free medication, to the increase in the prevalence of the virus, there has however, been a link to the this and longer life among those already living with the virus.Why is it important that these people live? Well, because those dying are the working force of their respective countries, they are the mothers and fathers of children and they are the ones that sustain the economies of their countries. When they die children are left orphaned, the very few jobs available are lost, hence, worsening the already burdened economies of these countries.

Those who claim that providing free medication is some sort of ideal (one you that can only be found in a perfect world) are obviously wrong as proven by extremely poor countries who have tried this method. Contrary to popular belief, drug companies are not going to go bankrupt should that happen. The German drug company Boehringer Ingelheim has offered to provide free of charge the anti-retroviral drug neviraphine to countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and so far only two countries have taken the company up on this offer, going to show that some drug companies are willing to cooperate BUT that the lack of political will from some African governments is what makes the notion of the universality of drugs in Africa seem so unattainable. This is what the opposition perhaps got right, (the lack of political will) but they refused to link, how lack of political will of African leaders can translate to their opposition against offering free medication to its citizens. If there is lack of political will then surely the debate should be on finding ways to get these bastards overthrown or perhaps , educating them, BUT not necessarily give up on the whole idea of saving lives altogether.

The opposition also mentioned lack of adequate infrastructure, citing that before we can offer free medication to Africa there must be reasonable infrastructure. Is he saying that by merely introducing free drugs to Africa somehow our healthcare system is so fragile that it would come crumbling down?? The problem with Africa is not lack of infrastructure, it is rather lack of the resources to run and make use of the infrastructure already in place. How can Uganda and several other countries make it work, Uganda is certainly not on the richest country list.

The opposition also mentioned that there is currently medication developed to stop mother to baby transmission BUT they seem to think it helped their argument. If this medication is available (and it is) then surely it should be given away freely in Africa to stop the vast numbers children being born with HIV/AIDS. Mother to child transmission accounts for the vast majority of children who are infected with HIV. If this can be stopped then WHY NOT? Why the politics? In the U.S alone nearly all mother to child transmission have been eradicated the only instances where they occur is when a mother is unaware that she had the virus. WHY ARE WE DEBATING on this point? Surely there should be no price attached to saving a child who did not ask to be born.

Before we make such broad generalisations of a vast continent we should perhaps do some research and see exactly what impact AIDS is having on a continent already beleaguered with troubles. Surely, there are problems on the continent that seem more hopeless than others but HIV/AIDS should certainly not be one of them. I am from Ghana, West Africa a country which has been able to control this disease and trust me we are not a rich country, on the same token there is not a reason why Kenya, Zim, SA, Malawi and all others cannot follow suit. We can sit and debate all day because after all when we are sick we only need to go to the NHS free of charge and buy drugs for less than 10pounds.

Access to free health care is on the agenda for me because I realise that I don't live in a fair world, the world I live in is where 66% of people living with HIV/AIDS are in Sub-Saharan Africa, the world I live in is where 75% of deaths from AIDS are in Sub-Saharan Africa, this cannot be fair in any estimation. I believe that I have been given the position to be privileged because I am expected to then advocate for those who would otherwise not have a voice, and do you know what I think those people in Africa living with AIDS are telling me to tell you? They are saying "Please find a way to convince these people that we are worth it, please convince them that our lives matter, please convince them that you cannot attach money to our right to live and please convince them to fight for our cause."

Free medication, free education and free access to information are all the various ways we can stop the virus right in its track. It is a formidable force but since when did mankind ever shy away from its challenges? I watched a documentary recently and I was struck by a particular quote, that our generation would be judged for its actions or inactions, you choose.

Lessons From Today!

2008-06-12T18:40:00.001-07:00

Two major events occurred today (well, at least major enough to make me think twice and to write a note) namely; an ACS (African and Caribbean Society) board meeting and watching the movie "The Great Debaters." And I know you are thinking to yourself "how might these two unrelated events possibly be linked?." well I am still asking myself the same question and yet I feel a strong connection. There is something that rings in my head and it seems not a positive ring, it seems to be saying that we as a people are forgetting where we came from and how we managed to get so far "why do you feel this way?" you might ask. I would just as surely answer, "I do not know but I feel it." To sit at a meeting in which a younger black generation can look to you so confidently in the eyes and say "we do not feel a strong connection between ourselves and the next black man (or woman), and we certainly do not have to make it a point to make black people around us feel more at home, than we would for any other race" strikes me deep AND bugs the heck out of me.

Some would explain this away as the next generation being "colour blind", (first of all I have a big issue with the phrase colour-blind, the phrase itself suggests that we would rather love to remain oblivious than accept the reality that we are different, and guess what that's not a bad thing) but I would not even forgive the younger generation (by younger generation I mean those boomers of the late 80's and beyond) by annexing the phrase "colour-blind" to their ignorant state because it attaches with it a sort of legitimacy of which I refuse to accept. It is not colour-blind to acknowledge one's history, neither is it colour blind to embrace one's culture.

Yet out of this frustration I have no solution, it is just the hope that just a few get it, just get it...get the fact that without celebrating the reason of our being or the reason for the success of our people we may be lost moving forward. Now some people may be content with living in a world where nobody has historical or cultural roots and everybody just exists, (when we finally reach that point I pray to be reminded so that I may make my exit out of this world...Mars perhaps) but I think it to be a sorry state . The great Maya Angelou illustrated my sentiments beautifully when she said "no man can know where he is going unless he knows exactly where he has been and exactly how he arrived at his present place."

As I have no suggestions, or solutions to this plague that disturbs me I shall end here, though I feel a pit in my stomach having to do so....

Personal Time: The Vindicating Interview!

2008-04-04T09:01:00.000-07:00

“So why is it that after all your human rights experience you are heading into the corporate arena?” she asked with an ostensible certainty in her eyes that said “hah, I’ve got you now, see how you would get out of this one.” “Well,” I confidently exclaimed while I hurriedly searched for the right words, ”yes it is true that I have had ample experience in the human rights field, with my background training, and an outstanding fellowship with the Commission on Human Rights in Ghana, at which point I gained tremendous insight into the world of advocacy, and experienced the dramatic impact lawyers made in the lives of their clients on a daily basis. I enjoy my work in the field, however, the human rights field also enabled me to realize that for a person with such drive and ambition, I would need a fast paced competitive environment where I can gain more substantive insight into the diversity of practice areas. Your firm seems like the best fit. I was particularly impressed with the firms’ international expertise in cross-border transactions and mergers, acquisitions and the excellent work it is currently doing in the energy sector in Ghana. As for my human rights experience, I do not believe it will be wasted, some skills gained can definitely be amalgamated with new skills learnt in a corporate world, however, for those specialized human rights skills I am positive that when hired my experience would prove to be a much welcomed addition to your firms pro-bono team” I secretly sighed. “Yes as a matter of fact we have a very lively pro-bono department here, and we have a great wealth of human rights work in our profile” she said, and I smiled.

At that point I was sure that all the weeks of hard work had paid of. Yes, I still had the numerical reasoning test to do (of which just the though of frightened the heck out of me, I had only started recapping on the little mathematics I knew about a week before), but I knew that the point at which I needed to really impress was over, I reasoned. “Well if this interview doesn’t get me the job I don’t know what will, I mean I’m sure the numerical test is just a formality, lawyers are not great at math anyway” I tried to reassure myself. I went back to the room where the other candidates were, “how was the interview?” the guy from Oxford asked, “oh it was good, or at least I think it went well, I was able to answer all their questions with some level of ease and funny enough I did not get any commercial awareness questions.” He looked at me as if I had told him a lie but I reassured him that it was not as intimidating as would be expected. “Just be conversational and you’d be fine,” I said.

When heading home from the interview I knew I had performed to the best of my ability, however, I was still unsure of how the other candidates had performed (they sure enough sounded extremly intelligent). I mean I was competing with some seemingly smart guys and I was the only woman in the room (black woman). Albeit, it was incontrovertible that I had put in a tremendous effort the sight of my competitors succinctly brought me back to reality. I was sure that I would not get the position, however, surprignsly the thought of it did not bother me nor made me feel sick to my stomach. I sank into a deep sense of pride for I had pushed myself to a level I had never done before, and I now knew my limit. On the two hour train ride back home from London to Exeter, I gazed at my reflection in the window next to me, sighed and fell asleep.

I woke up prematurely and realized I nearly missed my stop, ”Exeter St. Davids” said the conductor and I quickly grabbed my bag and rushed out. I was exhausted. I had two hours sleep the night before and was ready to head home and crash into bed, “oh contract law can wait till tomorrow,” I thought to myself. Upon opening my door and dropping my bags, I kicked off my shoes, un-hooked my bra and jumped into bed. It felt as if I was reliving Iyanla Vazants’ “Yesterday I cried”, except I wasn’t crying I was sleeping. “I came home, went straight to my room, sat on the edge of my bed, kicked off my shoes, unhooked my bra, and I had myself a good cry.” But in my case substitute the “cry” for ’sleep.’ It was going to be a good sleep.

I was in my REM sleep (rapid eye movement), when I heard the phone ring. It was either a class-mate who needed some answers to workshop questions, a family member or a friend who just wanted to chat unnecessarily, at which point I did not want to speak to neither. Surprisingly I picked up the phone (it was an unknown number, which is rare, even my mum’s calls from Ghana does not appear unknown). “Hello” I said trying very hard not to sound tired and defeated. “Hello may I speak to M” the sophisticated voice on the other side said, she sounded familiar too. “This is she, how can I help you” in my sweetest tone. “This is L from D&L” she said. “oh gosh, she is from the firm and is already calling me to tell me, you were a great candidate but we are sorry the others were better than you, but I was ready to accept it” I reassured myself. “Hi L, how are you? long day huh?” I tried to slip in a joke, obviously, it did not work. “M, I would like to say, that we were very impressed with you today, and would like to invite you to our summer clerkship program.” My heart skipped a beat, I searched for the words, they were not coming out, my mind stood still and in a very controlled manner I managed to utter “It would be an honour to join you this summer,” gosh “an honour??” I thought to myself, “that’s so corny.” I hung up and let out a huge "ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" (in the most feminine tone I could amass) it felt good. The sleepy feeling was gone. I sat up and thought about the course of events in the day, it seemed unreal, I knew that at this point I had been vindicated.

Democracy…don’t get it twisted!!

2008-04-04T08:59:00.000-07:00

Discussions of ‘democracy’ in our times would lead to several understandings. One tendency (what I would call the evolutionary approach) would be to vilify the past and subconsciously historicise our understanding of democracy as though we have come to enjoy democracy with the passing of time, for as we become more civilized and more intelligent as a species we veer to be more democratically inclined in practice.

Another clearly misunderstood line of thought is to look at democracy as belonging to a certain group of people (the chosen approach) who only deserve it because of cultural practices or as some sort of divined gift. Or lastly the view of democracy as a set of rules where, if one society follows other benefits will likely flow into place, a sort of cause and effect panacea, thus, democracy becomes an end in itself (the cause and effect approach).

Well, I am here to destroy all these notions of democracy, while they are incontrovertibly important in the discourse it is important to focus on a different (less advertised) system of thought, one that examines democracy more as a struggle within any society and views it not in itself as an end but as a means towards a certain structure where struggles for change never cease, and where one success will easily lead to the fight for another (what I dub, the continual democratic struggle). It is imperative to keep in mind that these various struggles may and often have manifested themselves in countless ways depending on the case at hand.

So ultimately, the challenge I pose to you the reader is simple. Re-deliberate on your understanding of Democracy. Don’t for a second think that you have reached your peak and always keep in mind that a Democracy is continual not an end but rather a means towards it.So as you examine your current “Struggle for Democracy” ask yourself, What are my interests?How can I relay this interest to the general populace?Do I have a coalition?Are my interests Universal?

If you are poor, your democratic struggle is being able to feed yourself and your family and sustaining a good salary, so obviously you have not reached your peak. If you are wealthy, your interest is to acquire more and in this sense you democratic interests would be securing a political environment that tolerates your interest.

As I hope I have demonstrated, our democratic struggles are solely based on our needs and our desires. Don’t let anybody convince you otherwise.Democracy is not solely the ability or the freedom to perform freely in the political sphere, but also the ability and the freedom as individuals with varying levels of need to assert our values or communicate our stance in society and see change.If a poor person dies poor, he or she has not lived in a democracy for somehow someway someone did not listen to his or her need. Realize your constant struggle and vote accordingly!