Ye Ma Wo Akwaaba Wofa Obama!

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

Here is the speech...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, we must support strong and sustainable democratic governments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On June 25th 2009....I Cried

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!

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??

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"

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.