Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Ghana: Rawlings Vs Kufour

[ANTHONY ATTAH AGBALI]

The reactionary posting of Prof. Kwabena Akurang-Parry was full of emotions- megalomaniac, a joke. All those sentimentalism what do they indicate. However, no one is impaling Prof. Akurang-Parry on a stake, only questions are being asked. Therefore, take a critical look at Akurang-Parry's positing that elicited Prof. Heanacho's initial response since it would be senseless and a waste of time and space to recast it here all over. Given that Akurang-Parry's posting is herein use your back button and click back to it. Except if you are unable to grasp the fabric of emotionalism, articulated through lettered semiotics.

Within the texture of my rendition, I was not even critical of Dr. Akurang-Parry's assertation regarding JJ. I was stating certain facts that emotions rather than overt analytical rationalism can be a source of ethnographic richness, and provides a clue to certain social realities within given social polities. But you felt you were attacked or so was Prof, Akurang-Parry. Prof. Akurang-Parry have responded to others since my posting, but I do not suppose that he felt being under attacke by me.

If anything, I only validated his feelings as expressed in written texts. All, I was notably asserting was simple that even if his stance was considered as "vitriolic" that such sentiments can help to illumine and usher in a certain intellectual perspective regarding the feelings of some Ghanaians regarding JJ. It is either you hurried read or you deliberately due to inattention missed the direct point of my logic in favor of your own deep-seated disgust for anything JJ Rawlings.

You have the right to feel anything, but read my text appropriately, as you are reading in-between, it is a mark of shady scholarship. Often we, Africans hardly listen either to ourselves or to others, and this is part of our social predicament. When we talk over and above others, we only simulate rancour and miss the real issues.

More fundamentally, what I am saying here is this: as social scientists and humanists, taking cognizance of people's emotionality is not out of place and it does not limit our scholarship. Such ranges of expressed emotions, evident or found within our different fields of interaction are significant toward our analytical frameworks and renditions of social realities. Manthia Diawara's book, In Search of Africa, strikes me as a very nice work in this direction. Even, Prof. Toyin Falola's memoir: A Mouth Sweeter than Salt, reflect such an excellent expression where personal narratives, even emotions, are weaved into social narrative, to provide an adroit web of intellectual display.

As an anthropologist, my emotions and those of the ones are work with, all have significance for my research, observational output, and final outcome within the ethnographic project and production. There is an entire so-called "African" notoriety that undermines emotion and decry it as pejorative, only favoring a Spartan idealist approach to issues. This, in my opinion represents a problem that mummifies the essence of some of the contexts we study, disadvantageous rendering it impossible to capture certain fundamental facts regarding some of our field contexts, especially those involving human interactions with the structures all around- a phenomenon the British sociologist, Anthony Gidden calls "structuration."

I do not intend to provide the methodologies, as it is irrelevant. Further, I suppose that in the same way that you do not see emotionalism in Dr. Akurang-Parry's position, is the same way that others see it- and that in very significant term affirms with validity my initial supposition, that we do not often see the world in the same light- as we use different lenses to view the divergent social spectrum and realities, especially when it pertain to politics. For most social scientists, this is a very obvious fact.

Therefore, we owe it to ourselves to represent different renditions of social reality within its evolving processes and structural orders. To see uniformity on matters of the social process is not often the case. In any event, I would believe that a historian of your stature would affirm such obvious fact. But, I do not quarrel with your manner in viewing and objectifying reality, as I do not seek uniformity of views but rather a plethora of different insights primarily because we merely see what we see, and that again restates my point precisely.

Where Akurang-Parry sees Rawlings as a joke, others perceive him as an icon of Ghana's social transformation. I guess that position was why a contributor to this discussion, offered a transferability of JJ to Nigeria. In turn you asked that that contributor be extradited from Nigeria, presumably you might be offering him asylum in Ghana. Hopefully, following the traits of other past and present Nigerian émigré there in making he might make very valuable contributions toward the development of Ghana. Jokes aside, all this point to my assertion namely, that the perception and interpretation of social realities, especially political ones, can be contradictory and even at times irrational even to the point of trumping up magical constructs, especially within the realms where facts and myths intermesh in furthering the induction and mystification of social facts as myths.

In any case, your very expression headmaster approach also expressively casts your own emotional categorization of matters beyond facts and creating mythical analogies. For one I am not a school master, not to talk of a headmaster! Narrowing the purview of discussions to such primordial order only cloud dialogue and ferments "intellectual abuses" that are unwarranted.

My vital point was to try to present the fact is that the polemics or diatribe between the two erudite professors- Drs. Heanacho and Akurang-Parry- would not alter the political mode of the altercation and ongoing rage between the erstwhile and current Ghanaian leadership, except they stop it or there is an intervention within the texture of the Ghanaian political machinery or traditional structures. One of the problem of this kind of situation, witnessed between erstwhile President JJ and current President Kuffour is its potential to malevolved transmogrified into denegerative social chaos, alreadly President Kuffour is accusing JJ of plotting to plan a coup against his administration.

These are serious issues that can likely, if not carefully dealt with, tamper with the gains of the Kuffuor administration. As an African, from West Africa, after the Liberian, Sierra Leonean, and more recently the Ivorien wars and political crises, it does not augur well for the security of our sub-region, to have a destabilized Ghana. Today, it is sad that given these kind of behaviors, our polities remain stuffed in crises and stunted. It is beyond the imagination that after Africans threw away the shackles of colonialism, Cape Verdeans are seeking to be formally admitted into the European Union, casting away any linkage to Africa. Africa has become almost a curse, despised by even Africans.

The kind of internal- e-war- herein has little to effect changing the situation between JJ and President Kuffour, rather, it would aggravate the relationship and goodwill enjoyed by most- who are advocate of a peaceful and progressive African continent. I guess that somewhere along the lines, within the clanish clique of African leader's club both would settle their differences to the taste of choice champagnes and delightful rapportment. Then, here those who too are devoted to Africa, continue to harbor the lingering scar of discontent and rhetorical hurts.

That was what motivated my intervention. Given, that both Dr. Heanacho and Akurang-Parry, have contributed significantly and intervened on other serious issues herein in the past, I do not see what is wrong in doing what I did, calling them to see view the two sides of the coin. Both are respected scholars and I suppose I have met them personally at various times and and their commitment to African scholarship and issues have been remarkable.

Better than creating animosity and aggression, their talents and efforts can be more seriously focused on more cogent realities bothering our homeland polities. Few years ago, I was a witness to the Wole Soyinka and Ali Mazrui bitter diatribe, but what good outcome came out of that venture I cannot really recall. In the spirit of the pervading ideology of different commissions regarding national Reconciliation and Healing in countries like South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, and to a limited and contested extent in then Charles Taylor's Liberia. If this operates at a macro-level, I do not see why on a micro scale, withih here that we too cannot pursue goals of reconciliation, especially since many of us claim to be arrowheads of a heuristic better Africa.

More so, is there anything wrong to talk about Dr. Heanacho's glaring and matured intervention in a contested issue that involved me? I was never embittered and all those involved have moved on since them, with more respect for each others' perspectives.In fact, if you have been here long enough, the great Ohafia, Chief, Dr. Onyeani invited me to a palmwine- not Akpetechi- soiree. Coming from an accomplished Ohafia Chief, it is no mean invitation, and that is what dialogue achieves, and within the unfolding of that event was Dr. Heanacho's matured and creative pacifism at work. Such acts are commendable and says alot about such individuals. Insults and disrespects gain us nothing.

We, Africans have been insulting and disparaging ourselves so much, and the outcome of such is crises, war, and name calling. Remember to induce the Rwanda genocide, some group of people have to be reduced to the level of animals by been called "cockroaches"- at least that was the perspective of Hotel Rwanda.

Now, as a Ghanaian and historian, what can we learn constructively from your end, within a more nuanced perspective regarding the current issue? Further, as a graduate student of history, I am amiss that your view of history represents a monocular and monolithic construct. To use Ghanaians in a generalized sense, as if all Ghanaians agree on every and all issues equally is hilarious and laughable.

I would digress in asserting that each and every Ghanaian see things equally along the same lines, given differences in class, ethnicity, region, and other similar social differentials. Even not even every Akan sees Ghanaian affairs in the same light. Not everyone in Accra or Kumasi, do see or agree on events along the same insights. It is impossible. You can speak in terms of a majority but not in a generalized tone; that is abhorent.

Even from JJ's own Volta Region, not all would think him to be a saint, as not all Akan or Ga would demonize him. Would those in JJ's party, especially those who benefitted during his days as rulers be so adverse toward thinking evil of him, even if they are not Ewe, just like that? Even among the Ewe, which you claim in JJ's ethnic group, I am not sure all speaks well of him. Therefore, qualitative specificity or preciseness is lacking herein as you are too tilted toward overt generalizations. I doubt that this is a hallmark of a good historian, and one that I've perceived as slanted toward criticizing views considered as out of sync with his.

As I noted previously, whether Ghanaians, agree or digress with my views is inconsequential. But, nonetheless, I would assert that relative to J.J. Rawlings (JJ) and Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah, these two Ghanaian personalities can only be measured differently. Whatever their achievements these would continue to be measured in bias terms, often as a result of ethnicity or political differences. Each of these personalities mean different things to different Ghanaians, based upon their relative takes, tastes, and perspectives.
There would always be those who will be monolatry in their reverrence for Nkrumah, no matter what evil other people says about him, his politics, and legacy. The same goes for JJ.

Further, I was not comparing both JJ and the Osagyefo in that critical sense. Rather, it was more an incident referencing and juxtaposition of two Ghanaian leaders, among the most known than as a comparison. In spite of this, though inconsequential and not bogged by the so-called popular Ghanaian imaginative misgiving in comparing JJ and the Osagyefo, there are certainly shared similarities between them.

Here are a few. Both are charismatic personalities. At different historical conjunctions of Ghana's history both were leaders of government, even if at times through differing means. Both of them were politicians who, at one time or another, canvassed for electoral votes. Both have been claimed to have abused power while in office. Both have some reasonable mass following. Equally their respective legacies continue to be muster passional responses and position, and these legacies remain highly contested within the domain of Ghanaian and international public and political opinions.

Even if you considered the contributions of JJ as minute or inconsequential, one must concede and not totally abnegate the fact that he did his best for the progressive transformation of Ghana. JJ gave Ghana a new international visibility. Evidentially, he had his flaws and this is for the Ghanaian people to adjudge, and under their legal system bring him to book, if there are palpable causes for such, especially a fragrant disrespect for human rights.

It is pitiful to note that he killed some of Ghana's former government leaders in extrajudicial manners. While not making any excuse it is left for Ghanaians to bring him to book. At the moments some of these are opinions and allegations, no judicial ruling has yet defined JJ in those terms. We know the African situation but it is left for the government of President Kuffour, as a party not under JJ's influence to ensure that justice is done. But, the complexity of ethnicities, respect for a former President, and other variable might mitigate against Kuffour's own courage to redress those wrongs at the moment.

Ghanaians, if convinced of JJ's guilt and culpability must continue to work through every political channel and legal means to hold JJ and his government accountable in ensuring that he stands trial for those alleged offences. I know that the Nigerian military generals and even beyond Africa, in the Chile's General Agostino Pinochet's case, it was and remain somewhat difficult to bring despots to justice. However, there is risk with just constituting courts of public sentiments and being judges in one's own case, where facts remain masked and replicated through emotionalism. Such modes does not resolve the issue.

I would be impress to see the likes of Professor Akpurang-Parry and yourself begin such a movement for justice in going after JJ, since you passionately believe in his evil nature. Until then present the facts not unmeasurable and unverifiable sentiments. One such instance is the efforts of some Nigerians- Anthony Enahoro and others led by a Nigerian lawyer, kayode Oladele, to bring the Abubakar Salami's military administration liable for the military era human rights abuse in a US court. This takes energy but it is worth it, if justice is what is being pursued.

At the time, Nigeria was deeply entrenched in political chaos, President Clinton, on his trip stopped in Ghana and had some good words for the JJ led administration. But more than this, I would think that beyond all these rhetoric is the fact that while the Osagyefo is Ghanaian, the same as JJ, the legacy of the former- and I would say that of JJ- transcends the Ghanaian, and affects the texture of other African and international polities.

Among such legacies is - whether assigned a positive or negative value- is the displacement of African intellectuals, in what could have induced your own presence in Europe, studying African history as a grad student rather than in Ghana, its home context. Let us be sincere how many Germans go to African university to study their German history, rather they come to Africa to study that that is specific to Africa. This situation together with the mass exodus of trained and experienced African professionals such as physicians, whose flight have left these nations devoid of some excellent role models for their youth, is a partial outcome I suppose of such legacy. I mean partial because even before now, Ghanaians like Jacob Captein and Antoin William Amo studied in the west in the 18th century. Thus, I refer to yours and mine presence with a caveat.

I mean here, the crass incidence of international immigration the direct outcome of bad economic and political engineering that characterized our experiences of many African nations, including my native Nigeria. Today, I doubt, if like Captein, Amo, Aggrey, and the Osagyefo, most Ghanaians like you would readily return to Ghana as they gladly did, even when some like Amo experienced fame in the west.

Also I want to be mindful that while history has now proven Nkrumah to be a legend, and Ghanaians still adore him, his own legacy was riddled and ridiculed regarding incidences of unlawful detention of political opponents, official highhandedness, and corruption. Again, these facts are subject to contention. At one point, one of his own police orderly almost assassinated him, of which he heroically defended himself against the onslaught.

There's simply no masquerading the fact that in spite of Osagyefo's good will and total aspiration toward transforming Ghana into a model iconic society, within his vision of pan-Africanism, there were certain grey areas indicative of crass maladministration, and other political and economic failures. This is, in any case, an aside.

The Osagyefo would be twisting in his grave, that you who sanction his legacy can today almost echo Ghana for Ghanaian, drenching in suds his more emphasized theme of pan-Africanism.

I do not know how knowing my origin is important for your analysis of the issues at stake. I would have favored your presenting your insights as a Ghanaian on this matter, rather than engaging in your name-quest archaeology and ethnic nominal drilling intended toward discrediting the Ewe and privileging your own ethnic group. Such engagement at imaginative analysis is incompetently non-dignifying, and highly insolent to the Ewe people. This, in all ways, is contrarily to the spirit of forging and fostering unity of which the Osagyefo committed himself toward the transformation of Africa.

This reversal to primordial sentiments has often been the bane of our continent’s lack of progressive development. The easy appeal to ethnicity as a dagger of ruthless diminishment of the imagined rivaled other has cost and continues to risk the African historical surge toward progress. These ethnic privileging and sanctioning above reason helps to ensure the predominance of various kinds of abuses and social evil. In using ethnicity, sexism, and other forms of "primitive" primordial instincts that diminish perspectives that differs substantially from one’s position, in generating hate and revenge. It is one of the reasons why different warlords have held Somali to ransom, shared between them like a fief, until very recently.

It is time for a change, and I have always fostered the hope that the younger generations of Africans, especially intellectuals like you would bring about such cogent transformations. But, without generalizing, I think you have suctioned off that hope by one, and it is sad. The pervading menacing of ethnicity as a detrimental force working against the human and civil rights of individual persons and groups must be detested. I hope that your ethnical conscience would help to revise such mentality.

I am not Ewe, but even if I am, I think you owe the Ewe an apology, and as a historian. You have engaged in a lousy emotionalism to the extent that you pursue what in logic are fallacies of generalization, argumentum ad hominem- both 1 & 2, all combined. It is shameful that a student of history would go to that length to score cheap points. I would disagree that in the world wide world (www) that all and every Ewe intellectual is pro-Rawlings that there are not some with discordant voices regarding his legacy.

It is unrealistic that what you claim as fact is not an arm-chair assumption and a critical injustice and crass disservice to the entire corps of Ewe intellectuals. I can also bet that there are many from other parts of Ghana, non-Ewe, who hold Rawlings in high esteem, for reasons of their own interests. What I am still unable to understand, is then how come Ghanaians voted Rawlings into power when he dumped his fatigues twice? If he was that bad, how come that as the incumbent party- though leaving at the end of his second term- he was unable to tilt the elections to his advantage by ensuring the domination of his party's candidate, as often is the case in many African nations?

I expect more ethical accountability and responsibility than this kind of ethnic affront directed against the Ewe and their intellectuals. The Ewe are a people who have a right to their expressed opinions, respect, and human dignity. If you have issues with those who are Ewe you should address it squarely within your in-group contexts. Do not spread the virus of hateful assumptions.

Now, more fundamentally, since you suppose that you and only Ghanaians own the only reasonable understanding of Ghanaian history and affairs, I just want to point one thing out here. Ghanaian society has benefited from its openness and cosmopolitan nature in the past, as it is at present. Ghanaians are egregious and vivacious people. I had many of them as teachers and lived in staff quarters with some of these families in the 1980s to early 1990s Nigeria. More so, these cosmopolitan nature and interactions, in spite of different governmental actions against Nigerians in Ghana in the 1970s and of Ghanaians in Nigeria in the 1980s, the diffusive interactions and pan-Africanism of Ghanaians have been a source of vitality to various African social spaces.

The late Nigerian President, Nnamdi Azikiwe, made it to America simply because Dr. Aggrey, during his Phelp-Stokes commission visit to Kings' College impressed him, a Nigerian. In another historical twist, Azikiwe, would later be instrumental somewhat in seeing Kwame Nkrumah going to America, and he too later became President. Azikiwe lived and worked in Ghana as a journalist- newspaper editor- including being molested and jailed the editorial stance of his newspaper.

Such cosmopolitan disposition has long existed in West Africa and among Africans. As a Nigeria, I browse and peruse the Ghanaweb.com, as well as other African newspapers online. I believe that knowledge and currency in African affairs is valuable for an understanding for the overall development of our African spaces. Insular consciousness cannot ensure the development of our African consciousness and drive toward global significance. I have followed for instance, the qualitative efforts of the Ghanaian diaspora toward ensuring their political participation in the Ghanaian electoral processes, which has now enabled them to vote from abroad.

Finally, thanks for the prefix of Dr. to my name. The fact is I am not one. Neither have I been awarded nor have I “bought” an honorary one yet. I think too, that while the PhD, Ed. D, all those are good, that one does not have to be one to contribute meaningfully to the African condition or any issue of social life. Honestly, those prefixes and honoraria least attracts me. I do scholarly work for the benefit of it, call it an irrational drive that engages in scholarship for its own sake.

[Akurang-Parry, Kwabena]

Anthony Attah Agbali:

I take exception to the way that you have magisterially chosen to characterize my perspective on Rawlings. First you describe it as "emotional" and now you have added "sentimental" and "reactionary." What exactly do you mean? Are you suggesting that I have put faith before reason and evidence? Are you suggesting that any African scholar who chooses to discuss the problems in his/her country etc should be described as a "reactionary"?

For your information, in an article that deals with the history of electrification and communication networks, among others, in the Gold Coast/Ghana, I have highly commended Rawlings for his contributions. If you don't mind, I can send you a copy of the article which is now under peer-review pending publication. I hope that since the article praises Rawlings, you would give me HIGH marks and tell the world that I praised Rawlings, therefore, I am not "emotional," "sentimental" and "reactionary!"

From your rather long response to Fifi Paintsil, the graduate student, you suggest that the achievements of a ruler may be viewed from several perspectives. Well, the subject at stake here deals with human rights abuses in Ghana during the Rawlings regime. As far as I know, Rawlings stifled human rights and I am not the first and will not be the last to discuss it. I made statements that are based on facts in my opinion in the sense that they did occur and are in the public domain, and in fact, documented in several ways. Please, if you know that Rawlings did not stifle press freedom/freedom of speech (the culture of silence), if you know that Rawlings did not beat up his vice president and slapped his ministers, if you know that Rawlings did not destroy primary sources on his regime, and if you know that Ghanaian women were not stripped naked and lashed, come out and use evidence to dispute such claims. Let us stop the visionary reconstruction of the postcolonial African past, and let us stop the sermonizing and name-calling and stick to the issues at stake. Thank you.

Kwabena Akurang-Parry.
Kwabena O. Akurang-Parry, Ph. D.
Assoc. Prof. of African History & World History
Dept of History
Shippensburg University
Shippensburg, PA 17257 U.S.A.

Phone: 717 477 1286
Fax: 717 477 4062

________________________________

[olayinka agbetuyi]

Mr. Agbali,

Your insights on Ghanaian politics are, to be frank, quite commendable, but
I do not know if you need to undercut your own ethical premise by referring
to Professor Akurang-Parry in terms such as "lousy Intellectual".

Be that as iit may some observations are due here:
It is not exactly appropriate to cast a slur on Africans for embracing
ethnicity in political zero-sum game in which the people of the gladiator at
the center is bound to reap undue advantage until the terms of the game are
changed. This is not specifically African; a similar agitation in Great
Britain reulted in the restoration of the Scottish Parliament in the 90s.
This realization was also at the heart of the campaign for proportional
representation in British politics in the 80s and 90s. It also lies at the
heart of the enduring Irish struggle. So, ethnic consideration is not
uniquely African and is not pejorative. The so-called "advanced countries"
only at times refuse to call a spade a spade in certain discourses.

Again comparison between JJ and Osagyefo may not be entirely appropriate;
Until Her Majesty the Queen's resolute intervention issuing an unprecedented
notice to JJ that her government will not condone his perpetuation in
office, JJ set to manipulate the constitution (as Obasanjo and PDP) tried to
do, to rule indefinitely in part, precisely, because he was apprehensive of
the nemesis of all the atricities he committed in office.

I have said time and again that the culture of winner-takes-all inherent in
the presidential system may be the culprit rather than the actors on the
stage, and the more power that is garnered (as in ex and quasi- military
dictatorship) the more the abuse of the system.

Olayinka Agbetuyi

>From: ANTHONY ATTAH AGBALI <ad9...@wayne.edu>
>Reply-To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
>To: USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
>Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Ghana: Rawlings Vs Kufour

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail is evolving – check out the new Windows Live Mail
http://ideas.live.com

[Tony Iyare]

 

Liberia walks the GEMAP trap

The Governance and Economic Management Assistance Programme (GEMAP), a bitter pill being forced down the throat of Liberia by western creditors, will further enslave her and may ignite a relapse to war, writes TONY IYARE

 

There seems to be deep optimism particularly from the West and among some African scholars that the Governance and Economic Management Assistant Programme (GEMAP), driven by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) will usher in eldorado to a peaceful Liberia under the leadership of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

 

Little wonder that while the international media at inauguration was enamoured by the likely “mythical delivery” of Africa’s first female president, one American newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle devoted its reportage to GEMAP and how it holds the key for bailing out Africa’s oldest independent state from a rudderless path.

Although GEMAP is sponsored, bankrolled and posed as the brainchild of the United States, European Commission, World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), there’s no doubt about the identity of its prime movers.  

The intention of this super ordinate gamut according to the paper is to limit corruption by installing international representatives at every revenue-generating arm of government in Liberia.  Although ultimate authority will rest with the president and major expenditures will be signed off by these experts, while state companies will be publicly audited, there is no illusion about the overbearing role of these shadow prefects in the Liberian economy.

Apart from its neo-liberal sociological and philosophical cleavages, GEMAP is conceived on the false premise that Liberia’s problem just like that of Nigeria, the world’s largest black nation is largely a product of a light fingered and sleazy elite. Like many western inspired prognosis on Africa, it tends to deny the parasitic role of western multinationals on the economy and discountenance the effects of centuries of slavery and colonialism on the continent...

It glosses over the endemic economic crises engendered by the nexus and symbiotic relationship between the neo-colonies and the centres of imperialist exploitation in the vein scholarship that globalisation benefits all. It also attempts to canonize foreign experts in the mould of angels and saints while casting a veil on the plausibility that a juicy slice of the resources of poverty stricken Liberia will be deployed to oil their comfort.

Without mincing words, it is a programme laden with utter contempt and disparagement for the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the Blackman. The racist undertone of this policy which demeans the possibility of original thought from Africa is also deplorable. While it is assumed that a White man will simply look away from pinching the resources of this war torn state, a Liberian cannot be trusted near the country’s purse.

The authors however prefer to lace their landmine with honey. "GEMAP is a response to a failure of governance, an emergency safety net," says Eric Nelson, the World Bank's senior economist for Liberia. "But this is only the first step. The quality of senior management in state-owned enterprises, for example, is going to have to change." 

A recent U.N. report estimated that "chronic corruption and incompetence" cost Liberia, more than $30 million in 2005 -- nearly half the annual national budget. Alan Doss, the top U.N. official in Liberia, says endemic corruption was a key cause of the original conflict after the treasury was carved up by a chosen few. He hopes GEMAP will help ensure peace after the 15,000 U.N. troops overseeing the process begin to go home at an undetermined date.

For a nation just emerging from the throes of a 14 year infanticidal war in which an estimated 250.000 people were killed, it will be inhuman not to share the anxiety of the Liberian citizenry who have little choice in re-creating a prosperous and virile country from what remains of a semblance of statehood. But falling for the GEMAP trap, designed to provide a leeway for agencies of international finance and their multinationals to milk the Liberia economy may be another conspiracy to further huddle the aggressiveness of its people.

 

GEMAP is hinged on a false substructural framework and can hardly respond to the wishes and aspirations of a people fatally bruised by a 25 year old turmoil that saw the Kalashnikov and AK-47 rifles cheaper than bread on the streets. It also tend to obscure the fact that the militarization of Liberian society took roots from 1822 with the forcible take over of political power and choice lands by the Americo Liberians and Congos who relied heavily on the support of pockets of militia groups to rein in their supremacy, informed by early start in education and exposure to the trappings of western society.

 

Simply put, the crisis in Liberia can be located in the attempt by a tiny minority to lord the majority of the people at the behest of imperialism. The choice therefore to return the country on the path of sanity may not lie in World Bank/IMF inspired macro economic policies that tend to dis-empower and smother the mass of the people.

 

It can only be a recipe for a relapse to war and the rekindling of the reign of militia lords. Does it appear intriguing that these same forces that plotted against the fruition of the independent African economic blueprint--Lagos Plan of Action (LPA) and the African Alternative Framework to Structural Adjustment Programme (AAF-SAP) which should have fundamentally transformed Africa, are resolved on a deliberate ploy to deny original and independent thought from the continent?  

 

 

Unfortunately Johnson Sirleaf, a former World Bank staff has been sold on this line of action. "We will have a zero-tolerance approach to corruption," Johnson-Sirleaf says "We will have three criteria for government employees -- honesty, competency and respect for human rights”. She told the American Congress that her effort to curb corruption saw the rise in government revenue by 21 per cent few days after being sworn in. Unlike those who prefer to make a fetish of not only her intimidating credentials at Harvard, the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) but also the emotive issue of gender, it is hard to share little of their optimism. Their bloated expectation may just be forlorn.

 

Perhaps a taste of the pudding could be neighbouring Sierra Leone, one of the world’s poorest nations where another former World Bank staff is in charge. What magic wand have we also gleaned from many African countries including Nigeria where World Bank staff have colonized the economy from the finance ministry to the Central Bank?

 

However, some of the ideologues of GEMAP are making no bones about its ulterior motives.  "It's a very fine balance between intrusive and overbearing. ... We are always going to be sensitive to charges of neo-colonialism, imperialism and racism," says Mike McGovern, the West Africa program director for the International Crisis Group, a nongovernmental group based in Brussels that aims to prevent or resolve deadly conflicts. "But we have never had any illusions about experts being more honest or transparent than Liberians -- both Liberians and international staff will need full oversight."

The problem with many discourses on Liberia is that we have allowed ourselves to be browbeaten and conned by the false Euro-American historiography that the country was “founded” in 1822 by freed American slaves as a result of the work of the American Colonisation Society. Ingrained in this perverted view of Liberia is the intent by the authors to deny the capacity of the indigenous African Liberians to govern themselves. This is not different from the same jaundiced history taught many years ago about how Mungo Park discovered the River Niger.

This western line of history which was informed by the fact that Africans had no history and that their history revolves around European explorers, is as insulting to the African Liberians who constitute 95 per cent of the population of this country, just as it is for the communities that have lived on the bank of the River Niger for centuries. GEMAP also stems from the view that Liberians are incapable of fixing their country by themselves.

It also tends to completely distract from the circumstances that drove Liberian citizens to a war in which the American owned Firestone Company that long exploited the rubber and timber resources of the country, cannot be exculpated. Now that the country has discovered oil along with its huge deposits of diamonds, gold, iron ore, rubber and timber resources, this is time for the Americans who fired no guns and lost no man in the crisis in Liberia, to again entrench themselves in the economy. 

Apart from the iniquitous role of the Firestone Company and other western multinationals in making mincemeat of the resources of Liberia, leaving her with an external debt of $3.5 billion amounting to 680 per cent of the gross domestic product, the World Bank/IMF imposed Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) of the 70s and 80s which totally undermine social services disempowered the citizenry and rendered the country prostrate, driving it to war, the same way it did to Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Somalia, Uganda, Ethiopia, etc.

 

Tony Iyare
Editor-in-Chief,
The Gleaner news online,
11, Dideolu Court, Dideolu Estate,
Ogba, Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria.
Phone: 234-803-304-6943, 234-1-850-6335
E-mail: ehia...@yahoo.co.uk
Website: www.gleanernewsonline.com

---

Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now.