I PREFER to call it a lecture because that is what it is: Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States of America, the first African-American to occupy that post, a charming, intelligent and immensely popular man with the black population of Africa, came to Accra, Ghana and lectured the continent, and the world. The four areas covered by his lecture are, according to him, "critical to the future of Africa and the entire developing world": democracy, opportunity, health, and the "peaceful resolution of conflict".
Barack Obama arrived Accra in the evening of Friday, July 10, 2009 delivered his lecture in late morning of Saturday, July 11 and was gone by late afternoon of the same day. The lecture was delivered in Ghanaian Parliament before a high-caliber African audience that included several prominent Nigerians who travelled to Accra for the event. After the lecture, Obama moved around with his hosts and hostesses and, at each point, was received by joyous and grateful Ghanaians. Why should Ghanaians not be happy? To be chosen by the de-facto "Emperor" of the world as the only country to visit, and to be preferred to giants like Nigeria as a site from which to address the continent, was not a small recognition - even if the visit lasted no more than 20 hours.
I have read so many reports and reviews of the historic visit and the equally-historic lecture. I have followed, as much as I could, the debate by Nigerian educated elite on the choice of Ghana in preference to Nigeria. I have been educated and I have learnt. As usual, I express my personal gratitude to the debaters although I regret that the language of some of the media articles has been unnecessarily abusive. I don't know why I feel so hurt and ashamed that highly informed and respected compatriots are throwing abuses at each other over an American President's choice of Ghana, rather than Nigeria, as a site from which to lecture the continent, its leaders and its peoples. The American President has said on more than one occasion that though he has "African blood" running in his veins, he is an American.
We may now refer to Reuben Abati's Crossroads column of Sunday, July 12, 2009 titled Obama's speech in Ghana: Notes for Nigeria. It is a highly informed and liberal analysis of Obama's lecture. Beyond that, on a personal note, Abati highlighted several parts of the lecture that I had, myself, independently highlighted. In one passage highlighted by Abati, Obama himself implicitly answered the question of why he chose Ghana. In that passage Obama simultaneously painted the picture of what he wanted Africa to be. We may pull out that passage.
President Obama said: "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 transfer 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" And then: "We must first recognise a fundamental truth that you have given life to in Ghana: development depends upon good government".
No one should quarrel with President Obama of the United States of America for telling Ghanaians, Africans and the world why his administration sees Ghana as a model African country. Every government "worth its salt" is expected to have a set of criteria for assessing foreign countries. The only difference here is that America is not "any country" and Barack Obama is not just any American President. The reality is that America is the world's sole super power whose critieria are also those of the "international community" and the G8, the European Union (EU), the Paris Club and the London Club. In particular, America's criteria are also those of the United Nations and its agencies including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Beyond all this, Obama is sentimentally "ours".
I agree with Abati that Obama's criticism of African governments and rulers are correct. I also have no quarrel with many things that Obama said about Ghana. They are correct. For some reasons, partly political and partly personal, I pay attention to what happens in Ghana. But, then, what does Abati make of the information, provided in his analysis of Obama's lecture, that America's CIA headquarters in Africa is in Accra"?
We may remind ourselves that CIA is the Central Intelligence Agency. We know from political history the bloody record of CIA across all continents of the world since World War II. The organisation's tactics have changed, no doubt, but its war against nationalist, "communist" and anti-imperialist forces in the Third World has continued to this day. Please check the current CIA's method which goes by the name "extraordinary rendition". I would have proposed in this piece that there is an additional, but unstated, reason why Obama chose Ghana for his "first visit to sub-Saharan Africa as President of the United States". But with Abati's information, this proposition is no longer necessary.
Next, I refer to the editorial of The Guardian on President Obama's visit (Obama in Ghana, The Guardian, Sunday May 26, 2009). I do this with joyful approval. I disagree, however, with the paper's position on Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe. Perhaps, it is a question of formulation, or emphasis. I shall come back to this, but let me first indicate the passages I endorse completely. One: "There is nothing that President Obama said about the imperative of good governance and democracy that Nigerians through editorials and sundry advocacy sources have not reiterated to their own leaders". Two: "Nigeria does not need a President Obama, or any other influential outsider, to put its house in order". Three: "The proper context for evaluating President Obama's visit is one of strategic interest".
Whose "strategic interest"? America's strategic interest, of course. The editorial concluded: "He did not come merely to deliver a homily on good governance and make Ghanaians and their President, John Atta-Mills, feel any taller than they are. There may be a number of issues afoot, including the controversial African project, about which African countries must carefully assess their own long-term interests, rather than being goaded or humoured into deals that create peculiar difficulties down the road". What else can I add to this? Nothing.
We may go back to the question of Zimbabwe. Here is the relevant passage in Obama's lecture - a passage that Reuben Abati highlighted: "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 listed as combatants".
Reuben Abati commented as follows: "I share these same sentiments. Blaming the outsiders, decades after independence, cannot solve Africa's problems". The Guardian, on its part, said: "While recognising solonialism as a factor in the continent's underdevelopment, the visitor very rightly pointed out that the descent of a country like Zimbabwe from promise to destruction could not be blamed on colonialism. There is little doubt about that, for the sit-tight President Robert Mugabe has presided over the systematic liquidation of his country - all in a quest to die in office".
I disagree slightly with both comments. On the contrary, I agree with Taiwo Akerele (Obama and Zimbabwe, The Guardian, July 17, 2009), that though "Robert Mugabe has become an embarrassment to the liberation struggle and an impediment to the emergence of true democratic culture in the Southern African country", the land question, which is at the "heart" of the Zimbabwean crisis, was not created by him. It was largely the struggle to resolve this question that transformed Mugabe from a brilliant heroic liberation fighter to an "embarrassment" - and even worse. And the problem is still there, and has been compounded by other problems. But the solution is not the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).
My position has been that Robert Mugabe ought to have been removed from office long ago by a truly revolutionary wing of ZAPU-PF. Now, the ZAPU-PF has degenerated to a point of no "redemption". A similar degeneration took place in the National Liberation Front (NLF) of Algeria and, on a larger historical scale, in the ruling "Communist" Parties of Eastern Europe.
In conclusion, one has to admit that, as lectures go, Obama's lecture is a beautifully-crafted text. There are several passages which embody principles that I deeply appreciate. I may cite just one of them: "Each nation gives life to democracy on its own way, and in line with its own traditions. But history offers a clear verdict: governments that respects 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". This is a highly heuristic proposition.
