|
|
Some African reaction to
Bush, it is called I–N-G-R-A-T-I-T-U-D-E
E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Ghanadot
You wouldn’t know there is such a word as gratitude when you
read some of the reactions President Bush’s visit to Africa is
engendering. Sure, there have been some good ones, but I will
like to dwell on the most outrageous I have read so far.
Before that, it will help to put the visit in perspective.
President Bush landed in Africa with a bag of goods. In
Tanzania, he announced an MCA contract award of some I billion
dollars to this country. In Ghana, he pledged another $350
million fund to fight neglected tropical diseases like malaria
in Africa. There has already been an MCA award of some
547-million-dollar to Ghana, the biggest in the country’s
history, prior to his visit.
There is no comparison to this kindness in the history of
Africa. President Bush deserves to make the trip even if the
purpose was to bask in the appreciation of those on whom he has
showered so much largesse.
The most recent visit by a US president to Africa was by
President Clinton. He was lauded on the continent like a rock
star. The problem to this day has been no one can point with any
accuracy or certainty what he did in his administration to
advance the interest of Africa.
A comparison of Bush administration’s deeds for Africa to that
of the Clinton’s would be like associating seedlings on earth to
that on the surface of the moon. The seedlings on earth, of
course, would be Bush. But if my knowledge of Africa should
serve me right, judgment on both presidents would soon be fuzzy.
Soon, who has helped Africa most would not matter.
A reminder of the above comes in some outrageous statements,
made to the BBC, about Bush’s visit.
“Most Ghanaians think our country is too submissive towards
America. Ghana always supports whatever the United States does
and we never criticise them,” said a Mckyntosh Aidoo of
Accra, armed with the poetic license of not knowing how to spell
his borrowed first name.
“Oil has been now discovered in Ghana and I think this is
what George Bush is really coming for,” he continues. And
surprise! The suspicion about America’s intention for any
country with oil potential never abates, as has been repeated ad
infinitum since Iraq.
But in another statement Mr. Aidoo declares “The whole world
follows him (Bush) and watches his every move, so it will also
be an opportunity for the world to look at us and that in turn
should bring investment.” I suppose oil should not be part
of the investment portfolio.
Next comes a notion that Bush himself disparaged Texas style in
Ghana – the idea that the purpose of his visit was largely
military.
“Mr Bush said” reported the BBC, “the idea that he was currently
visiting Africa looking for sites for US bases was "baloney".
He explains his purpose for wanting AFRICOM to help Africa as “to
provide African states with military training and assistance so
they could handle Africa's problems better.”
We should remember our own need for an Africa High Military
command and ask if we need such a structure. This is the same
idea that has been on the table since the days of Nkrumah. Do we
need such a structure and assuming the High Command is an
excellent idea for the very reason it has been proposed, how is
the continent to handle the training and assistance for this
structure; or Africa is supremely capable of doing this all
alone?
If an African High Command can be effectively operational,
without outside aid and assistance, then what is holding back
our efforts in Darfur? Who or what is aborting the attempt by
the AU force to save Darfur?
And as if to remind us how much an effective unified force is
needed, here comes a statement from Rwanda to the BBC that
underlines how confusing history can be to some of our citizens.
“I think President Bush should apologise on behalf of the
international community and the United Nations for not
intervening in the genocide in our country in 1994.”
Problem is, Bush was not the US president in 1994. Clinton was.
I have often wondered what the memory of Clinton is in Rwanda
these days, after hearing and seeing him narrate part of the
commentary on a documentary film on Rwanda, produced by Andy
Young, the former US Ambassador to the UN.
“George W. Bush's African visit is another high sounding
nothing! Save for being the President of the highly developed
USA, the man has not been known to be a harbinger of good
things. His visit to Africa would mean much if he was the right
type of human being. He has been to my country, Uganda, before
but never did I feel that he meant much good!”
The above comes from a Ugandan sage based in Sudan, Turyaheebwa
Satu Johnmary, who is well positioned in the midst of all the
atrocities in Darfur and Southern Sudan to know the “right type
of human being.”.
And last from Shahid Shahid, Chicago, USA, the statement to sum
it all for people in Africa who are really not aware that some
in America have disdain for Africa:
“If it is a pleasure trip, it is just fine. He can find many
more friendly donkeys and elephants there than in the USA.
Anything beneficial to come out for Africans from this trip by a
lame duck president? I doubt it very much. It’s too late for
that.”
The thinking behind all this is that by merely showing up with
no deed or empty policies, Bush would surreptitiously enrich
either his legacy or that of the country he visited. The facts
of Bush’s administration’s deeds to date would not matter.
Elsewhere, these utterances would be called ignorant. But,
welcome to the club of the ingrates, Mr. Bush.
However,
fortunate for some of us, President Kufuor described Bush as a
"friend of Africa in need, who has shown particular
understanding of the affairs of Africa and Ghana."
And that should do.
E.
Ablorh-Odjidja,Publsiher
www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC, February 20, 2008
Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish or
reproduce, with credits, unedited. If posted at a website,
email a copy of the web page to
publisher@ghanadot.com . Or don't publish at all.
|
