Ghana oil discovery - thoughts about the future
The Guardian published an article this week about the oil discovery in Ghana, and potential effect on the Ghanaian economy. Ghana enters oil age with wary eye on neighbors.
.
. . as the euphoria dies down, people are debating whether oil is really the economic injection their country needs.Or, oil revenues could reverse the process.
. . . "Nigeria has oil in abundance, yet the local people have nothing," said George Moore, a 29-year-old restaurant worker in Axim, a fishing village near Cape Three Point. "Is that what is going to happen here?"
. . ."Our country works, but the idea of us producing oil still scares me," said Kofi Bentil, a business lecturer at Ashesi University in Accra. "It will totally change the structure of the economy. It could push us into overdrive, but it could also lead us to self-destruct."
One advantage that Ghana has over its oil-producing neighbours, said Mr Bentil, is experience and political stability. While countries such as Nigeria were already swimming in oil money at independence, Ghana has had 50 years to build up institutions to manage its finances.
It is also one of the few countries in the region to hold free and fair elections with peaceful transitions of power.
Although corruption at state level remains significant, accountability has improved greatly in recent years, donor officials say.
Mats Karlsson, the World Bank country director for Ghana, said that even without oil, Ghana was on track to become a middle-income country by 2015, when it would start to wean itself off aid. Oil revenues could accelerate that process.
The US Africa Command could be a destabilizing influence in Ghana as well as other countries. The focus of Africom is oil. Cooperation with African military organizations is an attempt to manage this resource. And the more the interests of the military in a country are supported above the interests of other citizens, the more chance there is of creating and extending coups and military governments. Currently Nigeria, Equitorial Guinea, and other places, are experiencing this kind of US military support. In the words of Vijay Prashad:
Resource wars in the Congo (over diamonds and coltran) and in West Africa (over oil) have set the continent on fire. The U.S. has thus far engaged with these conflicts through Africa's national armies, who have increasingly become the praetorian guards of large corporations. None of this can be justified directly as a protection of the extraction of resources, so it has increasingly been couched in the language of the war on terrorism. The Pan-Sahel Initiative (created in 2002) draws U.S. Special Operations Forces to Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger. In 2004, the U.S. extended this to the major oil producing countries of Algeria, Nigeria, Senegal and Tunisia and renamed it the Trans-Saharan Counter-Terrorism Initiative. After 9/11, the U.S. moved a Special Operations Force into a former French Foreign Legion base, Camp Le Monier, in Djibouti. In July 2003, the U.S. earned the right to deploy P-3 Orion aerial surveillance aircraft in Tamanrasset, Algeria. Under the guise of the War on Terrorism, the U.S. government has moved forces into various parts of Africa, where they were able to train African armies and to intervene in the increasingly dangerous resource wars.
Ghana needs to diversify her economy, and protect and develop her agricultural sector, if the oil is to help rather than hurt. And Ghana needs to provide health care, and free universal public education. This is a public good, even necessity, and should not be an individual privilege. Ghana needs all its brain power active and healthy, not just the brain power of the rich. Rich brains are not always the best brains. Every cedi invested in education will be paid back many times over in business development and revenues.
As b real points out in a comment, the US Senate has a hearing today on the Africa Command, Exploring The U.S. Africa Command And A New Strategic Relationship With Africa. In his opening remarks there were a few words Senator Feingold said that offer a glimmer of optimism even though the goal is still to acquire African oil and resources. I have emphasized them below.
I am prepared to fully support a unified, interagency U.S. approach that creates a military command with the primary mission of supporting our policies towards Africa and ensuring continued diplomatic, development, humanitarian assistance, and regional initiatives led by the Department of State, USAID, and other key stakeholders – including national and international NGOs, other bilateral and multilateral development bodies, and of course, African political and military leaders.
African leaders look a bit like an afterthought, but at least they are mentioned, unlike in the Bushco documents from the Heritage Foundation that lay out the Bush/Cheney vision of Africom.
Labels: accountability, Africa command, Africom, development, economy, education, Ghana, Ghana oil, health, oil



4 Comments:
i've only had a chance to read through the prepared stmts from the panel members in that hearing wednesday, but i'll point out a couple items which i find remarkedly support an analogy w/ the first scramble for africa.
the retired usaf major general, gration, stated:
With US interests on this continent clearly defined and a united voice in Washington to advocate for requirement and resources, I believe we'll be able to advance America's interests in Africa better and build strong partnerships with African government to eliminate poverty and accelerate Africa's integration into the global economy.
wasn't that the purpose of global colonization during that earlier period? to bring africa into the global economy, rather than as simply a peripheral area that was previously known only as a key source for the international slave trade? by growing export commodity economies the colonizers indeed brought africa into the global economy. so what's the general talking about? he's from south africa, after all. perhaps it's just rhetorical justification for increasing a US footprint on the continent.
and, speaking of justifying rhetoric, the USAID official stated
We believe that AFRICOM can significantly advance the "Three D" concept, and facilitate the coordination of defense, diplomacy and development to advance American foreign policy interests on the continent of Africa.
the "3 D's"? well, that's hardly a step above the "3 C's" of the earlier scramble, isn't it? whereas livingstone's plea for bringing commerce, christianity and civilization to the indigenes led to a plethora of euro humanitarian colonizers in the late nineteenth century, even bringing up the idea that the u.s. would like to bring "3 D's" to the continent strikes me as an inside joke on their part.
so they're gonna tell the peoples of africa that this unified combatant command will have a humanitarian face that really wants to "help africans help themselves" (more like "helping u.s. american elite to help themselves to africa's resources") and this will entail bring three shiny new D's?
are they serious? this project seems to be failing rapidly. they have many weaknesses that need to exploited both domestically & internationally. the negative reactions across the globe are having some real effect. part of their problem is that those who actually know what the real impetus was behind the formation of the command have to find other reasons for public dissemination (or risk an even greater public fury) and those that don't know are struggling to fit a square peg into a round hole & make sense of their nonsense rational & ignorance of the real africa.
i'll tell you what though, if they do suceed in establishing a larger military presence (w/ civilian trimmings), it will not be used to bring those 3 D's to the peoples of africa. it will be used to take another set of 3 C's out of africa -- crude, capital and china!
By
Anonymous, at 12:55 AM, August 02, 2007
Damn! 3 Ds?, not to mention the 3 Cs! It looks like another bridge to the 19th century. I think I'll put your comment up in a post, it is too good to miss. There is an old photo I want to track down that I think would go perfectly with the message. I'll see if I can locate that this weekend.
By
Crossed Crocodiles, at 12:00 AM, August 03, 2007
I'm not sure I understand this blogs angst at AFRICOM, particularly since it is in its infancy and yet to do anything except contribute money and materials to several nations for infrastructure improvement.
You do realize that AFRICOM was first proposed by Senator Feingold right?
The question isn't why the US is going now, the question is where the heck has the US been?
I've read the Heritage Foundations info, and I agree their outlook is a step back, but I have also seen what is actually happening later this year (particularly with the Navy initiative), and they are two strikingly different pictures. I guess I fail to see how Seabees are invaders or career State Dept. officials as Bush Co. locksteppers. You are either so skeptical of Bush you can't see straight, or totally ignorant.
Africa and the US need to get engaged, and I agree how that engagement happens is important, but to say the US should ignore Africa or its security or its resources is to suggest the US government shouldn't be engaged and big business should stay the primary faction engaged, which would be a continuation of a completely failed policy going on many decades.
Remember, government engagement in Africa includes built in oversight, where business engagement does not.
By
Galrahn, at 9:08 PM, August 05, 2007
Galrahn,
If you are interested in why Africans distrust Africom, and what I have written is unclear, I suggest you read the statement of Dr Wafula Okumu Head, African Security Analysis Programme, Institute for Security Studies, Pretoria, South Africa
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/oku080207.htm
He enunciates most of the reasons clearly and succinctly.
Otherwise, your comment knocks down a number of straw men it creates, unrelated to the contents of this blog.
I am a great admirer of the US Navy. How the Navy, and the rest of the US military is being used by the oversight free Bush government is another story.
By
Crossed Crocodiles, at 11:18 PM, August 05, 2007
Post a Comment
<< Home