China: Friend or Foe to Africa?

The following post is culled from Pencil Tribe (www.penciltribe.com), an online literary and arts journal focused on Africa

****

There is a new foreign power in Africa. It’s not Britain, France, Russia or the US. It’s China! Driven by a need to secure energy and natural resources to fuel its fast growing economy, China is on a prowl all over Africa to secure resources ahead of major competitors like the United States and Russia. Despite the evident investments in infrastructure and technology in African countries like Angola, Chad, Nigeria, Namibia and Zimbabwe, many observers are worried that Chinese national and corporate involvement in Africa can only be a new form of exploitation of the African continent.

China’s aggressive foray into Africa has been made possible by the enormous foreign currency reserves of the Chinese government as well as China’s comparative advantage in cheap labour and manufacturing. With a growing population of more than 1.2 billion people, it makes sense that China is not only looking for natural resources to sustain its economy but also new markets for its products and services. It is an open secret that most of the Chinese firms operating in Africa today are staffed mainly by expatriate Chinese workers who displace local labour even for low skilled positions. In addition, a lot of the construction materials and technologies Chinese firms use in Africa are imported from China thereby reducing potential benefits to local manufacturing sectors.

African manufacturing industries suffer even more by having to compete with cheaply produced imports from China, a situation which has led to the folding of many indigenous African firms. The net effect, opponents of Chinese investments argue, is rising unemployment for African countries, many of which are dealing with urban population booms and shrinking agricultural sector employment of labour.

The greatest cause for concern about China’s spending spree in Africa is that it comes with no conditionalities for rule of law, human rights or targeted development unlike aid and grants from Europe and America. Thus, seen from the perspective of democracy advocates and ordinary Africans, they promote misrule and foster corruption within the public sector. In short, Chinese funds are a lower value source of capital since they do not include necessary safeguards against potential abuse by already corrupt African governments.

African government recipients of Chinese investments are however ecstatic about the new dispensation. They argue that China’s approach is superior to the West’s in that China offers friendship and real business partnership unlike Europe and the US that often use aid and grants as a means to meddle in domestic affairs of sovereign African countries. Moreover, they contend that China’s involvement has already resulted in remarkably fast-paced development especially in areas of infrastructure development and technology.

On balance, this publication contends that the problem is less with China than with African governments themselves. Consider the case of Nigeria: since 1959 when oil was first discovered, more than $400 billion of oil revenue is estimated to have been stolen or misappropriated by rogue regimes. That amount is more than all the foreign aid Africa has received during the period. Under such status quo of bad governance, unemployment and endemic poverty will prevail even without Chinese investments. China’s investments cannot be held responsible for the problems in Africa. Indeed, if African governments are responsible and sensitive to the needs of their constituents, China may very well be the best thing to happen to post-colonial Africa. (PT)

Taking A Page From Nkrumah's Book on Leadership: Vision

Monday, September 21 2009. That date is important for two main reasons: Eid ul-Fitr and Kwame Nkrumah's 100th anniversary. Going along with the GhanaBlogging.com "Nkrumah" theme, I'm gonna focus on what I think Nkrumah's most important legacy to Ghanaians and Africans is. I don't idolize him, but I definitely do admire and applaud him. I strongly believe that the true mark of an individual's success is in how (much) he or she is able to positively impact others. Nkrumah definitely did that. Heck, he is STILL doing it. With Ghana's population quickly approaching 24million, it is a wonder that we're not bursting at the seams.

The fact that our economy is being sustained by infrastructure and systems put into place by this man who, mind you, was an ordinary human being like ourselves, is even mind-blowing! Sure, he had his issues, but that's the beauty of it all! Despite all the criticisms against him, this man achieved what no Ghanaian man or woman has been able to parallel. Critics say he let the power get to his head (what do you think today's politicians are doing?), and that he wanted to rule Africa, and this and that, but at the end of the day, he certainly had one thing that set him apart from all the others (past and present): Vision.

Let's look at the European Union. This vessel of power, integration, and a definite symbol of what we humans can achieve if we're willing to work together. Sure, there might still be some cracks here and there, but all in all, it's an amazing thing. It's pretty ironic to think that Nkrumah's very own country (and continent) men swept his suggestion of a "United Africa" under the rug, while the Europeans paid heed to what could only have been the immense vision of this man. The man was simply phenomenal. He possessed the vision and foresight that is sorely lacking among our so-called leaders today.

Sure, I've listened to my dad and grandma talk about Nkrumah numerous times. I know the acclaimed "Ghana, your beloved country is free forever" speech all too well. And I've felt pride everytime a foreigner recognises Ghana as a result of Nkrumah. He put our country on the map, and indeed, brought a different light to the continent. However, it wasn't until I was conducting my independent research on Ghana and Malaysia, that I fully appreciated what a visionary Kwame Nkrumah was.

Hidden in the depths of chapter four of Critical Perspectives in Politics and Socio-Economic Development in Ghana by Tettey et al. (2003) was a section on how social and ethnic unrest in Ghana influenced (or rather impeded) its development efforts. The author, Adjibolosoo, explored Kwame Nkrumah's attempts at dealing with these tensions. The Ghana Young Pioneers movement of June 1960 which aimed at character building and citizen development amongst youth was one of the initiatives that led to the ideology of patriotic nationalism or "Nkrumanism." Through the Ghana Young Pioneers initiative, educational programs were implemented to educate children in the concepts of social solidarity, political action, value stabilization, individual integration into changing social structures, the direction and meaning of life, and learning to think in terms of a nation rather than ethnic groups. I think Nkrumah's target group alone (children) is indicative of how forward-thinking this man was.

And, he didn't end there. He implemented similar initiatives at the professional level, where Ghanaians from different ethnic groups were offered civil service jobs in languages other than their own. The current National Service Scheme is remiscent of this initiative; although many Ghanaians today will move heaven and earth to ensure that they remain in Accra or large cities like Kumasi and Tema. Adjibolosoo acknowledges that although Nkrumah's initiatives did not rid Ghana of ethnic rivalries, it did have a significant impact on ethnic dynamics in Ghana. And I concur with that observation.

I cannot imagine what it must have been like living in Ghana a couple of decades ago. Nkrumah knew that in order for Ghana (and Africa) to prosper, we would have to put our differences aside and work together. United we stand, divided we fall. And boy, are we racing each other to the depths of poverty, instability and all the other inefficiencies that plague our country and continent. All nations who have achieved some semblance of democracy and development, have had to let some sleeping dogs lie and work together. In Malaysia, the native Malays and the Chinese and Indian foreigners did this. In the United States, the north and south divides came together. In Ghana...well, let's look on the bright side, things are better.

This example is just a case in point of how visionary Kwame Nkrumah was. We are still living off of his vision. But at some point, the roads, schools, bridges etc that Kwame Nkrumah set up will be in need of serious repair, or will have to be done over entirely. It's time that we quit nit-picking, and go on a full-out campaign to work and make necessary changes. Who cares whether high school in Ghana goes for a term of three or four years? What, pray tell us, are students supposed to be studying over that period of time? That is what we are supposed to be focusing on, the curriculum, the essentialities, the specifics! We need to have a vision and long term goals, and then, we strategize step-by-step and determine how we will achieve these goals. Enough, of the short-term planning already! If we don't commemorate Nkrumah's 100th birthday in any way, I hope we at least take a page from his book on leadership, and strive to be visionaries and work not just in the present, but also for the future. In his own words, "Forward ever, Backward never." RIP Kwame Nkrumah (1909-1972).

--

This article was written by Jemila Abdulai and published on her site Circumspect

Sources: Photo 1, Photo 2

The Culture of "Respect": Robbing Children of Their Future

Over the past week, I've spent time with my cousins and a visiting "sister" from Ghana who recently had a baby girl. The baby is adorably cute, and my would-be "maternal instincts" immediately kicked in. I've always found it amazing how a tiny baby can grow up to be an individual with dreams, hopes, fears, opinions and the whole hammock of complexities that form a human being. One thing that sticks out to me about babies is the fact that they want to be treated as anything but what they are. You lay her down, she squeals, you cradle her in your arms, she throws a fit, you put her in her crib; are you seriously asking for a full-fledged tantrum? The trick is to treat them like adults. And by 'treat them like adults,' I don't mean throw a suit on her, throw a briefcase into her hand, and sit her at a desk for hours on end. No, what I mean is talk to her. Yes, the baby, talk to him/her.

Now, that suggestion might sound incredulous, and I can definitely understand why. About a decade ago, when my mum was pregnant with my youngest sister, she would occasional mutter words of concern to her swelling tummy. I didn't get it. Why would you talk to a baby, who has not even completed her 9-month hibernation period in the womb? As it turns out, talking to a baby in the womb is recommended by doctors and nurses worldwide. So, how is it that once these lil'uns actually have the capacity to talk and ask questions, we do a total 360 and try to silence them? That was the question on board a couple of nights ago. How is it that children in the US and Europe are more outspoken or vocal than their counterparts in African countries? One of my cousins was convinced there had to be something genetic going on; maybe it has to do with their baby formula? I believe it's deeply rooted in our culture of 'respect'.

Myjoyonline.com featured this article and audio excerpt involving some children who went on-air on JoyFM's Super Morning Show to talk about issues of national interest including the recent unrest in Bawku. Coincidence or not, it was a pretty timely piece given the conversation I'd had with my cousins the night before. In our attempt to instill a culture of 'respect' among Ghanaian and African children, do we unknowingly rob them of the very tools they need to be leaders and change makers in society? During the radio show, 13-year old Yehoada said, "Politicians should put aside politics and their parochial interests on air and focus more on education, health, security and other issues that can help Ghana to progress." Whoever said children were clueless? That statement does make me wonder though. Maybe our politicians aren't to blame. After being denied a platform for expressing their views on issues under the guise of instilling respect in them as kids, it's no wonder why many Ghanaian politicians engage in a "he said- she said" dance in lieu of dealing with the real issues.

The notion of 'respect' today is one that, I believe, is highly overrated and misplaced in many African societies. That's not to say that children shouldn't respect their elders. No, I am not advocating an absolute rebellion against elders, because truth be told, elders do have something that children lack to a large extent - experience. At the same time however, I think it is important to differentiate between earning respect and giving respect because it is demanded. While the first is usually borne out of something profound like genuine admiration, the latter is steeped in fear. Many of the rape and child abuse cases in Ghana I have come across seem to have a common thread. The young girl is asked by the older man to go and buy something for him. Once she arrives with his purchase, he directs her to deposit the item in his room. Now, a typical Ghanaian child who is brought up with the ideology of "the adult is always right," won't ask any questions and will do as requested. And there lies the trap to which many child rape victims fall prey. I strongly believe that a child who has been brought up to think critically, to ask questions (in a respectful manner of course), and to evaluate situations, would probably hesitate before entering the suspicious depths of any man's abode.

By asking children to "keep quiet when adults are talking" or "do without asking", we are not only putting them at risk when they're in the midst of unscrupulous individuals, we are also hindering their growth potential. A couple of generations ago, the attempt at fostering respect for elders among children most likely did exactly what it was supposed to do. Why? Because the level of social vice back then was lower, for one. And also because elders actually deserved the respect they asked for. These days however, you really have to wonder about some of the actions portrayed by adults and elders in society. Think I'm exaggerating? You only have to look to your T.V. set to see who the role models of today are. Undeserving adults who demand respect, also sow another deadly seed in the lives of children: that of hypocrisy. Sure, I'll act respectful towards you when you're around, but once you're out of sight, I'll snicker and talk about you behind your back. And trust, it won't be anywhere near 'respectful'.

Now, after conditioning a child to 'do without asking' and to 'respect all elders', we do serious havoc to a child's ability to discern (between right and wrong, what they have been taught and what is new information etc), even worse is the damage done to a child's self-esteem and confidence. The current culture of 'respect' has done more than rob children of the opportunity to dream, to question, and to simply be who they are. When else are you going to be convinced that you can fly and save the world, than when you haven't the inkling of what problems abound in the world? Next in line, we rob them of their creativity. Creativity, I believe, is borne out of a desire to do something new, and something different. And in many cases, going against the norm requires some iota of courage (which, remember, we have already robbed them of). So essentially, we're not only placing the children's present life in jeopardy, but their future as well. And here's the twist. Children are the future. It's no secret. So if we're robbing the children of their future, we're essentially robbing ourselves, our societies and our countries of what the future could be. I don't know about you guys, but I think that's a pretty heavy responsibility to shoulder, don't you?

All in all, I think adults in society (whether you're in your 20s or late 60s), should make sure they're worthy of the respect they demand. Respect should be mutual. I know many amazing children who are extremely respectful and who are also given the opportunity to voice their opinions on issues. This is not a case of either-or. You can inculcate an attitude of respect in a child without silencing them and ruining them for God-knows what prospective future they could have had. I think it would suffice to say that any self-respecting individual would be willing to grant audience to his or her counterparts. Regardless of how coherent, incoherent, young or old.

--

This article was written by Jemila Abdulai and published on her site Circumspect

Photo Sources: Photo 1, Photo 2, Photo 3

The GM TakeOver: Why Ghanaians Won't Be Chewing on Their Chicken Bones

I said I was gonna take a break from writing on development stuff for a while, and technically I have. But this is highly important, and people need to aware about this, so here goes. I woke up this morning and went online to get my daily doze of global and Ghana news. Head to myjoyonline.com, and what do I see? "Health Alert!: Will Parliament Succumb to US Pressure?" Always one for intrigue, I proceed to read the article. It turns out the Ghanaian parliament and U.S. Congress are working on passing a Bill known as the "Biosafety Act" which will allow the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) into Ghana's food chain. GMOs are organisms (food, animals etc) made using molecular biological techniques. And far from what the bill's name suggests, these foods are far from being "safe". There have been numerous reports of people suffering from "mysterious" diseases due to the production or consumption of GMOs. I wrote an article about how GMOs affect the international student population at MHC. You can read the article here.

The proponents of GMOs claim that it can help avert a food crisis or starvation in the poorer nations. And that's why they push for GMO production in developing countries. True, you might increase the ability of your crops to resist disease and bad weather, and you might even be able to grow those crops in more seasons thus increasing your total yield. But these crops are not destined to remain on the field, are they? So what then are the real effects of GMOs? I can testify that the results are not as beautiful as they are made out to be. I started college in the US in September 2005 and since then I have noticed a number of changes in my physique. Sure, we have the normal changes as one grows up, but these ones...definitely triggered by something other than just growing up.

The US mass produces GMOs, and they are the cheapest foods you'll find around. Big food companies like McDonald's use GMOs in their food and so they transmit this food to a huge populace. My college offered numerous food options other than fast food, as it has many dining halls which operate at the same. However, the ability to pick and choose and plan healthy meals didn't save me or my friends from the effects of GM food. For one thing, if you're a girl/woman, you'll most likely experience some irregularities when it comes to your period. I'm generally an active person, so I usually don't have painful cramps and what-nots. Until I got here that is. All of a sudden, you have highly unbearable cramps with nausea and what-nots. One of my friends actually gets bed-ridden during her period, and this wasn't the case when she was back in Ghana. What's going on here, you ask? Hormonal interference. The artificial hormones injected into GM food messes with your body's natural hormone system and then you have a whole bunch of probs. Oh, lets not forget the "love-handles". They are far from loving when you finally have them and figure out what they are. Basically, it's excess fat that your body has stored, and its usually at hip or waist area. Now there's one thing when you've put on a few pounds in a healthy and even manner. It's a totally different ball game when you see a skinny girl walking around with huge love-handles. Trust me, it's not a pretty sight.

You might be thinking this has nothing to do with you. But please, take a moment and think about this. Once this bill is passed, most Ghanaian farmers will probably opt for GM foods. Why? Because the US will be giving higher support to farmers who push for GM foods. Real, healthy, organic food will become a luxury, that only the rich in Ghanaian society can afford. How am I so sure of this? It's exactly the same thing thats happening in the U.S. In order to be guaranteed organic food (which practically all Ghanaians, for the most part, have access to right now), you have to be pay a higher price. Many people who can afford it, and want to eat healthy food, opt for products from Whole Foods, which carries organic food. And trust me, it is quite an investment.

How would the passing of this bill affect the Ghanaian economy? Well, according to those who push for GM food, more people will be fed, which will lead to more people who are able to work, hence increasing the economic producitivity of the country. True, that will most likely happen. But not indefinitely, because eventually, the health effects of consuming those GM foods will show up. I know that Ghanaians LOVE to chew their chicken bones after some serious fufu and light soup. Once the GM take-over is finalised, chewing your bones will probably be a thing of the past. Why? Because the hormones injected into chickens are usually put in the bone, so you'd essentially be putting yourself at risk if you decide to go ahead and chew on those bones. Obesity, health disease, cancer etc. There are untold number of diseases emerging every day in countries that use GM foods. Trust, those will show up in Ghana too. We barely have our health insurance system straightened out, so who's gonna pay the cost? You the consumer. And since your entire family is probably consuming the same GM food, its gonna be quite a pinch for you money-wise. Unless of course, you're just swimming in money. Meaning, the income -divide will most likely widen further, as poorer people channel their resources towards health-care instead of investing in business ventures or reaping back profits.

Another element of this entire thing is the fact that we could possibly be giving away the right to produce these foods. Yam, cassava, okro, tomatoes etc. Anyone who can afford it, and is willing, probably has a private vegetable garden in their homes. With the GM takeover, it might be illegal for you to grow these without first obtaining permission. I'm not making this up (why would I?), there have been cases in other developing countries where people adopted GM variants of their local foods and have been sued for using food without going through the necessary procedures of obtaining permission. How is this so? Well, since GM manufacturers add a different gene or hormone or what-have you to a regular tomato (for instance), in order to make it more hardy or increase its yield, they figure they have come up with something 'original' and hence claim that GM variant as their own. Now, should this bill pass, the US will be more than happy to supply these GM variants to Ghanaians at a cheaper cost than what we currently have. Going by economic logic, the consumer will opt for the cheaper good, hence GM foods. Note that the 'consumer' in this case doesn't just mean you and I, it also means our farmers. They might even get the first couple of GM seeds and what-not for free. And once they plant those seeds and start growing them, the US can claim ownership. No more can you eat a tomato, and plant the seeds. Because essentially, those seeds have been modified and patented, and so, you don't "own" them. It's how the system of intellectual property rights works, and I did a piece on the need for awareness on those issues as well. Check that out here.

The final danger is with regards to foreign assistance. In as much as I wish our government would limit how many foreign loans and grants it accepts, that's not gonna happen anytime soon. Passing the 'Biosafety Act' and producing GM food will limit our policy space. Organizations wishing to grant us loans and aid can mandate that we accept so-so and so amount of so-so and so GM food as a pre-condition for getting the loan. We're just spinning ourselves into a tight web of conditions. We don't need any more. Seriously. I sincerely hope the Ghanaian parliament looks at the whole picture and the long term effects of passing this Bill, before making a final decision. True, the US operates on GM food, but does that mean we have to? Heck, even the US is shifting its attention to organic, health, non-GM foods. That should tell us something. And yes, there are other advanced countries which operate on an organic-food only basis. France and Germany for instance. I hope Ghana holds talks with these two countries to find out how they are operating on a Non-GM basis. We need to quit looking for the easy way out, cos it always ends up doing havoc in the long-run. Instead of looking at GM foods, let's think about overhauling our agricultural sector and getting young people interested in agriculture. That is practically the only feather we have in our cap, let's not give it away. There is no shame in being a farmer or fisherman. It is a great honor to help feed multitudes of people. Unfortunately, many young Ghanaians look down upon working in the agricultural sector. There are however, people who are willing to do the work. Like Kofi Annan for instance. He talked about the importance of overhauling the Agric sector in Ghana and Africa as a whole. Let's at least listen to these people and give them a chance. I didn't even know they'd already passed the Legislative Instrument on Biosafety, which allows for field trials of GM food in Ghana. We need to get this information out there so people know what they're gonna be dealing with. Please pass on. If this bill is passed, not only will we not get to chew on our chicken bones, our children will probably have an entirely new set of diseases to deal with...and we're barely done handling the current ones.

Read the myjoyonline article here.

I also came across these videos on the danger of GM food:

Part 1

Part 2:

Part 3:



Part 4:



Part 5:



Part 6:

--

This article was written by Jemila Abdulai and published on her blog.

Photo Source: Photo 1, Photo 2

The Question of Intellectual Property Rights: Are Africans Even Aware?

I have wanted to do this post ever since I took an international trade seminar in the my final year in college. It was a pretty eye-opening experience, but like just about everything on the international front, there were no clear cut solutions or resolutions. This past Wednesday, July 17 2009 I participated in a bloggers-only roundtable teleconference on "Obama, Technology and Rural Development" - an initiative that was sponsored by Africa Rural Connect and the National Peace Corps Association. We got a chance to interact with Arlene Mitchell, a Senior Program Officer for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for an hour, and I personally found it to be a pretty eye-opening and interesting experience. [You can listen to a podcast of the roundtable discussion here. To skip to my comments + question, go towards the end (the last 10 minutes or so).]

Many participants highlighted the fact that technology can in fact help Africans transform their lives, and is already doing so. I definitely agree with that, and so do many development economists like Ha-Joon Chang and Robert Wade who consider technology the bedrock for transforming capabilities and stimulating development. My Economic Development Seminar mates and myself got the opportunity to interact with these two leading development economists as well as many others during Mount Holyoke's first-ever Development Economics conference. One of the key things that came out of the conference was the importance of adapting knowledge, research, policy and technology to suit a country's profile. In this light, I decided to ask Ms. Mitchell a question on the potential for Africans to adapt the technology they receive from developed countries. Specifically, I asked her how the notion

of intellectual property rights would play into the ability of Africans to not only implement, but adapt and hopefully invent technology. Although Ms. Mitchell did give me an answer by saying that governments are more open and willing to work together to ensure transfer of technology, she admitted that it was a tough question. From what I learned in my International Trade seminar, its not only a tough question, but a virtually non-existant one on the African continent.

First of, let's get into the question of what intellectual property rights are. Generally-speaking, they are regulations that govern the ownership and use of ideas and creations. Wikipediaincludes the fact that these creations can be both artistic and commercial. In the seminar we debated whether information should fall under the realm of intellectual property rights or not. If so, under whose jurisdiction should it fall? We all agreed that information should be free and accessible to all; except in the case where it is a particularly "new" piece of information or highly

confidential for "security" reasons. The question here is, how do you determine what "new information" is? Was it always existent but never discovered? Did someone literally make it up? If there is a higher being (and most of us agreed there was) wouldn't that mean that all the information is already there and just waiting to be discovered. What about if it was discovered at one point, then "lost" and rediscovered. Definitely an endless stream of questions. But at least, they are questions that are being asked...and as it is, these regulations are already being debated upon within the World Trade Organization (WTO).

I personally believe it's important that African nations start joining that debate. We discussed a case in the seminar where an American, Ryan Black, claimed he had "discovered" acai berry in 1999 - a fruit from the Amazon rainforest region which is purported to have many benefits and is currently in the limelight because of its ability to induce weight lose (there is some controversy surrounding this). Mr. Black currently has the rights to this fruit, but the Brazilian natives refuted his claims saying that they had been aware of the fruit for centuries and it was part of their lives way before Mr. Black came across it. At the end of the day however, Mr. Black still has the rights to the fruit and is making money out of it, while the very people who nurtured and used the fruit stand the possibility of being sued or fined should they not go through the appropriate measures when using the fruit. This is just one of numerous cases where individuals, societies and nations, particularly in the Global South, lose the rights to their own ideas, customs, food etc.

Although the WTO allows African nations to participate in discussing issues, there is the problem of limited staff . Since most of these nations are poor, they don't have large delegates. One individual might be scheduled to attend 5 sessions which might run concurrently. And as far as we know, they haven't yet developed the technology that allows you to be in more than one place at a time. The obvious thing to do then, would be to concentrate on those sessions that deal directly with issues currently affecting their nation. Hence, most African delegations spend time on the WTO Agricultural Agreement Committee and the Non-Agricultural Market Access Committee (NAMA). Even if they do participate in the Committee on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), they don't have all the legal acumen and research base to adequately represent the interests of their nations. This not only points to the need for more focus on research in African nations, but also indicates the need for relatively unbiased legal presentation. As the current situation is, many of the lawyers who represent African nations in the WTO Tribunal are either not African, have been educated in the West, or generally do not have a realistic understanding of on-the-ground African issues.

As someone who believes that criticisms should come with constructive suggestions, I believe that Africans can make headway in not only concentrating on their current issues, but anticipating what might come about in the future. While the West is busy trying to determine who has control over what idea, piece of information or creation, we are solely focused on developing our agriculture base. While this is ok, we need to start putting the necessary frameworks in place to be able to handle the next generation of struggles. And yes, they will come. If we don't start doing something now, we will find ourselves in a similar position as we currently are (relying on the West for agricultural and manufactured produce, investment & services etc). The only difference is it will be on a more advanced level. Just as the flying geese model suggests, we do have the advantage of numerous country cases to learn from. We need to start tying research and education together even more. Our educational institutions should be our research centers. I think the US model where educational institutions finance and encourage research is one that we should emulate even further. Until we begin to know the pieces of the story, we won't know which pages are missing.

As the technological era continues to advance, many Africans see hope in the future and look forward to a time when they can actually invent something that will be internationally acclaimed. This is where our knowledge of intellectual property rights plays in. We need to know in order to ensure that a) we will be able to adapt the technology we receive to suit our needs and unique country situations, and b) we can eventually invent our own technology without having to deal with numerous claims and suits that we copied a pre-existing model, or used a patented product without seeking permission. Without adapted technology, all we are doing is increasing the phenomenon of e-waste that is gradually taking over the African continent.

--

This article was written by Jemila Abdulai and published on the blog site Circumspect.

--

Photo 1 Source: http://www.nadiaplesner.com/Website/Darfur_Boy_and_girl.jpg

Photo 2 Source: http://static.chinaventurenews.com/chinaventurenews.com/imgname--coming_this_month_roundtable_discussion_on_intellectual_property_rights_in_china---50226711--19121867.jpg

Obama's Message to Africa: Reiterating the Obvious

A lot of people have asked me what I think about Obama's visit to Ghana, and specifically, his speech to Ghanaian parliamentarians. It's undoubted that his presence in Ghana was a historic one - mainly because he is the first black US president, and Ghana is the first sub-Saharan African country to gain independence. It was also a great occasion because in many ways than one, Obama has succeeded in reminding a great number of people, about the possibilities that abound, if they are willing to work hard and take the necessary risks. Now that said, I did have some qualms about his visit, because it represents not only possibilities, but challenges too. I aired similar concerns in my article The Obama Effect & the African Illusion during Obama's presidential campaign . Bottomline is, Obama's successes can only be beneficial to Africans, if we regard them as proof that we can make a difference and be the change we want to see in our world. The moment we begin to conceive this single man as our "savior," our chances of "redemption" will be thwarted. My choice of title for this article might sound pessimistic, negative or downright unappreciative. But before you draw conclusions, let me explain why I honestly believe that Obama only reiterated what we already know.

Obama's speech was right on point and as always, President Obama delivered his speech with the level of eloquence, consideration, emphasis, humor and attitude of a great orator. When it comes down to it however, he said nothing new. Perhaps the only novel thing about his speech was his emphasis on the fact that Africans will determine their own future."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." Unlike his predecessor George Bush who promised billions in aid to Africa, Obama stressed that the U.S. would work in partnership with African countries instead of simply pumping dollars into African economies. "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." He introduced the dimension of focusing on the provision of new methods and technology, as opposed to just food or monetary aid. "... why our $3.5billion 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."

This notion of "transformatinal change" is something that forms the cornerstone of development economics. Heterodox economists like Ha-Joon Chang and Robert Wade have stressed the importance of building capacities for change. According to Chang, "development is more than providing higher standards of living," and is rather the "transformation of productive structire and the capabilities that support it." Mr. Obama touched on some of these capabilities - namely good governance (democracy), opportunity (employment), health, and peaceful resolution of conflict (socio-political stability).

Africans realized the need for them to handle their own state of affairs about 50 decades ago, hence the desire for independence from their colonial masters. Obviously, we have gone through a series of trials and errors which have resulted in our almost stagnant development. But it is exactly this process of trial and error that made us realize the importance of democracy. Obama rightly stated that different countries achieve democracy in different ways. And Ghana is no exception. Even though our semblance of democracy is far advanced than other African countries, there is still a lot to be done. The situation whereby newly formed governments terminate contracts haphazardly because they were initiated by the opposing party results in grievious loss of capital to the nation. I understand that there is the issue of allegiance and what-nots, but at what point are we willing to forgoe the notion of allegiance to this or that political party, and trade it in for allegiance to the nation? Even within our local social setups, the head of a family determines the direction the family will follow, so the need for committed leadership with the interest of the country at heart is undoubtedly imperative.

With regards to employment and opportunities, these not only add to the national cake by way of money, but also lead to general human development which further enhances the chances of future development. With all the buzz about oil in Ghana, there is a lot of promise, but also a lot of danger, and we needn't look further than Nigeria to realize that . When it comes down to the economy, I believe mismanagement is the bane of Africa's existence. We say we don't have money, yet Nigerians were able to raise over half a million dollars towards Obama's campaign? Even with Obama's visit (as with Clinton and Bush), Ghana spent extra money to clean the streets, paint houses and get Accra and Cape Coast in order for his arrival. Economic/business wise, I think it would be cheaper to maintain/clean a premisis regularly than to splurge on one rare moment. And if for nothing at all, aren't the inhabitants of the nation worthy enough of humane environments and treatment? In this era of "green" attitudes, I'm quite surprised that African countries haven't led the way in promoting solar and geothermal energy when we obviously receive greater(if not the greatest) percentages of sunlight than the U.S. and other developed countries. And yes, it is possible to export solar energy. If it doesn't sound believable coming from me, then here's a direct quote from President Obama to assuage your doubts: "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."

With regards to health, Africa is plagued by many known diseases, and indeed has actually become the poster child for these diseases. From HIV/AIDS to Malaria, it would seem our very senses were being attacked by all the viruses known to man. When people think about health, the first thing they probably think about is a doctor. But pray tell me, how does this doctor get certified to treat his patients. The obvious answer would be education, but that aside, without research, many of the advancements in health and science would not be possible. Sure, many African governments allocate a substantial amount to health and education, but doing this without tying it in with research is backslacking on possibilities. In Ghana, a mere 1% of the budget is allocated to research. If we intend to have healthier and more productive societies, then we need to start thinking holistically. As Lauryn Hill would say, everything is everything. The circle of life extends to our institutions and market sectors - it is a give and take process.

It is often said that is takes hours to prepare a good meal, but merely minutes to consume it. Ignoring socio-economic and political tensions in a nation is like placing a frail egg (development) on one's head and playingampe. Unless you find a way to secure it, it is bound to fall down and break. In my article The North-South Development Divide in Ghana: Why It Could Be Ghana's Downfall , I elaborate on how the "selective development" currently practiced by Ghana - and many African countries - breeds discontent and leads to conflict. We have numerous examples where the neglect of the concerns of specific groups in society impedes the development of that society. Even Malaysia - one of South East Asia's shining stars, and Ghana's one-time counterpart - has had to concentrate on solving its people's racial, ethnic and socio-political issues in order to pursue development.

I hope I have adequately explained to you why I think Obama was just pointing to the obvious. All we need to do is look to our backgrounds and to history, in order to determine what our (common) problems are, and what the likely solutions might be. I am very optimistic about the potential for Africa to develop, and the fact that we have other countries' case scenarios to learn from is a leverage we need to take advantage of. It is however imperative that we realize that nobody is going to do the grunt work. We need to do it ourselves. Although there are people and nations who might be willing to partner with us, at the end of the day, their allegiance lies elsewhere. I believe Obama's presence has jumpstarted our belief in our capacity to do exceptional things, but whether that 0ptimism, drive and passion will be maintained, is up to us. Let's stop living on the promise of tomorrow, and instead build on the possibilities of today. To adapt a line from the movie August Rush, "the solutions are all around us. All we have to do, is look."

--

This article was written by Jemila Abdulai and published on the blog site Circumspect.

--

Excerpts of Obama's speech taken from the Huffington Post.

Photo Source: Reuters

The North-South Development Divide in Ghana: Why It Could Lead to Ghana's Downfall

For a long time now, I have concentrated on writing articles that focus on Ghana's development as a whole, without looking too critically at the various factors and elements that contribute to Ghana's inability to accelerate development. Following my independent study research this past year on Ghana and Malaysia's economic development, I realized that specifics are just as important as generalities, and in the case of Ghana, the lack of development in Northern Ghana is one particular factor that greatly hinders Ghana's development efforts. I am Dagomba, hence from Northern Ghana, so I might be a bit biased when it comes to this topic. However, I'll attempt as much as I can to be objective in this article, and although I will talk about how the disregard for Northerners feeds under development, I'll also take it from a case-study point of view, looking at Malaysia, in order to explain why it is imperative that the Ghanaian government quit paying homage to words, and put actual action into motion.

One resists what one cannot understand. I believe that statement to be true, especially when it comes to interactions between Northerners and Southerners in Ghana. Like any minority-majority relationship, the minority tends to know more about the majority, than the majority ever does about the minority, generally-speaking. The ironic thing here is the fact population-wise, the North and the South in Ghana are pretty balanced. So what kind of minority-majority relationship am I talking about? Access to resources and development. Some people might say that Northerners are not entrepreneurial enough, or that the Southern communities of Ghana were able to develop on their own, so Northerners should be able to do so too IF they really want to. I seriously beg to differ. Any Ghanaian who knows anything about Ghana's history knows that Ghana's development was fed largely due to its experience with colonisation. Due to the fact that Ghana's southern states are located close to the Atlantic, the colonists had easier access to these communities and for a great length of time, did not even venture to the Northern parts of Ghana...hence the initial development base of Southern Ghana took place ages before the 'white man' finally set foot in Northern Ghana. Does this mean that Northern Ghana couldn't develop without the intervention of the West? No. Back in the day, Northern Ghana had strong kingdoms and systems of governance just like the strong Southern kingdoms did. The thing however (which many people seem to miss), is that once these kingdoms were given secondary importance in favor of a NATION comprising both the South AND North, then the development of both is the concern of the ENTIRE NATION aka Ghana.

There seems to be many misconceptions concerning who Northern Ghanaians are, what they are about etc. And honestly, I don't blame anyone. What I do not endorse however, is the fact that Ghanaians continually feed into these misconceptions. In many ways than one, Northerners are regarded as second citizens in Ghana. And I'm not just saying this for the sake of saying it. It's the truth, and I have experienced it personally since primary school. Many people would find it surprising that my English was actually good, or that I excelled in school, or that I was even a Northerner and Muslim....because I "don't look like a Northerner." Pray tell me what a Northerner looks like! Trust me, until we take a stand to get to know one another in Ghana, we're gonna remain in the canker of ignorance that feeds underdevelopment. The disregard for Northerners is however not something recent. Although the ancient Ghana tribes had their scuffles here and there, the level of contempt for one another that exists now (although it is less "in your face") did not exist. How did it come about? Colonization. The colonial masters fueled disagreements between the various ethnic groups in order to advance their objectives. The "divide and conquer" methods used all those years ago, are STILL serving their purpose.

If you live in the South of Ghana like I do, its pretty easy to forget about Northern Ghana. Heck, even a bus trip to Tamale takes approximately 10 hours, add the messed up roads and it might take eons. Why should EVERYONE be bothered about Northern Ghana's development? Because at the end of the day, when the World Bank, UN, IMF etc draw up those statistical tables and rank development in various countries, they won't be listing Northern and Southern Ghana separately. They'll be listing Ghana. This is also another reason why its important for the Northern regions to receive their share of the national cake. Our government receives aid and what-not taking into consideration the underdevelopment in these areas, yet they don't even so much as ensure that basic systems are in place?

Let's look at Malaysia. A lot of Ghanaians know that Malaysia and Ghana have similar economic and historic backgrounds, but the actual comparative study on the subject of why their development levels diverged so much is yet to be done (Hence my interest in conducting the study). Ghana gained independence from the British on March 6, 1957 while Malaysia gained independence from the same colonists in August of the same year. Ghana's per capita GDP (total income) was slightly higher than Malaysia's and most people expected Ghana to advance beyond Malaysia, mainly because Malaysia had racial tensions which were lacking in Ghana at the time. Now, well, Malaysia's total income is 13 times that of Ghana, Malaysia is a leading producer of palm oil (which it got from Ghana and other W/A countries in the 1960s), and living standards in Malaysia are generally higher than that of Ghana. One might wonder how this is so, and there are many reasons. The most interesting one to me (and the most relevant to this article) is the fact that right from the get-go, Malaysia worked at resolving its INTERNAL TENSIONS. Malaysia's population consisted mainly of its native Malays and expatriate nationals like the Indians and the Chinese. The first attempt of ensuring that there was racial harmony was the "Bargain of 1957" which created a dual system of leadership with the Malays handling government affairs and the expatriate nationals dealing with the economy. Soon enough however, it was necessary to re-examine this structure since the native Malays felt like they were not getting their share of the national cake (hence, they were generally poorer) There were riots in 1969 due to this discontent and subsequently, Malaysia came up with it's very first development policy, the New Economic Policy (NEP), which aimed at redistributing the national cake and reducing internal tensions.

By all means, it would seem like Malaysia's internal tensions were on a larger scale than Ghana's especially since theirs was across racial lines and not merely ethnic lines. What did Ghana do once it gained independence? Well for one, little or no attention was paid to ensuring that all Ghanaian citizens were on board for the new era. Additionally, Ghana went ahead to "sack" all its expatriate/foreign nationals, for fear that they would take over the economy (and from the news these days, it seems the government is leaning towards the same mistake it made 50-something years ago!).

You might say that these accounts are all good and dandy, but will probably not have any disastrous effect. Please, for heavens sake, don't be blind to whats going on in our own backyard! For one thing, the NPP and NDC use the Northern regions as their pawns whenever its election time, because they need the votes. Yet after they are in power, virtually no attention is paid to the very people who made it possible for them to win the election! The whole issue with the late Ya-Naa is another time-bomb that is waiting to set off. The old king was murdered in 2004 -- 5 years ago! And the culprits have not yet been found? And of course, this is another platform for campaigning when it comes to political parties. As much as it saddens me to say this, if ever Ghana was to have intense civil unrest, it would probably come through this issue. And trust me, if war ever breaks out in Ghana, we will be set back many years development-wise. So why not cut our losses, deal with the issues at hand, develop BOTH the north and south of Ghana, and advance the development that we've all been waiting for for ages?! I honestly cannot comprehend Ghanaian politicians, and what is even more surprising is the fact that the citizenry lets them get away with most of their nonsense. Any Northerner can campaign for development in Northern Ghana, but until our Southern counterparts join that campaign, we are going to be labeled as empty barrels who are just dissatisfied.

How many of you have actually been to any of the Northern regions? And I don't mean going to Paga, or Mole park or any of that. Aside from Tamale and most of the Northern regional capitals, the state of living that our fellow Ghanaians have to go through is simply saddening. And please, don't tell me that Northerners themselves are not prepared for development. Do you think so many Northern porter girls (Kayayo) would head all the way to Accra to go through the stress, disregard, sexual and physical abuse that they go through if they weren't trying to feed their families? If you think Northern Ghana has nothing to offer to Ghana, then you seriously know nothing about Ghana. Shea butter is one of Ghana's key exports. Where do you think it comes from? The beef kebabs you love munching on come from Northern herdsmen, and so much more! Sure, political parties might not think a Northerner fit enough for the Presidency, but in whatever capacities many Northerners find themselves, they work hard. Whether its as the Vice-president, a Minister (as in the case of the late Hawa Yakubu), or your watchman (Where would you be without the security he provides so you and your family might sleep at night?) . It's time we Ghanaians quit playing blind mice and deal with the issues in front of us. If we really and truly do want to advance development, this is something that needs to be addressed head on. Please feel free to leave comments etc, and for what its worth, try to get to know someone from Northern Ghana and re-examine your perceptions. Peace.