What Amiri Baraka Said Kwame Nkrumah (Vlll)

“Nkrumah is a reminder not of what Africa is, but of what Africa must become (Kofi Hadjor, 1986).”


What does Hadjor mean? Obviously that is a tall philosophical question which does not require a dwarfed response! Hopefully we shall attempt some useful answers in subsequent pages. In the meantime, in the absence of any immediate response, what should be our next question then? Let’s rephrase our question: Is it any wonder that Bill Mahoney, the then-US ambassador to Ghana, from 1962-1065, practically acknowledged Nkrumah as the powerhouse of Africa, admitting in one interview that Nkrumah “was everything—psychologically, politically, statism, or culturally, and economically…he absolutely dominated the scene”? Which scene? Was it Ghana or Africa? Both, he meant to say! Could it have been that Nkrumah’s progressive ideas for Ghana, for Africa, and the global attention he garnered for creatively applying his “genius” toward the dismantlement of colonialism and then setting Africa on a path in the direction of self-autonomy, psychological, economic, cultural, and political, factored into the ideological calculus of his enemies, the West and self-proclaimed “local democrats,” to get him out of the way so as to enhance their exploitation of Africa, given that Nkrumah wanted to reverse what Walter Rodney aptly described as “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa”?


Then again, why is social democracy doing relatively far better than democratic capitalism in many important respects? Why has capitalism seemingly failed the world? Is democratic capitalism necessarily better than communism, socialism, or fascism? Not exactly. Dambisa Moyo capitalizes on the sharp contrasts between the West and China to make her case, pointing out that private capitalism, liberal democracy, prioritized political rights, sociopolitical qualities we readily associate with the West, the “Western Model,” she calls it, are not necessarily ironclad ingredients for economic success. Alternatively, her observations are bolstered by the fact that state capitalism, de-emphasized democracy, prioritized economic rights over political rights, in other words, what she refers to as the “Chinese Model or Beijing Consensus,” equally promises better standard of living in the shortest possible time. In short, Dambisa believes democracy is not a prerequisite for economic growth. Moreover, she has also cited Chile, Thailand, and Chile to buttress her arguments (See “How the West Lost: Fifty Years of Economic Folly”).


Aside the controversial economic philosophy of Dambisa Moyo, Prof. Samir Amin, an Egyptian political economist, has theoretically unraveled the supposed contradictions intrinsic to “capitalist universalism” and has, therefore, proposed what he calls “the socialist universalism” in its stead, believing that politically, culturally, and economically capitalism is not inclusive enough (See his “Eurocentrism” and “The Implosion of Contemporary Capitalism”; see also Pomeranz’s “The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World.” Note: Drayton faults Pomeranz for excluding Europe’s “access to West Africa” as part of its equational success where development and growth are the “dependent” variables). Pointedly, Amin has also cogently argued that the development of “modern capitalism” is not unique to the West and that “modern capitalism” had existed in inchoate forms in non-Western societies, arguably in China and the Arab world. Again, Prof. Richard Robbins, a SUNY anthropologist, has pointed out problems which unregulated free market activities engender in today’s world (See “Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism”). Presciently, was Nkrumah intellectually intimate with the shortcomings of capitalism, as Samir Amin and others see it?


Still, answering this long mileage of a question, however intricate and ostensibly impossible to evaluate, is practically possible on the contemporary hunchback of hindsight. But the theoretical height of the contemporary hunchback of hindsight is not where we would like to be, at least not for now. Of course, unlike his enemies and ideological opponents, Nkrumah’s local economic policies, his progressive vision for Africa, and his copious writings amply attest to his intellectual grasp of political economy. Prof. Robert Yaw Owusu has also written of Nkrumah: “His ‘anti-colonialist economics and politics’ manifested in his writings and speeches were enough to break the camel’s back.” He adds: “The Western countries intentionally cut the cocoa prices (the lifeblood of Ghana’s economy) drastically at a time he needed funds for his Seven-Year Development Plan launched in 1963/64 fiscal year. Then, after Busia’s lobby against Nkrumah in the US Senate, the United States and its allies consulted to withdraw assistance to Ghana. The intention was obvious: To cause frustration and, consequently, uprising from the masses and opinion leaders against Nkrumah. In other words, the allies’ action was to initiate the condition for his overthrow.” Prof. Owusu maintains: “In a special report on the American CIA’s activities that overthrew Nkrumah referred to previously, the then U.S. envoy in Accra, Ambassador William Mahoney, was reported to have said: “Western pressures were having their intended effect, exacerbating, if not causing, deteriorating conditions. Popular opinion was running strongly against Nkrumah and the country was in a precarious state.” What? William Mahoney?


Was it not the same William Mahoney who in an interview said the intellectual and cultural aura of Nkrumah dominated the Pan-Africanist evolutionary space of Africa? Anyway, Prof. Owusu concludes: “The report continues that ‘Ambassador William Mahoney supported the recommendation to deny Ghana’s forthcoming aid ‘in the interests of further weakening Nkrumah…and the British would continue to adopt a hard nose attitude toward providing further assistance to Ghana,’ and this would ‘provide the spark for the coup being mooted.’ But despite the harsh and difficult condition he faced and the humiliation that followed his overthrow on 24 February 1966, Nkrumah left an economic and sociocultural legacy that no other government of Ghana has yet equaled (See “Kwame Nkrumah’s Liberation Thought: A Paradigm for Religious Advocacy In Contemporary Ghana”). Is Prof. Owusu confirming what several other respectable and knowledgeable intellectual personalities such as Drs. Kwesi Botchwey, Kwame Botwe-Asamoah, and Zizwe Poe have repeatedly said? Why have many countries in Europe chosen to have democratic socialism instead of democratic capitalism?


The real question is, what sort of a politico-economic system can we associate with Nkrumah’s presidency? Did Nkrumah successfully build a socialist system in Ghana? Or a mixture of both, that of democratic socialism or even of democratic capitalism? How long has capitalism been in existence as opposed to socialism, communism, or fascism? Was it not the moral weaknesses and misanthropy of capitalism that drove Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels to come up with capitalism’s antithetic image in the form of socialism and communism? Is comparative chronology probably not the appropriate response to weighing the long-term benefits of socialism and capitalism? Let’s change analytic gears by continuing from where we left off the last time—“What Amiri Baraka Said About Kwame Nkrumah (7).” Houphouët-Boigny, unlike Nkrumah, reportedly used public funds to buy off members of the opposition, even opening fat bank accounts for others, again, on account of the public purse. However, those whose rigid conscience he could not buy off he drove into exile.


On the contrary, Nkrumah—on his own initiative—invited the opposition for deliberation, to try to address their grievances, but again, without apparent success. Even Sir Charles Arden-Clarke, the then-Governor, went to Kumasi to see the leadership of the opposition, Busia’s NLM, to encourage them to sort out their differences with the CPP government via official channels. Instead, they subjected him to a lapidation of stones, consequently humiliating him and chasing him away. What is more, on three different occasions the Governor and Nkrumah, together, tried to meet with the opposition in order to resolve their grievances, but that, too, failed again (See Nelson and Gyamerah; see also Dr. Kwame Botwe-Asamoah). Importantly, to our knowledge no evidence has surfaced to incriminate Nkrumah where he tried to bribe any of them because he morally felt the weight of popular sovereignty on his side. This is what good and conscionable leaders do!


Let’s look elsewhere for corroborative answers as to Nkrumah’s democratic nature. Nevertheless, Prof. Markovitz, a political scientist from whose work we sourced ideas for our previous essay, shares this with us: “There was considerable unrest and dissatisfaction, several assassination attempts against Nkrumah, and constant rumors of coups, yet the government had made conciliatory gestures toward its opponents both within and outside its ranks, and showed every sign of having attained a durable balance of interests.” How does this compare with Ivory Coast’s incipient democracy as far as Houphouët-Boigny and his opponents go? On the other hand, DO, author of “Big Read: Felix Houphouët-Boigny: Builder of Modern Ivory Coast,” maintains: “In order to foil any plans for a coup d’état, the president took control of the military and police, reducing their numbers from 5,300 to 3,500. Defense was entrusted to the French armed forces that, pursuant to the treaty on defense corporation of 24 April 1961, were stationed at Port-Bouët and could intervene at Houphouet-Boigny’s request or when they considered French interests to be threatened (See article published on the website of the “Daily Observer: Forward with The Gambia”).

Yet, according to DO, Houphouët-Boigny used the military to crush the Sanwi, an ethnic group belonging to the Kingdom of Sanwi, a protectorate of France occupying South East Ivory Coast, who attempted to secede (1959, 1969, and 1970) from Ivory Coast on the eve of her independence. Ironically, Houphouët-Boigny gave the Biafran secessionists all the support they needed. Yet again, unlike Houphouët-Boigny, Nkrumah did not attempt to crush the NLM using the military. Instead, he tried to engage the NLM opposition in peaceful negotiations for a political settlement of their differences, as Prof. Markovitz makes eloquently clear in his essay. Ama Biney also acknowledges Nkrumah’s attempts to have an inclusive government by making overtures to certain pre-Ghanaian personalities. She writes: “In a private letter dated October 20, 1954, Nkrumah made a personal appeal to Asantehene Nana Prempeh ll. Nkrumah inquired from the Asantehene whether he intended to lend support to the new government. The Asantehene replied saying he was ‘above party politics…”

Ama Biney elaborates further: “Meanwhile, it was in Nkrumah’s interest to swiftly resolve the constitutional crisis in the country and, therefore, he ‘pushed for negotiations faithfully, responding to all NLM replies. However, ‘In contrast, the NLM was playing for time. The protracted the discussions on negotiation, the longer it had to reinforce its ranks, consolidate its leadership, and develop its strategies. Hence, on April 5, 1955, Nkrumah made another effort to break the political deadlock and motioned in the Assembly for a Select Committee to explore the question of a federal system of government and a second chamber for the country. The opposition once more rebuffed the government by walking out of the assembly (See “The Political and Social Thought of Kwame Nkrumah,” p. 66-69).


In another related context, Ama Biney maintains: “Nkrumah, perhaps as a goodwill gesture to encourage support for his committee, raised the price of cocoa to 80 shillings per load in early May [1955], but it was perceived as a feeble gesture. Opposition to the CPP, particularly in Asante, no longer rested on the price of cocoa.” She continues: “There were vociferous demands for a federal structure of government for the Gold Coast from the NLM and its allies. The motto of the movement was “No Federation, No Self-Government.’ Accompanying their political demands was a growing ‘resistance culture’ on the streets of Ashanti. The NLM Action Groupers and Asante women were in the forefront of this popular defiance. It comprised an escalation in direct action, such as bombings and assaults, leading to a ‘state of terror’ prevailing in Ashanti in May 1955. The popular expression of the time was ‘yate yen ho!’ (we have separated ourselves), which reflected the NLM’s refusal to recognize the government in Accra…(Ibid: 69)).” But why the opposition consistently rebuffed Nkrumah’s good intentions, even invitations, for political deliberation to address their grievances are yet to be fully explained by historians. Yet we know Nkrumah did his part even at the instigation of some of the powerful forces in the British government!

In fact, Ama Biney quotes Dennis Austin as saying that Nkrumah reconfirmed his belief in “a strong and well organized Opposition Party in the country and in the Assembly”, adding: “the present political issue is a test as to whether parliamentary democracy will live and strive in this country or whether we shall revert to feudal tyranny and despotic rule. We must not forget that democracy means the rule of the majority, though it should be tempered by sweet reasonableness in the interests of the minority. In a parliamentary democracy legitimate constitutional opposition is a part of its fabric—but not opposition that breeds and fosters violence (See Austin’s “Politics in Ghana,” p. 299-300). Thus, it appears the opposition was bent on opposing Nkrumah merely for its sake, merely as a result of a closet animosity they bore against Nkrumah’s presidency for whatever reasons. But let’s put aside revisionist historiography of Gold Coast politics to handle other matters. Of course, Nkrumah gave the Sanwi a home in Ghana as well as material and moral support to sustain their lives. In this social and political context, could it be why Houphouët-Boigny plotted against Nkrumah’s generosity and hospitality, as DO maintains: “He aided the conspirators who ousted Kwame Nkrumah from power in 1966,” adding: “and took part in the coup against Mathieu Kerekou in 1977, and was suspected of involvement in the 1987 coup that removed Thomas Sankara from power in Burkina Faso…providing assistance to UNITA, a United States-supported, anti-communist rebel movement in Angola.”

Is it any wonder that Western media would give Houphouët-Boigny, its hagiographic referent, the saintly nomenclatures “Sage of Africa” and “Grand Old Man of Africa,” while suppressing others such as “Mao Tse Houphouët” and “the Stalinist billionaire”? Yet we also know Nkrumah worked hard to contain the deadening excesses of the secessionist NLM, a terrorist group, for the sake of Ghana’s political and territorial integrity. More importantly, Abraham Lincoln adopted a similar approach and aimed it at the exclusive preservation of the territorial integrity of the Union, a controversial yet fluid decision that nearly tore the country into political smithereens. Moreover, it has been shown by some scholars that Lincoln’s so-called Emancipation Proclamation was never intended to free enslaved African Americans, rather it was designed to mediate the possible disintegration of the Union on account of issues of political, economic, and moral complexity that slavery posed to Southern and Northern leaders (See Lerone Bennett, Jr.’s “Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream”; see also Thomas J. Dilorenzo’s essay “An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cult” and his books “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War” and Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe”). In the end, Abraham Lincoln gave political primacy to the preservation of the territorial integrity of the Union over the lives of American slaves!

Meanwhile, as far as we know Nkrumah’s conscience did not permit him to buy off the opposition, as we emphatically noted a moment ago, though even Sir Frederick Bourne acknowledged the political impracticality of the NLM’s principal grievance, categorically labeling it as “an extreme form of federation.” Having said all that, let’s look at the broader world of the former French African colonies, a part of the African world most of whose leaders unconscionably chose to prostitute themselves in the same exploitative divan with the West, particularly France. More critically, this comparison sheds light on the failures and successes accruing from the political paths which Nkrumah and Houphouët-Boigny chose to decolonize their respective countries. We do this in an analytic framework of general terms. Omar Bongo’s family owned around 39 residences all over France, a fleet of limousines, etc. An ex-French state-owned oil company, Elf Aquitaine, illicitly paid him 50 million euros annually for oil exploitation in Gabon. Bongo also had $130 million in his Citibank personal account. He was also known to have given $9 million to George W. Bush through an infamous American lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a man who at one time had half of the US Senate in his private pocket (See Palash Ghosh’s “Gabon’s Bongo Family: Living In Luxury, Paid for By Corruption and Embezzlement” and Geov Parrish’s “Making Sense of the Abramoff Scandal”).

Furthermore, Yasmine Ryan writes: “Top-ranking Gabonese officials for the Bank of Central African States (BEAC) colluded to embezzle millions, giving much of the money to members of France’s two main political parties, according to a memo by the US embassy in Yaoundé. Around $36 million was stolen from the pooled reserves of the Central African Economic Community (BEAC) over a period of five years…the memo says…at Omar Bongo’s direction, funneled funds to French political parties, including in support of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Both France’s ruling UMP party and the Socialist party accepted embezzled money, though the former received the bulk: ‘especially [former French President Jacques] Chirac and including [current Nicolas] Sarkozy. The banking official said that ‘Bongo was France’s favorite president in Africa,’ and ‘this is classic France Afrique’ (sic), referring to the term commonly used to describe France’s contentious post-colonial relationship with its former colonies (See Ryan’s “Gabon Siphoned Funds to France” and Henry Samuel’s “Late Gabon President Omar Bongo ‘Funded’ Jacques Chirac Presidential Campaign”).

Let’s not overlook this indispensable fact: It was not only Omar Bongo who was a darling of the West. Houphouët-Boigny was so too, if not more. The criminal Omar Bongo, a favorite of the West, particularly of France? No wonder Wole Soyinka has indicted both corrupt Western and African leaders for the underdevelopment of Africa. As well, no wonder Dr. Shadrack Gutto, one of South Africa’s respected legal scholars, has asked the ICC to prosecute corrupt African leaders and their corrupt Western counterparts for crimes consistently committed against Africa. Yet again, the case of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Equatorial Guinea’s President and another darling of the West, is another unfortunate example. President Mbasogo has ruled his country, one of Africa’s richest polities once called “the Kuwait of Africa,” unopposed. The American government once said he was worth $250 million and, also, like Bongo, has extensive private investments and villas in the West, especially America and France. Again, let’s be clear about one thing: We are not exculpating African leaders of the former British colonies and our reasons will soon be made clear.

The questions we have is this: Why does the corrupt West always collaborate, even assist and support, corrupt African and Middle Eastern dictators? “The Obiang regime has a long track of looting money that belongs in Equatorial Guinea’s treasury. Global witness has previously revealed Teodorin’s profligate lifestyle in the US and elsewhere with a $35 million dollar Malibu mansion, a fleet of luxury cars and a private jet, while earning a ministerial salary of $6,799 per month,” writes Robert Palmer and Oliver Courtney’s in “Son of Equatorial Guinea’s Dictator Plans One of World’s Most Expensive Yachts-Global Witness”). Teodorin’s lavish spending on American rapper Eve is not a secret. Public opinion, mostly from the black community, forced her to jilt him. But why does America, led by President Obama, entertain Teodorin’s father? Why do our leaders commit such articulated chains of egregious crimes with the knowing complicity of the West though Western leaders are wont to turn around and give the rest of the world a middle finger of moral superiority?

The central issue is that the well-oiled machinery of capitalism is a major part of the problem! For instance, the Tax Justice Network, an American advocacy group, commissioned an investigation which revealed that “wealthy individuals and their families” have $21-$32 trillion secreted in offshore accounts. Credit Suisse, UBS, JP Morgan, BNP, HSBC, Barclays, Pictet, Goldman Sachs, Paribas, Deutsche Bank, all Western banks, had been implicated in these extensive scheme of financial crimes (See James S. Henry’s “The Price of Offshore Revisted: New Estimates for ‘Missing’ Global Private Wealth, Income, Inequality, and Lost Taxes”). Let’s also remind ourselves that American banks have the same secrecy laws typical of Swiss banks. Then again, Brad Birkenfeld, an ex-UBS AG banker whistleblower, exposed the largest tax evasion scheme in US history for which the IRS awarded him $104 million. (See “Whistleblower Brad Birkenfeld Rewarded Record $104M for Exposing How UBS Helped Rich Evade Taxes”). The question is, why don’t managers of the global capitalist system allow the so-called Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” to regulate market forces?

Namely, why has Smith’s “invisible hand” alchemized into a “visible hand” of corruptibility, of which the Western leads? Birkenfeld later revealed to the IRS how American banks trained their employees to assist wealthy customers to avoid taxes by hiding them in offshore accounts. In fact, Arizona’s Senator John McCain recently said American tax evaders had duped the American government to the tune of nearly $400 million since 2011. It has also been shown how American banks take in stolen/laundered money from the rest of the world, as Swiss banks are noted for, with secrecy laws preventing their exposure to their native governments, again, exactly as Swiss banks are known for. The billions of US dollars stolen from the Russian government by native Russians and stashed away in American Banks during Bill Clinton’s presidency is probably public knowledge. We also know how American banks thrived on drug money in the wake of America’s failing economy (See Ed Vulliamy’s “How a Big Bank Laundered Billions from Mexico Murderous Drug Gangs”).

Given all these examples, does it come as a surprise to see the US put enormous pressure on Switzerland to reveal more American names with billions of stolen American monies attached to them in secret Swiss banks or else face the ire of American power? So far, the Swiss government and American whistleblowers from the banking sector have given out the names of tens of thousands of Americans who have stolen their government’s money and hidden them in offshore accounts. What about the Libor Scandal? And what about the fact that 30-40% of what Adolf Hitler actually stole from Europeans is still hidden in America (See Norman Finkelstein’s “Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering”)? Moreover, how come South Africa’s robust economy, supposedly Africa’s largest, disproportionately benefits White South Africa to the exclusion of Black South Africa (See Seekings’ and Nattrass’ “’Two Nations’ Race and Economic Inequality in South Africa Today”)? And why are the former British colonies of Africa doing relatively better than the former French colonies of Africa (See Alain Faujas’ “Africa: Why Francophones Are Lagging Behind Anglophones?”).

Certainly, we also are aware that the central explanation for the stifling level of poverty seen in the former French colonies of Africa may derive from the neocolonial political and economic arrangements which they struck with the metropolis (See Diadie Ba’s “Africans Still Seething Over Sarkozy’s Speech,” Chofor Che’s “France and Francophone Africa: A Marriage of Inconvenience,” Antoiane R. Lokongo’s “African Nations Can No Longer Afford to Be France’s Garden,” Hinsley Njila’s “CFA—A Currency Designed to Keep Francophone African Countries Poor,” Brian Weinstein’s book “Africanization in French Africa,” and finally, New African’s Ruth Tete’s and Soh Taadhieu’s interview with the Speaker of the Ivorian National Assembly, Prof. Mamadou Koulibaly, an interview published under the title “How France Lives Off Francophone Africa Via the CFA France). Why did these leaders knowingly go into tangled arrangements which would only end up grossly impoverishing their countries while simultaneously enriching their former colonial masters? Why would these leaders use public funds to underwrite the political lifelines of their former colonial masters who end up insulting Africans, as Nicolas Sarkozy did recently in the presence of African leaders and intellectuals?

Interestingly, in another important context, Molefi Kete Asante wrote in the wake of the political impasse between Laurent Gbagbo and Allasane Ouattara: “Clearly the interests of the French and the Americans are not the interest of the people of Ivory Coast and all claims of moral uprightness made by Western interests must be questioned. We realize that their interests, if history is our guide, are for material advantage, minerals, political puppets, and strategic positions for global control. This means that there are so many Europeans and Americans vying for the right to take the spoils of this African country into their own bosom that the African people are without protection. We are their protection as they will always be our protection (See “Afrocentricity International Calls for Cessation of Interventionist Actions in Ivory Coast”). Do we know who these African political puppets really are? Certainly, the political puppets Asante refers to cannot include the likes of Kwame Nkrumah, Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, Dedan Kimathi, Amilcar Cabral, Patrice Lumumba, Steve Biko, Walter Rodney, Sekou Toure, and Robert Mugabe! DO writes elsewhere: “1963 was marked by a series of alleged plots that played a decisive role in ultimately consolidating power in the hands of Houphouët-Boigny. There is no clear consensus on the unfolding of the 1963 events; in fact, there may have been no plot at and the entire series of events may have been part of a plan by Houphouët-Boigny to consolidate his hold on power. Between 120 and 200 secret trials were held in Yamoussoukro, in which key political figures—including Mockey and the president of the Supreme Court Ernest Boka—were implicated.”

Could Houphouët-Boigny have been a political puppet? Could Allasane Ouattara have been a political puppet? Could Laurent Gbagbo have been a political puppet? Why was the West, particularly France, so set against Gbagbo? Was it because Gbagbo threatened France to pull out of the “CFA Club” which is impoverishing Ivory Coast? Still, it’s unfortunate and morally disappointing to see these African political puppets and their ideological scions frustrate the progressive efforts of Nkrumah and others to build stronger continental institutions to defend the strategic interests of Africa, including the humanity of Africans and the future of Africa. In other words, the West—via the political shenanigans of their internal African stooges—has assisted others, like Europe, the West, that is, to build powerful institutions such as the European Union and AFRICOM, made the West technologically and militarily powerful by practically letting the West free access of pilferage of Africa’s mineral resources, even while they allow Western strategic interests to usurp the political power of the African Union by discrediting Nkrumah’s African High Command. Why does Europe see the European Union as a political and economic necessity but allow the complicity of their African androids and automatons to sabotage Nkrumah’s Organization of African Unity (See Glenn Ford’s “Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective” and “The Lies of Empire: Don’t Believe a Word They Say”)?


There is more to continental Africa that is caught in technological, political, and economic doldrums. “The US military’s grip on Africa ensures that the continent will not achieve any of Nkrumah’s Pan-African objects. The African Union chairperson presented a draft proclamation of a continental agenda for the next 50 years—Agenda 2063—that is to be adopted next January. It speaks of ‘peace and security’ and ‘self-reliance’—an impossibility so long as the US superpower dictates the terms of war and peace, and while virtually every African head of state serves at the pleasure of the Americans, who are closer to his generals than he is,” writes Glenn Ford, adding: “Nevertheless, I’m sure Kwame Nkrumah would agree that the AU has been quite useful—just not for Africans (See “The Irrelevance of the African Union at 50,” “The War on Africa: US Imperialism and the World Economic Crisis, “The US Military’s Games in Africa: No Bullets, But Lethal,” all published on “Black Agenda Report”). Finally, Glenn quotes Nkrumah as saying (1965): “In Africa alone, the USIA transmits about thirty territorial and national radio programs whose content glorifies the US while attempting to discredit countries with an independent foreign policy.”

What is USIA? It’s simply United States Information Agency. Meanwhile, Glenn continues: “Before it was disbanded in 1999, the US Information Agency waged an extended, relentless global propaganda war to advance the interests of the US Empire.” That said, what was Nkrumah’s creative response to the malignant spread of Western propaganda against Africa? A Pan-African News Agency. Botwe-Asamoah, one of the leading Nkrumah scholars, has written: “Nkrumah understood the critical role the media could play in educating the ‘people, enlightening them on their national responsibilities and the need for development,’ especially ‘its potential as a tool for national unity.’ Hence, in 1963, Nkrumah proposed a Pan-African News Agency ‘to correct the distorted image of Africa’ being ‘projected in foreign media (See also PAV Ansah’s “Kwame Nkrumah and the Media: The Life and Work of Kwame Nkrumah”). The Arab world has seen fit to create Al Jazeera to neutralize Western monopoly on information, thereby managing how Arab and Islam affairs are generally projected in the world. But where is Nkrumah’s Pan-African News Agency to neutralize Western monopoly on information where the African world is a slave subjected to persistent brutalization in Western media?

Finally, if the British colonized the Gold Coast for more than 100 years and did practically nothing for the then-Gold Coast, why would anyone dare suggest we should have allowed them another 100 years of colonization? What time frame did the opposition give the colonizers, by which time they believed the Gold Coast would have been ready for independence? Did the opposition ever take a break from their juvenile fantasies to seriously ponder the fact that the British and the French, the two dominant colonizers of Africa, would not have so readily, easily given up on their prized possessions in Africa had it not been that Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, and the two European Wars, especially the Second World War, drained their national coffers, weakened their economies, and, for that reason, needed time off to recover from the near-conquest of Europe by Nazi Germany as well as to rebuild their lost civilizational ego? How long did it take for white rule in South Africa to come to an end? Why was Nkrumah way ahead of the opposition in terms of decolonizing Ghana and hence of Africa?

Did Afrocentric history inform the opposition’s juvenile decisionality, as Nkrumah’s obviously was via his extensive reading, knowing full well, that, indeed, all over the geographic countenance of Africa relatively sophisticated, well-organized, and well-managed states flourished, that is, naturally evolved everywhere, until, to say the least, the advent of slavery (Arab and Christian) and colonialism nearly destroyed everything? Therefore, was it the moral responsibility of the brutalized colonized to assume the mantle of self-definition, of self-autonomy, namely, or the brutish colonizer, the self-righteous, self-proclaimed white supremacist usurper, who has erased it, the colonized’s self-definition, to give it back to him, the brutalized colonizer? Why were and are some Africans addicted to racial inferiority complex? What did the British do for us in more than 100 years which Nkrumah could not have achieved in 9 years? Granted that the opposition Nkrumah and his progressive so much, why didn’t it join the racist caravan of America’s Jim-Crowism, leave for the metropolis of colonialism and imperialism itself, Great Britain, or immigrate to Apartheid South Africa, led by the NLM Apartheid-loving Busia, where White South Africa would have ever been elatedly ready to welcome them on the Bantustans and even be dealt with as Steve Biko and Nelson Mandela were dealt with?

Houphouët-Boigny used public funds to buy off members of the opposition, even opening fat bank accounts for others on account of the public purse. Those whose rigid conscience he could not buy off he drove into exile. On the contrary, Nkrumah—on his own—invited the opposition for deliberation, to try to address their grievances, but again, without apparent success. Even Sir Charles Arden-Clarke, the then-Governor, went to Kumasi to see the leadership of the opposition, Busia’s NLM, and to encourage it to sort out its differences with the CPP government. Instead, they subjected him to a lapidation of stones, consequently humiliating him and chasing him away. Moreover, on three different occasions the Governor and Nkrumah, together, tried to meet with the opposition in order to resolve its grievances but failed again (See Nelson and Gyamerah; see also Dr. Kwame Botwe-Asamoah). Markovitz notes: “there was considerable unrest and dissatisfaction, several assassination attempts against Nkrumah, and constant rumors of coups, yet the government had made conciliatory gestures toward its opponents both within and outside its ranks, and showed every sign of having attained a durable balance of interests.”

In the meantime, as far as we know Nkrumah’s conscience did not permit him to buy off the opposition, although even Sir Frederick Bourne acknowledged the political impracticality of the NLM’s grievances, categorically perceiving them as “an extreme form of federation.” Having said all that, let’s look at the broader world of the former French African colonies, a part of the African world most of whose leaders unconscionably prostituted themselves in the same exploitative divan with the West, particularly France. Omar Bongo’s family owned around 39 residences all over France, a fleet of limousines, etc. An ex-French state-owned oil company, Elf Aquitaine, illicitly paid him 50 million euros annually for oil exploitation in Gabon. Bongo also had $130 million in his Citibank personal account. He was also known to have given $9 million to George W. Bush through an infamous American lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a man who at one time had half of the US Senate in his private pocket (See Palash Ghosh’s “Gabon’s Bongo Family: Living In Luxury, Paid for By Corruption and Embezzlement” and Geov Parrish’s “Making Sense of the Abramoff Scandal”).

Furthermore, Yasmine Ryan writes: “Top-ranking Gabonese officials for the Bank of Central African States (BEAC) colluded to embezzle millions, giving much of the money to members of France’s two main political parties, according to a memo by the US embassy in Yaoundé. Around $36 million was stolen from the pooled reserves of the Central African Economic Community (BEAC) over a period of five years…the memo says…at Omar Bongo’s direction, funneled funds to French political parties, including in support of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Both France’s ruling UMP party and the Socialist party accepted embezzled money, though the former received the bulk: ‘especially [former French President Jacques] Chirac and including [current Nicolas] Sarkozy. The banking official said that ‘Bongo was France’s favorite president in Africa,’ and ‘this is classic France Afrique’ (sic), referring to the term commonly used to describe France’s contentious post-colonial relationship with its former colonies (See Ryan’s “Gabon Siphoned Funds to France” and Henry Samuel’s “Late Gabon President Omar Bongo ‘Funded’ Jacques Chirac Presidential Campaign”).

The criminal Omar Bongo, a favorite of the West, particularly of France? No wonder Wole Soyinka has indicted both Western and African leaders for the underdevelopment of Africa. As well, no wonder, Dr. Shadrack Gutto, one of South Africa’s respected legal scholars, has asked the ICC to prosecute corrupt African leaders and their corrupt Western counterparts for crimes consistently committed against Africa. Yet again, the case of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Equatorial Guinea’s President and another darling of the West, is another unfortunate example. President Mbasogo has ruled the country, one of Africa’s richest polities once called “the Kuwait of Africa,” unopposed. The American government once said he was worth $250 million and, also, like Bongo, has extensive private investments and villas in the West, America and France.

Why does the corrupt West always collaborate, even assist and support, corrupt African and Middle Eastern dictators? “The Obiang regime has a long track of looting money that belongs in Equatorial Guinea’s treasury. Global witness has previously revealed Teodorin’s profligate lifestyle in the US and elsewhere with a $35 million dollar Malibu mansion, a fleet of luxury cars and a private jet, while earning a ministerial salary of $6,799 per month,” writes Robert Palmer and Oliver Courtney’s in “Son of Equatorial Guinea’s Dictator Plans One of World’s Most Expensive Yachts-Global Witness”). Teodorin’s lavish spending on American rapper Eve is not a secret. Public opinion forced her to jilt him. But why does America, led by President Obama, entertain Teodorin’s father?

It’s because that is precisely how the capitalist system works for the most part! That is, capitalism intrinsically breeds corruption and exploits to the detriment of society. Clearly capitalism is necessarily not a superior moral force as compared to other moral forces! For instance, the Tax Justice Network, an American advocacy group, commissioned an investigation which revealed that “wealthy individuals and their families” have $21-$32 trillion secreted in offshore accounts. Credit Suisse, UBS, JP Morgan, BNP, HSBC, Barclays, Pictet, Goldman Sachs, Paribas, Deutsche Bank, all Western banks, had been implicated in these financial crimes (See James S. Henry’s “The Price of Offshore Revisted: New Estimates for ‘Missing’ Global Private Wealth, Income, Inequality, and Lost Taxes”). Let’s also remind ourselves that American banks have the same secrecy laws as those of Swiss banks. On the other hand, Brad Birkenfeld, an ex-UBS AG banker whistleblower, exposed the largest tax evasion scheme in US history for which the IRS gave him $104 million. (See “Whistleblower Brad Birkenfeld Rewarded Record $104M for Exposing How UBS Helped Rich Evade Taxes”).

Birkenfeld later revealed to the IRS how banks train their employees to avoid taxes by hiding them in offshore accounts. Arizona’s Senator John McCain recently said American tax evaders had duped the American government to the tune of nearly $400 million since 2011. It has also been shown how American banks take in stolen/laundered money from the rest of the world, as Swiss banks are noted for, without exposing them to their governments, again, exactly as Swiss banks are known for doing. The billions of US dollars stolen by Russians and stashed away in American Banks during Bill Clinton’s presidency is probably public knowledge. We also know how American banks thrived on drug money in the wake of America’s failing economy (See Ed Vulliamy’s “How a Big Bank Laundered Billions from Mexico Murderous Drug Gangs”).

Given all these, does it come as a surprise to see the US put enormous pressure on Switzerland to reveal more American names with billions of stolen American monies attached to them in secret Swiss banks or else face the ire of American power? What about the Libor Scandal? And what about the fact that 30-40% of what Adolf Hitler actually stole from Europeans are still hidden in America (See Norman Finkelstein’s “Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering”)? Moreover, how come South Africa’s robust economy, supposedly Africa’s largest, disproportionately benefits White South Africa? And why are the former British colonies doing relatively better than the former colonies of France (See Alain Faujas’ “Africa: Why Francophones Are Lagging Behind Anglophones?”). Finally, if the British colonized the Gold Coast for more than 100 years and did practically nothing for the then Gold Coast, why would anyone dare say we allow them another 100 years of colonization?

What time frame did the opposition give the colonizers, by which time they believed the Gold Coast would have been ready for independence? What was the UGCC’s “shortest possible time” all about? Was it one year, two years, ten years, 50 years, 100 years, or a thousand years? Did the opposition ever take a break from their juvenile fantasies to seriously ponder the fact that the British and the French, the two dominant colonizers of Africa, would not have so readily and easily given up their prized possessions in Africa had it not been that Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, and the two European Wars, especially the Second World War, drained their national coffers, weakened their economies, and for that reason needed time off to recover from the near-conquest of Europe by Nazi Germany as well as to rebuild their lost civilizational ego? Did Afrocentric history inform the opposition’s decisional juvenility, as Nkrumah’s obviously was via his extensive reading, that, indeed, all over Africa relatively sophisticated, well-organized, and well-managed states flourished, that is, naturally evolved everywhere, until, to say the least, the advent of slavery (Arab and Christian) and colonialism destroyed everything?


Was it the moral responsibility of the brutalized colonized to assume the mantle of self-definition, of self-autonomy, namely, or the brutish colonizer, the self-righteous, self-proclaimed white supremacist usurper, who has erased it, the colonized’s self-definition, to give it back to him, the brutalized colonizer? Why were and are some Africans addicted to racial inferiority complex? What did the British do for us in more than 100 years which Nkrumah could not have done for us in 9 years? Why didn’t the opposition join the racist caravan of America’s Jim-Crowism, leave for the metropolis of colonialism and imperialism itself, Great Britain, or immigrate to Apartheid South Africa where White South Africa would have been ever elated to welcome them on the Bantustans and be dealt with as Steve Biko and Nelson Mandela were dealt with?

Finally, let’s search our hearts and there, we believe, we should find why the likes of Kwame Nkrumah, Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, Amilcar Cabral, and Patrice Lumumba were far more better thinkers for the African world than the likes of Felix Houphouët-Boigny, Omar Bongo, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Gnassingbe Eyadema, and Mobuto Sese Seko! Let’s conclude by recalling a statement Nkrumah made on April 22, 1962: “Friends and comrades, African needs a new type of man. A dedicated, modest, honest and devoted man. A new type of man whose meekness in his strength and whose integrity is his greatness. Africa’s new man must be a man indeed (Kofi Bentum Quatson).” The new type of man should not be a political puppet instituted and controlled by the West as the African world goes hungry! Let Africa’s post-colonial leadership follow the example of Kwame Nkrumah who refused to allow kleptomania to soil his legacy!

We shall return…