Re: Africa
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 2:27 pm
A Quarter Century of a Western-Backed War of Aggression Against the Congolese People
Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on JUNE 15, 2022
Maurice Carney
A Quarter Century of a Western-backed War of Aggression Against the Congolese PeopleUganda president Yoweri Museveni and Rwanda president Paul Kagame (Photo: REUTERS/Noor Khamis)
Rwanda and Uganda have carried out attacks against the Democratic Republic of Congo for the past 25 years. Their aggressions are carried out with the backing of the U.S. and European nations who aid their theft of Congo’s resources.
The recent outbreak of military confrontation on May 22nd between the Congolese military and the Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group represents the latest episode in Paul Kagame’s 25-year war of aggression and pillage against the Congolese people. The Congolese military in coordination with a United Nations authorized international force made up of South African, Malawian and Tanzanian soldiers defeated the Rwanda-backed M23 in 2013. A lot of the leadership fled back into Rwanda and Uganda where they evidently have been incubated and reconstituted to launch yet another attack on the Congolese people. The stark reality is that there is no M23 without Rwanda. The Congolese military captured two Rwandan soldiers among the M23 rebels in the latest incursions. Tensions have risen between the two nations and is escalating. According to the Congolese military, Rwanda has recently dispatched 500 soldiers in the east of Congo alongside the M23 rebels.
Paul Kagame’s Rwanda and Yoweri Museveni’s Uganda have both invaded the Congo (1996 & 1998), occupied large swaths of the country, and backed and sponsored militia groups such as the M23 in order to sew mayhem and destruction as both nations profit from Congo’s riches. In a 2001 report , the United Nations noted “Presidents Kagame and Museveni are on the verge of becoming the godfathers of the illegal exploitation of natural resources and the continuation of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”
Both leaders are able to have their way in the Congo in large part due to the backing they receive from the United States, Great Britain and a number of other Western states. They are authoritarian figures who have been in power for decades – over two decades for Kagame and over three decades for Museveni. They have benefited from U.S. tax payer dollars to the tune of billions in donor aid, military equipment, intelligence, training, etc. In addition, they take full advantage of the diplomatic and political cover provided by the United States in particular, in order to skirt international justice for the mass crimes they have committed in the Great Lakes region of Africa. They are part of a collective of African neo-colonial agents that date back to Bill Clinton’s administration of the 1990s. Madeleine Albright then Secretary of State, Susan Rice then Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs and Bill Clinton dubbed this new group of proxies “Renaissance Leaders” or the “New Breed” of African leaders. The Clinton Administration put its stamp of approval on these leaders which provided them cover for the crimes that they have committed against their fellow Africans. Some of these leaders included Meles Zenawi of Ethiopian and Kagame and Museveni of Rwanda and Uganda respectively. The policy was enshrined in the so-called Entebbe principles , which enrolled these leaders in advancing U.S. security, strategic interests and neoliberal economic policies in Africa.
Paul Kagame has apparently risen to be the chief beneficiary of Washington’s protection. The cover and protection that Rwanda has experienced has its origins in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda where the United States shielded Paul Kagame and his military from prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity that they committed during the Rwandan genocide. The crimes that both Kagame and Museveni have committed in the region have resulted in what the United Nations has called the deadliest conflict in the world since WWII and the greatest humanitarian crisis at the dawn of the 21st Century. An estimated six million Congolese perished between 1996 – 2007 due to the conflict and conflict related causes. The United Nations stated in its 2010 Mapping Exercise Report that if the acts committed by Kagame’s military in the Congo were to be “proven before a competent court, could be characterized as crimes of genocide.” The Congolese have had minimal success in holding Museveni to account. The International Court of Justice found the Ugandan government culpable for war crimes and plunder in the Congo and order it to pay $325 million in reparations to the Congo. Rwanda would have likely befallen the same fate if not worse but it is not party to the International Court of Justice and hence outside of its jurisdiction .
Because of the impunity, lack of accountability, and lack of justice combined with the tacit endorsement of Western powers of the criminal actions by Paul Kagame, he has been able to sew murder and mayhem not only in the Congo but in different parts of Africa. He has dispatched assassins in several countries (Kenya, South Africa, Belgium, Netherlands, and England to name a few) in order to silence or assassinate dissidents. South Africa responded forcefully in 2014 by expelling three Rwandan diplomats as a result of Kagame sending his henchmen to assassinate former Rwandan colonel and dissident, Patrick Karegeya. Even today, Kagame recently kidnapped a Belgian Citizen and US resident, Paul Rusesabagina, the real-life hero of the movie Hotel Rwanda. Don Cheadle who played Rusesabagina is a part of a campaign to free the hero who courageously saved lives during the Rwandan genocide. Rusesabagina’s family has filed a law suit against the Rwandan government for Kidnapping their patriarch.
In spite of Paul Kagame’s well documented crimes, he and his government have been rewarded with leadership in institutions like the British Commonwealth and the Francophonie. The red carpet is rolled out for him in Ivy League universities in the United States. Sports associations like the National Basketball Association (NBA) and teams like the Arsenal Football Club of London fully embrace him and he is often found at the World Economic Forum in Davos as a feted guest . The cover that the Western governments and institutions have provided to Kagame has enabled him to fight while denying is military’s presence in the East of the Congo and his government’s sponsorship of militia groups like the M23. In a tweet that he later had to walk back, rationalizing the latest incursion by the Rwanda-backed M23 in eastern Congo, former U.S. Ambassador/Special Envoy for the Sahel & Great Lakes Regions of Africa, Dr Peter Pham is yet another example of how Kagame has been given cover.
The DR Congo’s president, Felix Tshisekedi stated emphatically “The resurgence of this armed movement, which was defeated in 2013 with the confiscation of its military arsenal, can only be due to Rwanda. This is no longer a secret.” Tshisekedi goes further by calling for justice for the victims of the Rwandan government’s crimes in the Congo through the implementation of the UN Mapping Exercise Report and the installation of an international criminal tribunal on the crimes in the Congo. This is a cause that the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Dr. Denis Mukwege has long championed . However, they are no match for Kagame’s connections in the West, particularly the United States. The recent visit by AFRICOM head, General Stephen Townsend in the midst of Kagame’s latest aggression against the Congo is case in point. As long as Paul Kagame continues to carry out his duties as a key agent of Western interests in Africa , neither he nor his partners in crime will likely face justice. A case in point, the Spanish Courts had an international arrest warrant out for 40 of Rwanda’s top officials under the principle of Universal Jurisdiction (the same principle that ensnared former Chilean agent of U.S. Imperialism, Augusto Pinochet). One of Rwanda’s top official, General Karenzi Karake was apprehended on the Spanish courts warrant for “war crimes against civilians.” In order to resist extradition to Spain Karenzi hired Tony Blair’s wife, Cherie Blair to defend him. Karenzi was later released on a technicality and was able to return to Rwanda.
The Chair of the African Union, Senegalese president Maky Sall said he has spoken to both Paul Kagame and Felix Tshisekedi. He has called for a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Regional efforts to deescalate the conflict are also being led by Angolan President João Lourenço as head of the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR).
The U.S. government’s Secretary of State, Antony Blinken has called for dialogue , which is for all intents and purposes reasserting the status quo of the past quarter century whereby Paul Kagame backs militia groups in the Congo while skirting accountability. As the U.S. government calls for dialogue, the Congolese people are demanding justice and an end to the carte-blanche given to Paul Kagame by the U.S. government while he sponsors atrocities in the Congo. It is this deep contradiction that leads many Congolese at the grassroots level to question U.S. attempts to pressure African governments to fall in line and support its stance against Russia in Ukraine. Congolese have been the victims of a U.S.-backed regime that has waged war against them for a quarter century. Yet, the Western media barely makes note of it and when they do the conflict is often cast in tribal, atavistic terms devoid of the geo-political underpinning that keeps the hart of the African continent in perpetual conflict and instability.
U.S., UK and EU citizens can play a key role in demanding that their governments cease the military and financial support they lavish on Paul Kagame. Citizens can help put an end to the diplomatic and political cover their governments have provided the Rwandan strongman for past quarter century of criminal wars of aggression Kagame has waged against the people of the DR Congo.
For its part, the Congolese government may have to consider following the path of former President Laurent Desire Kabila when he came under a withering attack from U.S. backed Rwandan and Uganda forces in 1998. He reached out to the Southern African Development Community (SADC), of which Congo is a member state, for Pan African military support. Angola, Zimbabwe and Namibia in particular responded and beat back the Rwandan and Ugandan militaries preventing a regime change in Kinshasa.
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/06/ ... se-people/
“Countering Malign Russian Influence Activities in Africa” Act a Pretext for More U.S. Intervention in Africa
Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on JUNE 14, 2022
Richard S. Dunn
Map of selected Russian projects in AfricaMap warns of growing Russian influence in Africa—shades of the Cold War. [Source: vifindia.org]
During the Cold War, the U.S. government invoked the pretext of Russian interference to justify a range of crimes, including the assassination of Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, the overthrow of Pan-Africanist hero Kwame Nkrumah, the arrest of Nelson Mandela and intervention in the Angolan civil war.
Just when we thought that that era had passed, the House of Representatives on April 27 passed the “Countering Malign Russian Influence Activities in Africa” Act by a 415-9 vote.
The bill in part would direct the U.S. Secretary of State, using “detailed intelligence,” to identify in Africa “local actors complicit in Russian activities.”
The U.S. in turn may very well seek to punish those actors through economic sanctions or even regime change. “Russian aggression” is generally being invoked to justify greater U.S. intervention in Africa, including the expansion of the Africa Command (AFRICOM) and U.S. military base network across the continent.
Anti-war activists raise alarm over United States' fast-growing military presence across Africa - Tehran Times[Source: tehrantimes.com]
Exceptional Show of Bipartisan Support
The Nay votes for the “Countering Malign Russian Influence Activities in Africa” Act all came from Republicans. Supposed progressive stalwarts like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Barbara Lee, Ro Khanna and members of the “Squad” all voted Yea.
The main sponsor of the bill, Gregory Meeks (D-NY), is Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
After passage of the bill, he voiced his pride in the “exceptional show of bipartisan support,” which he said “demonstrated how Putin’s war in Ukraine, and the Kremlin’s corrupt and illicit activities in Africa to fund war and other exploits have worked to unify Congress and the international community.”
Meeks continued: “As we continue to apply pressure on Putin and his agents for carrying out war crimes throughout this unjustifiable war of aggression, we cannot forget that the Russian Federation will continue to seek avenues through which it can pilfer, manipulate, and exploit resources in parts of Africa to evade sanctions and undermine U.S. interests.”
“The United States not only stands with the people of Ukraine, but with all innocent people who have been victimized by Putin’s mercenaries and agents credibly accused of gross violations of human rights in Africa, including in the Central African Republic and Mali. This bill enlists the resources of the State Department and other federal agencies to examine the Russian Federation’s malign activities in Africa and hold those complicit in these activities to account. The United States will not sit by and watch Putin’s war machine attempt to gain strength to the detriment of fragile states in Africa and elsewhere.”
While the Russians have been involved in some shady operations, many African countries have had long-standing positive ties to Russia and benefitted from its support for African liberation movements during the Cold War—in contrast to the U.S.—including in South Africa.
Meeks’s comments mostly offer a form of projection in that they accuse Russia of trying to exploit Africa’s resources when this is clearly something that the U.S. has done far more extensively and for a much longer period than Russia.
AFRICOM founder Vice Admiral Robert Moeller admitted that one of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM)’s guiding principles was “protecting the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market.”
The “Countering Malign Russian Influence Activities in Africa” Act will be used to justify flagrant infringements on the sovereignty of African countries. It attempts to use the Russian bogeyman—like in the Cold War era—as a pretext for neocolonial expansion.
The rhetoric surrounding the bill fits with the larger demonization of Vladimir Putin and Russia, which is a desperate ploy by the U.S. ruling elite to try to mobilize the public against a foreign enemy at a time of growing economic crisis and threatening civil discontent.
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/06/ ... in-africa/
'Red' added.
Libya in the Throes of a Serious Political Crisis
Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on JUNE 14, 2022
Viktor Mikhin
After Mohamed al-Menfi, president of the Libyan Presidential Council, met with UN General Secretary António Guterres, he spoke highly of the work done by the UN’s mission in Libya “to support the people in reaching a peaceful solution to restore security, stability and peace to the country.” However, in reality he was probably just being polite and diplomatic, and the current situation in the country, in spite of the efforts of international forums at the very highest level, is very far from hopeful.
Day by day it is looking less and less likely that the so-called Road Map will lead to the successful parliamentary and presidential elections that the 2.8 million strong electorate have been waiting for for so long. The main political forces in the country have still not reached a consensus on certain key questions related to the electoral process. And the regional and international powers, as well as the UN also disagree about the best way to resolve the Libyan crisis, but that has not prevented them meddling in the most reckless manner in the affairs of the country once united by the concept of Jamahiriya. Perhaps all the parties with an interest in resolving the Libyan problem should reconsider their positions and try to reach an alternative agreement – one which has a chance of succeeding where all previous attempts over the last ten years have failed.
In the current highly complex situation Stephanie T. Williams, Special Adviser on Libya to the United Nations Secretary-General is taking advantage of her position to achieve ends of her own, in doing so fanning the flames of the Libyan crisis. Ignoring all the problems afflicting the country, the fundamental flaws in the UN-brokered process and the stalemate into which the opposing Libyan groups have been forced by the West’s policies, she insists on forcing her – and the West’s – point of view on the Libyans. She is still hoping that her friends back in the US will help her out in Libya, and is using the promise of financial assistance to push through her Road Map which is entirely geared towards promoting US interests. It was she who drew up and promoted this document in a meeting with the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum (LPDF) held in Tunis in November 2020. She is continuing to call for elections and for the restoration of political institutions – but only those that are loyal to the West.
It should be remembered that Stephanie Williams is a skilled diplomatic provocateur – not for nothing did she study at the National War College, from which she graduated in 2008 to then join the Department of State. Even after she joined the UN and started a new career as an international civil servant, she shamelessly continued to promote the interests of the United States. In 2010-2013, she served as deputy head of the US mission in Bahrain, and for part of this time was the senior US diplomat in the country, acting as chargé d’affaires. It was she who, in 2011, instructed Saudi troops to occupy the emirate and suppress the Shia-led Bahrain uprising (despite the fact that Shiites make up 85% of Bahrain’s population). Quite naturally, as UN Special Adviser to Libya, a very senior post, she is trying to impose solutions to Libya’s political, economical and social problems, despite the fact that these solutions take no account of the interests of the Libyans themselves.
Ms Williams’ plan, supported and actively promoted by the main Western powers, is highly dependent on the ability of the existing Libyan institutions, especially the Tobruk-based Libyan House of Representatives and the High Council of State to reach a consensus on various issues. However, both these bodies then withdrew from their obligations and objected to the entry into effect of the old Road Map, which they considered was not in their interests. She then derailed the Libyan political process by trying to command these two bodies to do her bidding.
In recent months there have been parallel negotiations between representatives of different Libyan groups in Egypt and Switzerland. Despite objections by Stephanie Williams, Cairo hosted the second round of dialogues on the constitution, which included members of the Libyan House of Representatives and the High Council of State. The declared goal of the talks was to agree on a constitutional framework for the elections. And in Montreux, Switzerland, the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, an NGO which is working with the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) to organize and hold talks, invited a number of Libyan political leaders and officers from the security services and armed forces to discuss the political process and ways to preserve the ceasefire which was concluded in Geneva on October 23, 2020.
However, the main problem is that the House of Representatives is still intent on observing the new Road Map. Adopted in February 2022, this document calls for the adoption of constitutional amendments and their approval by referendum before the general elections are held. The High Council of State, in turn, is against the proposed amendments. To further complicate matters, the Constitution Drafting Assembly, a national electoral body, has opposed the creation of a new drafting assembly as proposed by the Road Map approved in February 2022. Finally, Libya’s Supreme Court ruled that the Libyan people “have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to accept the current draft.” This means that any amendments to the current draft constitution may end up complicating things further rather than solving the problems.
The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue hosted talks on the political process in Libya, which took place on May 12, and were attended by representatives of the main militant groups in both Eastern and Western Libya, together with a large number of political figures. According to reports in the Libyan press, the participants agreed to work on preserving civil order in Libya and preventing a relapse into war. They also agreed to hold a further round of talks in Morocco.
Meanwhile, a number of Libyan journalists have claimed that the speakers of the House of Representatives and the High Council of State have reached agreement on the formation of a new cabinet – although no such agreement has been published yet. It appears that the agreement is an attempt to resolve the stand-off concerning the government formed by the new Prime Minister Fathi Bashagha, appointed and backed by the House of Representatives.
The actions of this new Prime Minister, who travelled to the capital in secret early in the morning of May 17, accompanied by his Health and Foreign Ministers, serve to underline the political chaos in Libya and the helplessness of the newly founded supreme bodies. Fathi Bashagha’s appearance provoked clashes between his supporters and those loyal to his rival, Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, who heads the Government of National Accord, and who categorically refused to step down. Fathi Bashagha was therefore forced to leave the capital just a few hours after his arrival. The unexpected outbreak of violence in the capital, in which one person was killed and five wounded, caused a great deal of concern among the diplomatic community. There were urgent calls from politicians across the spectrum for the parties to stay calm, prevent any outbreaks of violence, and participate in the political process.
Quite naturally, both Fathi Bashagha and Abdul Hamid Dbeibah blamed each other for the violence, and each reiterated their claim to power. As readers will remember, Abdul Hamid Dbeibah was appointed as interim Prime Minister by the United Nations in a deal approved at the end of 2020. He was supposed to remain in office until the holding of elections on December 24, 2021, but these did not take place. Fathi Bashagha, in turn, has insisted that his government will continue to operate from Sirte until circumstances permit it to relocate to Tripoli without provoking more bloodshed. His journey to Tripoli came as a complete surprise, as he had previously announced that he would remain in Sirte in view of Abdul Hamid Dbeibah’s refusal to step down in favor of anyone except for a duly elected successor. It is unclear whether Fathi Bashagha was pressurized into making the trip by his supporters – who clearly wanted to see his government recognized in the capital – but in any event in view of the situation there that option is definitely off the cards for the time being.
In they eyes of many experts his ill-fated attempt to prove to his supporters and allies – both in Libya and abroad – that he can shift the balance of power in the capital has merely served to shorten his term of office. A number of factors are making things difficult for Fathi Bashagha: the determination of the UN and Western powers not to let Libya, with its considerable oil reserves, escape from their zone of influence, the unwillingness of his allies to move to Sirte, the difficulty of governing from Benghazi, and the need to reduce political tensions in the country. Together, these difficulties may have the effect of pushing him to leave the political stage. And then Libya will be left with a single Prime Minister, Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, who was appointed by the UN and is actively supported by Stephanie Williams.
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/06/ ... al-crisis/
************************
Why does the United States have a military base in Ghana?
An interview with Kwesi Pratt Jr., a journalist and leader of the Socialist Movement of Ghana
June 15, 2022 by Vijay Prashad
US soldiers train for “jungle warfare” in Ghana
In April 2018, the president of Ghana, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, said that Ghana has “not offered a military base, and will not offer a military base to the United States of America.” His comments came after Ghana’s parliament had ratified a new defense cooperation agreement with the United States on March 28, 2018, which was finally signed in May 2018. During a televised discussion, soon after the agreement was formalized in March 2018, Ghana’s Minister of Defense Dominic Nitiwul told Kwesi Pratt Jr., a journalist and leader of the Socialist Movement of Ghana, that Ghana had not entered into a military agreement with the United States. Pratt, however, said that the military agreement was a “source of worry” and was “a surrender of our [Ghanaian] sovereignty.”
In 2021, the research institute of Pratt’s Socialist Movement produced—along with the Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research—a dossier on the French and US military presence in Africa. That dossier—“Defending Our Sovereignty: US Military Bases in Africa and the Future of African Unity”—noted that the United States has now established the West Africa Logistics Network (WALN) at Kotoka International Airport in Accra, the capital of Ghana. In 2019, then-US Brigadier General Leonard Kosinski said that a weekly US flight from Germany to Accra was “basically a bus route.” The WALN is a cooperative security location, which is another name for a US military base.
Now, four years later after the signing of the defense cooperation agreement, I spoke with Kwesi Pratt and asked him about the state of this deal and the consequences of the presence of the US base on Ghanaian soil. The WALN, Pratt told me, has now taken over one of the three terminals at the airport in Accra, and at this terminal, “hundreds of US soldiers have been seen arriving and leaving. It is suspected that they may be involved in some operational activities in other West African countries and generally across the Sahel.”
US soldiers don’t need passports
A glance at the US–Ghana defense agreement raises many questions. Article 12 of the agreement states that the US military can use the Accra airport without any regulations or checks, with US military aircraft being “free from boarding and inspection” and the Ghanaian government providing “unimpeded access to and use of [a]greed facilities and areas to United States forces.” Pratt told me that this agreement allows US soldiers “far more privileges than those prescribed in the Vienna Convention for diplomats. They do not need passports to enter Ghana. All they need is their US Army identity cards. They don’t even require visas to enter Ghana. They are not subject to customs or any other inspection.”
Ghana has allowed the United States armed forces “to use Ghanaian radio frequencies for free,” Pratt said. But the most stunning fact about this arrangement is that, he said, “If US soldiers kill Ghanaians and destroy their properties, the US soldiers cannot be tried in Ghana. Ghanaians cannot sue US soldiers or the US government for compensation if and when their relatives are killed, or their properties are destroyed by the US Army or soldiers.”
Why would Ghana allow this?
The US–Ghana agreement permits this disregard for Ghana’s sovereignty. Pratt told me that the political ideology of the Ghanaian government that is in power now has been to adhere to a long history of appeasement toward the demands made by colonial and Western states, beginning with Britain—which was the colonial power that ruled over the Gold Coast (the former name for Ghana) until 1957—and leading up to providing “unimpeded access” to the United States troops under the defense deal.
The current president of Ghana, Akufo-Addo, comes from the political ideology that the former prime minister of Ghana (1969-1972) Kofi Abrefa Busia also conformed to. In the early 1950s, Pratt told me, those following this ideology “dispatched a delegation to the United Kingdom to persuade the authorities that it was too early to grant independence to the Gold Coast.” This led to a coup in Ghana, where those supporting this ideology “collaborated with the Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow the [then-President of Ghana] Kwame Nkrumah government on February 24, 1966, and resisted [imposing] sanctions against the South African apartheid regime in 1969,” Pratt said. The current government, Pratt added, will do anything to please the United States government and its allies.
Why is the United States interested in Ghana?
The United States claims that its military presence on the African continent has to do with its counterterrorism campaign and aims to prevent the entry of China into this region. “There is no Chinese military presence in Ghana,” Pratt told me, and indeed the idea of Chinese presence is being used by the United States to deepen its military control over the continent for more prosaic reasons.
In 2001, then-US Vice President Dick Cheney’s National Energy Policy Development Group published the National Energy Policy. The contents of this report show, Pratt told me, that the United States understood that it could “no longer rely on the Middle East for its energy supplies. A shift to West Africa for [meeting the] US energy needs is imperative.” Apart from West Africa’s energy resources, Ghana “has huge national resources. It is currently the largest producer of gold in Africa and… [is among the top 10 producers] of gold in the world. It is the second-largest producer of cocoa in the world. It has iron, diamond, manganese, bauxite, oil and gas, lithium, and abundant water resources, including the largest man-made lake in the world.” Apart from these resources, Ghana’s location on the equator makes it valuable for agricultural development, and its large bank of highly educated English-speaking professionals makes it valuable for meeting the demands of the West’s service sector.
Apart from these economic issues, Pratt said, the United States government has intervened in Ghana—including in the coup of 1966—to prevent it from having a leadership role in the decolonization process in Africa. More recently, the United States has found Ghana to be a reliable ally in its various military and commercial projects across the continent. It is toward those projects, and not the national interest of the Ghanaian people, Pratt said, that the United States has now built its base in a part of Accra’s civilian airport.
https://peoplesdispatch.org/2022/06/15/ ... -in-ghana/
Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on JUNE 15, 2022
Maurice Carney
A Quarter Century of a Western-backed War of Aggression Against the Congolese PeopleUganda president Yoweri Museveni and Rwanda president Paul Kagame (Photo: REUTERS/Noor Khamis)
Rwanda and Uganda have carried out attacks against the Democratic Republic of Congo for the past 25 years. Their aggressions are carried out with the backing of the U.S. and European nations who aid their theft of Congo’s resources.
The recent outbreak of military confrontation on May 22nd between the Congolese military and the Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group represents the latest episode in Paul Kagame’s 25-year war of aggression and pillage against the Congolese people. The Congolese military in coordination with a United Nations authorized international force made up of South African, Malawian and Tanzanian soldiers defeated the Rwanda-backed M23 in 2013. A lot of the leadership fled back into Rwanda and Uganda where they evidently have been incubated and reconstituted to launch yet another attack on the Congolese people. The stark reality is that there is no M23 without Rwanda. The Congolese military captured two Rwandan soldiers among the M23 rebels in the latest incursions. Tensions have risen between the two nations and is escalating. According to the Congolese military, Rwanda has recently dispatched 500 soldiers in the east of Congo alongside the M23 rebels.
Paul Kagame’s Rwanda and Yoweri Museveni’s Uganda have both invaded the Congo (1996 & 1998), occupied large swaths of the country, and backed and sponsored militia groups such as the M23 in order to sew mayhem and destruction as both nations profit from Congo’s riches. In a 2001 report , the United Nations noted “Presidents Kagame and Museveni are on the verge of becoming the godfathers of the illegal exploitation of natural resources and the continuation of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”
Both leaders are able to have their way in the Congo in large part due to the backing they receive from the United States, Great Britain and a number of other Western states. They are authoritarian figures who have been in power for decades – over two decades for Kagame and over three decades for Museveni. They have benefited from U.S. tax payer dollars to the tune of billions in donor aid, military equipment, intelligence, training, etc. In addition, they take full advantage of the diplomatic and political cover provided by the United States in particular, in order to skirt international justice for the mass crimes they have committed in the Great Lakes region of Africa. They are part of a collective of African neo-colonial agents that date back to Bill Clinton’s administration of the 1990s. Madeleine Albright then Secretary of State, Susan Rice then Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs and Bill Clinton dubbed this new group of proxies “Renaissance Leaders” or the “New Breed” of African leaders. The Clinton Administration put its stamp of approval on these leaders which provided them cover for the crimes that they have committed against their fellow Africans. Some of these leaders included Meles Zenawi of Ethiopian and Kagame and Museveni of Rwanda and Uganda respectively. The policy was enshrined in the so-called Entebbe principles , which enrolled these leaders in advancing U.S. security, strategic interests and neoliberal economic policies in Africa.
Paul Kagame has apparently risen to be the chief beneficiary of Washington’s protection. The cover and protection that Rwanda has experienced has its origins in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda where the United States shielded Paul Kagame and his military from prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity that they committed during the Rwandan genocide. The crimes that both Kagame and Museveni have committed in the region have resulted in what the United Nations has called the deadliest conflict in the world since WWII and the greatest humanitarian crisis at the dawn of the 21st Century. An estimated six million Congolese perished between 1996 – 2007 due to the conflict and conflict related causes. The United Nations stated in its 2010 Mapping Exercise Report that if the acts committed by Kagame’s military in the Congo were to be “proven before a competent court, could be characterized as crimes of genocide.” The Congolese have had minimal success in holding Museveni to account. The International Court of Justice found the Ugandan government culpable for war crimes and plunder in the Congo and order it to pay $325 million in reparations to the Congo. Rwanda would have likely befallen the same fate if not worse but it is not party to the International Court of Justice and hence outside of its jurisdiction .
Because of the impunity, lack of accountability, and lack of justice combined with the tacit endorsement of Western powers of the criminal actions by Paul Kagame, he has been able to sew murder and mayhem not only in the Congo but in different parts of Africa. He has dispatched assassins in several countries (Kenya, South Africa, Belgium, Netherlands, and England to name a few) in order to silence or assassinate dissidents. South Africa responded forcefully in 2014 by expelling three Rwandan diplomats as a result of Kagame sending his henchmen to assassinate former Rwandan colonel and dissident, Patrick Karegeya. Even today, Kagame recently kidnapped a Belgian Citizen and US resident, Paul Rusesabagina, the real-life hero of the movie Hotel Rwanda. Don Cheadle who played Rusesabagina is a part of a campaign to free the hero who courageously saved lives during the Rwandan genocide. Rusesabagina’s family has filed a law suit against the Rwandan government for Kidnapping their patriarch.
In spite of Paul Kagame’s well documented crimes, he and his government have been rewarded with leadership in institutions like the British Commonwealth and the Francophonie. The red carpet is rolled out for him in Ivy League universities in the United States. Sports associations like the National Basketball Association (NBA) and teams like the Arsenal Football Club of London fully embrace him and he is often found at the World Economic Forum in Davos as a feted guest . The cover that the Western governments and institutions have provided to Kagame has enabled him to fight while denying is military’s presence in the East of the Congo and his government’s sponsorship of militia groups like the M23. In a tweet that he later had to walk back, rationalizing the latest incursion by the Rwanda-backed M23 in eastern Congo, former U.S. Ambassador/Special Envoy for the Sahel & Great Lakes Regions of Africa, Dr Peter Pham is yet another example of how Kagame has been given cover.
The DR Congo’s president, Felix Tshisekedi stated emphatically “The resurgence of this armed movement, which was defeated in 2013 with the confiscation of its military arsenal, can only be due to Rwanda. This is no longer a secret.” Tshisekedi goes further by calling for justice for the victims of the Rwandan government’s crimes in the Congo through the implementation of the UN Mapping Exercise Report and the installation of an international criminal tribunal on the crimes in the Congo. This is a cause that the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Dr. Denis Mukwege has long championed . However, they are no match for Kagame’s connections in the West, particularly the United States. The recent visit by AFRICOM head, General Stephen Townsend in the midst of Kagame’s latest aggression against the Congo is case in point. As long as Paul Kagame continues to carry out his duties as a key agent of Western interests in Africa , neither he nor his partners in crime will likely face justice. A case in point, the Spanish Courts had an international arrest warrant out for 40 of Rwanda’s top officials under the principle of Universal Jurisdiction (the same principle that ensnared former Chilean agent of U.S. Imperialism, Augusto Pinochet). One of Rwanda’s top official, General Karenzi Karake was apprehended on the Spanish courts warrant for “war crimes against civilians.” In order to resist extradition to Spain Karenzi hired Tony Blair’s wife, Cherie Blair to defend him. Karenzi was later released on a technicality and was able to return to Rwanda.
The Chair of the African Union, Senegalese president Maky Sall said he has spoken to both Paul Kagame and Felix Tshisekedi. He has called for a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Regional efforts to deescalate the conflict are also being led by Angolan President João Lourenço as head of the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR).
The U.S. government’s Secretary of State, Antony Blinken has called for dialogue , which is for all intents and purposes reasserting the status quo of the past quarter century whereby Paul Kagame backs militia groups in the Congo while skirting accountability. As the U.S. government calls for dialogue, the Congolese people are demanding justice and an end to the carte-blanche given to Paul Kagame by the U.S. government while he sponsors atrocities in the Congo. It is this deep contradiction that leads many Congolese at the grassroots level to question U.S. attempts to pressure African governments to fall in line and support its stance against Russia in Ukraine. Congolese have been the victims of a U.S.-backed regime that has waged war against them for a quarter century. Yet, the Western media barely makes note of it and when they do the conflict is often cast in tribal, atavistic terms devoid of the geo-political underpinning that keeps the hart of the African continent in perpetual conflict and instability.
U.S., UK and EU citizens can play a key role in demanding that their governments cease the military and financial support they lavish on Paul Kagame. Citizens can help put an end to the diplomatic and political cover their governments have provided the Rwandan strongman for past quarter century of criminal wars of aggression Kagame has waged against the people of the DR Congo.
For its part, the Congolese government may have to consider following the path of former President Laurent Desire Kabila when he came under a withering attack from U.S. backed Rwandan and Uganda forces in 1998. He reached out to the Southern African Development Community (SADC), of which Congo is a member state, for Pan African military support. Angola, Zimbabwe and Namibia in particular responded and beat back the Rwandan and Ugandan militaries preventing a regime change in Kinshasa.
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/06/ ... se-people/
“Countering Malign Russian Influence Activities in Africa” Act a Pretext for More U.S. Intervention in Africa
Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on JUNE 14, 2022
Richard S. Dunn
Map of selected Russian projects in AfricaMap warns of growing Russian influence in Africa—shades of the Cold War. [Source: vifindia.org]
During the Cold War, the U.S. government invoked the pretext of Russian interference to justify a range of crimes, including the assassination of Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, the overthrow of Pan-Africanist hero Kwame Nkrumah, the arrest of Nelson Mandela and intervention in the Angolan civil war.
Just when we thought that that era had passed, the House of Representatives on April 27 passed the “Countering Malign Russian Influence Activities in Africa” Act by a 415-9 vote.
The bill in part would direct the U.S. Secretary of State, using “detailed intelligence,” to identify in Africa “local actors complicit in Russian activities.”
The U.S. in turn may very well seek to punish those actors through economic sanctions or even regime change. “Russian aggression” is generally being invoked to justify greater U.S. intervention in Africa, including the expansion of the Africa Command (AFRICOM) and U.S. military base network across the continent.
Anti-war activists raise alarm over United States' fast-growing military presence across Africa - Tehran Times[Source: tehrantimes.com]
Exceptional Show of Bipartisan Support
The Nay votes for the “Countering Malign Russian Influence Activities in Africa” Act all came from Republicans. Supposed progressive stalwarts like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Barbara Lee, Ro Khanna and members of the “Squad” all voted Yea.
The main sponsor of the bill, Gregory Meeks (D-NY), is Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
After passage of the bill, he voiced his pride in the “exceptional show of bipartisan support,” which he said “demonstrated how Putin’s war in Ukraine, and the Kremlin’s corrupt and illicit activities in Africa to fund war and other exploits have worked to unify Congress and the international community.”
Meeks continued: “As we continue to apply pressure on Putin and his agents for carrying out war crimes throughout this unjustifiable war of aggression, we cannot forget that the Russian Federation will continue to seek avenues through which it can pilfer, manipulate, and exploit resources in parts of Africa to evade sanctions and undermine U.S. interests.”
“The United States not only stands with the people of Ukraine, but with all innocent people who have been victimized by Putin’s mercenaries and agents credibly accused of gross violations of human rights in Africa, including in the Central African Republic and Mali. This bill enlists the resources of the State Department and other federal agencies to examine the Russian Federation’s malign activities in Africa and hold those complicit in these activities to account. The United States will not sit by and watch Putin’s war machine attempt to gain strength to the detriment of fragile states in Africa and elsewhere.”
While the Russians have been involved in some shady operations, many African countries have had long-standing positive ties to Russia and benefitted from its support for African liberation movements during the Cold War—in contrast to the U.S.—including in South Africa.
Meeks’s comments mostly offer a form of projection in that they accuse Russia of trying to exploit Africa’s resources when this is clearly something that the U.S. has done far more extensively and for a much longer period than Russia.
AFRICOM founder Vice Admiral Robert Moeller admitted that one of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM)’s guiding principles was “protecting the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market.”
The “Countering Malign Russian Influence Activities in Africa” Act will be used to justify flagrant infringements on the sovereignty of African countries. It attempts to use the Russian bogeyman—like in the Cold War era—as a pretext for neocolonial expansion.
The rhetoric surrounding the bill fits with the larger demonization of Vladimir Putin and Russia, which is a desperate ploy by the U.S. ruling elite to try to mobilize the public against a foreign enemy at a time of growing economic crisis and threatening civil discontent.
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/06/ ... in-africa/
'Red' added.
Libya in the Throes of a Serious Political Crisis
Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on JUNE 14, 2022
Viktor Mikhin
After Mohamed al-Menfi, president of the Libyan Presidential Council, met with UN General Secretary António Guterres, he spoke highly of the work done by the UN’s mission in Libya “to support the people in reaching a peaceful solution to restore security, stability and peace to the country.” However, in reality he was probably just being polite and diplomatic, and the current situation in the country, in spite of the efforts of international forums at the very highest level, is very far from hopeful.
Day by day it is looking less and less likely that the so-called Road Map will lead to the successful parliamentary and presidential elections that the 2.8 million strong electorate have been waiting for for so long. The main political forces in the country have still not reached a consensus on certain key questions related to the electoral process. And the regional and international powers, as well as the UN also disagree about the best way to resolve the Libyan crisis, but that has not prevented them meddling in the most reckless manner in the affairs of the country once united by the concept of Jamahiriya. Perhaps all the parties with an interest in resolving the Libyan problem should reconsider their positions and try to reach an alternative agreement – one which has a chance of succeeding where all previous attempts over the last ten years have failed.
In the current highly complex situation Stephanie T. Williams, Special Adviser on Libya to the United Nations Secretary-General is taking advantage of her position to achieve ends of her own, in doing so fanning the flames of the Libyan crisis. Ignoring all the problems afflicting the country, the fundamental flaws in the UN-brokered process and the stalemate into which the opposing Libyan groups have been forced by the West’s policies, she insists on forcing her – and the West’s – point of view on the Libyans. She is still hoping that her friends back in the US will help her out in Libya, and is using the promise of financial assistance to push through her Road Map which is entirely geared towards promoting US interests. It was she who drew up and promoted this document in a meeting with the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum (LPDF) held in Tunis in November 2020. She is continuing to call for elections and for the restoration of political institutions – but only those that are loyal to the West.
It should be remembered that Stephanie Williams is a skilled diplomatic provocateur – not for nothing did she study at the National War College, from which she graduated in 2008 to then join the Department of State. Even after she joined the UN and started a new career as an international civil servant, she shamelessly continued to promote the interests of the United States. In 2010-2013, she served as deputy head of the US mission in Bahrain, and for part of this time was the senior US diplomat in the country, acting as chargé d’affaires. It was she who, in 2011, instructed Saudi troops to occupy the emirate and suppress the Shia-led Bahrain uprising (despite the fact that Shiites make up 85% of Bahrain’s population). Quite naturally, as UN Special Adviser to Libya, a very senior post, she is trying to impose solutions to Libya’s political, economical and social problems, despite the fact that these solutions take no account of the interests of the Libyans themselves.
Ms Williams’ plan, supported and actively promoted by the main Western powers, is highly dependent on the ability of the existing Libyan institutions, especially the Tobruk-based Libyan House of Representatives and the High Council of State to reach a consensus on various issues. However, both these bodies then withdrew from their obligations and objected to the entry into effect of the old Road Map, which they considered was not in their interests. She then derailed the Libyan political process by trying to command these two bodies to do her bidding.
In recent months there have been parallel negotiations between representatives of different Libyan groups in Egypt and Switzerland. Despite objections by Stephanie Williams, Cairo hosted the second round of dialogues on the constitution, which included members of the Libyan House of Representatives and the High Council of State. The declared goal of the talks was to agree on a constitutional framework for the elections. And in Montreux, Switzerland, the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, an NGO which is working with the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) to organize and hold talks, invited a number of Libyan political leaders and officers from the security services and armed forces to discuss the political process and ways to preserve the ceasefire which was concluded in Geneva on October 23, 2020.
However, the main problem is that the House of Representatives is still intent on observing the new Road Map. Adopted in February 2022, this document calls for the adoption of constitutional amendments and their approval by referendum before the general elections are held. The High Council of State, in turn, is against the proposed amendments. To further complicate matters, the Constitution Drafting Assembly, a national electoral body, has opposed the creation of a new drafting assembly as proposed by the Road Map approved in February 2022. Finally, Libya’s Supreme Court ruled that the Libyan people “have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to accept the current draft.” This means that any amendments to the current draft constitution may end up complicating things further rather than solving the problems.
The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue hosted talks on the political process in Libya, which took place on May 12, and were attended by representatives of the main militant groups in both Eastern and Western Libya, together with a large number of political figures. According to reports in the Libyan press, the participants agreed to work on preserving civil order in Libya and preventing a relapse into war. They also agreed to hold a further round of talks in Morocco.
Meanwhile, a number of Libyan journalists have claimed that the speakers of the House of Representatives and the High Council of State have reached agreement on the formation of a new cabinet – although no such agreement has been published yet. It appears that the agreement is an attempt to resolve the stand-off concerning the government formed by the new Prime Minister Fathi Bashagha, appointed and backed by the House of Representatives.
The actions of this new Prime Minister, who travelled to the capital in secret early in the morning of May 17, accompanied by his Health and Foreign Ministers, serve to underline the political chaos in Libya and the helplessness of the newly founded supreme bodies. Fathi Bashagha’s appearance provoked clashes between his supporters and those loyal to his rival, Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, who heads the Government of National Accord, and who categorically refused to step down. Fathi Bashagha was therefore forced to leave the capital just a few hours after his arrival. The unexpected outbreak of violence in the capital, in which one person was killed and five wounded, caused a great deal of concern among the diplomatic community. There were urgent calls from politicians across the spectrum for the parties to stay calm, prevent any outbreaks of violence, and participate in the political process.
Quite naturally, both Fathi Bashagha and Abdul Hamid Dbeibah blamed each other for the violence, and each reiterated their claim to power. As readers will remember, Abdul Hamid Dbeibah was appointed as interim Prime Minister by the United Nations in a deal approved at the end of 2020. He was supposed to remain in office until the holding of elections on December 24, 2021, but these did not take place. Fathi Bashagha, in turn, has insisted that his government will continue to operate from Sirte until circumstances permit it to relocate to Tripoli without provoking more bloodshed. His journey to Tripoli came as a complete surprise, as he had previously announced that he would remain in Sirte in view of Abdul Hamid Dbeibah’s refusal to step down in favor of anyone except for a duly elected successor. It is unclear whether Fathi Bashagha was pressurized into making the trip by his supporters – who clearly wanted to see his government recognized in the capital – but in any event in view of the situation there that option is definitely off the cards for the time being.
In they eyes of many experts his ill-fated attempt to prove to his supporters and allies – both in Libya and abroad – that he can shift the balance of power in the capital has merely served to shorten his term of office. A number of factors are making things difficult for Fathi Bashagha: the determination of the UN and Western powers not to let Libya, with its considerable oil reserves, escape from their zone of influence, the unwillingness of his allies to move to Sirte, the difficulty of governing from Benghazi, and the need to reduce political tensions in the country. Together, these difficulties may have the effect of pushing him to leave the political stage. And then Libya will be left with a single Prime Minister, Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, who was appointed by the UN and is actively supported by Stephanie Williams.
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/06/ ... al-crisis/
************************
Why does the United States have a military base in Ghana?
An interview with Kwesi Pratt Jr., a journalist and leader of the Socialist Movement of Ghana
June 15, 2022 by Vijay Prashad
US soldiers train for “jungle warfare” in Ghana
In April 2018, the president of Ghana, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, said that Ghana has “not offered a military base, and will not offer a military base to the United States of America.” His comments came after Ghana’s parliament had ratified a new defense cooperation agreement with the United States on March 28, 2018, which was finally signed in May 2018. During a televised discussion, soon after the agreement was formalized in March 2018, Ghana’s Minister of Defense Dominic Nitiwul told Kwesi Pratt Jr., a journalist and leader of the Socialist Movement of Ghana, that Ghana had not entered into a military agreement with the United States. Pratt, however, said that the military agreement was a “source of worry” and was “a surrender of our [Ghanaian] sovereignty.”
In 2021, the research institute of Pratt’s Socialist Movement produced—along with the Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research—a dossier on the French and US military presence in Africa. That dossier—“Defending Our Sovereignty: US Military Bases in Africa and the Future of African Unity”—noted that the United States has now established the West Africa Logistics Network (WALN) at Kotoka International Airport in Accra, the capital of Ghana. In 2019, then-US Brigadier General Leonard Kosinski said that a weekly US flight from Germany to Accra was “basically a bus route.” The WALN is a cooperative security location, which is another name for a US military base.
Now, four years later after the signing of the defense cooperation agreement, I spoke with Kwesi Pratt and asked him about the state of this deal and the consequences of the presence of the US base on Ghanaian soil. The WALN, Pratt told me, has now taken over one of the three terminals at the airport in Accra, and at this terminal, “hundreds of US soldiers have been seen arriving and leaving. It is suspected that they may be involved in some operational activities in other West African countries and generally across the Sahel.”
US soldiers don’t need passports
A glance at the US–Ghana defense agreement raises many questions. Article 12 of the agreement states that the US military can use the Accra airport without any regulations or checks, with US military aircraft being “free from boarding and inspection” and the Ghanaian government providing “unimpeded access to and use of [a]greed facilities and areas to United States forces.” Pratt told me that this agreement allows US soldiers “far more privileges than those prescribed in the Vienna Convention for diplomats. They do not need passports to enter Ghana. All they need is their US Army identity cards. They don’t even require visas to enter Ghana. They are not subject to customs or any other inspection.”
Ghana has allowed the United States armed forces “to use Ghanaian radio frequencies for free,” Pratt said. But the most stunning fact about this arrangement is that, he said, “If US soldiers kill Ghanaians and destroy their properties, the US soldiers cannot be tried in Ghana. Ghanaians cannot sue US soldiers or the US government for compensation if and when their relatives are killed, or their properties are destroyed by the US Army or soldiers.”
Why would Ghana allow this?
The US–Ghana agreement permits this disregard for Ghana’s sovereignty. Pratt told me that the political ideology of the Ghanaian government that is in power now has been to adhere to a long history of appeasement toward the demands made by colonial and Western states, beginning with Britain—which was the colonial power that ruled over the Gold Coast (the former name for Ghana) until 1957—and leading up to providing “unimpeded access” to the United States troops under the defense deal.
The current president of Ghana, Akufo-Addo, comes from the political ideology that the former prime minister of Ghana (1969-1972) Kofi Abrefa Busia also conformed to. In the early 1950s, Pratt told me, those following this ideology “dispatched a delegation to the United Kingdom to persuade the authorities that it was too early to grant independence to the Gold Coast.” This led to a coup in Ghana, where those supporting this ideology “collaborated with the Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow the [then-President of Ghana] Kwame Nkrumah government on February 24, 1966, and resisted [imposing] sanctions against the South African apartheid regime in 1969,” Pratt said. The current government, Pratt added, will do anything to please the United States government and its allies.
Why is the United States interested in Ghana?
The United States claims that its military presence on the African continent has to do with its counterterrorism campaign and aims to prevent the entry of China into this region. “There is no Chinese military presence in Ghana,” Pratt told me, and indeed the idea of Chinese presence is being used by the United States to deepen its military control over the continent for more prosaic reasons.
In 2001, then-US Vice President Dick Cheney’s National Energy Policy Development Group published the National Energy Policy. The contents of this report show, Pratt told me, that the United States understood that it could “no longer rely on the Middle East for its energy supplies. A shift to West Africa for [meeting the] US energy needs is imperative.” Apart from West Africa’s energy resources, Ghana “has huge national resources. It is currently the largest producer of gold in Africa and… [is among the top 10 producers] of gold in the world. It is the second-largest producer of cocoa in the world. It has iron, diamond, manganese, bauxite, oil and gas, lithium, and abundant water resources, including the largest man-made lake in the world.” Apart from these resources, Ghana’s location on the equator makes it valuable for agricultural development, and its large bank of highly educated English-speaking professionals makes it valuable for meeting the demands of the West’s service sector.
Apart from these economic issues, Pratt said, the United States government has intervened in Ghana—including in the coup of 1966—to prevent it from having a leadership role in the decolonization process in Africa. More recently, the United States has found Ghana to be a reliable ally in its various military and commercial projects across the continent. It is toward those projects, and not the national interest of the Ghanaian people, Pratt said, that the United States has now built its base in a part of Accra’s civilian airport.
https://peoplesdispatch.org/2022/06/15/ ... -in-ghana/