From: wolda002@umn.edu
Date: Sun Jul 19 2009 - 17:38:14 EDT
“African Blood” Saved Obama From Scrutiny in Ghana
By Anonymous
Created 07/13/2009 - 23:51
thicker than waterby Edwin Okong'o
Just as in Black America, many Africans on the continent hesitate to
criticize Barack Obama for reasons of blood solidarity. Obama bemoans
African “wars over land and wars over resources,” but “his African
blood prevented us from asking him whether most of those resources
(diamonds) end up in the hands of Africans.” The president talks of
bribery as if it were an African disease. “African blood makes us hush
instead of telling Obama that what Africans need is an end to the policies
that allow multinationals to bribe governments to let them to continue
stripping the continent of its wealth.”
“African Blood” Saved Obama From Scrutiny in Ghana
by Edwin Okong'o
This article originally appeared in New American Media [1].
“The son of Africa continues to push for the U.S. Africa Command
(AFRICOM) –- the same policy of militarization we rejected under Bush.”
During his visit to Ghana, President Barack Obama laid out a U.S. policy
that wasn’t any different from that of his predecessors. But because
Obama’s father hailed from my home country of Kenya, and because blood
–- African blood, especially -– is thicker than water, Africans
exempted their son’s plan for the continent from the tough questions it
warranted.
To understand how important blood lines are in Africa, we have to go back
to May, when Obama announced his plans to visit Ghana. Euphoria gripped the
continent so tightly that instead of talking about what kind of
relationship Africa should have with the United States, we went after each
other. We wondered why he chose Ghana. Kenyans –- who thought they had an
inalienable right to Obama’s first visit as president –- complained
that they had been snubbed. Nigeria wondered why Obama didn’t include the
African giant in his itinerary. And, if you were Obama, wouldn’t you
automatically pick the land that gave the world Nelson Mandela?
In sheer American fashion, Obama explained boldly that he picked Ghana
because of the West African nation’s “democratic commitment.”
While Kenyans, Nigerians, South Africans and others were searching their
souls, Ghanaians were preparing to do what we Africans do best: dress in
colorful attire, sing, dance and chant in praise of presidents.
“We did not ask him how his new plan was different from that of his
predecessors.”
Although other African countries found their souls very quickly -–
“democratic commitment” is such a clear message –- they couldn’t do
so in time for Obama to add them to his itinerary. So they joined Ghana and
made this “our visit” –- a visit to sub-Saharan Africa. After all,
isn’t it blood that binds us, and doesn’t an African son belong to the
village?
By the time Obama landed in Ghana, we were so unified by this son of Africa
that we did not ask him to tell us what the real purpose of his visit to
Ghana was, and how his new plan was different from that of his
predecessors.
Because Obama is of African blood, no one stood up to tell him that
“democratic commitment” is an American buzz phrase we have heard many
times, and that, if indeed this was about democracy, Ghana wouldn’t have
been the best choice. Doesn’t Ghana have a long history of coups? And
didn’t products of those coups rule the country until as recently as
2001?
Couldn’t a better choice have been Tanzania -– where three presidents
have left office voluntarily, and equal numbers of Muslims, Christians and
indigenous believers have learned to coexist peacefully? (According to the
CIA World Factbook, Tanzania’s economy grew by 7.1 percent in 2008.) Does
the fact that a single party has mostly ruled Tanzania make it less of a
democracy?
“Do the multinationals that give these bribes have any role in this war
over resources?”
What about Zambia, where Frederick Chiluba -– a former president -– is
facing charges for allegedly stealing taxpayers’ money? Yes, President
Obama, a court in that supposedly corruption-ridden continent of great
suffering has put a former president on trial.
And, by avoiding other African countries, isn’t Obama continuing
America’s “old” policies of pitting nations against each other?
Isn’t he contradicting the pledge he made on his inauguration day to open
dialogue? Even George W. Bush, of “axis of evil” fame, visited five
African countries. And, isn’t it stereotypical to slap the “corrupt”
label on all African leaders?
“There are wars over land and wars over resources,” Obama said. But his
African blood prevented us from asking him whether most of those resources
(diamonds) end up in the hands of Africans. What about that other resource
that has caused so much havoc in the Niger Delta? Is it because in Nigeria,
“the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery?” Do
the multinationals that give these bribes have any role in this war over
resources? And, is there any likelihood that a newfound resource (oil) off
Ghana’s coast pushed the country higher on the American chart of
“democratic commitment?”
“Africa is not the crude caricature of a continent at war,” Obama said,
yet the son of Africa continues to push for the U.S. Africa Command
(AFRICOM) –- the same policy of militarization we rejected under Bush.Why
did his administration boost funding –- from $8.3 million in 2009 to
$25.6 million in 2010 –- for sale of weapons to some of the same corrupt
countries he avoided on his trip? The figure seems meager, but $25.6
million can put at least 25,000 M16 rifles in the hands of some of the
corrupt countries. Also, according to Washington, D.C.-based African
Security Research Project, the U.S. military is training several African
countries including Kenya, Liberia, Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria, and Ethiopia,
under a program called International Military Education and Training
(IMET). Obama has also proposed new IMET programs in Somalia, Equatorial
Guinea, and Zimbabwe.
“Even George W. Bush, of “axis of evil” fame, visited five African
countries.”
Because he has African blood, we were afraid to tell him that it takes more
than a couple of brief visits to Africa to understand the continent. We
agreed with him that, “Yes, a colonial map that made little sense helped
to breed conflict.” But we failed to explain to him that many of the
Africans who bring up colonialism do not do so to blame the West. That we
have never denied that in Africa corruption exists in endemic proportions;
that we mention colonialism for the sake of practicality; that we want the
West to understand that a continent brutalized and looted for centuries
cannot turn around in 50 years.
We want the United States to look at where it was 50 years after its
independence. Were the African slaves free? Could women vote? Had the civil
war even happened? Wasn’t corruption rampant in the new, free nation?
But rather than ask this son of Africa to look at history, we let him spit
the same Western rhetoric that implies that any African who utters the word
“colonialism” wants Africa to wait 200 years for a strong “democratic
commitment.” Because Obama is of our blood, we let him continue to push
the same flawed, condescending idea that every African is in dire need of
water, food and medicine. “And that's why," he said, "my administration
has committed $63 billion to meet these challenges.”
“What Africans need is an end to the policies that allow multinationals
to bribe governments to let them to continue stripping the continent of its
wealth.”
Or that Africans lack education, when in fact the continent is full of
highly educated people capable of solving Africa’s problems. African
blood makes us hush instead of telling Obama that what Africans need is an
end to the policies that allow multinationals to bribe governments to let
them to continue stripping the continent of its wealth.
We cheered when we heard Obama say that America “will put more resources
in the hands of those who need it,” even though we know that most of that
aid will end up in the hands of our not-so-democratically-committed
African-born sons. We applauded when Obama said, “Wealthy nations must
open our doors to goods and services from Africa in a meaningful way,”
although it’s no secret that even if the entire world opened its market
to Africa, most of us would have nothing to sell.
Ironically, Obama's African blood has made us too blind to see that the
heart that pumps it through his veins is American.
Edwin Okong'o is an associate editor at New America Media.