In the Debate of US Military Presence in Ghana: Propaganda and Emotions Must Give Way to Common Sense.
1. The agreement to have US military presence in Ghana has been there since 1998. In 2015, a similar one was signed. In 2018, a new one that reflect the new status of Ghana as a partner to the US is being debated.
2. In all the three agreements, there are, to my mind, certain worrying provisions that allows US army to come to Ghana, occupy and control some places that they alone can access and control, bring in heavy military accoutrement that our own security agencies can’t inspect, grant the US tax free incentives to import their ammunition to the country, permit the US to operate their equipment and drive them on our roads without license, and create a situation that places the US army in Ghana virtually above our laws.
3. In all the first two agreements, there were no independent means of knowing what the US were doing in Ghana. The current agreement doesn't depart from this challenge. So, regulating US activities under the agreement is difficult.
4. But there are some marked differences between the current agreement and the two previous ones. First, the agreement can be nullified at anytime without even giving reasons, if we think it's not in our favor. Once a letter is written to this effect, the agreement terminates within one year.
5. The second difference is the transparent manner with which the agreement has been handled. Until my search for information yesterday, I never knew of the 1998 and 2015 agreements. They were signed in opacity without the knowledge of many Ghanaians.
6. Anybody who is well switched on in the dogmas of international politics knows what a US military base is. From what I know about a military base, the three agreements do not make Ghana a military base. If they do, then Ghana became a military base long ago in 1998.
7. It is important to note that similar to the earlier agreements that were signed in secrecy, the Defense Minister was put under tremendous pressure to sign the current agreement in same manner. But Nitiwul insisted on tabling the current agreement before parliament for their debate and consensus before he signs.
8. The agreement has now been laid before parliament for deliberations. Unfortunately, some minority MPs insist that the agreement must first be signed before parliament ratifies it. I find this position quite problematic because, once the agreement is signed by Nitiwul, it means no single provision can be changed by parliament. It would be become binding with all is scary provisions.
9. The attitude of Nitiwul in soaking US pressure and insisting on transparency and parliamentary debate of the agreement is typical of a thoughtful young Minister. He could have pandered to the pressure and signed the current agreement in secrecy just as the two previous ones and there wouldn't have been any debate.
10. Now the agreement is before parliament. This is a matter of our collective fear and security. Let both sides of the divide sit, debate, review and fine-tune it to deal with its scary provisions so that by the time it is signed, we wouldn't have doubts about our safety.
11. Let all timely views and suggestions be taken on board. Let the parliamentary debate not be done on partisan lines. Let our MPs do their deliberations purely on the lines of national interest. If superior views articulated on the floor of parliament necessitate the cancellation of the agreement, it would be our collective decision. If the views suggests amendments, tweaking, and changes to the agreement, so should it be.
12. My point therefore is that we haven't signed the agreement yet. Let us put aside emotions and propaganda and thoroughly review the agreement in parliament with the majority willing to listen and take all dispassionate suggestions on board.
Once again, Nitiwul must be commended for tabling the agreement before parliament. I urge him not to be dismissive of suggestions and overly defensive of the agreement. We must work together on this agreement to tap fully into its potential benefits and minimize its latent threats and dangers.