After reading dreams from my father, I believed that Barack Obama gets Africa. He agonises over why this continent, full of smart, energetic people and rich in resources cannot get its act together. 

But having watched Obama for the past six months, I am coming to the painful realisation that whereas his presidency will boost Africa’s self-belief, where it is really cool to be African and black, but where Black and African issues are concerned, Obama might turn out to be a ‘politically correct’ politician.  

Thus when Obama visited the Cape Coast where you have the slave camp; he could not bring himself to say anything beyond comparing slavery to the Holocaust.

Yet, In Cairo, Obama talked about what Islamic culture had given to the world — timeless poetry, cherished music, elegant calligraphy etc. He talked about an unbreakable bond with Israel based on cultural and historical ties. The parallels are stark. Nowhere else can one better acknowledge humanity's collective debt in relation to culture, music, multiculturalism, and the coexistence of diverse cultures than in Africa. 

As pointed out by Charles Abugre, a Ghanaian economist, “if anyone will acknowledge what Africa offers to the rest of the world other than mineral resources, it has to be a "son of Africa."

It will be good to hear that Africa doesn't only export poverty and conflict. There's much more in the history between Africa and America to make the bonds "unbreakable." But Obama’s tongue was tied in Ghana.

Abugre added: "In Cairo, Obama acknowledged America's wrongs against Iran, especially the role the CIA played in the overthrow of a democratically elected government there. Similarly, Obama should apologize for the CIA's role in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Ghanaian leader Kwame Nkrumah in 1966 to satisfy Cold War strategic interests. 

While he's at it, he should apologize for the role the CIA played in removing Patrice Lumumba from power in 1960 and the resulting mess that is today's Democratic Republic of the Congo. Military coups in Africa — the biggest threat to democracy and good governance — was introduced by the CIA and other western intelligence agencies.

To not acknowledge that, in a speech focused on good governance, would marginalize Africa's history of struggle for democracy. A good son of Africa couldn't possibly do that". 

Obama’s speech should have broken from the paternalism of his predecessors and yet lays grounds for U.S. interests based on Africa's progress. 

Obama should have acknowledged the history of U.S.-African relations, for the past shapes the present. His Cairo speech, directed largely at the "Muslim world," should have served as an excellent model.

In Cairo, he acknowledged that today's realities are rooted in centuries of coexistence as well as in conflicts and wars. 

In Cairo also, Obama acknowledged America's wrongs against Iran, especially the role the CIA played in the overthrow of a democratically elected government there. If he said that in Cairo, why not in Accra?

On June 2009, a contact drew my attention to a very innocuous news item. I was so excited at the information at my disposal that against my custom, I posted the information on my website without confirming its authenticity.

That news item was so hot that within a short item, my phones were ringing, my email was abuzz, the piece in question immediately shot up to the sixth most popular article on my site.

I am not the only one excited at the news then, the feedback was extremely positive. At this juncture you might be wondering, what is this all about? The news is simply that there are indications that President Barack Obama has ordered the withdrawal of US Visa from some named Cameroon Politicians; that some U.S. agencies are investigating their bank accounts in the United States found to be disproportionate to their income in Cameroon. 

But while Obama’s “excellent” speech on Friday July 13, 2009 was generally hailed as “tough love” - Obama’s message was simple: "Africa's future is up to Africans... the world will be what you make of it." The speech was positively described as “few home truths only an African brother” could deliver.

Yet, many discerning observers did not fail to note the difference between my first story about Cameroon politicians and Obama’s lecture in Ghana; one was positive action - a powerful dose of radioactive chemotherapy targeted at a malignant tumour, but the second was a near-empty rhetoric; an ordinary message only made profound by the status of the messenger, but devoid of specific policy.

Moreover not a few Africans were disappointed that in a speech focused on good governance, Obama failed to acknowledge the US role in supporting dictators during the Cold War, thus marginalizing Africa's history of struggle for democracy.

In my dissatisfaction with the Obama homily, I penned my take: Obama Should apologise to Africa. I pointed out that Obama apologised to Europe during his trip to France in April 2009, apologised to Muslims in his speech in Cairo, Egypt. But in Ghana, Obama did not have the courage to admit and take full responsibility for the role of America in the ruination of the continent.

The negative response to this article and similar once by Paul Adujie - one respondent suggested I’d rather “buy an apology machine, something that will say "sorry" each time you walk past or look at it”. Another said that “Obama is black, so an apology from him would be an aberration, such extreme negative reactions were misguided.

On April 6, 2009, I penned an article entitled, Barack Obama and the Corruption of African Leaders. Therein I said: To those waiting with fascination to see how Barrack Obama would handle the case of the rampant corruption in Africa, we are happy that Obama has indicated that he would be bold enough to tell African leaders to their face to tackle corruption, to stop looting the country’s resources and to lift their people out of poverty.  

I also said that while white Western leaders might be sensitive to African feelings when discussing corruption with African leaders, Obama with his black African roots might not have such inhibitions.  

However, I was dismayed that when the time came for Obama to address this most fundamental of the problems facing Africa, his approach, while well- targeted, was short-sighted.

In saying that Obama should apologise to Africans, my use of the word ‘apology’ was deliberate. Those that chaffed at my suggesting apology from Obama misses the point.

They failed to understand that an apology (from America not Obama in his personal capacity as Barack Obama) means that you appreciate and accept responsibility and are ready to right the wrong you caused. 

We are not just asking Obama to tell Africans: sorry for slavery, sorry for American imperialism and sorry for CIA murderous interventions in Africa or for the rape by their multinational companies. 

Obama apologised to Europe for past US arrogance towards Europe when he said; "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” he was apologising

And also to Muslims: "More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim—majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations… I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning,” - more especially for George Bush’s demonisation of Islam in the ‘war on terror’' and promising to make a fresh start.

Like Obama indicated to Europe and the Arabs, accepting this responsibility means he is ready to right the wrongs America caused through specific actions. But when Obama told Africa that “the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade”, it means he fails to truly appreciate, in his own words; “full well the tragic past that has sometimes haunted this part of the world”, which tragic past includes slavery and colonialism.

Thus Obama is bound to continue the mistakes of his predecessors and in their wrong steps. It is therefore no surprise that after admitting that, “the West has often approached Africa as a patron, rather than a partner”, Obama still said in his Ghana speech: “I have pledged substantial increases in our foreign assistance, which is in Africa's interest and America's”.

Obama has thus indicated he would continue with the West’s bankrupt policy of doling out foreign Aid which Dambisa Moyo argues is designed to "distract attention from the trade barriers they have erected, which cost Africa $500bn every year". 

Obama also said that in doling out American Aid, “We have a responsibility to support those who act responsibly and to isolate those who don't, and that is exactly what America will do”. Precisely what they are doing in Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

But if Obama had fully appreciated that the tripartite shadow of evil that hangs over Africa includes not only bad and inept leadership but also powerful multi-national companies that ravage Africa and influences government policy and international organisations that impose the wrong policies on Africa, it would shape his approach.

Acknowledging for example, America's $31bn in subsidies for US farmers which squeeze some African farmers out of the market and accepting responsibility for the US role in supporting dictators during the Cold War- an apology many Africans would like to hear, would produce a holistic approach leading to a specific, targeted policy. 

Policies that may include:

1. Speaking out against Barclays Bank establishing a tax haven in Ghana, warning against such vehicle being used for tax evasion and money laundering – in support of transparency and anti-corruption efforts, to  expand cooperation in intelligence gathering and sharing and reigning in the vicarious liability of tax havens and offshore banks.

2. Pushing the boundaries of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) (passed by the US Congress before his tenure) to have the expanded power to bite both givers and takers of bribes – both American multi-national countries and kleptomaniac African leaders?

3. Stopping and Withdrawing US Visa from corrupt African politicians – to stop them spending their looted funds in America; thereby stopping the marketplace for high stakes elite bribery?

Without doubt, anyone that fails to appreciate this history of Africa and their lopsided relationship with the west, a huge stone that hangs on the neck of the distraught masses of Africa like albatross is misled. Let me mention just three.

Firstly, we are swimming against the tide of a debilitating inferior complex imposed by centuries of slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism, western imperialism and dehumanisation.

For centuries, Africa and Africans were dehumanised, debased and made less than a wild monkey. Africans came to internalise the erroneous belief that anything white was godly, holy and good but anything black was satanic, evil and bad!

Even Obama himself despite Harvard, Capitol Hill and White House could not be entirely extricated from this destructive complex. Otherwise which other American President has ever bowed to a Saudi King or the Queen of England. Thus illustrating the truism that you could take a man out of Africa but you cannot take Africa out of a man!

Secondly, we are swimming against the tide of tribalism and a forced relationship. Even Obama himself admitted that "a colonial map that made little sense bred conflict”. This is not an entirely African phenomenon. 

Thirdly, we are fighting the might of an international system that tells Africa: You are not one of us, you don’t belong, and if you dare as much as challenge the status quo, we smash your skull! Like Obama wrote in Dreams from my father:’ We are playing in the white man’s court’.

A lot of today’s’ internet addicts are not so old, so forgive their ignorance of such great personage as Patrice Lumumba. But I am sure many will be old enough to know Thomas Sankara. 

I happened to watch a documentary of Thomas Sankara on France 24 last year and I was literally shedding tears, my heart bled for Africa.

The revolution Sankara led between 1983 and 1987 was one of the most creative and radical that Africa has produced in the decades since independence. He started to blaze a trail that other African countries might follow, a genuine alternative to Western-style modernization – and, like other radical African leaders such as Patrice Lumumba and Amilcar Cabral, was murdered. His murder was sponsored and orchestrated by France through Ivory Coast.

Till date, His murderer and second in command, the impostor and French stooge, Blaise Compaore still dominates Burkia Fasso.  Twenty two years later, Compaore still pursues self-enrichment and politics as usual – and has been fêted by the West for his compliance. 

Tomorrow another French fool might come down to Africa to lecture us on democracy, good governance and Africa corruption! 

Anyone purporting to tackle Africa’s multifarious problems without addressing these salient issues is either being an ignoramus or simply being mischievous. And anyone that denies this history of Africa is not a "son of Africa".

Yes, Obama is right to emphasize the personal responsibility of African leaders and African people. He is right to call on the continent's leaders to do more with what they have, take their destiny in his hands, stamp out corruption and disdain dictatorship – to emphasize that Africa needs strong leaders not strong Institutions. 

But to herald a new beginning, he should have acknowledged Africa’s history and establish a new relationship built on positive action, mutual respect and mutual interests.

afamefuna@elombah.com

www.elombah.com

Robot  # 1 | 22.07.2009 00:37

For centuries, Africans were dehumanised came to internalise the erroneous belief that anything white was godly, holy and good but anything black was satanic, evil and bad! Even Obama despite Harvard, Capitol Hill and White House could not be entirely extricated from this destructive complex. Otherwise which other American President has ever bowed to a Saudi King or the Queen of England. Thus illustrating the truism that you could take a man out of Africa but you cannot take Africa out of a man! ...Read the full article.

Gladiator  # 2 | 22.07.2009 06:44

Even though I do not accept all of the points raised I must acknowledge that this is the most constructive critique yet that I have read regarding the Obama visit to Ghana and I quickly add that I a gave short shrift to the earlier piece "Obama should Apologise to Africa". In this day and age of sound-bites and 24-hour news where words and nuances make the difference between life and death, success or failure, or could easily destroy a prospective political career I would suggest that the title and focus of the earlier piece was perhaps misguided. That piece personalised the issues to Obama as a man and not America as a country. And given the symbolism of Obama as a man of African heritage and the context of his meteoric ascendancy to the position of the most powerful office in the world and him making his maiden visit to Africa, it was most ill-advised. As you acknowledge this piece: ...{Africans} are swimming against the tide of a debilitating inferior complex imposed by centuries of slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism, western imperialism and dehumanisation. The psychological boost that Obama has single-handedly given millions and millions of Africans the world over and those yet to be born is immeasurable. No amount of US dollars in Aid can do for African self-esteem and confidence what his election as US President has done. And to needlessly pointedly nit-pick at the issue was what, I suspect many took exception to. As it just seemed to lack generosity and had a distinctly "African-pull-him-down" undertone to it all. Obama is obviously a very smart and intelligent man. His intellectual capacity together with his adept political skills which he deployed so effectively during the Presidential campaigns and election will see him through and I have little doubt (given time) that he will eventually come through for Africa and indeed the world.

edoji  # 3 | 22.07.2009 08:35

=Gladiator;373890>I a gave short thrift to the earlier piece "Obama should Apologise to Africa". In this day and age of sound-bites and 24-hour news where words and nuances make the difference between life and death, success or failure, or could easily destroy a prospective political career I would suggest that the title and focus of the earlier piece was perhaps misguided. That piece personalised the issues to Obama as a man and not America as a country. And given the symbolism of Obama as a man of African heritage and the context of his meteoric ascendancy to the position of the most powerful office in the world and him making his maiden visit to Africa, it was most ill-advised. As you acknowledge this piece: And to needlessly pointedly nit-pick at the issue was what, I suspect many took exception to. As it just seemed to lack generosity and had a distinctly "African-pull-him-down" undertone to it all. I will acknowledge that I wrote ‘Obama must apologise to Africa’ out of anger. Obama is a very intelligent man, and if you want to know how will act; you look with insight at his speeches. After his speech in Ghana – yes he ticked all the right sound bites - I was definitely alarmed that while Obama would distance himself from Africa’s corrupt leaders, he might not really do anything about multinational companies and other external influences that militates against Africa’s development.. For let’s not deceive ourselves, Africa could never achieve much on their own, the cards are heavily stacked against us. Africa needed America in their fight against colonialism; they needed America’s help in the fight against apartheid. Today, they need America’s help much more in the 21st century battle against corruption. Systemic corruption is too big a hurdle to overcome. Nigeria’s problems may seem insurmountable, but the rest of the world can make a difference by doing what they can to promote transparency. Like Nuhu Ribadu told the US Congress: There is no place in the world where anti-corruption efforts will succeed without political will, without leadership to promote the effort openly as a moral and political force. Without this will, the pressure on enforcement agents smothers their efforts and is destined to destroy the very agencies defined to lead the war against graft. Ribadu learnt firsthand that you could not win the fight against corruption without trusted partnerships with US and UK agencies. He said: “The unholy alliance between local political elites and western financial institutions has been the foundation of this narrative of shame. The best illustration yet is the now famous Halliburton/KBR scandal and the Siemens scandal. In both of these cases, the United States and Germany, the parent nations of these two companies, have initiated stern investigations and issued out hefty fines on the companies – but those who received the bribes in Nigeria continue to enjoy the fruits of their labours, which only means the cycle will continue”. I expected much more from Obama in Ghana. His dealings with Europe and the Muslims were often shaped by his speeches. If same would be true to Africa, his speech in Ghana is long in rhetoric but short in action. And most importantly, his perception of African realities form that speech, indicates a continuance of US policies towards Africa. Many are already frowning that Obama has been relatively slow to shape his relationship with Africa. Like Erick Kabendera - a Tanzanian journalist wrote: His barrier-breaking victory meant a lot to a lot of different people. For Africans, who streamed through poor villages and cities to celebrate, it was obviously a source of immense pride that the son of a Kenyan was in the White House. The victory also offered hope, not only of a multi-lateral approach after eight years of Bush's navel-gazing, but of Washington helping to bring an end to the rampant corruption that is holding the continent back. The initial signs from the Obama presidency were far from encouraging as far as promoting good governance was concerned. The first of the continent's leaders to be granted an Oval Office meeting with the new black occupant of the White House was my own president: Jakaya Kikwete, of Tanzania. He had just finished his stint as the rotating head of the African Union, so it might have been a matter of diplomatic protocol, but it was a disappointing choice nonetheless. While at the AU helm, President Kikwete was far from impressive. He stuck to the Africa old norm of "respecting your elders even when they are convicted thieves". So even when ordinary Zimbaweans were suffering at the repressive hands of Robert Mugabe, Mr Kikwete failed to denounce the rigged election and call him to account. I am not sure Mr Obama grasped the signals he was sending by choosing the Tanzanian leader as his first African guest. This was a man who rabble-roused the AU into refusing to cooperate with the International Criminal Court regarding the indictment of the Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for his role in the genocide in Darfur. The AU's refusal was a blessing to corrupt criminal leaders around the continent. However, in choosing Ghana for his maiden presidential visit to the continent, perhaps there are reasons to be more optimistic about Mr Obama's relationship with Africa. The whole of Africa is looking up to the President for guidance on how things should get done. He obviously cannot be in every nation but by picking Ghana above his ancestral homeland Kenya or the continent's most populous nation, Nigeria; he is sending very clear signals about the leadership he wants to see in Africa. In his speech in Ghana, Mr Obama should declare that his administration will not spare Africa's despotic leaders like Mugabe and Bashir. It is important for him to distance himself from countries like Kenya that are sliding back into violence and notorious undemocratic and corrupt tendencies, and he should clearly define what leaders in such countries need to do for understanding to be restored. In his 2006 tour of Africa when he was still Obama the candidate, jeers, laughter and groans broke out in Kenya when he spoke candidly to the government about the impact of graft. It is hard to imagine that happening in Accra. Of course economic concerns are always part of any geo-political equation. It was no coincidence that less than a month after the inauguration of America's first black head of state, as the US reeled from the financial crisis, China's President Hu Jintao was on a four-country tour of Africa stressing China's economic commitment to the continent. And Ghana is set to become the newest oil producer in a region that is increasingly important for Washington as it seeks to diversify energy supplies away from the Middle East. But Mr Obama needs to assure Africans that under his administration, America will go beyond protecting its own economic and political interests and act to ensure good leadership defines African politics. With good leadership, Africa could properly manage its resources and fight poverty that has ravaged the continent despite increased international aid. And the American President can lead by example. In the six months since he took office, he has rolled out an impressively large agenda, which calls for wholesale reform of America's health care programme and energy infrastructure. This, in turn, has actually piled a lot of pressure onto Africa's leaders who often spend years on power without anything to show for it. Upon securing the presidency, Mr Obama appointed Susan Rice as his ambassador to the United Nations. She has strong ties to Africa. She testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 2007 over the killings in Darfur, accepting the idea of military action as a means of forcing President Bashir to stop the killings. She also visited Rwanda after the 1994 genocide and is seen on the continent as someone who could push the UN to start thinking of using tough measures to remove tyrannical leaders from power. If the likes of Ms Rice do their job properly and the Obama administration avoids "going to bed" with African leaders, I am optimistic that change could not only belong to America alone, but to Africa as well.

M. Akosa  # 4 | 22.07.2009 11:45

Dear Danny, I am wondering how come you a Nigerian is getting too obsessed over what Obama said or didn’t say in Ghana? I am also monitoring the SA and Kenya press, equally two power houses of sub- Saharan Africa, on their reactions, but they are not upset at all about Obama. Even though he equally snubbed them last weekend. If the South Africans and Kenyans can deal with the snub or Obama’s tongue lashing of African leaders, why can’t Nigerians move on then? Why are you personalizing this symbolic and historical visit of the first black man to occupy the most powerful seat and job in the world??? His presence alone that weekend in Ghana and him bringing along those beautiful faces, his entire family to Ghana, setting foot in African soil as an American President, less than a year of assuming office is a miracle. Please, please don’t touch that man!!!! Please my dear brother, just erase Obama from your mind, and think of something else and worthwhile to castigate. Obama is first and foremost a politician and from a law background. He is not a charity or social worker. He has never claimed to be one. So why would he bear any social responsibilities for African’s poor records of taking care of their own? Or did his Kenyan father and American mother buy any slaves or traffic Africans for domestic or sexual slavery of recent???? Please give it up.

quietswami  # 5 | 22.07.2009 13:00

And so it shall be written that Superman came to Africa, and in one speech cured all the ills of the continent! Assuming that he escapes kryptonic African effect and delivers the weighty speech laden with unrealistic expectations - then what?! He can single-handedly rescue Africans from their own deeds?! That Africa's destiny lie in the hands of Africans is the single most candid statement he can utter that holds any real validity. If we endorsed this, and truly appreciate the import of the coded message, we may actually begin to make progress. Perhaps if we saved all the excuses, condemnations, vitriolics... to better understand "our destiny", and what actually is in our hands - we may just get the message! Expectations of a self-sustaining reprise from outside of the continent is as deluded as the expectation that the son of Jor-El will single-handedly solve all of Africa's problem - where the many sons of the top dog - in their many guises - have not succeeded so far?! Perhaps some will only be content with a statement that says "Africa's destiny is in the hands of others...America, Great Britain, France, China, Japan...". Wonder which has the semblance of truth! Enough decoding for now - read between the lines and it shall all be revealed! Kal-El has spoken let all who speak kryptonian decipher! Those who don't may very wallow in their self-righteous pity and contempt!

edoji  # 6 | 23.07.2009 05:01

=M. Akosa;374037>Dear Danny, I am wondering how come you a Nigerian is getting too obsessed over what Obama said or didn’t say in Ghana? I am also monitoring the SA and Kenya press, equally two power houses of sub- Saharan Africa, on their reactions, but they are not upset at all about Obama. Even though he equally snubbed them last weekend. If the South Africans and Kenyans can deal with the snub or Obama’s tongue lashing of African leaders, why can’t Nigerians move on then? Please give it up. I don't know which Press you monitored. There are lots of adverse reactions from Kenya, Ghana and Tanzania. But look at these links. "How Different is His Policy?" The Economist, July 16th, 2009 http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14038237 "The deeper truth is that Africa is not high on the American president's agenda. His Ghana speech was sensible and stirring. But in the end his message was that African-American relations would see no grand change.": "Fine Words, but will Africa listen?" The Independent, July 13, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/n72p4s "There are, on reflection, things that Obama might also have mentioned, for example America's $31bn in subsidies for US farmers which squeeze some African farmers out of the market. And Obama, always careful to say he is American but of African parentage, leapt from colonial times to the present without mention of the US role in supporting dictators during the Cold War, an apology many Africans would like to hear." "What Obama Failed to Admit", Public Agenda (Accra), July 17, 2009 http://allafrica.com/stories/200907170900.html "Much as this newspaper agrees with President Obama on the need for Ghana and to a large extent African countries to diversify their exports, he failed to tell the whole story. The other side of the story is that unfair trade practices pushed down the throats of poor countries is partly to blame for the non-diversification of our exports. ... According to a study by some UK charities, the chocolate industry in the UK in any given year is more than one billion pounds. The figures could be ten times more in the US market. Yet, hardly does one find any made-in-Ghana chocolate on the shelves of any western super markets." "Did Obama Say the Same Old Thing, or Was He Different", The East African, July 20, 2009 http://allafrica.com/stories/200907201283.html Kevin Kelley provides a roundup of views from African and U.S. analysts. "Africa's Surreal Future: If Obama and the G8 truly want to help Africa's poor, they must stop supporting the continent's corrupt rulers." The Guardian July 14, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/myvdy5 "Obama is being applauded for finally tasking Africans with changing Africa. Well, Africans have been doing it since the days of colonialism. They are only happy to take on the corrupt politicians, dictators in all their hues and shades, coup mongers and opaque institutions. But first, the west has to stop arming them and giving them money, which in turn is used to subdue popular energies." There many others but these are just samples...contact me if you need more

M. Akosa  # 7 | 23.07.2009 09:34

=edoji;374323>I don't know which Press you monitored. There are lots of adverse reactions from Kenya, Ghana and Tanzania. But look at these links. "How Different is His Policy?" The Economist, July 16th, 2009 http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14038237 "The deeper truth is that Africa is not high on the American president's agenda. His Ghana speech was sensible and stirring. But in the end his message was that African-American relations would see no grand change.": "Fine Words, but will Africa listen?" The Independent, July 13, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/n72p4s "There are, on reflection, things that Obama might also have mentioned, for example America's $31bn in subsidies for US farmers which squeeze some African farmers out of the market. And Obama, always careful to say he is American but of African parentage, leapt from colonial times to the present without mention of the US role in supporting dictators during the Cold War, an apology many Africans would like to hear." "What Obama Failed to Admit", Public Agenda (Accra), July 17, 2009 http://allafrica.com/stories/200907170900.html "Much as this newspaper agrees with President Obama on the need for Ghana and to a large extent African countries to diversify their exports, he failed to tell the whole story. The other side of the story is that unfair trade practices pushed down the throats of poor countries is partly to blame for the non-diversification of our exports. ... According to a study by some UK charities, the chocolate industry in the UK in any given year is more than one billion pounds. The figures could be ten times more in the US market. Yet, hardly does one find any made-in-Ghana chocolate on the shelves of any western super markets." "Did Obama Say the Same Old Thing, or Was He Different", The East African, July 20, 2009 http://allafrica.com/stories/200907201283.html Kevin Kelley provides a roundup of views from African and U.S. analysts. "Africa's Surreal Future: If Obama and the G8 truly want to help Africa's poor, they must stop supporting the continent's corrupt rulers." The Guardian July 14, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/myvdy5 "Obama is being applauded for finally tasking Africans with changing Africa. Well, Africans have been doing it since the days of colonialism. They are only happy to take on the corrupt politicians, dictators in all their hues and shades, coup mongers and opaque institutions. But first, the west has to stop arming them and giving them money, which in turn is used to subdue popular energies." There many others but these are just samples...contact me if you need more Thank you very much for the links. All I am saying it that Obama should be left alone and NOT equated to actions of the American business and political establishments or held responsible to be cricified for what has gone wrong even before he was born. It is just like holding Mandela responsible or blaming him for the actions of the South African political or business establishments. Obama did excellent in Ghana. What ever he said or did not say is okay !!!