Is Obama Free or a Modern Day Slave?

United States President Barack Obama has gone to Ghana and left, but like a jet that leaves smoke in its trail, he stirred quite some dust especially with the speech he delivered to the Ghanaian Parliament. In that historic speech, Obama spared no harsh words on the land of his fathers. Expectedly, even before then, the Western wordsmiths have found a new phrase to express Obama’s aloof attitude towards Africa. They call it ‘tough love’.

When President Obama’s plan to visit Ghana was unveiled in May, in the midst of understandable lamentations from Nigerians about the intended snub to Nigeria for failing to organise free and fair elections, I wrote in an article titled, ‘Obama not a Snub’ that the overriding interest of Obama in Ghana is the Oil Ghana is about to start pumping next year. Ghana’s oil industry being at its infancy need to be proactively and diplomatically courted and weaned of any milk from the breasts of a rival nun like China’.With the dwindling output from Nigeria due to increasing militancy in the Niger Delta, going to Ghana seemed the most strategic thing to do. In essence, Obama had more to gain in going to Ghana than to lose by not coming to Nigeria.

For Obama, the antithesis to the adage: ‘a bird in hand is worth two in the tree’ is also true, especially when the one in hand is caged. Nigeria is a bird caged. And a wise hunter can still go for the one in the woods. The talk about Nigeria’s faulty election as a reason for ‘shunning’ her and indeed other African countries is a mere smokescreen. When you juxtapose this so called ‘tough love’ for sub-Saharan Africa with his attitude (soft love?), to the Middle East, Cuba, China etc, where democracy or free and fair elections are strange words, then his speech in Ghana could pass for balderdash. President Obama was in Egypt but Egypt is not more democratic than Nigeria. Which kind of democracy could have allowed President Mubarak to hold onto power since 1981? Obama went to Saudi Arabia, but when last did they hold elections there? If anybody expected Obama to announce that he was in Ghana for economic reasons, then such a person is a case study in naivety and in need of a lesson in diplomacy.

To say President Barak Obama is a smart guy will be stating the obvious. He knows who and who not to give shit to. He demonstrated this trait again in that characteristically long speech laden with familiar rhetoric and a generous dose of well-anticipated innuendos. He knows that Africans can take much shit. The first African U.S President told African leaders in no uncertain terms to clean up their acts, take responsibility for the destiny of their people and deliver the much-needed development to the continent. HHHe flouted the well-known love for good governance, and of course hate for corruption and dictatorship. I did not, nor did I expect any sensible analyst to expect that Obama would not touch on these topics in that historic speech, but I did not also expect that he would stop there. One expected some radical and far-reaching proclamations like the ones he targeted to Cuba or the Muslim World.

But while the pontificating, condemnation, blame and scorn ware loud and clear, the message was dry and empty on the solutions. Obama made no commitments, no promises. He offered no fresh perspectives on the African dilemma. He does not see himself as African (the way Africans do) therefore he does not feel the need to be part of the solution to Africa’s problems. The clear message in Obama’s speech is:’ to your tents o’ Africa, your destiny is in your hands, I may be your son but I can’t help you because I serve another master and as you all know very well, even the Bible says that no man can serve two masters. Obama cannot serve America and Africa at the same time. He may have African blood running in his veins, but that is where it ends. He is not less American than Bush or Clinton. Those Africans who expected so much from Obama are deluded in the main.

The other masters Obama must serve are the middle East, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Israel, Islam, and of course China. But another name for all these masters put together is ‘American Interest’. To Russia, he recognised that the country was not destined to be in antagonism with the USA. To Iran, he recognised the need for dialogue despite their nuclear war capabilities, which they are bent on continuing to explore. To cuba and the Muslim world, he sought an new beginning and in China, he remains a trusted and strategic partner despite their communism. For Africa, what really is at stake? Nothing!

Obama wrote that speech just for Africa. It was not suitable anywhere else. The likes of Soyinka could agree with him, because, he lifted his words from the same much repeated themes of African national discourse which for now is inundated with similar rhetoric from the likes of Soyinka who are masters at blame-shifting and finger-pointing but zero on solutions and concrete action. Obama could predict accurately how these so called conscience(s) of Africa would respond to such pedestrian circumlocutions.

I should suspect that, once in the Oval office, an American President is thoroughly coached on what to say and what not to say to and about certain ‘strategic allies’ and of course some ‘indispensable foes’. And this is why Obama would never have dared make the type of comments he made in Ghana in the Middle East for example or the Arab world. The price tag on such non-tactical comments would have been too high. But we Africans have an unlimited capacity, acquired since the slave trade era, to take insults. In fact, insults excite us more than platitudes. Indeed some of our intellectuals actually believe it is a mark of civilisation (actually westernisation) on their part to slander Africa. So what better way to gain their acceptance than to reel out conscious inaccuracies, blatant omissions and outright insults on Africa?

While chiding African leaders for corruption and bad governance was quite normal and expected, it is simply not enough. I believe many would have realised now that Obama does not hold a magic wand for Africa’s problems after all. But he should have been humble enough to admit this rather than sound as if he is holding some mysterious solution to his chest and waiting for Africa to democratise and rid itself of corruption before he would release it. But if Africa could democratise and eliminate corruption, then the problem is almost over and then Africa would not even need whatever solution he is supposedly holding to his chest. The truth is that poverty breeds corruption, which in turn breeds more poverty and the cycle continues. How do we break this cycle Mr. Obama? What can you do? These are the trillion Dollar question! The answer is not found in your speech in Ghana.

What particular steps would the US government take to prevent corrupt African leaders from taking their looted funds abroad to buy plum landed properties? What sanctions await US banks that connive with Africans to steel African wealth? What will Obama do to prevent fugitives like El-Rufai from escaping the arm of the law by hiding on US territory? What technological assistance could the US render to African countries that are genuinely interested in conducting transparent elections? How about boycotting Oil from Nigeria for instance, until they respect the ballot box? Obama drew blank on all these questions. So what was his mission in Ghana?

Obama went to the slavery museums in Ghana but was not moved to sympathy for his ancestors who suffered so many traumas in the hands of the same masters he is serving now albeit on a more glorified platform. If Obama can seek new beginnings with the Muslim world, what was too wrong in rendering at least an apology to Africa for slave trade while he was in Ghana, even if he could not go as far as offering repatriations because as we say in Nigeria, his hands are tied? Africans may not realistically expect more than this and some goodwill from Obama; but he failed to offer both.

 Obama may not bother about the 200 years of slavery and its impact on Africans but in actual fact he himself is a modern day slave of the white man. Though he was not chained and dragged to America against his will, he has nevertheless been enslaved by the American ‘dream’ which took his father to America and the product of which adventure he is. Obama is not a free man; he is a black captive of the white house. Whatever would make a man to deny his fatherland is worst than slavery.

Talking about Obama reminds me about Esther in the Bible. When she expressed reluctance to risk her position as queen in a strange land with the salvation of the Jews, Old wise Mordecai found cause to warn her. I find the words of Mordecai to Esther in Esther 4:4 very instructive to obama: ‘ For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this? ‘

 So, as far as I am concerned, Obama’s visit to Ghana was a disaster. Those smooth talks about democracy and good governance alone will not bring the much-needed change in Africa. Obama is not Africa’s messiah because he is not touched by the feelings of Africa’s infirmities.

Robot  # 1 | 22.07.2009 00:37

Obama may not bother about the 200 years of slavery and its impact on Africans but in actual fact he himself is a modern day slave of the white man. Though he was not chained and dragged to America against his will, he has nevertheless been enslaved by the American ‘dream’ which took his father to America and the product of which adventure he is. Obama is not a free man; he is a black captive of the white house. Whatever would make a man to deny his fatherland is worst than slavery. ...Read the full article.

Gladiator  # 2 | 22.07.2009 05:49

So, as far as I am concerned, Obama’s visit to Ghana was a disaster. Those smooth talks about democracy and good governance alone will not bring the much-needed change in Africa. Obama is not Africa’s messiah because he is not touched by the feelings of Africa’s infirmities. A well written and articulated piece. The answers to the questions that were raised were more or less answered by the author. But a few observations and posers. Obama was democratically elected by Americans to preside over, protect, and promote the American interest; so far he appears to be doing a good job. He was NOT elected by Africans by proxy to tend to Africa's myriad of intractable problems; most of which are both self-induced and self-perpetuating. The irony that seems to go over the head of many African commentators is that as things stand today, it is next to impossible for an Obama to be democratically elected President in an African country (not even his own father's land where the Luo's are "not allowed" to hold such office). The fact is, whether we like it or not Obama's visit to Ghana in both substance and scope was formulated primarily to promote the constituency which he politically represents. That is his job description, period. And no "elevated" sense of pan-Africanism from African commentators can change that fact. Secondary purposes and other corollary objectives may have also been served by his visit but the most symbolic and inspiring for ordinary Africans was the fact that a man of African descent as the most powerful man in the world and had come to Africa, and the effect of this is immeasurable. Is this writer seriously suggesting that Obama should have come to Ghana to present well articulated and thought out policies and programs to tackle Africa's problems when he has not even begun to properly tackle the insurmountable mess that the Bush administration left behind in Washington? What would the American public who elected him just a few months ago have to say about that? Probably; charity begins at "home". The fact that Obama made this visit to Africa in the infancy of his presidency is of itself significant and most commendable, and it shows that he has an affinity for Africa. This is especially so given the fact that he would irretrievably open himself up to accusations from the right-wing American conservative hawks of caring more about the interest of his African heritage than what is supposed to be his sole and primary constituency; the interest of United States of America. All American presidents before him including both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton only visited Africa in the twilight of their presidencies when they had "finished" with their "domestic" tasks which suggests that Africa was one of the last items on the "to-do" list before they left office. To suggest that Obama is a modern day slave because he did not come to Ghana and fulfil the role of Africa's long-awaited "Messiah" is not only disingenuous but most mischievous in the extreme.

olatunjifemy  # 3 | 22.07.2009 06:00

I dont agree with your view about Obama's visit to Ghana was a disaster. Obama is not an African and he has NO African mentallity, which is the problem we all have growing up in this part of the world especially Nigerians. He is not responsible for the African Failed States nor he is the messiah to change Africa. Let us all take the resposibility our self starting from our different Homes and we will see the desired change.

nijalaw  # 4 | 22.07.2009 07:30

=Gladiator;373877>A well written and articulated piece. The answers to the questions that were raised were more or less answered by the author. But a few observations and posers. Obama was democratically elected by Americans to preside, protect, and promote the American interest; so far he appears to be doing a good job. He was NOT elected by Africans by proxy to tend to Africa's myriad of intractable problems; most of which are both self-induced and self-perpetuating. The irony that seems to go over the head of many African commentators is that as things stand today, it is next to impossible for an Obama to be democratically elected President in an African country (not even his own father's land where the Luo's are "not allowed" to hold such office). The fact is, whether we like it or not Obama's visit to Ghana in both substance and scope was formulated primarily to promote the constituency which he politically represents. That is his job description, period. And no "elevated" sense of pan-Africanism from African commentators can change that fact. Secondary purposes and other corollary objectives may have also been served by his visit but the most symbolic and inspiring for ordinary Africans was the fact that a man of African descent as the most powerful man in the world and had come to Africa, and the effect of this is immeasurable. Is this writer seriously suggesting that Obama should have come to Ghana to present well articulated and thought out policies and programs to tackle Africa's problems when he has not even begun to properly tackle the insurmountable mess that the Bush administration left behind in Washington? What would the American public who elected him just a few months ago have to say about that? Probably; charity begins at "home". The fact that Obama made this visit to Africa in the infancy of his presidency is of itself significant and most commendable, and it shows that he has an affinity for Africa. This is especially so given the fact that he would irretrievably open himself up to accusations from the right-wing American conservative hawks of caring more about the interest of his African heritage than what is supposed to be his sole and primary constituency; the interest of United States of America. All American presidents before him including both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton only visited Africa in the twilight of their presidencies when they had "finished" with their "domestic" tasks which suggests that Africa was one of the last items on the "to-do" list before they left office. To suggest that Obama is a modern day slave because he did not come to Ghana and fulfil the role of Africa's long-awaited "Messiah" is not only disingenuous but most mischievous in the extreme. What more can I say except :hail::clap::hail::clap::hail::clap::hail::clap: