The BN Village  
Home Register FAQ Members Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Welcome to the African and Caribbean Social network.

You are currently are in guest mode which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access other features. By joining this free African Caribbean Social utility you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), upload images, add videos, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, join the African and Caribbean community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   The BN Village > Welcome to The Black Forum - The Black net Village > The Village Square.
Reload this Page Malaya and Ghana

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
imported post
(#1 (permalink))
Old
danny71 is Offline
Village Newbie
danny71
 
Posts: 90
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , ,
Post imported post - 06-07-05, 11:13 PM

They both gained their independence from the British Empire in the 50's. What political system allowed what is now Malaysia to prosper into a highly developed country and Ghana dragging behind in light years, although I understand Ghana is quite prosperous compared to most African countrys. No shrill replys please.


Creedence Clearwater Revival rock my world!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in Technorati Share On Face Book!Stumble this Post!
Reply With Quote
Remove advertisements
Advertisement
Advertisement Sponsored links

imported post
(#2 (permalink))
Old
COLTRANE is Offline
Villager Leader
COLTRANE
 
Posts: 5,749
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: virtualcity, ,
Send a message via ICQ to COLTRANE Send a message via AIM to COLTRANE Send a message via MSN to COLTRANE Send a message via Yahoo to COLTRANE
Post imported post - 07-07-05, 09:26 AM

coz mahathir knew how to play the game


Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in Technorati Share On Face Book!Stumble this Post!
Reply With Quote
imported post
(#3 (permalink))
Old
Masai05 is Offline
Villager Senior
Masai05
 
Posts: 1,586
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sunshine, Moonshine and all that, , USA
Post imported post - 07-07-05, 03:11 PM

Mahathir was a business man. He gave a recently gave an interview to a news agency and discussed how his long term in office was used to create ehtnic tolerance, a stable economy, a good education system and a stable reputation that brought in investment. I think Ghana made attempts to do all of these things but the difference had to be in the Background of the leadership. Mahathir being a trained Doctor and Rawlings being a Soldier I think their world views differed. Soldiers focus on keeping order while Doctors tend to focus on tending to social ills. Mahathir created corporate Nationalism that kick started the modernization of his country while Rawlings began with socialist economics which didn't build a middle class, focus on modernization which in turn creates highly skilled labor that foriegn investors look for.


Say it LOUD! "I\'M BLACK and I\'M PROUD!"
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in Technorati Share On Face Book!Stumble this Post!
Reply With Quote
imported post
(#4 (permalink))
Old
azania is Offline
Villager
azania
 
Posts: 128
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London, , United Kingdom
Post imported post - 07-07-05, 05:22 PM

Masai05 wrote:
Quote:
Mahathir was a business man. He gave a recently gave an interview to a news agency and discussed how his long term in office was used to create ehtnic tolerance, a stable economy, a good education system and a stable reputation that brought in investment. I think Ghana made attempts to do all of these things but the difference had to be in the Background of the leadership. Mahathir being a trained Doctor and Rawlings being a Soldier I think their world views differed. Soldiers focus on keeping order while Doctors tend to focus on tending to social ills. Mahathir created corporate Nationalism that kick started the modernization of his country while Rawlings began with socialist economics which didn't build a middle class, focus on modernization which in turn creates highly skilled labor that foriegn investors look for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Rawlings rescued Ghana. The country was in dire straights before he took over. Ghana was an independant state from the 1950s. Rawlings took over for the first time in 1979. He spread electricity accross the country. Controlled a runaway inflation and stabalised the country. Now Ghana is almost ready to take the next step forward in its development.


Know yourself.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in Technorati Share On Face Book!Stumble this Post!
Reply With Quote
imported post
(#5 (permalink))
Old
Masai05 is Offline
Villager Senior
Masai05
 
Posts: 1,586
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sunshine, Moonshine and all that, , USA
Post imported post - 07-07-05, 05:51 PM

Azania Wrote :

Quote:
Rawlings rescued Ghana. The country was in dire straights before he took over. Ghana was an independant state from the 1950s. Rawlings took over for the first time in 1979. He spread electricity accross the country. Controlled a runaway inflation and stabalised the country. Now Ghana is almost ready to take the next step forward in its development.


I like Rawlings as well and I am well aware of when he came into the picture but we are talking about the issue of two nations and their development. Two leaders took two different approaches and thus you have two different outcomes. One Nation has a thriving middles class which translates into a spot for poor people to move out of poverty. Ghana is a good country but remember the issue is to compare and contrast Malaysia and Ghana in regards to their economic development..


Say it LOUD! "I\'M BLACK and I\'M PROUD!"
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in Technorati Share On Face Book!Stumble this Post!
Reply With Quote
Remove advertisements
Advertisement
Advertisement Sponsored links

imported post
(#6 (permalink))
Old
free is Offline
Villager Senior
free
 
Posts: 1,022
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dodge City, , Tonga
Post imported post - 08-07-05, 10:37 AM

Have to disagree with you on this one...

Ghanian independence was undermined by western influence, and as Coltrane has already alluded Mahathir knew how to play the game... while Nkrumah didn't...

The decline of Ghana started by with economic problems (which were hightened by the west) and continued with the U.S backed Coup that ousted Nkrumah

Please read the following article...

Documents Expose U.S. Role in Nkrumah Overthrow

By Paul Lee
Special to SeeingBlack.com


Talk about Black Politics! Click here.

Declassified National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency documents provide compelling, new evidence of United States government involvement in the 1966 overthrow of Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah.

The coup d'etat, organized by dissident army officers, toppled the Nkrumah government on Feb. 24, 1966 and was promptly hailed by Western governments, including the U.S.

The documents appear in a collection of diplomatic and intelligence memos, telegrams, and reports on Africa in Foreign Relations of the United States, the government's ongoing official history of American foreign policy.

Prepared by the State Department's Office of the Historian, the latest volumes reflect the overt diplomacy and covert actions of President Lyndon B. Johnson's administration from 1964-68. Though published in November 1999, what they reveal about U.S. complicity in the Ghana coup was only recently noted.

Allegations of American involvement in the putsche arose almost immediately because of the well-known hostility of the U.S. to Nkrumah's socialist orientation and pan-African activism.

Nkrumah, himself, implicated the U.S. in his overthrow, and warned other African nations about what he saw as an emerging pattern.

"An all-out offensive is being waged against the progressive, independent states," he wrote in Dark Days in Ghana, his 1969 account of the Ghana coup. "All that has been needed was a small force of disciplined men to seize the key points of the capital city and to arrest the existing political leadership."

"It has been one of the tasks of the C.I.A. and other similar organisations," he noted, "to discover these potential quislings and traitors in our midst, and to encourage them, by bribery and the promise of political power, to destroy the constitutional government of their countries."



A Spook's Story
While charges of U.S. involvement are not new, support for them was lacking until 1978, when anecdotal evidence was provided from an unlikely source—a former CIA case officer, John Stockwell, who reported first-hand testimony in his memoir, In Search of Enemies: A CIA Story.

"The inside story came to me," Stockwell wrote, "from an egotistical friend, who had been chief of the [CIA] station in Accra [Ghana] at the time." (Stockwell was stationed one country away in the Ivory Coast.)

Subsequent investigations by The New York Times and Covert Action Information Bulletin identified the station chief as Howard T. Banes, who operated undercover as a political officer in the U.S. Embassy.

This is how the ouster of Nkrumah was handled as Stockwell related. The Accra station was encouraged by headquarters to maintain contact with dissidents of the Ghanaian army for the purpose of gathering intelligence on their activities. It was given a generous budget, and maintained intimate contact with the plotters as a coup was hatched. So close was the station's involvement that it was able to coordinate the recovery of some classified Soviet military equipment by the United States as the coup took place.

According to Stockwell, Banes' sense of initiative knew no bounds. The station even proposed to headquarters through back channels that a squad be on hand at the moment of the coup to storm the [Communist] Chinese embassy, kill everyone inside, steal their secret records, and blow up the building to cover the facts.

Though the proposal was quashed, inside the CIA headquarters the Accra station was given full, if unofficial credit for the eventual coup, in which eight Soviet advisors were killed. None of this was adequately reflected in the agency's records, Stockwell wrote.



Confirmation and Revelation
While the newly-released documents, written by a National Security Council staffer and unnamed CIA officers, confirm the essential outlines set forth by Nkrumah and Stockwell, they also provide additional, and chilling, details about what the U.S. government knew about the plot, when, and what it was prepared to do and did do to assist it.

On March 11, 1965, almost a year before the coup, William P. Mahoney, the U.S. ambassador to Ghana, participated in a candid discussion in Washington, D.C., with CIA Director John A. McCone and the deputy chief of the CIA's Africa division, whose name has been withheld.

Significantly, the Africa division was part of the CIA's directorate of plans, or dirty tricks component, through which the government pursued its covert policies.

According to the record of their meeting (Document 251), topic one was the "Coup d'etat Plot, Ghana." While Mahoney was satisfied that popular opinion was running strongly against Nkrumah and the economy of the country was in a precarious state, he was not convinced that the coup d'etat, now being planned by Acting Police Commissioner Harlley and Generals Otu and Ankrah, would necessarily take place.

Nevertheless, he confidently—and accurately, as it turned out—predicted that one way or another Nkrumah would be out within a year. Revealing the depth of embassy knowledge of the plot, Mahoney referred to a recent report which mentioned that the top coup conspirators were scheduled to meet on 10 March at which time they would determine the timing of the coup.

However, he warned, because of a tendency to procrastinate, any specific date they set should be accepted with reservations. In a reversal of what some would assume were the traditional roles of an ambassador and the CIA director, McCone asked Mahoney who would most likely succeed Nkrumah in the event of a coup.

Mahoney again correctly forecast the future: Ambassador Mahoney stated that initially, at least, a military junta would take over.



Making it Happen
But Mahoney was not a prophet. Rather, he represented the commitment of the U.S. government, in coordination with other Western governments, to bring about Nkrumah's downfall.

Firstly, Mahoney recommended denying Ghana's forthcoming aid request in the interests of further weakening Nkrumah. He felt that there was little chance that either the Chinese Communists or the Soviets would in adequate measure come to Nkrumah's financial rescue and the British would continue to adopt a hard nose attitude toward providing further assistance to Ghana.

At the same time, it appears that Mahoney encouraged Nkrumah in the mistaken belief that both the U.S. and the U.K. would come to his financial rescue and proposed maintaining current U.S. aid levels and programs because they will endure and be remembered long after Nkrumah goes.

Secondly, Mahoney seems to have assumed the responsibility of increasing the pressure on Nkrumah and exploiting the probable results. This can be seen in his 50-minute meeting with Nkrumah three weeks later.

According to Mahoney's account of their April 2 discussion (Document 252), "at one point Nkrumah, who had been holding face in hands, looked up and I saw he was crying. With difficulty he said I could not understand the ordeal he had been through during last month. Recalling that there had been seven attempts on his life."

Mahoney did not attempt to discourage Nkrumah's fears, nor did he characterize them as unfounded in his report to his superiors.

"While Nkrumah apparently continues to have personal affection for me," he noted, "he seems as convinced as ever that the US is out to get him. From what he said about assassination attempts in March, it appears he still suspects US involvement."

Of course, the U.S. was out to get him. Moreover, Nkrumah was keenly aware of a recent African precedent that made the notion of a U.S.-organized or sanctioned assassination plot plausible—namely, the fate of the Congo and its first prime minister, his friend Patrice Lumumba.

Nkrumah believed that the destabilization of the Congolese government in 1960 and Lumumba's assassination in 1961 were the work of the "Invisible Government of the U.S.," as he wrote in Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism, later in 1965.

When Lumumba's murder was announced, Nkrumah told students at the inauguration of an ideological institute that bore his name that this brutal murder should teach them the diabolical depths of degradation to which these twin-monsters of imperialism and colonialism can descend.

In his conclusion, Mahoney observed: "Nkrumah gave me the impression of being a badly frightened man. His emotional resources seem be running out. As pressures increase, we may expect more hysterical outbursts, many directed against US."

It was not necessary to add that he was helping to apply the pressure, nor that any hysterical outbursts by Nkrumah played into the West's projection of him as an unstable dictator, thus justifying his removal.



Smoking Gun
On May 27, 1965, Robert W. Komer, a National Security Council staffer, briefed his boss, McGeorge Bundy, President Johnson's special assistant for national security affairs, on the anti-Nkrumah campaign (Document 253).

Komer, who first joined the White House as a member of President Kennedy's NSC staff, had worked as a CIA analyst for 15 years. In 1967, Johnson tapped him to head his hearts-and-minds pacification program in Vietnam.

Komer's report establishes that the effort was not only interagency, sanctioned by the White House and supervised by the State Department and CIA, but also intergovernmental, being supported by America's Western allies.

"FYI," he advised, "we may have a pro-Western coup in Ghana soon. Certain key military and police figures have been planning one for some time, and Ghana's deteriorating economic condition may provide the spark."

"The plotters are keeping us briefed," he noted, "and the State Department thinks we're more on the inside than the British. While we're not directly involved (I'm told), we and other Western countries (including France) have been helping to set up the situation by ignoring Nkrumah's pleas for economic aid. All in all, it looks good."

Komer's reference to not being told if the U.S. was directly involved in the coup plot is revealing and quite likely a wry nod to his CIA past.

Among the most deeply ingrained aspects of intelligence tradecraft and culture is plausible deniability, the habit of mind and practice designed to insulate the U.S., and particularly the president, from responsibility for particularly sensitive covert operations.

Komer would have known that orders such as the overthrow of Nkrumah would have been communicated in a deliberately vague, opaque, allusive, and indirect fashion, as Thomas Powers noted in The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA.

It would be unreasonable to argue that the U.S. was not directly involved when it created or exacerbated the conditions that favored a coup, and did so for the express purpose of bringing one about.



Truth and Consequences
As it turned out, the coup did not occur for another nine months. After it did, Komer, now acting special assistant for national security affairs, wrote a congratulatory assessment to the President on March 12, 1966 (Document 260). His assessment of Nkrumah and his successors was telling.

"The coup in Ghana," he crowed, "is another example of a fortuitous windfall. Nkrumah was doing more to undermine our interests than any other black African. In reaction to his strongly pro-Communist leanings, the new military regime is almost pathetically pro-Western."

In this, Komer and Nkrumah were in agreement. "Where the more subtle methods of economic pressure and political subversion have failed to achieve the desired result," Nkrumah wrote from exile in Guinea three years later, "there has been resort to violence in order to promote a change of regime and prepare the way for the establishment of a puppet government."

Copyright ©2001, Paul Lee.

Paul Lee is a historian, filmmaker, and freelance writer. He is Director of Best Efforts, Inc. (BEI), a professional research and consulting service that specializes in the recovery, preservation, and dissemination of global black history and culture. BEI offers "OurStory," a black history lecture series. You can reach him at besteffortsinc@yahoo.com.




Blacknet Book Club coming soon...


Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in Technorati Share On Face Book!Stumble this Post!
Reply With Quote
imported post
(#7 (permalink))
Old
Sooofresh is Offline
Villager Leader
Sooofresh
 
Posts: 5,402
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: City of Anti- Authority, ,
Post imported post - 08-07-05, 01:59 PM

slightly off topic

was watching a programme on Ghana at bbc4

they were videoing ina supermarket about advertisment, the shelf was full of european products...............DAZ etc etc

I mean why can't the people boycott these products and support on produce.

I don't care how it is done eg I read somewhere an eqully disgrutles person got pissedoff with all of these products so he started a rumpour that they are trying to posion us blah blah, rumour spread all over and no one buys the product.................it is simple but effective, sometimes big campaigns do not always works.


BNV...resident Feminist
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in Technorati Share On Face Book!Stumble this Post!
Reply With Quote
imported post
(#8 (permalink))
Old
dimoke is Offline
Villager Senior
dimoke
 
Posts: 2,374
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , ,
Post imported post - 08-07-05, 02:23 PM

Sooofresh wrote:
Quote:
slightly off topic

was watching a programme on Ghana at bbc4

they were videoing ina supermarket about advertisment, the shelf was full of european products...............DAZ etc etc

I mean why can't the people boycott these products and support on produce.

Soofresh, like Coltrane said, thats because Mahathir knew HOW to play the game.....the man was a modernizer while most the Ghanaian leaders just like most African leaders are forever pursuing the west. Apart from Nkrumah ofcourse.
Quote:
For example the Daz issue, in Malaysia they produce their OWN soaps, cars etc....about 50 years ago Malaysia imported palm trees....now they are not only a major importer of palm oil, they also use the palm oil to make soaps, spices, additives etc......its common sense sis.....you have to have sheer SELF belief to see beyond western superiority......this is what the Ghanaian leaders at the moment are lacking.....they are committing exactly the same mistake that all African leaders make at some point....looking at western ways of economical development instead of meeting their people half way and doing what WORKS for Africans rather than what works for Europeans....
Quote:
The Ghanaian PM went to Malaysia and he was told: Make sure your wealth is distributed and owned by the natives........simple really....but does the idiot listen?? NOOO, man is too busy kissing asses.......most multinational companies there are owned by foreigners.....
Quote:
Mahathir had the balls to tell the west with their IMF and WB loans to piss off.....he started from scratch with his own people.....i think that gave Malaysians the motivation to work towards a common goal.....
Quote:
We just have too many sissy boys who call themselves men....going around NOT listening or learning what it takes to lead a country thats recovering.....sad really...our curse is we have yet to learn or create any economical policies that meets our needs where were are now.......all we know about economical development is from some economics books from Oxford university.......Malaysia basically discarded with that and created their own....originality always works i guess....
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in Technorati Share On Face Book!Stumble this Post!
Reply With Quote
imported post
(#9 (permalink))
Old
Sooofresh is Offline
Villager Leader
Sooofresh
 
Posts: 5,402
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: City of Anti- Authority, ,
Post imported post - 08-07-05, 02:27 PM

@Dimoke

it is sad state of affairs

I am not being biased but no way is Sudanease supermarkets full to the brim with everything european..............apart from Quality Sweets LOL.........africans love them still

hmmm

but then we do have serious oil.............................




BNV...resident Feminist
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in Technorati Share On Face Book!Stumble this Post!
Reply With Quote
imported post
(#10 (permalink))
Old
dimoke is Offline
Villager Senior
dimoke
 
Posts: 2,374
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , ,
Post imported post - 08-07-05, 02:37 PM

Yeah i know what you mean....in fact there is a saying amongst a lot of Africans that the Ghanaians like the Congolese, when they are sale out coconuts...they really take it to the extreme.....whenthey are Pan African,theyget it soo right even to the extreme.....i guess at the moment on some levels both countries are full of coconuts who look like they are doing some kind of work....truth is they are all kissing Blair's ass......
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in Technorati Share On Face Book!Stumble this Post!
Reply With Quote
imported post
(#11 (permalink))
Old
Sooofresh is Offline
Villager Leader
Sooofresh
 
Posts: 5,402
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: City of Anti- Authority, ,
Post imported post - 08-07-05, 02:40 PM

to be honest majority of leaders are puppets anyway................so i aint expecting in less....................all is forgiven for Ghana and their love of Daz ultra..................their men are just to fine.................to to fine .............instantly forgiven for their beauty.............LOL


BNV...resident Feminist
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in Technorati Share On Face Book!Stumble this Post!
Reply With Quote
imported post