What Exactly Is The Meaning Of 'Consult'?

K2 – Koo, what do you think of the argument that has broken out between the US embassy and Nana Akufo Addo over whether Nana Addo was “consulted” before the Gitmo-2 were brought to Ghana or not? I warn you I won't allow you to consult (!) the dictionary, because I want you to look at it from the ordinary person's point of view, whereas a dictionary can give you so many shades of meaning from the same word that you can emerge more confused – after consulting (!) it – than before you did so!

K1 – Do you realise that you have used the word “consult” twice in your prologue....

• Tu bra!

• Shut it! Prologue is not a big word at all. You can see it in a lot of plays. It is the opening statement through which the dramatist introduces his plot and characters to the audience....

• Ok! Ok! So I used the word consult twice?

• You used the word consult twice, each timer correctly, without having to look up its exact meaning in the dictionary. That's why there's no argument over the use of the word “consult” in relation to what the Americans did or did not do,

• with regard to Nana Addo.

• It's that simple?

• Yep. When you want to use a word and you are not too sure whether it will convey what you say clearly and you consult the dictionary, what happens?

• The dictionary defines the word for you. Sometimes, it gives you more than one definition for the same word. So, the better dictionaries will give you sentences in which the word is used, so that you can appreciate the context in which the word is used to convey the meaning given by a particular definition.

• I get that.

• Okay, so I said you used the word “consult” twice. In each case, you used 'consult' in relation to

  the dictionary. Now I ask you, when you want to use a word and you consult the dictionary and the dictionary makes it clear to you that using the word in the sense you want to use it would be an error, what do you do?

• I drop the word.

• In other words, you obey what the dictionary says?

• Yes.

• Good. Do you think the US Government, through its officials, spoke to Nana Addo because they wanted to allow him to veto their decision – agreed to already by the ruling Ghana Government – to bring the Gitmo-2 to Ghana?

• Why would the US Government want to take the view of an opposition party in preference to that of a ruling government?

• It wouldn't make sense, would it?

• Of course not! The US Government had taken months to persuade the Ghana Government to accept the Gitmo-2...

  Once that agreement had been secured with the ruling government, all that remained was how to

• sell it to the general public; i.e. how to 'manage' the public announcement of the deal.

• And that's where stake-holders came in?

• Yes. Chums (the stakeholders were called and told) we intend to do this. We didn't want to spring it on you as a surprise....We hope you will appreciate this courtesy we have shown towards you and keep the information in the strictest confidence. For everyone is afraid of terrorists these days.

• And the stake-holders, suitably flattered that the mighty US Government had found it necessary to take them into its confidence, promise solemnly: “Oh, we appreciate the courtesy – no, indeed, the honour! We shall not let you down!”?

• And the diplomats walk away, smiling. And then the announcement is made. And all Ghana erupts: why are they bringing them here? If the people of the United States can't tolerate living with them, why should Ghanaians? Isn't America exposing Ghana to terrorist attacks?

• Who suffers the worst loss of face from the eruption of public sentiment?

• The Mahama Government, of course. It is accused of disloyalty to the people of Ghana. Had Mahama committed treason by ignoring his oath of office and taking a decision that could work against “the welfare” of the people of Ghana, that he swore to defend.

• So he goes to the Americans and says, “See what you have made me do? My opponents are making national security an election issue!”

• And the Americans tell him, “Don't worry.” And soon, NDC propagandists are leaking information claiming that Nana Akufo Addo was “consulted” before the Gitmo-2 were brought to Ghana.

• But Akufo Addo's people deny this?

• Yes. And the new US Ambassador uses the occasion of his first meeting with Ghanaian editors to try to kill off the argument...

• Very interesting. The word “consult” is attributed to the Ambassador. But until the embassy issues an official transcript, we shall not know whether he definitely used that particular word or whether he used some suggestive weasel words, such as ”spoke to” or “exchanged ideas with”, which, as expected, were firmed up when paraphrased by the Ghanaian editors to mean “consult”.

• Yes – because, I mean, Nana Akufo Addo was Foreign Minister of Ghana for many years. He was also Attorney-General. He obviously ought to know the difference between “consult” and, say, – an Ambassador being recalled home from his station, for “consultations.”

• Okay, Koo – so who is right and who is wrong?

• Both are right!

• What? Are you George Orwell? Or Machiavelli? Or both?

• Listen, Koo. Nana Addo was not consulted because if he had told the Americans not to bring the Gitmo-2, they would not have paid the slightest heed to him. Indeed, as an American embassy spokesman emphasised on a Ghanaian TV programme, it was a “done deal.''

  Nana Addo was “informed” in a manner that – as he has now publicly stated – amounted to being presented with a fait accompli.

• Then how can the American Ambassador too be right?

• Think of smoke and mirrors, Koo. He too is right because he took formal steps that constituted what could technically be described as a process of consultation, but which, in reality, did not involve him actually CONSULTING anybody. The difference is like this: calling together your family, and telling them that you intend to marry so-and-so's daughter, and what have they got to say about the matter. And then your mother says, “That insolent girl? Over my dead body!”, while your rake of an uncle confesses, “ But I have slept with her before!” But if you take a lady to introduce to your family, and you behave as if you have put a ring on her finger before some 'Osofo Moko' [charlatan fake priest] somewhere, and they wring their hands and say plaintively to themselves, “Oh, we had our eye on someone else for him oh!”-- the two situations are completely different.

• If you ask me, the US Ambassador wants to have his cake and eat it!

• Yep! Or maybe, he wants to eat his cake and have it!

• Hahahahahahahaha!