No Nation Hands Over Its Security—Why Should We Hand Over Our Communications?

Let's think beyond emotions and begin discussing national strategic interests seriously. Did you know for years, many African countries have handed over critical sectors of their economies to foreign private investors without carefully considering the long-term risks involved?

In Africa, communication infrastructure is one of those assets that should never be treated as an ordinary business venture. It must be a strategic national asset. I see it as important as military and national security infrastructure which would never be entrusted into the hands of private individuals.

No country in the world allows foreign investors to control its military because the consequences would be dangerous in times of conflict or diplomatic tension. Why can't the same logic be applied to national communication systems?

Today, Ghanaians heavily depend on foreign-owned telcos for internet connectivity, voice communication, mobile money, and digital services. We must ask ourselves: what happens if there is a sudden geopolitical rift or sanctions regime. What happens if foreign-controlled communication entities decide to pull back operations or reduce services during a crisis? It would be a disaster.

A significant number of Ghanaians depend on mobile networks and internet services daily for banking, commerce, etc. If a dominant telecom provider suddenly shuts down, won't millions be affected within hours? That level of dependence on external corporate structures creates a national security vulnerability.

This is why communication infrastructure must be considered strategic infrastructure under strong national control. It does not necessarily mean eliminating all private participation, but the government must maintain decisive ownership of a carrier, very capable like the dominant operator in the country. Don't tell me Telcos in America and Europe are private-owned. They are domestic investors whilst here, the dominant carrier is foreign-owned.

The SA situation also raises questions about deterrence in international relations. If Ghanaian citizens face hostility abroad while businesses from those same countries continue to operate profitably in Ghana without consequences, isn't that weakness? Whether you agree with me or not, retaliation, in some circumstances, is necessary in establishing strategic deterrence.

Jacinta may not officially represent the SA government, but when authorities appear reluctant to decisively stop her, then we can interpret the silence as covert approval. South Africa is more deeply involved in geopolitics than Ghana and therefore the leaders may know exactly what they're doing by being reluctant.

To the Hon. FM, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, diplomacy is key in IR but let us not ignore the importance of strategic deterrence. Am very happy this administration is taking Ghana's diplomacy to unprecedented heights. Without deterrence, we might be seeing the domino effect.