body-container-line-1

United States-Ghana Agreement: An Opportunity For Paradigm Shift In Ghana’s Approach To National Security And Defence

By Edward Akuffo, PhD
Opinion United States-Ghana Agreement: An Opportunity For Paradigm Shift In Ghanas Approach To National Security And Defence
MAR 23, 2018 LISTEN

The leaked agreement between the government of the United States of America and the government of the Republic of Ghana on defence cooperation, the status of United States forces, and access to and use of agreed facilities and areas in the republic of Ghana, hereafter referred to as United States-Ghana enhanced security cooperation agreement, has generated heated debates in Ghana's mainstream media and social over the past 48 hours. The heated debates are justified in the sense that the agreement is essentially about Ghana's national security. Such debates must therefore seek to advance the national interest, and devoid of emotions and partisanship. It must seek to assist the government to perform its primary duty of providing security, and defence of the nation.

In the spirit of contributing to bringing this important debate on national security to a meaningful conclusion, this article seeks to bring the public’s minds to what I consider to be the real problem that has led to the present state of affairs which is marked by accusations and counter-accusations between the minority in parliament and officials of the Akufo-Addo government. The problem originates from the lack of a comprehensive and coherent national defence and security policy and strategy itself. Defense and security policy and strategy is part of a state's foreign policy.

Ghana has no such comprehensive and coherent document which is not supposed to be a secret but made public to allow interested constituents to make informed and objective contributions to defence and security matters of the state. Thus, without the institutional basis for careful analysis in light of the agreement with the United States, an important national security issue, a matter of high politics, has become a victim of polarized debate along political party lines.

Informed analysts and researchers would agree that the signing of security agreements between states is nothing new in international politics. It is part of the diplomatic engagements among states who seek to pursue mutually beneficial security and defence goals. Indeed, the United Nations which has the mandate to promote international peace and security encourages peaceful relations between states and strong collaboration among states to building institutions for the promotion of international peace and security in an ever increasing interdependent world. It follows that given the prevailing security environment, especially the relatively high incidence of terrorism in (West) Africa in recent years as compared to previous decades, it makes strategic sense for Ghana to collaborate with diverse powers and actors to ensure the attainment of mutual security interests. In that light, the United States-Ghana enhanced security cooperation agreement, in principle, is a step in the right direction taken by the governments of these states.

Nevertheless, since the agreement was leaked to the media, the trajectory of debates between the Akufo-Addo government and the minority in parliament do not only reinforce the continuous politicization of security and defence in Ghana's body politic, but as well, the debate reveals the inherent institutional weakness that the government of Ghana, both past and present, has perpetuated in the management of the country's security. My focus is to highlight the institutional weakness and the consequent politicization of security along party lines, and call for a paradigm shift in the way Ghana 'do security and defence'.

Unfortunately, the highly politicized debate which has focused narrowly on the content of the said agreement and the financial and material benefits that Ghana stands to gain, has led to the making of wrong statements and the asking of wrong questions. In fact, both the government and the minority are guilty of these two charges. The government and minority have thrown away the strong ethic that governs national security that is, upholding and according this realm of politics as the only matter of high politics and not reduced to everyday politicking.

This is absolutely essential in the sense that security is about survival, and without survival nothing else is made possible. It is a pity that the defence minister, Dominic Nitiwul, appears to want to pass the buck to the Mahama government, while the minority in parliament are focused on building their fierce criticism of the agreement on its content such as the unfettered access to Ghanaian facilities, tax exemptions, and free use of Ghana’s radio spectrum by the United States Military, and the paltry $20 million that will accrue to Ghana in the form of military aid. These accusations and counter-accusations are only by-products of the real security challenge that Ghana faces at the policy level.

Careful observers would agree that the critical institutional weakness that has engendered the constant politicization of Ghana's national security and defence is the simple but loaded fact that Ghana does not have a comprehensive and coherent national defence and security policy and strategy. There are no clear sign posts that give direction to the achievement of Ghana’s security and defence goals in the present and the future. It is sad to note that no single government since the turn of the fourth republic has taken on the burden of formulating and articulating, in a single document, a comprehensive and coherent policy and strategy on the defence and security needs of the country given the prevailing domestic, regional, and international security climate. This situation has led governments to resort to ad hoc measures and practices that are not synergized and comprehensive enough to dealing effectively with security challenges in the short term and long term. As a result the politicization of national security is not only detracting from the real issue, but has become merely speculative and not grounded in an identifiable self-made national security policy and strategy.

This state of affairs sends very weak signals about Ghana to its potential international partners. Government officials and the minority must keep in mind that the kind of readings and meanings, based on existing facts about policy or the lack thereof, that other states make of Ghana is an important factor that will determine the nature and content of agreements and engagements those states would like to have with Ghana. In other words inter-state relationships are built on substance and image. In practical terms, it is important to note that great powers like the United States do not just act on the interest of other states; they act on their own interest based on the meanings they generate from the targeted state.

Therefore, following the realists’ ethic of international politics which is about the pursuit of interest defined as power, the United States of America has done no wrong by proposing the content of the agreement as is. The content of the agreement defines the security needs of the United States. And to be sure, the United States owes Ghana no protection. Any criticism against the United States would be out of place. In fact, without a collective defence agreement as contained in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty that established NATO, the United States is at liberty to default to provide security assistance when Ghana is in need. This follows the realist international relations scholars’ belief that it is simply reckless for states to trust the intentions of other states.

The government of Ghana has the primary responsibility to secure and defend the state and people, and in doing so the government must subject every bilateral and multilateral security arrangement to at least a twin-test or principle. First, the content of an agreement must be measured against the military capability of Ghana to act in self-defence to counter any untoward behaviour of the state that Ghana has entered into an agreement with. In light of this principle, it is common knowledge that the preponderance of power of the United States military is far beyond the reach of the Ghana military. Ghana is vastly unequal with the United States on conventional military power. Therefore it does not make strategic sense for the government of Ghana to engage in an agreement, that gives unfettered access to facilities and the transport of materiel in and out of the country without proper checks.

The agreement in its present state can potentially compromise the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ghana. It is common knowledge that governments are very reluctant to engage in agreements where they will be unable, or lack the capability to control the (un)expected outcomes. In such situations, at least, governments will recalculate their national interest and take necessary measures to secure it. Good examples can be found in recent United States foreign relations both in the security and economic realms. First, in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attack, the United States, under President Bush, withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty it had signed with the Soviet Union in 1972.

Second, the Obama administration was rhetorically committed to the International Criminal Court and did not sign let alone ratify the Rome Statute of the court, which President Bush had ‘unsigned’ in 2002. Lastly, following the tradition of pursuing American interest, the Trump administration has withdrawn the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and currently engaged in renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico. In short, it is not unusual for states to back out of an agreement when it does not meet its security and economic interest, or renegotiate for a better deal.

Therefore the impression that the Defence Minister, Dominic Nitiwul, is creating that the Akufo-Addo government is stuck with the enhanced security agreement with the United States is mind boggling! Given the massive criticism politicians, civil society groups and the general public, the best approach is for the government to withdraw the agreement from parliament and renegotiate the content and intended benefits with the United States while ensuring that the mutual security goals of the two countries are protected.

The second principle flows from the first. The government of Ghana must reconcile security agreements with the stated goals of established national policy upon which the said agreement is made. In other words, the government must ensure at all times that security agreements are consistent with the overarching strategic goals as defined in a comprehensive and coherent national security policy. The crucial question that needs an answer is, how would the United States-Ghana enhanced security cooperation agreement help Ghana to achieve the goals of its security and defence policy? As I mentioned earlier, no such institutional foundation exists in Ghana's security space. The country lacks a comprehensive and coherent defence policy and strategy upon which informed judgments and measurements can be made.

No such document exists on the websites of the ministry of defence, and ministry of foreign affairs. National policy documents are scattered at best and nonexistent at worst! Not surprisingly, governments, over the years, have resorted to ad hoc practices and inconsistent behaviors that generate controversies and provide enormous advantages to powerful states.

This state of affairs portrays Ghana as weak in the comity states. It reduces Ghana’s bargaining power! Under the present circumstances, the minority in parliament have failed to hold the Akufo-Addo government to proper standards of scrutiny by not asking the right questions and demanding a national defence and strategic document upon which the government grounded its agreement with the government of the United States.

It is extremely troubling that the minority in parliament has narrowly focused on criticizing the content of the agreement and the government led by the defence minister is engaged in a spirited defence of the agreement. This situation only reinforces the politicization of national security and deprives the state of progressive pathways to strengthening national security and defence.

I am convinced that Ghana needs a paradigm shift on national security policy making and management. The debate on the leaked United States-Ghana enhanced security cooperation agreement must be the turning point to chart a new course on national security management. The Akufo-Addo government has an opportunity to make the difference! The security community, parliament, civil society groups, and the general public must call on the Akufo-Addo government to craft a comprehensive and coherent national defence and security policy and strategy, which not only defines where Ghana had been, but also where Ghana is, and where Ghana must be in the future given the prevailing domestic, regional, and global security trends. This will help to make sense of Ghana’s international security engagements. A comprehensive and coherent national defence and security policy and strategy is long overdue!

Edward Akuffo is an associate professor of international security and international relations at the University of the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada

body-container-line