Foreign policy decisions are rarely straightforward. They involve a mix of historical relationships, present realities, and future projections. Recently, a heated debate has arisen surrounding the foreign policy choices of Ghanaian Presidents John Dramani Mahama and Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, particularly concerning the political upheavals in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger. These nations, following coups, have formed the Alliance of Sahel States, challenging the norms upheld by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
A viral video featuring Captain Smart harshly criticizing President Akufo-Addo’s stance on these issues sparked significant public discourse. According to Smart, former President Mahama demonstrated better judgment in foreign policy by fostering ties with Burkina Faso’s leadership, evidenced by his invitation to their leader during his inauguration. Akufo-Addo’s refusal to engage with coup leaders, he argued, was alienating Ghana’s neighbors and placing the nation at a disadvantage.
While such comparisons may stir emotions, they oversimplify the intricacies of diplomacy. Foreign policy is not a matter of “who is wiser,” but of context, strategy, and long-term national interest.
During Mahama’s tenure, his approach to foreign policy leaned towards pragmatism. By inviting the leader of Burkina Faso, he sought to maintain amicable relations, ensuring Ghana’s borders and economic ties with its neighbor remained secure. His strategy prioritized immediate stability and neighborly goodwill, a reflection of his leadership style during an era when West Africa faced several challenges, from terrorism to economic instability.
Akufo-Addo’s approach, on the other hand, has been shaped by a different set of global and regional dynamics. As ECOWAS Chair, his policies are underpinned by a commitment to democratic norms, which explains his hardline stance against coups. While this has earned him criticism from some quarters, it is a reflection of his belief in building a West Africa where constitutional rule is respected. However, this stance also exposes Ghana to the risk of strained relationships with nations now aligning with powers like Russia and China.
The Global Context
Criticism of Akufo-Addo’s policies must also consider the shifting sands of global geopolitics. Africa’s strategic importance is growing, especially in a world increasingly reliant on rare earth minerals for technology and renewable energy. Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger are rich in these resources and are pivoting towards alliances with Russia and China. Ghana’s foreign policy, therefore, cannot afford to be reactionary. It must weigh the benefits of alignment with Western democracies against the potential gains from stronger ties with emerging powers in the East.
For example, if a more nationalist government in the United States takes office, it could deprioritize Africa. However, should it realize Africa’s critical role in its industrial future, countries that maintain strong ties with the West might find themselves better positioned to benefit. Conversely, aligning with Russia and China could unlock different opportunities but might come with risks such as reduced access to Western markets or aid.
The Role of Media in Shaping Discourse
Captain Smart’s remarks on Onua TV exemplify a concerning trend in public discourse—oversimplification of complex issues. While robust debate is essential, resorting to insults and emotional appeals risks misleading the public. It is imperative that media platforms prioritize researched and balanced opinions, fostering constructive conversations rather than fueling divisiveness.
Ghana, like every nation, must navigate its foreign policy with precision. Both Mahama’s and Akufo-Addo’s approaches have merits and drawbacks, shaped by their unique circumstances. Instead of pitting one leader against the other in a simplistic narrative of wisdom versus folly, Ghanaians should focus on the broader picture: how these policies serve national interest in an ever-changing world.
