The Press TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1966. “Nkrumah Of Ghana And Guinea”

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31003, 8 March 1966, Page 16

The Press TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1966. “Nkrumah Of Ghana And Guinea”

Dr. Nkrumah s astonishing political metamorphosis in Guinea may well raise some serious problems of legality, as has been suggested in Washington. Is he a Ghanaian or a Guinean? Is the loose form of union that exists between Ghana and Guinea presumed to confer common citizenship on the leaders of both countries? In the Ethiopian capital, where the Organisation for African Unity is currently in session, the Guinean delegate is reported to have said that Dr. Nkrumah had been offered the posts of Head of State and leader of the ruling Democratic Party. Quite obviously it was not thought necessary by President Toure to consult the people. In any case a referendum, which in a one-party State would be merely a formality, would have taken time. Mr Toure and Dr. Nkrumah, whatever they may be planning together, apparently wanted to dramatise the return to Africa of the deposed Ghanaian leader; hence the spectacular gesture of his overnight change of citizenship and status.

The Ghanaian Constitution provides for a presidential term of seven years, and Mr Toure was elected in January, 1961. He was the only candidate, and the vote for him was described as overwhelming. Whether the procedure of an arbitrary transfer of power from Mr Toure to Dr. Nkrumah will be legalised by an appeal to the people remains to be seen. Since, as was the case in Ghana under Dr. Nkrumah, opposition to the ruling party is not tolerated in Guinea, an election may not be thought necessary. Only outside Guinea will Dr. Nkrumah’s emergence as the Guinean leader cause confusion; recognition is to be expected in Communist quarters and denial by the Western governments. The meaning and motivation of this extraordinary coup can only be guessed at. It is well to remember, however, that when Mr Toure angered General de Gaulle by rejecting a continuing association with France, in the constitutional referendum of 1958, he was the only one of the 13 territorial leaders of French West and Equatorial Africa to do so. Conakry became overnight the spiritual centre of African independence, with both Russia and China immediately showing intense interest. Moscow in particular was quick to offer aid, both technical and material, to the new republic. Mr Toure was already a highly-trained Marxist —a graduate, indeed, of Prague University. Conakry soon became a centre of international Communist activity. Numerous conferences of Communist organisations have been held there in .recent years. When, in 1959, the SovietAfrican Friendship Association was set up in Moscow, Guinea was one of four African countries to establish ancillary organisations.

After the break with France. Communist aid, largely Russian, literally kept Guinea from bankruptcy. The rivalry between China and Russia in this field was brought fully into the open in 1965, when Russia signed an agreement to finance a dam and an aluminium plant, as a first step towards Guinea’s industrialisation. During the years of intense Russian interest in Guinea, which included the granting of scholarships at Moscow University to Guinean students, the republic was widely spoken of as a Soviet bridgehead in Africa. Mr Toure’s Government soon had trade agreements with all the Communist States. The Guinea-Ghana union was given every possible encouragement in Moscow, as a means of damaging French-British relations and possibly driving Ghana out of the Commonwealth.

It is perhaps significant that Dr. Nkrumah had talks in Moscow after his visit to Peking, during which the successful Army coup was launched in Accra. Is it too far-fetched to suggest that Mr Toure’s offer to step down in favour of Dr. Nkrumah was planned in Moscow’? Certainly, the Kremlin’s hand is yet to be revealed, but Mr Toure’s own position may have been threatened, after experience in Accra had shown that, even in a tightly-policed one-party State, underground organisation against the regime can be successful. Some at least of today’s obvious questions, concerning both Guinea and Ghana, should be answered in the very near future.