By Kabs Kanu
Instead of the poor Information Minister Mohamed Rado Swaray , who was only a clueless passenger in the process, I think we should look instead at the Foreign Ministry in trying to understand whether President Maada Bio’s humiliation in Kenya would have been avoided.
Did deficits, slippages, deficiencies and idiocy in Sierra Leone’s Foreign Policy Objectives and implementation contribute to our president being humbled in Kenya ?
A notable independent newspaper, The Sierra Leone Telegraph, reported about calls for the dismissal of Foreign Minister David Francis. The paper said that there were demands for Sierra Leone’s Foreign Ministry ” to take full responsibility for this huge gaffe. ”
So, the question that arises is , aside from President Bio’s manic , obsessive and wasteful mania for foreign trips , what part did Foreign Policy or the lack of it play in this scandal ?
To answer some of these questions , one may need to ask : What foreign policy objectives, if any, have President Bio and his failed government followed since he came to power ?
Erudite retired Mass Communications Professor , Dr. Cecil Blake, wrote a very interesting and brilliant article on the Kenya scandal , titled: PRESIDENT MAADA BIO AND THE KASARANI AFFAIR : ABOVE AND BEYOND PARTISAN POLITICS. Among other things, Professor Blake postulated that : “Presidential advisers including some cabinet ministers should provide counsel to the president on matters involving what could be considered ‘non -essential travel ‘. ”
The professor raised a point, which, if pursued to its logical conclusion, would lead to all fingers pointing to the Foreign Ministry or the country’s foreign policy objectives in the final analysis , given that this matter concerns the president’s foreign travel.
It is a fact that presidential travels are supposed to be determined not by the whims of the president, as the case appears in Sierra Leone , but by the foreign policy objectives of the country. This further determines which trips are essential or non- essential . Also, there are some trips that the president himself need not undertake himself and should be delegated to the Foreign Minister or ambassadors. But in Sierra Leone, we find the president undertaking every trip. To any reasonable person, not to mention foreign policy experts, this is a shameful failure in foreign policy objectives.
This could not be the fault of the Foreign Minister, given the propensity of African leaders not to follow advice as Professor Blake himself lamented in his article. If one pursue Professor Blake’s postulations further, one would be inclined not to also blame the country’s foreign policy objectives or the lack of them because whether they exist or not, President Bio is not the leader that governs his life by rules, regulations or the law. President Bio is a narcissist and ONE- man decision maker who lives purely to satiate his own selfish and megalomanic desires.
Maybe, one good will emerge from this horric disgrace meted out to President Bio in Kenya. The President will now control his foreign trips and base them purely on Sierra Leone’s Foreign policy objectives.
Traveling to Kenya to take part in the inauguration of the new President, William Rutto, was not an absolute imperative. Kenya is not a Liberia, Guinea or Ivory Coast who share a more enduring bond with Sierra Leone like the Mano River Union. Nor is Kenya a Nigeria , a country that spent millions of dollars in the 1990s to help end the 11-year civil war in Sierra Leone . Though they contributed troops to the UN Peacekeeping Force that was stationed in Sierra Leone during the war, it was not as pressing an engagement for Sierra Leone to have been represented by nobody else but the president. Though one of the country’s foreign policy objectives is promoting friendly and bilateral relations with other African countries , representation by the Vice- President , the foreign minister and Sierra Leone ambassadors in East Africa would have been more than enough. THERE WAS NO PRESSING IMPERATIVE FOR PRESIDENT BIO HIMSELF TO HAVE APPEARED AT THE INAUGURATION.
It is a point that is not missed in Professor Blake’s magnificent article. Writes the professor :
“Because of the risks involving the integrity of the presidency within international contexts, the decision of the incumbent to present the presidency of Sierra Leone internationally has to be carefully thought out. The incumbent has to consult with his/her advisers on the need to travel, even if invited, to inaugural events. In this instance, Sierra Leone is not a member of the Preferential Trade Area (PTA). Heads of the State of the PTA diplomatically and otherwise may have to attend the inauguration of a fellow member of the PTA, as would those from a contagious sub-region — Southern Africa Development Community ( SADC). Other countries invited can be properly represented by a designee (Foreign Minister or an Ambassador in the PTA/SADC country, etc.)”.
TO BE CONTINUED
