I found a New York Times article, 'Army In Control After Ghana Coup Topples Nkrumah', and others that were published the day after President Nkrumah's government was overthrown. Those articles basically narrate what happened on February 24, 1966.
This NY Times article, however, 'U.S. Officials Show No Regret Over the Removal of Nkrumah', also published on February 25, 1966, tells a different story. It informs us with the American reaction to the coup. What's really interesting to me is US Secretary of State for Africa, G. Mennen Williams, who commented that the U.S. could have "good and favorable relations" with the Ghanaian military leaders. Then, State Department official added that it "was not intended to imply recognition" of the new leaders of Ghana. I think reading this at that time would make us think what the US' role was to the coup. The two countries had a love-hate relationship and probably the US got fed up with Nkrumah's views. Given that President Nkrumah is anti-American, as seen in his writings, and a communist friend of China and Russia, it is clear that the US leaders hated him which might have been a motive for the US involvement in the coup. Now, it does really make sense to think that the US has something to do with this (especially that it is proven by the revealed CIA documents).
After talking about the US-Ghana relationship, the author mentioned that what would happen to Ghana after the coup might just be like what happened in Nigeria where the new leaders who were positioned after their coup would focus more on internal reforms and avoid Pan-Africanism projects (which was described as ambitious and costly) of their leaders. I think the author might be arguing that these Pan-Africanism views would only result to military coups as seen in the patterns of coups that occurred in different African countries. I also think that these coups were probably supported by the US because these would destroy the spread of communism and therefore, they could easily manipulate the new country leaders if they have the same perspectives.
After talking about the US-Ghana relationship, the author mentioned that what would happen to Ghana after the coup might just be like what happened in Nigeria where the new leaders who were positioned after their coup would focus more on internal reforms and avoid Pan-Africanism projects (which was described as ambitious and costly) of their leaders. I think the author might be arguing that these Pan-Africanism views would only result to military coups as seen in the patterns of coups that occurred in different African countries. I also think that these coups were probably supported by the US because these would destroy the spread of communism and therefore, they could easily manipulate the new country leaders if they have the same perspectives.
Great post and it looks like you have some good sources here - it will be interesting to think about how Pan-Africanism fits into the key terms we've been discussing: how was this movement a reaction to the U.S.'s use of power?
ReplyDelete