OBAMA GHANA SPEECH, SATURDAY JULY 11, 2009.

Good morning. It is an honor for me to be in Accra, and to speak to the representatives of the people of Ghana. I am deeply grateful for the welcome that I've received, as are Michelle, Malia, and Sasha Obama. Ghana's history is rich, the ties between our two countries are strong, and I am proud that this is my first visit to sub-Saharan Africa as President of the United States.

I am speaking to you at the end of a long trip. I began in Russia, for a Summit between two great powers. I traveled to Italy, for a meeting of the world's leading economies. And I have come here, to Ghana, for a simple reason: the 21st century will be shaped by what happens not just in Rome or Moscow or Washington, but by what happens in Accra as well.

This is the simple truth of a time when the boundaries between people are overwhelmed by our connections. Your prosperity can expand America's. Your health and security can contribute to the world's. And the strength of your democracy can help advance human rights for people everywhere.

So I do not see the countries and peoples of Africa as a world apart; I see Africa as a fundamental part of our interconnected world - as partners with America on behalf of the future that we want for all our children. That partnership must be grounded in mutual responsibility, and that is what I want to speak with you about today.

We must start from the simple premise that Africa's future is up to Africans.

I say this knowing full well the tragic past that has sometimes haunted this part of the world. I have the blood of Africa within me, and my family's own story encompasses both the tragedies and triumphs of the larger African story.

My grandfather was a cook for the British in Kenya, and though he was a respected elder in his village, his employers called him "boy" for much of his life. He was on the periphery of Kenya's liberation struggles, but he was still imprisoned briefly during repressive times. In his life, colonialism wasn't simply the creation of unnatural borders or unfair terms of trade - it was something experienced personally, day after day, year after year.

My father grew up herding goats in a tiny village, an impossible distance away from the American universities where he would come to get an education. He came of age at an extraordinary moment of promise for Africa. The struggles of his own father's generation were giving birth to new nations, beginning right here in Ghana. Africans were educating and asserting themselves in new ways. History was on the move.

But despite the progress that has been made - and there has been considerable progress in parts of Africa - we also know that much of that promise has yet to be fulfilled. Countries like Kenya, which had a per capita economy larger than South Korea's when I was born, have been badly outpaced. Disease and conflict have ravaged parts of the African continent. In many places, the hope of my father's generation gave way to cynicism, even despair.

It is easy to point fingers, and to pin the blame for these problems on others. Yes, a colonial map that made little sense bred conflict, and the West has often approached Africa as a patron, rather than a partner. But the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants. In my father's life, it was partly tribalism and patronage in an independent Kenya that for a long stretch derailed his career, and we know that this kind of corruption is a daily fact of life for far too many.

Of course, we also know that is not the whole story. Here in Ghana, you show us a face of Africa that is too often overlooked by a world that sees only tragedy or the need for charity. The people of Ghana have worked hard to put democracy on a firmer footing, with peaceful transfers of power even in the wake of closely contested elections. And with improved governance and an emerging civil society, Ghana's economy has shown impressive rates of growth.

This progress may lack the drama of the 20th century's liberation struggles, but make no mistake: it will ultimately be more significant. For just as it is important to emerge from the control of another nation, it is even more important to build one's own.

So I believe that this moment is just as promising for Ghana - and for Africa - as the moment when my father came of age and new nations were being born. This is a new moment of promise. Only this time, we have learned that it will not be giants like Nkrumah and Kenyatta who will determine Africa's future. Instead, it will be you - the men and women in Ghana's Parliament, and the people you represent. Above all, it will be the young people - brimming with talent and energy and hope - who can claim the future that so many in my father's generation never found.

To realize that promise, we must first recognize a fundamental truth that you have given life to in Ghana: development depends upon good governance. That is the ingredient which has been missing in far too many places, for far too long. That is the change that can unlock Africa's potential. And that is a responsibility that can only be met by Africans.

As for America and the West, our commitment must be measured by more than just the dollars we spend. I have pledged substantial increases in our foreign assistance, which is in Africa's interest and America's. But the true sign of success is not whether we are a source of aid that helps people scrape by - it is whether we are partners in building the capacity for transformational change.

This mutual responsibility must be the foundation of our partnership. And today, I will focus on four areas that are critical to the future of Africa and the entire developing world: democracy; opportunity; health; and the peaceful resolution of conflict.

First, we must support strong and sustainable democratic governments.

As I said in Cairo, each nation gives life to democracy in its own way, and in line with its own traditions. But history offers a clear verdict: governments that respect the will of their own people are more prosperous, more stable, and more successful than governments that do not.

This is about more than holding elections - it's also about what happens between them. Repression takes many forms, and too many nations are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the Port Authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end.

In the 21st century, capable, reliable and transparent institutions are the key to success - strong parliaments and honest police forces; independent judges and journalists; a vibrant private sector and civil society. Those are the things that give life to democracy, because that is what matters in peoples' lives.

Time and again, Ghanaians have chosen Constitutional rule over autocracy, and shown a democratic spirit that allows the energy of your people to break through. We see that in leaders who accept defeat graciously, and victors who resist calls to wield power against the opposition. We see that spirit in courageous journalists like Anas Aremeyaw Anas, who risked his life to report the truth. We see it in police like Patience Quaye, who helped prosecute the first human trafficker in Ghana. We see it in the young people who are speaking up against patronage, and participating in the political process.

Across Africa, we have seen countless examples of people taking control of their destiny, and making change from the bottom up. We saw it in Kenya, where civil society and business came together to help stop post-election violence. We saw it in South Africa, where over three quarters of the country voted in the recent election - the fourth since the end of Apartheid. We saw it in Zimbabwe, where the Election Support Network braved brutal repression to stand up for the principle that a person's vote is their sacred right.

Make no mistake: history is on the side of these brave Africans, and not with those who use coups or change Constitutions to stay in power. Africa doesn't need strongmen, it needs strong institutions.

America will not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation - the essential truth of democracy is that each nation determines its own destiny. What we will do is increase assistance for responsible individuals and institutions, with a focus on supporting good governance - on parliaments, which check abuses of power and ensure that opposition voices are heard; on the rule of law, which ensures the equal administration of justice; on civic participation, so that young people get involved; and on concrete solutions to corruption like forensic accounting, automating services, strengthening hotlines, and protecting whistle-blowers to advance transparency and accountability.

As we provide this support, I have directed my Administration to give greater attention to corruption in our Human Rights report. People everywhere should have the right to start a business or get an education without paying a bribe. We have a responsibility to support those who act responsibly and to isolate those who don't, and that is exactly what America will do.

This leads directly to our second area of partnership - supporting development that provides opportunity for more people.

With better governance, I have no doubt that Africa holds the promise of a broader base for prosperity. The continent is rich in natural resources. And from cell phone entrepreneurs to small farmers, Africans have shown the capacity and commitment to create their own opportunities. But old habits must also be broken. Dependence on commodities - or on a single export - concentrates wealth in the hands of the few, and leaves people too vulnerable to downturns.

In Ghana, for instance, oil brings great opportunities, and you have been responsible in preparing for new revenue. But as so many Ghanaians know, oil cannot simply become the new cocoa. From South Korea to Singapore, history shows that countries thrive when they invest in their people and infrastructure; when they promote multiple export industries, develop a skilled workforce, and create space for small and medium-sized businesses that create jobs.

As Africans reach for this promise, America will be more responsible in extending our hand. By cutting costs that go to Western consultants and administration, we will put more resources in the hands of those who need it, while training people to do more for themselves. That is why our $3.5 billion food security initiative is focused on new methods and technologies for farmers - not simply sending American producers or goods to Africa. Aid is not an end in itself. The purpose of foreign assistance must be creating the conditions where it is no longer needed.

America can also do more to promote trade and investment. Wealthy nations must open our doors to goods and services from Africa in a meaningful way. And where there is good governance, we can broaden prosperity through public-private partnerships that invest in better roads and electricity; capacity-building that trains people to grow a business; and financial services that reach poor and rural areas. This is also in our own interest - for if people are lifted out of poverty and wealth is created in Africa, new markets will open for our own goods.

One area that holds out both undeniable peril and extraordinary promise is energy. Africa gives off less greenhouse gas than any other part of the world, but it is the most threatened by climate change. A warming planet will spread disease, shrink water resources, and deplete crops, creating conditions that produce more famine and conflict. All of us - particularly the developed world - have a responsibility to slow these trends - through mitigation, and by changing the way that we use energy. But we can also work with Africans to turn this crisis into opportunity.

Together, we can partner on behalf of our planet and prosperity, and help countries increase access to power while skipping the dirtier phase of development. Across Africa, there is bountiful wind and solar power; geothermal energy and bio-fuels. From the Rift Valley to the North African deserts; from the Western coast to South Africa's crops -Africa's boundless natural gifts can generate its own power, while exporting profitable, clean energy abroad.

These steps are about more than growth numbers on a balance sheet. They're about whether a young person with an education can get a job that supports a family; a farmer can transfer their goods to the market; or an entrepreneur with a good idea can start a business. It's about the dignity of work. It's about the opportunity that must exist for Africans in the 21st century.

Just as governance is vital to opportunity, it is also critical to the third area that I will talk about - strengthening public health.

In recent years, enormous progress has been made in parts of Africa. Far more people are living productively with HIV/AIDS, and getting the drugs they need. But too many still die from diseases that shouldn't kill them. When children are being killed because of a mosquito bite, and mothers are dying in childbirth, then we know that more progress must be made.

Yet because of incentives - often provided by donor nations - many African doctors and nurses understandably go overseas, or work for programs that focus on a single disease. This creates gaps in primary care and basic prevention. Meanwhile, individual Africans also have to make responsible choices that prevent the spread of disease, while promoting public health in their communities and countries.

Across Africa, we see examples of people tackling these problems. In Nigeria, an Interfaith effort of Christians and Muslims has set an example of cooperation to confront malaria. Here in Ghana and across Africa, we see innovative ideas for filling gaps in care - for instance, through E-Health initiatives that allow doctors in big cities to support those in small towns.

America will support these efforts through a comprehensive, global health strategy. Because in the 21st century, we are called to act by our conscience and our common interest. When a child dies of a preventable illness in Accra, that diminishes us everywhere. And when disease goes unchecked in any corner of the world, we know that it can spread across oceans and continents.

That is why my Administration has committed $63 billion to meet these challenges. Building on the strong efforts of President Bush, we will carry forward the fight against HIV/AIDS. We will pursue the goal of ending deaths from malaria and tuberculosis, and eradicating polio. We will fight neglected tropical disease. And we won't confront illnesses in isolation - we will invest in public health systems that promote wellness, and focus on the health of mothers and children.

As we partner on behalf of a healthier future, we must also stop the destruction that comes not from illness, but from human beings - and so the final area that I will address is conflict.

Now let me be clear: Africa is not the crude caricature of a continent at war. But for far too many Africans, conflict is a part of life, as constant as the sun. There are wars over land and wars over resources. And it is still far too easy for those without conscience to manipulate whole communities into fighting among faiths and tribes.

These conflicts are a millstone around Africa's neck. We all have many identities - of tribe and ethnicity; of religion and nationality. But defining oneself in opposition to someone who belongs to a different tribe, or who worships a different prophet, has no place in the 21st century. Africa's diversity should be a source of strength, not a cause for division. We are all God's children. We all share common aspirations - to live in peace and security; to access education and opportunity; to love our families, our communities, and our faith. That is our common humanity.

That is why we must stand up to inhumanity in our midst. It is never justifiable to target innocents in the name of ideology. It is the death sentence of a society to force children to kill in wars. It is the ultimate mark of criminality and cowardice to condemn women to relentless and systematic rape. We must bear witness to the value of every child in Darfur and the dignity of every woman in Congo. No faith or culture should condone the outrages against them. All of us must strive for the peace and security necessary for progress.

Africans are standing up for this future. Here, too, Ghana is helping to point the way forward. Ghanaians should take pride in your contributions to peacekeeping from Congo to Liberia to Lebanon, and in your efforts to resist the scourge of the drug trade. We welcome the steps that are being taken by organizations like the African Union and ECOWAS to better resolve conflicts, keep the peace, and support those in need. And we encourage the vision of a strong, regional security architecture that can bring effective, transnational force to bear when needed.

America has a responsibility to advance this vision, not just with words, but with support that strengthens African capacity. When there is genocide in Darfur or terrorists in Somalia, these are not simply African problems - they are global security challenges, and they demand a global response. That is why we stand ready to partner through diplomacy, technical assistance, and logistical support, and will stand behind efforts to hold war criminals accountable. And let me be clear: our Africa Command is focused not on establishing a foothold in the continent, but on confronting these common challenges to advance the security of America, Africa and the world.

In Moscow, I spoke of the need for an international system where the universal rights of human beings are respected, and violations of those rights are opposed. That must include a commitment to support those who resolve conflicts peacefully, to sanction and stop those who don't, and to help those who have suffered. But ultimately, it will be vibrant democracies like Botswana and Ghana which roll back the causes of conflict, and advance the frontiers of peace and prosperity.

As I said earlier, Africa's future is up to Africans.

The people of Africa are ready to claim that future. In my country, African-Americans - including so many recent immigrants - have thrived in every sector of society. We have done so despite a difficult past, and we have drawn strength from our African heritage. With strong institutions and a strong will, I know that Africans can live their dreams in Nairobi and Lagos; in Kigali and Kinshasa; in Harare and right here in Accra.

Fifty-two years ago, the eyes of the world were on Ghana. And a young preacher named Martin Luther King traveled here, to Accra, to watch the Union Jack come down and the Ghanaian flag go up. This was before the march on Washington or the success of the civil rights movement in my country. Dr. King was asked how he felt while watching the birth of a nation. And he said: "It renews my conviction in the ultimate triumph of justice."

Now, that triumph must be won once more, and it must be won by you. And I am particularly speaking to the young people. In places like Ghana, you make up over half of the population. Here is what you must know: the world will be what you make of it.

You have the power to hold your leaders accountable, and to build institutions that serve the people. You can serve in your communities, and harness your energy and education to create new wealth and build new connections to the world. You can conquer disease, end conflicts, and make change from the bottom up. You can do that. Yes you can. Because in this moment, history is on the move.

But these things can only be done if you take responsibility for your future. It won't be easy. It will take time and effort. There will be suffering and setbacks. But I can promise you this: America will be with you. As a partner. As a friend. Opportunity won't come from any other place, though - it must come from the decisions that you make, the things that you do, and the hope that you hold in your hearts.

Freedom is your inheritance. Now, it is your responsibility to build upon freedom's foundation. And if you do, we will look back years from now to places like Accra and say that this was the time when the promise was realized - this was the moment when prosperity was forged; pain was overcome; and a new era of progress began. This can be the time when we witness the triumph of justice once more. Thank you.

EARLY ITALIAN DIPLOMACY; DIPLOMATIC STRATEGY

The origins of modern diplomacy within the international spectrum of politics, could often be traced back to the states of Northern Italy. This was during the early renaissance, where the first diplomatic embassies were established in the thirteenth century. The state of Milan played an incredible part in the establishment of permanent embassies within the city states of Northern Italy. Various diplomatic traditions were also conceived within Italy. The presentation of an Ambassador's credentials and acknowledgments are elements that were inaugurated in Italian early modern diplomacy.

The practice of diplomacy and its various intricacies were also spread to various other autonomous European states. Milan created the first diplomatic international gesture in 1455, by sending a representative to the court of France. It was extremely controversial however, that they would not accept the same gesture from France, due to the fears of espionage and intervention in internal affairs. It had eventually become evidnt that as super powers such as France and Spain grew in size and strength, and there was an overarching necessity to accept any form of diplomatic effort within the international arena. Eventually Italy paved the way for all European power to exchange representatives. By the late 16th century, permanent emissaries were standard practice.

Real world diplomatic negotiations are very different from intellectual debates in a university where an issue is decided on the merit of the arguments and negotiators make a deal by splitting the difference. Though diplomatic agreements can sometimes be reached among liberal democratic nations by appealing to higher principles, most real world diplomacy has traditionally been heavily influenced by hard power.

The interaction of strength and diplomacy can be illustrated by a comparison to labor negotiations. If a labor union is not willing to strike, then the union is not going anywhere because management has absolutely no incentive to agree to union demands. On the other hand, if management is not willing to take a strike, then the company will be walked all over by the labor union, and management will be forced to agree to any demand the union makes. The same concept applies to diplomatic negotiations.

There are also incentives in diplomacy to act reasonably, especially if the support of other actors is needed. The gain from winning one negotiation can be much less than the increased hostility from other parts. This is also called soft power.

Many situations in modern diplomacy are also rules based. When for instance two WTO countries have trade disputes, it is in the interest of both to limit the spill over damage to other areas by following some agreed-upon rules.

The sanctity of diplomats has long been observed. This sanctity has come to be known as diplomatic immunity. While there have been a number of cases where diplomats have been killed, this is normally viewed as a great breach of honour. Genghis Khan and the Mongols were well known for strongly insisting on the rights of diplomats, and they would often wreak horrific vengeance against any state that violated these rights.

Diplomatic rights were established in the mid-seventeenth century in Europe and have spread throughout the world. These rights were formalized by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which protects diplomats from being persecuted or prosecuted while on a diplomatic mission. If a diplomat does commit a serious crime while in a host country he may be declared as persona non grata (unwanted person). Such diplomats are then often tried for the crime in their homeland.

Diplomatic communications are also viewed as sacrosanct, and diplomats have long been allowed to carry documents across borders without being searched. The mechanism for this is the so-called "diplomatic bag" (or, in some countries, the "diplomatic pouch"). While radio and digital communication have become more standard for embassies, diplomatic pouches are still quite common and some countries, including the United States, declare entire shipping containers as diplomatic pouches to bring sensitive material (often building supplies) into a country.

In times of hostility, diplomats are often withdrawn for reasons of personal safety, as well as in some cases when the host country is friendly but there is a perceived threat from internal dissidents. Ambassadors and other diplomats are sometimes recalled temporarily by their home countries as a way to express displeasure with the host country. In both cases, lower-level employees still remain to actually do the business of diplomacy.

ASIAN ORIGIN OF DIPLOMACY

Ancient India, with its kingdoms and dynasties, had a long tradition of diplomacy. The oldest treatise on statecraft and diplomacy, Arthashastra, is attributed to Kautilya (also known as Chanakya), who was the principal adviser to Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya dynasty who ruled in the 3rd century BC, (whose capital was Patliputra, today's Patna, the chief city of Bihar state). Arthashastra is a complete work on the art of kingship, with long chapters on taxation and on the raising and maintenance of armies. It also incorporates a theory of diplomacy, of how in a situation of mutually contesting kingdoms, the wise king build alliances and tries to checkmate his adversaries. The envoys sent at the time to the courts of other kingdoms tended to reside for extended periods of time, and Arthashastra contains advice on the deportment of the envoy, including the trenchant suggestion that 'he should sleep alone'. The highest morality for the king is that his kingdom should prosper.
China

One of the earliest realists in international relations theory was the 6th century BC military strategist Sun Tzu (d. 496 BC), author of The Art of War. He lived during a time in which rival states were starting to pay less attention to traditional respects of tutelage to the Zhou Dynasty (c. 1050–256 BC) figurehead monarchs while each vied for power and total conquest. However, a great deal of diplomacy in establishing allies, bartering land, and signing peace treaties was necessary for each warring state.

From the Battle of Baideng (200 BC) to the Battle of Mayi (133 BC), the Han Dynasty was forced to uphold a marriage alliance and pay an exorbitant amount of tribute (in silk, cloth, grain, and other foodstuffs) to the powerful northern nomadic Xiongnu that had been consolidated by Modu Shanyu. After the Xiongnu sent word to Emperor Wen of Han (r. 180–157) that they controlled areas stretching from Manchuria to the Tarim Basin oasis city-states, a treaty was drafted in 162 BC proclaiming that everything north of the Great Wall belong to nomads' lands, while everything south of it would be reserved for Han Chinese. The treaty was renewed no less than nine times, but did not restrain some Xiongnu tuqi from raiding Han borders. That was until the far-flung campaigns of Emperor Wu of Han (r. 141–87 BC) which shattered the unity of the Xiongnu and allowed Han to conquer the Western Regions; under Wu, in 104 BC the Han armies ventured as far Fergana in Central Asia to battle the Yuezhi who had conquered Hellenistic Greek areas.

The Koreans and Japanese during the Chinese Tang Dynasty (618–907 AD) looked to the Chinese capital of Chang'an as the hub of civilization and emulated its central bureaucracy as the model of governance. The Japanese sent frequent embassies to China in this period, although they halted these trips in 894 during the Tang's imminent collapse. After the devastating An Shi Rebellion from 755 to 763, the Tang Dynasty was in no position to reconquer Central Asia and the Tarim Basin. After several conflicts with the Tibetan Empire spanning several different decades, the Tang finally made a truce and signed a peace treaty with them in 841.

In the 11th century during the Song Dynasty (960–1279), there were cunning ambassadors such as Shen Kuo and Su Song who achieved diplomatic success with the Liao Dynasty, the often hostile Khitan neighbor to the north. Both diplomats secured the rightful borders of the Song Dynasty through knowledge of cartography and dredging up old court archives. There was also a triad of warfare and diplomacy between these two states and the Tangut Western Xia Dynasty to the northwest of Song China (centered in modern-day Shaanxi). After warring with the Lý Dynasty of Vietnam from 1075 to 1077, Song and Lý made a peace agreement in 1082 to exchange the respective lands they had captured from each other during the war.

Long before the Tang and Song dynasties, the Chinese had sent envoys into Central Asia, India, and Persia starting with Zhang Qian in the 2nd century BC. Another notable event in Chinese diplomacy was the Chinese embassy mission of Zhou Daguan to the Khmer Empire of Cambodia in the 13th century. Chinese diplomacy was a necessity in the distinctive period of Chinese exploration. Since the Tang Dynasty (618–907 AD), the Chinese also became heavily invested in sending diplomatic envoys abroad on maritime missions into the Indian Ocean, to India, Persia, Arabia, East Africa, and Egypt. Chinese maritime activity was increased dramatically during the commercialized period of the Song Dynasty, with new nautical technologies, many more private ship owners, and an increasing amount of economic investors in overseas ventures.

During the Mongol Empire (1206–1294) the Mongols created something similar to today's diplomatic passport called paiza. The paiza were in three different types (golden, silver, and copper) depending on the envoy's level of importance. With the paiza, there came authority that the envoy can ask for food, transport, place to stay from any city, village, or clan within the empire with no difficulties.

Since the 17th century, there was a series of treaties upheld by Qing Dynasty China and Czarist Russia, beginning with the Treaty of Nerchinsk in the year 1689. This was followed up by the Aigun Treaty and the Convention of Peking in the mid 19th century.
As European power spread around the world in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries so too did its diplomatic model and system become adopted by Asian countries.

EUROPEAN ORIGIN OF DIPLOMACY

The ability to practice diplomacy is one of the defining elements of a state. As noted above, diplomacy has been practiced since the first city-states were formed millennia ago in ancient Greece. For most of human history diplomats were sent only for specific negotiations, and would return immediately after their mission concluded. Diplomats were usually relatives of the ruling family or of very high rank in order to give them legitimacy when they sought to negotiate with the other state.

One notable exception involved the relationship between the Pope and the Byzantine Emperor; papal agents, called apocrisiarii, were permanently resident in Constantinople. After the 8th century, however, conflicts between the Pope and Emperor (such as the Iconoclastic controversy) led to the breaking of close ties.
The origins of diplomacy lie in the strategic and competitive exchange of impressive gifts, which may be traced to the Bronze Age and recognized as an aspect of Homeric guest-friendship.[3] Thus diplomacy and trade have been inexorably linked from the outset. "In the framework of diplomatic relations it was customary for Byzantine emperors and Muslim rulers, especially the 'Abbāsids and the Fātimids, as well as for Muslim rulers between themselves, to exchange precious gifts, with which they attempted to impress or surpass their counterparts," remarks David Jacoby, in the context of the economics of silk in cultural exchange among Byzantium, Islam and the Latin West:[4] merchants accompanied emissaries, who often traveled on commercial ships. At a later date, it will be recalled that the English adventurer and trader Anthony Sherley convinced the Persian ruler to send the first Persian embassy to Europe (1599–1602).

Early modern diplomacy's origins[5] are often traced to the states of Northern Italy in the early Renaissance, with the first embassies being established in the thirteenth century. Milan played a leading role, especially under Francesco Sforza who established permanent embassies to the other city states of Northern Italy. Tuscany and Venice were also flourishing centres of diplomacy from the 1300s onwards. It was in the Italian Peninsula that many of the traditions of modern diplomacy began, such as the presentation of an ambassador's credentials to the head of state.
From Italy the practice was spread to other European regions. Milan was the first to send a representative to the court of France in 1455. However, Milan refused to host French representatives fearing espionage and that the French representatives would intervene in its internal affairs. As foreign powers such as France and Spain became increasingly involved in Italian politics the need to accept emissaries was recognized. Soon the major European powers were exchanging representatives. Spain was the first to send a permanent representative; it appointed an ambassador to the Court of England in 1487. By the late 16th century, permanent missions became customary. The Holy Roman Emperor, however, did not regularly send permanent legates, as they could not represent the interests of all the German princes (who were in theory all subordinate to the Emperor, but in practice each independent).
During that period the rules of modern diplomacy were further developed. The top rank of representatives was an ambassador. At that time an ambassador was a nobleman, the rank of the noble assigned varying with the prestige of the country he was delegated to. Strict standards developed for ambassadors, requiring they have large residences, host lavish parties, and play an important role in the court life of their host nation. In Rome, the most prized posting for a Catholic ambassador, the French and Spanish representatives would have a retinue of up to a hundred. Even in smaller posts, ambassadors were very expensive. Smaller states would send and receive envoys, who were a rung below ambassador. Somewhere between the two was the position of minister plenipotentiary.

Diplomacy was a complex affair, even more so than now. The ambassadors from each state were ranked by complex levels of precedence that were much disputed. States were normally ranked by the title of the sovereign; for Catholic nations the emissary from the Vatican was paramount, then those from the kingdoms, then those from duchies and principalities. Representatives from republics were ranked the lowest (which often angred the leaders of the numerous German, Scandinavian and Italian republics). Determining precedence between two kingdoms depended on a number of factors that often fluctuated, leading to near-constant squabbling.


French diplomat Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord is considered one of the most skilled diplomats of all time.
Ambassadors, nobles with little foreign experience and no expectation of a career in diplomacy, needed to be supported by large embassy staff. These professionals would be sent on longer assignments and would be far more knowledgeable than the higher-ranking officials about the host country. Embassy staff would include a wide range of employees, including some dedicated to espionage. The need for skilled individuals to staff embassies was met by the graduates of universities, and this led to a great increase in the study of international law, modern languages, and history at universities throughout Europe.

At the same time, permanent foreign ministries began to be established in almost all European states to coordinate embassies and their staffs. These ministries were still far from their modern form, and many of them had extraneous internal responsibilities. Britain had two departments with frequently overlapping powers until 1782. They were also far smaller than they are currently. France, which boasted the largest foreign affairs department, had only some 70 full-time employees in the 1780s.

The elements of modern diplomacy slowly spread to Eastern Europe and Russia, arriving by the early eighteenth century. The entire edifice would be greatly disrupted by the French Revolution and the subsequent years of warfare. The revolution would see commoners take over the diplomacy of the French state, and of those conquered by revolutionary armies. Ranks of precedence were abolished. Napoleon also refused to acknowledge diplomatic immunity, imprisoning several British diplomats accused of scheming against France.

After the fall of Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna of 1815 established an international system of diplomatic rank. Disputes on precedence among nations (and therefore the appropriate diplomatic ranks used) persisted for over a century until after World War II, when the rank of ambassador became the norm. In between that time, figures such as the German Chancellor Otto von Bismark were renowned for international diplomacy.

A SUMMARY OF CHAPTER TWO OF WALTER RODNEY’S HOW EUROPE UNDERDEVELOPED AFRICA

The African continent over decades had been portrayed in bad light by many European historians and scholars. The continent has been described as one with a primitive history and therefore not worthy of any historical reconstruction. But this assertion is far from being true as these European writers are not even justified to write any bit of African history in the first place, as they have very minimum or little knowledge of African history. Infact, most of these works were based on hearsay and mere assertion and therefore were misleading.

In the recent years, Africans and foreigners whom are well grounded in history have come to discover this misleading thought about African history and have made considerable effort to proving to the world that Africa had developed an organized society, where a lot of developmental activities took place for many centuries.

Chapter two title “How Africa Developed before the coming of the European Up To the 5th Century” of the book “How Europe Under Developed Africa” by Walter Rodney, is a careful analysis and explanation of various civilizations that emerged in Africa which even drew attention of the outside world (Europe and Arabia) due to great works that Africans had put in place at that time, before the coming of the Europeans, in order to correct the derogatory and barbaric picture that had being painted of Africa.

It is pertinent to mention that Europe in the period under study is not justified to tag Africa under-developed nor African assume same of Europe. Each continent had their unique environmental and social factors that contributed or affected the various forms of development that occurred therein. A section of the said chapter better explains this assertion as follows:

Europeans and Africans themselves in the colonial period lacked due regard for the unique features of African culture. These features have a value of their own that cannot be eclipsed by European culture either in the comparable period before 1500 or n the subsequent centuries. They cannot be eclipsed because they are not really comparable phenomena. Who in this world is competent to judge weather an Austrian Waltz is better than a Makonde Ngoma? …….page 38

It is obvious that some of the world’s development and civilization of today which Europe claim to be her handiwork actually started in Africa but was later improved upon my Europe after Africa had suffered greatly from the periods of slave trade and colonialism, which drew the continent backward.

The art of Egypt, the Sudan, Ethiopia and Benin were well known to the rest of the world at an early date and this artistic prowess brought many traders and visitors to these areas of Africa where these materials of art were bought and taken to Europe and Asia. The quality of products that were made by Africans shows the level of economic development, which was comparable or in some cases more sophisticated than that prevalent in Europe. The red leather (Moroccan leather) that became familiar to Europe was produced by the Hausa and Mandinga manufacturers in Nigeria and Mali and this leather was superior to that obtainable in Europe and also preferable by Europeans. Also, the Portuguese who on reaching the Kongo Kingdom, were amazed to see high quality local cloths made from bark and palm, fibre, which could be comparable to velvet. Other finished products from raw materials were also prevalent in other parts of African which Europeans patronized.

One may ask, why did this not lead to a massive growth in the African industry? The answer to this question is not far fetch. At the period under study, Africa’s manufacturing industry was still on a subsistent-like or domestic level. It must be noted that a decisive factor in the growth of the European industry is the available new machinery and change-over from domestic production to the factory system and all these advances in Europe came after the period under review when Africa was already suffering from the slave trade and thereafter colonialism which cause massive brain drain.

Furthermore, there was the presence of high and organized state system in Africa as was evidenced in Egypt, Ethiopia, Nubia, Maghreb, Benin, Yoruba, etc. Though the Ibo people of Nigeria and the Kikuyu people of Kenya operated systems that some European writers had referred to as stateless, that cannot be entirely justified because both had sophisticated systems of political rule.

“It was in Europe that the nation state reached an advanced stage, and Europe tended to use the presence or absence of well-organized polities as a measure of civilization. That is not entirely justified, because in Africa there were small political units which had relatively advanced material and non-material cultures. For instance, neither the Ibo people o f Nigeria, nor the Kikuyu of Kenya ever produced large centralized governments in their traditional setting. But both had sophisticated systems of political rule based on clans and religious oracles and secret societies”…………..page 54.


In Zimbabwe, some of the greatest forms of civilization and development took place. Apart from evidence of the presence of a sophisticated political system, there is also one of the greatest constructions of bricks, the Walls of Zimbabwe, which is believed to have been made as far back as the 14th century. The said Wall which is 30 feet high and 20 feet thick has continued to catch the eye of foreigners since its discovery. There was attempted by some European writers and archaeologist, whom having seen the great works, decided to divert credit to Europe, but later discoveries shows that the wall and all other great works discovered in Zimbabwe were the handwork of Africans. This also goes to show the level of development that was already prevailing amid a people.

‘when Cecil Rhodes sent in his agents to rob and steal in Zimbabwe, they and other Europeans marveled at the surviving ruins of Zimbabwe culture, and automatically assumed that it had been build by white people’ …… page 78

Conclusively, Walter Rodney in this chapter of his book, tend to prove that after a discreet survey of the developed parts of Africa and the those in Europe in the 15th century, African could not be said to be underdeveloped nor was the prevalent factors that could be used to determining ‘the developed’ and ‘ the undeveloped’ in Africa’s discredit.

In carrying out this work, high level of tolerance, objectivity and fairness were brought to play, in order to ascertaining the actual position of things. It must be said that with varying examples and evidences from the chapter two of the book ‘How Europe underdeveloped Africa”, it as been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Africa evolved her own form of political, social and economic civilization and was in deed developed before the coming of the Europeans up to the 15th century.

THE HISTORICAL ANTECEDENCE OF THE NIGER DELTA CRISIS AND THE WAY FORWARD.

The Niger Delta comprises of nine states out of the thirty (36) that make-up the Federal Republic of Nigeria. These states are Delta. Edo, Rivers, Bayelsa, Cross-Rivers, Ondo, Imo, Abia and Akwa-Ibom states and are located in the southern part of the country. The Niger Delta covers and area of about 70,000 square kilometer and with an estimated population of 25 million people. The region consists of over forty different ethnic groups, speaking different languages. Also, the dominant occupation of the people are farming and fishing.

The crisis in this region which has lasted for many decades and has caused great loss of human and material recourses is traceable to the following factors as shall be explained hereafter.

(1) THE OBVIOUS INFRASTRUCTURAL DECAY AND VERY POOR LEVEL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA

The discovery of crude oil in Oloibiri, and Ijaw rural community in the Niger Delta by Shell in May, 1958, set the stage for a major change in a country’s economic fortune. Many companies were contracted to explore the area and in no too long a time, full exploration activities begun and Nigeria became a major crude oil exporting country. Nigeria had been earning huge amount of foreign exchange from this lucrative oil business which accounts for major infrastructural development in the country. Ironically, the said infrastructural development is not visible in the Niger Delta where this crude oil is drawn. The Federal allocation being disbursed to oil producing states is in no way comparable with the amount of economic resources that goes out of the Region annually. It is disheartening to see that many of the Niger Delta communities that had witnessed massive crude oil exploration and exploitation still live in abject poverty. These people have no access to basic amenities like good roads, schools, portable drinking water, housing and other relevant social infrastructure. Furthermore, the level of infrastructural development visible in cities like Lagos and Abuja, a former capital and current capital territory of Nigeria respectively, which are made possible due to huge foreign exchange gotten from crude oil export, compared to that prevalent in the Niger Delta, shows the level of marginalization being suffered by the Niger Delta Communities. With the aforesaid situation, looming crisis is inevitable.

(2) THE OPERATIONAL STANDARD OF OIL COMPANIES AND BUSINESSES PRESENT IN THE AREA.

The Niger Delta region of Nigeria had witnessed massive oil exploration over many decades with major multinational companies like Shell, Chevron, Texaco and many others at the fore front of these activities. It must be said that these oil companies operate well below the standard expected of them. The exploration and exploitation of oil companies in Niger Delta has been more conspicuous over time. Oil producing areas suffer massive damage as a result of the activities of oil companies. Oil companies have operated for many decades in the Niger Delta without a standard environmental impact assessment. A situation which is unacceptable in developed countries. The Niger Delta people are subjected to cope with oil spillages and environmental degradation as a result of the activities of oil companies.

The corporate responsibility of oil companies and other businesses in the area are below international standard and this is been undermined by the Federal government of Nigeria

(3) THE POOR APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN NIGERIA, THE YEARNING FOR RESOURCE CONTROL AND THE HIGH HANDENESS OF GOVERNMENT.

The Federal system of government operated in Nigeria, which ought to have been able to address the issue of resource control had failed to do this, as the system is been operated in distortion. The Federal government on many occasion over steps it bounds and this has greatly been exposed in the oil exploration in Nigeria. Today, the Federal Government allocates a percentage of oil revenue to the oil producing states of the country annually. This ought not to be so under a functional federal system. The regional governments ought to manage their economic resources available in their areas and pay taxes to the Federal government as this is the norm in other countries where federal system is the order of the day, with the United States of America as a typical example.

The yeaning for resource control has lead to various internal crisis and demonstration in the Niger Delta especially with the continuous show of marginalization and insensitivity to the plight of the people by government. A practical example of the aforesaid is the Ogoni community of Rivers State. On August 26, 1990, the Ogoni people issued a bill of right which was sent to the Federal government of Nigeria, demanding political freedom that will guarantee political control of the affair of their land and control of economic resources by the Ogoni people. This demand was turned down but the Ogoni people whose case was being spearheaded by MOSOP did not stop. They intensified their struggle, taking their case to various international agencies and organization. This act eventually led to the execution of human right activist, Ken Saro Wiwa in 1993, who was a major figure in the struggle, by the then military government headed by General Sani Abacha.

The struggle for resource control and emancipation has never being solely an Ogoni affair. The Ogba, Itsekhiri, Ijaw, Urhobo and many other communities in the Niger Delta have embarked on continuous struggle.

Also, regional state governments of oil producing states in Nigeria have also met and presented a case of increased allocation to at least 10%, for the development of the Niger Delta but the Federal Government only granted 3%. The act of high handedness and the insensitivity of both past and present federal governments have been a major contributor to the seemingly unending crisis in the region.

(4) THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE OF CORRUPTION IN NIGERIA

It has been argued that the federal government of Nigeria over many decades had not allocated enough revenue to ensure speedy development in the Niger Delta, which is very true to a large extent. But the fundamental question is, what has become of the acclaimed ‘little” revenue gotten so far?

It must be mentioned that there has not been prudent management of resources in the Niger Delta. Agencies set up by the Federal and state governments to speed up development in the area are been used as means of siphoning huge amount of money to personal pockets. Personalities of questionable characters are appointed to head these bodies, which therefore makes nonsense of entire process. None is to be blamed but government who do not monitor properly the activities of these agencies, to ensure they fulfill the purpose to which they were created.

There is a provisions in the 1999 Constitution that allocates 13% of total revenue gotten from oil to the oil producing states of the country and also established the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), a federal government agency whose responsibility is to accelerate economic development and provide infrastructure in the area, but these have not served the desire purpose at all.

Some governors of the Niger Delta States are been tried for money laundry by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, a body set up by the federal government to investigate and prosecute persons involve in financial crimes. These governors have siphoned billions of naira to their personal aggrandizement. Another question that will arise is “if a governor can steal public fund to the tone of billions of naira, will that same governor not steal more if he is allowed to manage economic resources in his area when a federal system is fully in place?”

The issue of corruption which is highly present in government and in the social lives of Nigerians must be addressed with all seriousness by the federal government. Nothing meaningful will be achieved in the Niger Delta when corrupt officials are appointed to manage developmental programmes and projects. Also, it must be noted that the issue of corruption is a national problem, with Nigeria being ranked as one of the most corrupt in the world.

THE WAY FORWARD

The continuing conflict in the Niger Delta is mounting a heavy pressure on the country’s oil output. Therefore, stakeholders must put-in genuine effort at resolving the over four decade long crisis. Some of the conditions outlined below will help a great deal at resolving the crisis.

(1) Popular participation/public cooperation is perhaps the most important condition for the success of conflict resolution. The people directly affected must be brought to the dialogue table by government. The people should be involved in the formation of the plans that affect them and should be consulted about their needs and aspiration. When this is done, there would be a favourable atmosphere for proper operation of all companies in the region.

(2) In order to resolve the conflict in the Niger Delta permanently, the issue of equitable distribution of resources must be given considerable attention. As a matter of policy that must be complied with by the stakeholders, government and oil companies should plough back excess revenue into human resource development, infrastructural and social amenities, which will help at improving the standard of living of the Niger Delta people.

(3) Oil and gas activities in the Niger Delta must be regulated to make them more environmentally friendly. Strict environment standards should be enforced. Pollution taxes should be utilized and companies should be subjected to heavily compensate communities affected by oil spillages. This will compel oil companies to take proactive measures and use up to date technologies in their exploration and exploitation activities, resulting in a great reduction in spillages and other disasters involved with oil exploration and exploitation activities.

(4) Collation and dissemination of information as regards the region should be given considerable attention in order to achieve permanent conflict resolution in the Niger Delta. Information on how funds are being disbursed, projects such funds are meant for, amount involved and those entrusted with the funds, should be made available to the people. Relevant information on major projects should be made available to the people. When this is effectively done, accountability and transparency is ensured.

(5) There should be deliberate effort by government to address the issue of corruption. Agencies like the EFCC should be strengthened to investigate corrupt officials and those found wanting should be made to face the law.

CONCLUSION
From the foregoing, it is obvious that the core cause of the Niger Delta crisis is the issue of equitable distribution of resources which are essential for rapid development. Also, as been observed, the development of Nigeria as a country is not determined by concentration of wealth in one part and neglect of others. Rather, distribution of resources which ensures rapid development in the different regions, would contribute greatly towards accelerated development in the entire country.

Furthermore, all stakeholders should forget about the past and embark on policies and programmes to laying a solid foundation for the future generation. The solution to the crisis is not just allowing local communities resources control, but there should be collective will on the part of government and the oil companies at addressing the problem. When the people see this genuine attitude on the part of government and the oil companies, they will embrace peaceful dialogue, in order to ensure sustainable development in their area.