Israel Must Invest in Ghana to Rebuild African Credibility

An Interview with V. L. K. Djokoto

Accra Evening News: Mr. Djokoto, your recent analysis argues that Israel should prioritize Ghana in its African strategy. What is the strategic logic behind this?

V. L. K. Djokoto: The fundamental error in contemporary diplomacy is the assumption that influence can be purchased wholesale. It cannot. Influence in Africa—real influence, not the ephemeral kind—emerges from demonstration effects. Israel's challenge is not that Africans misunderstand its positions; it is that Israel has failed to demonstrate sustained commitment to African development in ways that create genuine interdependence. Ghana offers the ideal proving ground for such commitment.

AEN: Why Ghana specifically, rather than a broader continental approach?

Djokoto: Because breadth without depth produces nothing durable. Consider the geometry of the problem: Israel seeks credibility across a continent of 54 nations with divergent interests and historical grievances. The direct route—attempting to court each state individually—is both expensive and ineffective. The sophisticated route is to establish one exemplary partnership so substantive that it reshapes perceptions continentally.

Ghana possesses the necessary attributes: democratic stability that provides predictability, Pan-Africanist credentials that give its voice continental weight, and economic ambitions in agriculture, technology, and infrastructure that align with Israeli capabilities. More importantly, Ghana's intellectual and diplomatic class operates at a level of sophistication capable of articulating complex positions to continental audiences.

AEN: But couldn't critics argue this is simply replacing old transactional relationships with a new transaction?

Djokoto: That would be the case if I were advocating for symbolic gestures. I am not. What I propose is structural integration—the kind of deep technological and economic partnerships that create mutual dependencies. Israel's agricultural technology addressing Ghana's food security imperatives. Joint ventures in water management solving existential challenges for both nations in different contexts. Educational exchanges creating institutional bonds across generations.

The distinction is crucial: transactional relationships dissolve under political pressure because they rest on contingent calculations. Structural partnerships endure because unwinding them damages both parties' interests.

AEN: How does this address Israel's specific image challenges in Africa?

Djokoto: Israel's problem in Africa is not primarily one of communication—it is one of demonstrated commitment. African states observe that Israel's engagement with the continent has been episodic: high-level visits followed by silence, development projects that lack continuity, security cooperation conducted in shadows. This pattern suggests that African relationships are instrumentalized rather than valued.

A genuine partnership with Ghana would provide counter-evidence. But only if it is conducted openly, sustained through political transitions, and designed to serve Ghanaian interests as robustly as Israeli ones. When other African states observe Israel investing seriously in Ghana's development—not as charity but as genuine partnership—the continental conversation shifts.

AEN: Some might say this places unrealistic expectations on Ghana to serve as Israel's advocate.

Djokoto: That misunderstands the proposal entirely. Ghana would not be Israel's advocate—it would be Ghana's advocate, articulating Ghana's interests informed by genuine partnership experience. The value to Israel would not be in having Ghana echo Israeli positions, but in having a credible African voice that could explain Israeli perspectives to skeptical audiences precisely because it also conveys African concerns to Jerusalem.

This is not advocacy; it is honest brokerage born of genuine relationship. And it only works if the underlying partnership is substantive enough that Ghana has real equities to protect.

AEN: What are the risks if Israel does not pursue this approach?

Djokoto: Continued erosion, which serves no one's interests. International relations abhors a vacuum. If Israel does not invest seriously in African partnerships, others will—and are. But the deeper risk is that Israel forfeits influence in forums where African positions increasingly shape global norms and institutions.

The twenty-first century's balance of power will be significantly determined by African demographic weight, economic growth, and institutional participation. A nation that is isolated from this process, or perceived as hostile to African interests, diminishes its own strategic position fundamentally.

AEN: Is there precedent for this kind of focused partnership strategy?

Djokoto: History provides numerous examples of nations that understood continental influence emerges from depth rather than breadth. The question is always: which relationship, properly cultivated, creates the greatest demonstration effect? For Israel in Africa, given current realities, that relationship is Ghana.

But let me be clear: this succeeds only if approached with genuine commitment. Africans have extensive experience with nations that view the continent as an arena for influence games rather than as partners in mutual development. Another superficial engagement would be worse than none at all.

AEN: What would success look like a decade from now?

Djokoto: Agricultural partnerships that have measurably improved Ghana's food security while creating models replicable across the continent. Technological collaboration that has positioned Ghana as a West African innovation hub with Israeli partnership visible but not dominant. Educational exchanges that have created a generation of Ghanaian and Israeli professionals with deep understanding of each other's societies and challenges.

And most importantly: Ghana serving as a credible voice in African forums—not defending Israeli positions, but explaining them with the authority that comes from genuine partnership experience, while simultaneously ensuring Israeli policymakers understand African perspectives with similar nuance.

That would constitute success. Not agreement on everything, but sufficient mutual interest and respect that the relationship endures through inevitable political turbulence. Diplomacy's highest achievement is not the dramatic breakthrough—it is the durable structure that serves interests across generations.

AEN: Thank you, Mr. Djokoto.

Djokoto: The question now is whether Jerusalem recognizes the opportunity before it. In statecraft, as in finance, timing matters. The moment when a strategic investment yields maximum returns is precisely when it seems least urgent. Ghana is stable, democratic, and oriented toward development. These are the conditions under which partnerships should be built—not in crisis, but in anticipation of future challenges. Whether Israel possesses this foresight remains to be seen.