Is Nigeria waffling on AFRICOM?

Is Nigeria now planning to cooperate with AFRICOM, or waffling about a decision?

Recently, the minister of foreign affairs, Chief Ojo Maduekwe, briefed reporters on the latest position of Nigeria with regards to the US Africa Command (AFRICOM).

… Maduekwe said that Nigeria had examined the US proposals on AFRICOM and found them suitable for the survival of the nation, arguing further that Nigeria should not "maintain a cold war posture by exhibiting old communist anti-West stance".

…
… "many of the pundits who have been engaged in the strident debate on AFRICOM have failed somehow to come to terms with the fact that AFRICOM is no longer a matter of hypothetical conjecture, but a reality….. In other words, AFRICOM is already a fait accompli and what ought to be Nigeria or Africa’s major preoccupation at this point is how to parley and make the best of this new initiative….."

"In this regard", according to Ambassador Hart, "Nigeria ought to consider herself as a strong ally of the US and give AFRICOM the required cooperation....It is pertinent to mention that the chosen country (or countries if there will be mini-bases) will enjoy the lucrative economic benefits traditionally enjoyed by those countries that host American bases around the world…..It is believed that the African country that comes out to host AFRICOM will be better off in the end".

This sure sounds a lot like the "joke" that got McCain in trouble for a fundraiser hosted by

Clayton ‘Claytie’ Williams, a Texas oilman who joked about rape when running for governor in 1990. Williams had compared rape to the weather, saying, “If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it.” He later apologized.

If AFRICOM is inevitable, just relax, enjoy it, and take the money.

As Abba Mahmood, the author Still on AFRICOM in Leadership points out:

If President Yar'Adua is surrounded by a foreign minister who sees the AFRICOM issue not from the point of view of sovereignty but from the narrow perspective of a moribund ideology and a foreign affairs adviser who looks at the issue purely from short term economic gains of a few (pockets) without taking into consideration the long term security implications of exposing the country to sure terrorist attacks, then one does not have to wonder why Yar'Adua's position keeps oscillating between hypocritical neutrality and outright blind support for this dangerous enterprise.

The questions to be asked are: Will America contemplate establishing a military command in Africa to help the Africans?

Secondly, what military lessons can the US teach Africans in general and the Nigerian Armed Forces in particular?

Checkout the American military records: they were chased out of Somalia by a rag-tag militia under Clinton. They had to send UN troops, including Nigeria's, to that country to take charge in the early 1990s. The US invasion of Afghanistan is still inclusive as the president they imposed, Karzai, is in charge of only Kabul, the capital about six years after.

In Iraq, American troops are still battling the insurgents with many US casualties and billions of dollars in a lost cause. So, what will American soldiers teach our soldiers in this "long existing…..military relationship" that Maduekwe was referring to?

In comparison, the Nigerian Armed Forces have been excelling in all their international peacekeeping engagements around the world for almost five decades now. The Nigerian Armed Forces helped to stabilise our sister ECOWAS country of Liberia and even flushed out soldiers and reversed a coup in neighbouring Sierra Leone. In fact, the Gen. Malu- led ECOMOG in these two countries is still considered the finest peacekeeping model in the whole world!

And America may be a particularly weak reed to cling to right now, with an unpopular lame duck president who:

has so far brought untold hardship to his fellow citizens and made the whole world insecure by his military misadventures.

The US is not dealing from a position of strength:

Another issue is that the US is in decline economically. It is right now the largest debtor nation on earth. Investing in the US is now risky. Even oil transactions that were being done in dollars are now being diversified with many countries advocating for a basket of currencies due to the decline of dollar power. Real wages for the majority in the US have largely stagnated or declined and are now close to the lowest level among industrial societies.

The number of people who go hungry because they cannot afford to buy food rose to over 38 million in 2004 (12 percent of households) an increase of 7 million in the first five years of the Bush administration. How can we mortgage our interest to a power that is on terminal illness due to injustices perpetrated by their leaders across the world?

As Mahmood concludes:

If a nation cannot feed its population, it is not independent. Similarly, if a nation (or continent) cannot guarantee the security and territorial integrity of its area, then it is not sovereign.

Curse of the Black Gold - photos of 50 Years of Oil in the Niger Delta by Ed Kashi

A young girl walks across the NNPC (Nigerian National Petroleum) pipelines that run through her town, Okrika near Port Harcourt, 2006.

From Artdaily:

This summer George Eastman House International Museum of Photography and Film presents National Geographic photojournalist Ed Kashi’s images of oil exploitation in Africa’s Niger Delta, in the powerful exhibition Curse of the Black Gold: 50 Years of Oil in the Niger Delta. The display of 37 photographs, on view now through Sept. 1, takes a graphic look at the profound cost of oil exploitation in West Africa. The work traces, in an original and compelling way, the 50-year impact of Nigeria’s relationship to oil interests and the resulting environmental degradation and community conflicts that have plagued the region.

“This exhibition provides a visual inventory of the consequences of a half century of oil exploration and production in one of the world’s centers of biodiversity,” said Kashi, who photographed the region from 2004 to 2006. “These images expose the reality of oil’s impact and the absence of sustainable development left in its wake. My eyes and heart were opened and my anger and disgust were ignited. To tell this difficult but profoundly important geopolitical story in a visual way became the focus of my work.”

… While the Delta produces 95 percent of the country’s wealth, it is the poorest region in the nation. The first oil wellheads were tapped in 1958, and since then $500 billion worth of oil has been pumped out of the fertile ground and remote creeks of one of Africa’s largest deltas and the world's third largest wetland.

Oil production has caused devastating pollution to the Niger Delta due to the uninterrupted gas flaring and oil spillage. According to Kashi, these operations have destroyed the traditional livelihoods of the Niger Delta. Fishing and agriculture are no longer productive enough to feed the area and the residents are lacking schools, proper housing, and clean water.

“From a potential model nation, Nigeria has become a dangerous country, addicted to oil money, with people increasingly willing to turn to corruption, sabotage, and murder to get a fix of the wealth,” wrote Tom O’Neill, in the 2007 National Geographic article illustrated by Kashi’s images. “The cruelest twist is that half a century of oil extraction in the delta has failed to make the lives of the people better. Instead, they are poorer still, and hopeless.”

Even without Kashi’s powerful photographs, O’Neill’s words evoke images of despair: “Villages and towns cling to the banks, little more than heaps of mud-walled huts and rusty shacks. Groups of hungry, half-naked children and sullen, idle adults wander dirt paths. There is no electricity, no clean water, no medicine, no schools. Fishing nets hang dry; dugout canoes sit unused on muddy banks. Decades of oil spills, acid rain from gas flares, and the stripping away of mangroves for pipelines have killed off fish. Nigeria has been subverted by the very thing that gave it promise—oil.”

The exhibit at the George Eastman House starts today, June 14, and runs through September 1 2008. The museum is located in Rochester New York:
George Eastman House · 900 East Ave · Rochester, NY 14607 · 585-271-3361

Curse of the Black Gold is also available as a book you can purchase, or suggest your library purchase.

The text is written by Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka, plus prominent Nigerian journalists, human rights activists, and University of California at Berkeley professor Michael Watts.

From the description at Amazon:

Now one of the major suppliers of U.S. oil, Nigeria is the sixth largest producer of oil in the world. Set against a backdrop of what has been called the scramble for African oil, Curse of the Black Gold is the first book to document the consequences of a half-century of oil exploration and production in one of the world’s foremost centers of biodiversity. This book exposes the reality of oil’s impact and the absence of sustainable development in its wake, providing a compelling pictorial history of one of the world’s great deltaic areas. Accompanied by powerful writing by some of the most prominent public intellectuals and critics in contemporary Nigeria, Kashi’s photographs capture local leaders, armed militants, oil workers, and nameless villagers, all of whose fates are inextricably linked. His exclusive coverage bears witness to the ongoing struggles of local communities, illustrating the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty.

The Curse of the Black Gold book and exhibit add to the testimony that is finally coming forward about what the extraction of oil actually means, to people, and to the ecosystem.

Also look for the documentary film Sweet Crude.

Sweet Crude - oil in the Niger Delta

Sweet Crude is the story of Nigeria’s Niger Delta – a story that’s never been captured in a feature-length film.

Watch the preview over at the African Loft.

In April filmmaker Sandy Cioffi and crew were detained by the Nigerian military JTF while traveling in the Delta, and turned over to the Nigerian State Security Services. They were held without being charged, and without access to counsel. Thanks to international efforts, they were released a week later. It seems obvious there are those who do not want this story told.

From a user comment at the Internet Movie Database:

The film calls for nothing more radical than third-party-led negotiations between the locals and the oil companies so the presence of the latter benefits rather than harms the former. Watch for this documentary. It is going to be astounding, and terribly important. Also compelling is the incredible irresponsibility of big American media in reporting this story, essentially calling those who organize peacefully to defend the people of the Delta "terrorists."

Keep in mind:

80% of oil wealth is owned by 1% of the population;

70% of private wealth is abroad whilst

3/4 of the country live on about $1 a day -

at least 15 million of those live in the Niger Delta (link)

What's Next?
Sweet Crude is moving ahead on several fronts. We're back in the studio and will be finishing the film this summer. Meanwhile, we are seeking a distributor and entering festivals. We will also continue to advocate for political solutions with U.S. lawmakers. Many people have asked where they can see the film or how to get a copy. We will let you know as soon as we know – so sign up for our email list to stay informed.

MEND is not buying "humanitarian" for AFRICOM's mission

GULF OF GUINEA (March 18, 2008) Lt. Cmdr. Thomas Kait, executive officer of the amphibious dock landing ship USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43) teaches procedures for underway replenishment to Lt. Nsikan Friday and Lt. Mohamed Olanrewaju Zubair of the Nigerian Navy.
(U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class RJ Stratchko, 080318-N-8933S-016)

US Navy ships continue to ply the Gulf of Guinea. In mid April HSV Swift docked in Nigeria and conducted joint training with the Nigerian Navy. It was written up in the Vanguard:

The exercise to be conducted at the Western Naval Command's area of responsibility, will focus on the Automatic Identification System aimed at enhancing Nigerian Navy's capability to monitor vessel traffic in Nigerian waters.

The French Navy has been visiting Nigeria as well:

Abuja, Nigeria (April 16) - A French navy frigate is due in Nigeria Saturday on a five-day visit, just as a US warship arrived in the African nation for a week-long 'transiting' visit, PANA reported. The French warship - AVISO NAVY LIEUTENANT LE HENAFF - will arrive the commercial city of Lagos 26 April, and will conduct joint training exercises with the Nigerian Navy (NN).

Earlier on Monday, US warship HSV SWIFT arrived Nigeria for a visit tagged "transiting the Gulf of Guinea." The ship has already commenced a joint training exercise with the NN.

MEND's response has been to escalate their activities:

Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, (MEND) has warned oil companies working along the coastal region of Nigeria to be ready for war, just as it said the military was not in a position to protect them.
…
"MEND will offer materials such as explosives to communities that have now realised that it is better to destroy oil facilities in their territory since they do not benefit them in the first place.

And they made their intentions and opinions quite clear:

"On Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 2230 hours, commandos from the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), sabotaged a major Shell Petroleum Company pipeline at Adamakiri in Rivers State of Nigeria. That pipeline crosses from the Cawthorn channel to Bonny," the group said in an e-mail signed by Jomo Gbomo and sent to journalists.

The group also said it provided logistics to the group that attacked a Chevron facility in Delta State on Thursday.

Regarding the Naval visits MEND said in the statement signed by Jomo Gbomo:

“Today's attack was prompted by the continuous injustice in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria where the root issues have not been addressed …
…
Then finally, to show our way of saying "welcome" to the US Naval warship, USS Swift which is transiting the Gulf of Guinea.
…
“Mr president, your warships do not intimidate us. Instead they only embolden our resolve in fighting the Goliaths of the world that support injustice.
…
“We have nothing to loose because he that is down need fear no fall. Our waters and farms have been polluted by oil companies with double standards. Our girls are raped by soldiers of the Nigerian army with impunity and protesting youths are assaulted and killed daily. Even journalists from your country can not visit the region to report the truth without being arrested and embarrassed.

In an rational world the parties involved would be attempting to work towards a political solution. As Adam Wolfe writes in his blog, in a post titled AFRICOM cannot MEND the Delta:

Now some might try to make the argument that MEND is really just made up of "dead-enders" and greater US cooperation in patrolling the area would bring stability to the region. But wouldn't a political solution to the Delta region be better than an intensification of the asymmetrical warfare between a larger patrol force (trained by the US) and MEND?

And asymmetrical warfare is what AFRICOM is setting up to engage.

The new energy world order

Graphic: yellow is demand, green supply.

Asia Times just published the article The rise of the new energy world order by Michael T Klare. Klare writes:

The combination of rising demand, the emergence of powerful new energy consumers, and the contraction of the global energy supply is demolishing the energy-abundant world we are familiar with and creating in its place a new world order. Think of it as rising powers/shrinking planet.


This new world order will be characterized by fierce international competition for dwindling stocks of oil, natural gas, coal and uranium, as well as by a tidal shift in power and wealth from energy-deficit states like China, Japan and the United States to energy-surplus states like Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. In the process, the lives of everyone will be affected in one way or another - with poor and middle-class consumers in the energy-deficit states experiencing the harshest effects. That's most of us and our children, in case you hadn't quite taken it in.


Here, in a nutshell, are five key forces in this new world order which will change our planet:

• Intense competition between older and newer economic powers for available supplies of energy.

Until very recently, the mature industrial powers of Europe, Asia and North America consumed the lion's share of energy and left the dregs for the developing world. . . . But that ratio is changing . . .
. . .
In this new stage of energy competition, the advantages long enjoyed by Western energy majors has been eroded by vigorous, state-backed upstarts from the developing world.

• The insufficiency of primary energy supplies.

By all accounts, the global supply of oil will expand for perhaps another half decade before reaching a peak and beginning to decline, while supplies of natural gas, coal and uranium will probably grow for another decade or two before peaking and commencing their own inevitable declines. In the meantime, global supplies of these existing fuels will prove incapable of reaching the elevated levels demanded.
. . .
. . . So expect global energy shortages and high prices to be a constant source of hardship.

• The painfully slow development of energy alternatives.

. . . alternatives, which now contribute only a tiny percentage of the world's net fuel supply, are simply not being developed fast enough to avert the multifaceted global energy catastrophe that lies ahead.
. . .
In global warming terms, the implications are nothing short of catastrophic: Rising reliance on coal (especially in China, India and the United States) means that global emissions of carbon dioxide are projected to rise by 59% over the next quarter-century, from 26.9 billion metric tons to 42.9 billion tons. The meaning of this is simple. If these figures hold, there is no hope of averting the worst effects of climate change.


When it comes to global energy supplies, the implications are nearly as dire. To meet soaring energy demand, we would need a massive influx of alternative fuels, which would mean equally massive investment - in the trillions of dollars - to ensure that the newest possibilities move rapidly from laboratory to full-scale commercial production; but that, sad to say, is not in the cards.


Instead, the major energy firms (backed by lavish US government subsidies and tax breaks) are putting their mega-windfall profits from rising energy prices into vastly expensive (and environmentally questionable) schemes . . .

• A steady migration of power and wealth from energy-deficit to energy-surplus nations:

In the case of oil and natural gas, the major energy-surplus states can be counted on two hands. Ten oil-rich states possess 82.2% of the world's proven reserves. In order of importance, they are: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Russia, Libya, Kazakhstan and Nigeria. The possession of natural gas is even more concentrated. Three countries - Russia, Iran and Qatar - harbor an astonishing 55.8% of the world supply. All of these countries are in an enviable position to cash in on the dramatic rise in global energy prices and to extract from potential customers whatever political concessions they deem important.

The transfer of wealth alone is already mind-boggling.
. . .
Russia is now the world's leading supplier of natural gas, the second largest supplier of oil and a major producer of coal and uranium. Though many of these assets were briefly privatized during the reign of Boris Yeltsin, President Vladimir Putin has brought most of them back under state control - in some cases by exceedingly questionable legal means.

• A growing risk of conflict.

Will energy-deficit states launch campaigns to wrest the oil and gas reserves of surplus states from their control - the George W Bush administration's war in Iraq might already be thought of as one such attempt or to eliminate competitors among their deficit-state rivals?

The high costs and risks of modern warfare are well known and there is a widespread perception that energy problems can best be solved through economic means, not military ones. Nevertheless, the major powers are employing military means in their efforts to gain advantage in the global struggle for energy, and no one should be deluded on the subject.
. . .
One conspicuous use of military means in the pursuit of energy is obviously the regular transfer of arms and military-support services by the major energy-importing states to their principal suppliers. Both the United States and China, for example, have stepped up their deliveries of arms and equipment to oil-producing states like Angola, Nigeria and Sudan in Africa and, in the Caspian Sea basin, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The United States has placed particular emphasis on suppressing the armed insurgency in the vital Niger Delta region of Nigeria, where most of the country's oil is produced; Beijing has emphasized arms aid to Sudan, where Chinese-led oil operations are threatened by insurgencies in both the South and Darfur.
. . .

In this new world order, energy will govern our lives in new ways and on a daily basis. It will determine when, and for what purposes, we use our cars; how high (or low) we turn our thermostats; when, where, or even if, we travel; increasingly, what foods we eat (given that the price of producing and distributing many meats and vegetables is profoundly affected by the cost of oil or the allure of growing corn for ethanol); for some of us, where to live; for others, what businesses we engage in; for all of us, when and under what circumstances we go to war or avoid foreign entanglements that could end in war.

This leads to a final observation: the most pressing decision facing the next president and Congress may be how best to accelerate the transition from a fossil-fuel-based energy system to a system based on climate-friendly energy alternatives.

I recommend you read the entire article. This is the world we are living in. Voting, and how we vote in each and every election where we can vote is critical. These facts do not bode well for democracy anywhere.

Henry Okah - guerrilla entrepreneur

John Robb has an article up on Henry Okah over at Global Guerrillas.

Henry is a burly man who speaks with a cultured British accent, a consequence of his upper class upbringing and his education in Nigeria's private school system. His mind is another interesting combination: the discipline of engineering, gained through his experience as an engineer in Nigeria's merchant marine, and the believability of a successful salesman that used to sell handguns for personal protection door to door. In short, it is a combination of attributes that made him the perfect guerrilla entrepreneur. Since he moved with his family to the relative safety of South Africa in 2003, Henry was able to accomplish the following. He:

• amassed a personal fortune through arms sales and oil bunkering in the Niger delta.
• was able to orchestrate the shutdown of over a half a million barrels a day of Nigerian/Shell oil production for over two years, with a total market value of $29 billion -- a major reason why the global price of oil is currently over $100 a barrel today.
• pioneered aspects of a system of warfare that will plague nation-states and their corporate allies for decades.

. . .
Henry, energized by the grinding poverty he saw when he visited his family's ancestral village in the Delta, sought to reverse this flow: away from the capital and the oil companies and into the hands of the people of the Delta. However, in order to do this, Henry had to innovate with warfare.

. . .
. . . the innovations he pioneered will live on in the following ways:

• Superempowerment. Henry is a global demonstration of what a superempowered individual can do in warfare . . .
• Emergence. Henry established a funded open source war . . .
• Systems Disruption It proves that the disruption of systems, rather than mass casualty attacks, can create a global brand for a militant organization . . .

Follow this link to read the full article.

The African Loft will be posting an article on Okah shortly, I'll link it when it goes up.

Yar'Adua in China, riots in Cameroon

President Umaru Yar'Adua met with China's Hu Jintao in Beijing to discuss oil and other economic agreements.

Details of the deals signed were not immediately available.
. . .

Trade between Nigeria and China reached 3.13 billion dollars in 2006, up from 1.1 billion dollars in 2001, according to the latest data from China's commerce ministry.

Aside from oil deals with Nigeria, China has helped the country build railways and hydroelectric dams, while last year it launched a telecommunications satellite for the nation.

Chinese media last month also reported that state-controlled China Development Bank was in talks to buy a five-billion-dollar stake in Nigeria-based United Bank for Africa.

In Cameroon there were riots over fuel prices in the port city of Douala and around the country. In addition to fuel prices, many people were angry that:

(President) Biya announced eight weeks ago he might change the constitution to stay in power when his term ends in 2011. Critics say Biya, 75, could use his party's majority in parliament to make the constitutional modifications.
. . .
"Biya has gone too far, he must go," shouted one demonstrator in Yaounde.

Others chanted: "We're fed up".

The USS Fort McHenry, AFRICOM's African Partnership Station, is in the neighborhood in Cameroon training and partnering with the Cameroonian military. This training could be just in time to help "stabilize" the situation in Cameroon. On whose behalf might potential "stability operations" be engaged?


Back in the United States, Immanuel Wallerstein writes a note of cautious optimism about the possibility of an Obama presidency.

Outbidding the west

By LEANDER SCHAERLAECKENS
UPI Correspondent
BRUSSELS, Feb. 1 (UPI) -- China's growth and close economic ties with Africa are affecting the ability of the United States and the European Union to influence politics on the continent, experts say.

Europe became aware of its new secondary role in Africa during the latest round of trade negotiations at the EU-Africa summit last month. The EU, which had grown accustomed to getting what it wants from Africa, was fiercely rebuffed by the majority of African nations that refused the terms proposed by the European Commission.

The reason African countries could now stand up to their former colonizers was an alternative and more attractive Chinese market, which has been offering African countries better prices and more investment.

"China's own economic growth has allowed it, and forced it, to accelerate engagement with Africa pretty much across the board in a way that the EU and the U.S. just don't," said Fredrik Erixon, director of the European Center for International Political Economy, an economic think tank in Brussels.
. . .
Africa supplies a third of China's oil, and trade between China and Africa has risen by 6,000 percent since 1990, according to Erixon.
. . .
"The EU most certainly overplayed its hand in trade negotiations," Erixon said. "They pushed Africa into China's hands. They just asked for too much. They demanded reforms from African nations that they would never be able to do."
. . .
China's dispensing of soft loans to Africa makes it easy to plummet the continent back into the debt crisis that it's just starting to crawl out of. "A buildup of new debt and a new debt crisis could occur one or two decades down the road," Erixon said.
. . .
"There's at the margin some erosion of U.S. economic leverage because China is a new alternative market," Setser said. "When it comes to bidding on the right to develop Africa's oil fields Africa will sell it to the highest bidders and it will have no qualms of going to Chinese companies instead of EU or U.S. ones."

The Chinese oil companies routinely overpay in order to secure oil fields, according to Setser. "Growing exports from Africa to China might interfere with exports from Africa to Europe," Erixon said.

Some are saying Angola may surpass Nigeria as Africa's biggest oil producer soon, especially since militant political activists and guerilla entrepreneurs in the Delta have cut Nigerian production by around 25%. This is not good news for the west. The US past involvement in Angola's civil war, and actions that helped prolong that war an extra 10 years give the US very little leverage when dealing with Angola.

I've wondered about the debt issue. The west has used debt as a weapon to keep developing countries weak and dependent. Will the Chinese loans do the same?

The Chinese do not care about good governance and human rights, so long as the projects get done and the goods delivered. Of course the west has mostly paid minimal lip service to good governance and human rights, tolerating and supporting ruthless dictators and extreme horrors if the deal is right and corporate interests advantaged.

The Chinese prefer to bring in Chinese workers, so they are not helping much with creating jobs in the countries where they operate. This causes resentment. And flooding those countries with cheap subsidized goods, particularly textiles, clothing and shoes, are putting local manufacturing out of business, or preventing it from getting established. It was distressing to me that the textiles bought for the Ghana@50 celebrations in 2007 were bought from China, and not from Ghanaian textile and clothing producers. Ghana has beautiful textiles.

Nigeria and the US have generally had fairly good relations. And now Yar'Adua is calling for one of the goals of AFRICOM, partnering with African militaries:

01/02/2008 12:40 ABUJA, Feb 1 (AFP)

Nigeria seeks joint security force in oil-rich Gulf of Guinea

Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua has called for a joint security force in the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea amid an upsurge in violence in the Niger Delta, a presidential statement said Friday.

"The establishment of the Gulf of Guinea Guard Force will address emerging security concerns at the region", the statement quoted Yar'Adua as saying during talks with Equatorial Guinean President Obiang Nguema Mbasogo in Addis Ababa.

Both leaders met on the sidelines of the ongoing African Union summit in the Ethiopian capital, the statement said.

Yar'Adua called for a meeting of members of the Gulf of Guinea Commission to approve the modalities for setting up the force.

The commission comprises Nigeria, Angola, Cameroon, Republic of Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Democratic Republic of Congo and Sao Tome and Principe.

Yar'Adua said he discussed the proposed force with US President George W. Bush during his recent visit to the United States and hoped that Washington would assist with training and logistics.

The statement said Mbasogo raised security concerns in the volatile Niger Delta with Yar'Adua, who assured him of his government's resolve to stem the unrest and criminality in the region.

The Niger Delta has seen an upsurge in violence in the past two years as militant gangs renewed their attacks on oil facilities and personnel, slashing Nigeria's daily output by a quarter.

Rawlings speaks on African democracy

ADDRESS OF H.E. JERRY JOHN RAWLINGS AT THE 5th ANNUAL TRUST DIALOGUE
TOPIC: THE CHALLENGES OF DEMOCRACY IN AFRICA
ABUJA, 17TH JANUARY, 2008

(excerpts)

. . . a serious study of the history of traditional governance on the continent confirms that democratic ideas are not new to Africa, and that the majority of precolonial systems of traditional governance in Africa had, and in many cases still have, strong democratic elements. The pre-colonial contact with Europeans and the colonial period itself rather disrupted the old systems in many ways, and have left behind situations which are the root causes of many of today’s problems.

. . .
. . . for the purposes of this presentation and in the interest of brevity, let me place the challenges into the following general groups:

• Political challenges
• The challenges of African Political Leadership, and
• Economic and social challenges.

Political Challenges

Most of our peoples have already noticed that the new system of governance is being severely tested by the lack of good faith in certain leaders and administrations. What is more, it is clear that some of those very politicians who gained leadership positions as a result of the strict adherence to the norms of democracy are now, and at the end of their tenures, the very people trying to corrupt the democratic system of governance because of a selfish lust for power and money.
. . .
A second political challenge is how to avoid the politics of exclusion and the creation of a society of unequals. The ‘winner takes all’ mentality that we have inherited from the Westminster and other systems of western democracy . . .

This form of challenge has manifested itself in a number of countries, mine included, when an in-coming leader and his ministers have resorted to the vilification of the previous leader and his government and the purging of the military and civil services in the bid to garner support and loyalty for their style of governance. This conduct is particularly deleterious and contributes to political tension that eventually polarises the country because it needlessly excludes important actors and sows the seed of division or polarisation in society.
. . .
A third form of challenge to democracy in Africa is the refusal of governments to adhere to the ‘Good Governance’ Agenda. We are all aware that for democracy to succeed, there must necessarily be a role for the opposition, decentralization must also be equitable, the media must be assisted to be free, pluralistic and independent, civil society organisations must have the unfettered freedom to operate and lastly, there must be a strong commitment to anti-corruption. In all these areas, we have seen leaders fail badly as the opposition is openly hounded and denied any significant role in governance, as leaders have themselves become absolutely steeped in corruption and opulent life-styles, as the powers that be refuse to prosecute corrupt Ministers especially, as the purchase of the loyalty and bias of a large section of the press erodes the rights of opponents and as the use of radio stations to attack opponents is sanctioned in the hope of making opponents unpopular over time, and as decentralisation is destroyed by targeting districts and ethnic areas for discrimination. . . . African women still hang precariously on the lower rungs of the political ladder, in spite of many constitutions and United Nations resolutions urging all countries to pay attention to their status and roles. The youth continue to be largely illiterate, unemployed and disillusioned, and ethnic minorities continue to live in fear and obvious disadvantage.

These are political challenges that we ignore to our own detriment.

Challenges of Political Leadership

The lapses in the practice of democracy in Africa can be attributed to many factors, both internal and external to our respective countries, but there is the unquestionable evidence that the lapses are mainly as a result of bad political leadership. At the top of this failure of leadership is the scant respect that many of our leaders have for constitution and constitutionalism. The ease with which extra terms of office are pursued by certain leaders and the ruthless manner in which the illegal or unconstitutional objective is pursued has made this failing particularly objectionable and attributable to failed leadership.

A second challenge to African leadership is the tendency of leadership to foster ethnic or tribal ascendancy in political parties, the military and security situations. And so we are beginning to witness the creation of ethnic crimes and civil services. This deplorable tendency is one of the bagagges of our colonial period, when our peoples were not only identified in ethnic or tribal groups but also when in a number of colonial territories but certain tribes were preferred to others.
. . .
Perhaps the most current of leadership failures on the African continent is the manipulation of election results, described variously as ‘rigged election’ or ‘sham elections’ or ‘stolen verdict’. . . . Democracy is not only the observance of certain norms and traditions; its first requirement is the upholding of the integrity of the electoral process itself. An inseparable collateral to the respect of the electoral process is the assurance of a peaceful and constitutional transition from one government to another. As a leader whose political party has tasted defeat at the polls before, I can say that there should be nothing to fear in losing an election and therefore there should also be no need to tamper with the rotational principle in good governance.
. . .
I would be remiss in my responsibility toward our continent and its people if I fail to also draw attention to the unpalatable truth that more often than not, such deviant political behaviour is prompted and encouraged by certain outside powers who, for their own selfish national interest, prefer one African leader to another. It is a more daunting challenge as this patronising attitude of outside powers is more often than not predicated on the conscious corruption of leaders and the playing upon the abject poverty and ignorance of our people. . . . We must, Ladies and Gentlemen, strengthen our resolve to do away with such plain criminality in order to strengthen good governance in all parts of Africa.

Economic and Social Challenges

. . . democracy will not survive for long unless the mass of our people are introduced to significant economic prosperity. The failure of a large number of African economies in the first three decades of their independence showed all of us that the economy is also doomed to failure if such internal and external mismanagement of the economy is not brought to an end and reform, based on certain demonstrable capacities of leadership, is immediately substituted. The first challenge of that economic goal is therefore the achievement of economic self reliance and independence.
. . .
The second economic and social challenge to democracy on our continent is the lack of efficient attention to our non-existent or poor economic and social infrastructure. The building of roads, railways, harbours, and communication as well as the rehabilitation of dams, electricity plants, water systems etc continue to be of top priority for all of us. The reason why only a few are able to emerge out of this particular difficulty is the pervasive and debilitating nature of corruption which make those involved see this need only in terms of what is in it for themselves. The erstwhile 10 percent syndrome of corrupt countries has now turned into an evil partnership between African administrations and representatives of developed country donors to short-change an already poor people. While it is also true that the all-too-evident shortfall in human capacity is also part of the challenge, I have come to the painful conclusion that corruption and political apathy are the main culprits in the slow progress at the provision of the infrastructure necessary for the development of African countries.__ . . .

Another critical challenge at this point in time is the absence of economic cohesion among African states when it comes to confronting the developed economic organisations, cartels and the chief controllers of the changing patterns of world trade.__ . . .

The challenge facing the continent here is to develop the economic and technical skills and the adequate human resource for negotiating with the developed world at the World Trade and other fora. Unless we show a collective resolve in negotiations, our future will continue to be decided by those who are in the race for the fast dwindling resources of our planet.

The last economic challenge to the survival of democracy in Africa which I wish to draw attention to in this presentation is the lack of resolve to empower certain important economic actors in the various countries.__ . . . There is no alternative to the economic empowerment of the masses through an investment directly in their collective abilities to produce and market. African governments must ensure the survival of their citizens by appropriate administrative, medical and economic policy interventions. Our peoples must of course live and enjoy good health in order to produce. They must be paid living wages and not wage that will put more money in the pockets of those who are already comparatively well- off. What is more, leaders must adopt economic policies that will teach the lesson that work pays as opposed to glorifying corruption.

Conclusion

In trying to find out why democratic governance is not working as well as intended, I have proffered certain reasons which I deem important, even critical, in our endeavour to succeed. The reasons are by no means exhaustive but have been advanced to assist the dialogue that is on-going on the matter. But, perhaps more importantly, let me advance a few ideas that I feel will assist in meeting the political, economic and social challenges. In so doing, it is not my intention to pontificate but rather to instigate discussions among our own peoples as to how to overcome the difficulties challenging us all.

In the first place, I believe that we must persevere and even fast-track the building of those institutions that will promote democracy and economic betterment on our continent. Our laws and institutions such as Parliament, the Judiciary and the Civil Service must be so reformed and strengthened as to make them extremely difficult to be subverted by politicians and political leaders. We must strengthen the judiciary and anti-corruption units in our countries so as to enable them join meaningfully in the anti-corruption war. Secondly, African countries need to develop the systems that will hold their leadership to accountability without fear or favour. This comes from strengthening institutions such as the opposition, parliament, auditing bodies and the general public to be able to ask questions and demand answers.

. . . Thirdly, it is also important that Africans undergo an attitudinal change towards leadership that does not meet their expectations. Unless the citizens learn to boldly reject fraud and criminality in leaders, wrong-doing will persist.

. . .
Fourthly, we need to co-operate among states in confronting corruption and waging war on other lapses. The continued existence and prospering of many of these challenges in one another’s country gives support and nourishment to the lapses themselves. In this regard, the example of the holding of today’s dialogue is a fitting lesson on how to begin the exchange of ideas and the subsequent determination of how African countries should find strength in cooperation against such the challenges as posed by outside powers. But above all, we must respect ourselves, for without this self esteem and respect for one another, we cannot teach any lessons to those who suffer from tyrants, incompetent leaders and economic exploiters. I hope we are successful in achieving these aims.

I thank you for your kind attention.



Read the entire speech here.

Gazprom in Nigeria?

There is an article at the African Loft, Should Nigeria Welcome Gazprom?, the Russian oil company. Recently the Financial Times reported that Gazprom was making overtures to Nigerian government officials about developing gas fields in Nigeria.

The article provides some good information and analysis, including:

What about Gazprom? What does it have to offer? The Financial Times report (referred to in the first paragraph of this write up) provides next to nothing on this, though it quotes a Nigerian government official as saying:

“What Gazprom is proposing is mind boggling. They are talking tough and saying the west has taken advantage of us in the last 50 years and they’re offering us a better deal.”
. . .
Gazprom, like any other energy conglomerate, is simply strategically positioning itself for global growth beyond the shores of Eurasia.
. . .
Gazprom doesn’t really need Nigerian gas. . . . But Gazprom needs access to strategically positioned gas. As a significant player in the global LNG business and with Africa’s largest gas reserves, Nigeria seems a good place to start. Gazprom would not go into Nigeria to save it from the perils of western oil multinationals. It would go there for business and strategic reasons. Forget the east-west jargon.

And I am sure Gazprom would be as exploitive as it could be, as exploitive as any other multinational corporation. There is no history that would indicate otherwise.

Criminal Politics from Human Rights Watch

Criminal Politics: Violence, “Godfathers” and Corruption in Nigeria

I ran across a blog that was new to me that has some interesting things to say:
ijebuman's diary: The online ramblings of an Ijebu man in London
I found what he has to say interesting, and his style entertaining.

His post Criminal Politics - a report by HRW took me to this October 2007 report: Human Rights Watch has released an extensive report on the political situation in Nigeria, called Criminal Politics: Violence, “Godfathers” and Corruption in Nigeria, click here for the Pdf version

I've been reading in the report, and it does not paint a promising picture. Most of the governors are utterly corrupt and unaccountable to anyone. The youth are being manipulated and betrayed by their leadership. Just one example of this betrayal is youth training and employment programs being used to pay young men to act as political thugs on behalf of politicians. Considering the fact that a number of US Department of Defense and Pentagon planners consider Nigeria well on the way to being a failed state, and these same planners want Nigeria's oil, prospects for the future are doubly discouraging. There has even been talk about redrawing African borders, and this from people who went into Iraq without knowing there is a difference between Sunni and Shia.

AFRICOM is already hanging around offshore, and partnering in the neighborhood. The HRW report makes a number of excellent recommendations, but it is hard to see how they might be implemented. There are a number of people in Nigeria who would like to turn the corruption around. But too many of the people who have the power and authority to do it, are enriched and advantaged by corruption. There may be some hope with the courts, which the report indicates are still for the most part trying to do their jobs. But courts alone can't do it because their activities are by nature largely reactive. The situation also needs proactive measures.


Another post lists suggestions for How to keep your job (Naija style), which, with some slight alterations, applies just as well to all the corrupt and criminal cronies around Bush. I've certainly seen US versions of all 10 of these ploys in the news. I've copied some below. Substitute "the United States" for "Nigeria", and there are only slight differences.

So you've been caught with your hands in the till (or in this case indicted for not following due process by awarding a contract to an unregistered company run by one of your aides).
No worries, here are a few tips on how to save your job;

1. The best form of defence is an attack, start by turning the tables on your opponents by accusing them of similar crimes.

2. Play the victim. Claim you've been set up and you know nothing about the allegations.

3. Employ a powerful Godfather to apply pressure on those in power
. . .
6. Employ Spiritual methods. Call on all pastors and imams to pray for you and Nigeria. If you attend a Pentecostal church, you can organise night vigils, prayer requests or make a large donation to your pastor to ensure he is on your case 24/7.
. . .
9. Set up a fictional group called "concerned citizens of Nigeria", get the "group" to put out a full page ad in the news papers claiming there is a conspiracy against you. They should also list your "accomplishments" and declare you're the best ***** Nigeria ever had.

10. Employ good old "shakara". Declare that "it's God's will" that you got to your current position and by "God's grace" no one can remove you

.

Corruption - removing Ribadu from Nigeria's EFCC

Malam Nuhu Ribadu

Corruption presents huge dangers for Nigeria. Some in the US, in the Pentagon and the Department of Defense, already view Nigeria as a failed state. And they are also talking about redrawing boundaries in Africa. This is imperialism at its most aggressive. AFRICOM is designed to accomplish these plans, mostly by indoctrinating and enlisting African militaries to do the work for the US. China is using economic techniques, but both China and the US are after Nigerian oil and resources. The most effective way for Nigeria to consolidate its power, and resist the latest colonial aggression, would be to actively and sincerely fight corruption at home. Such a battle won't be won overnight, but it must at least be engaged, so that the Nigerian people have some control over their government. Malam Nuhu Ribadu appears to have been engaged in this battle.

Wole Soyinka has written a passionate lament on the removal of Ribadu as head of the Nigerian Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the EFCC. He writes of political power in Nigeria:

. . . power derives from corruption which in turn fuels and guarantees power . . . The tree of democracy cannot thrive on the compost of corruption.
. . .
. . . it is the ruling party itself, the PDP, that continues to suffocate the nation in its folds of corruption . . . (it is) the very quagmire of corruption, nurtured on corruption, sustained by corruption and dependent on corruption for its very survival.

Let all sophistry be abandoned - the removal of Nuhu Ribadu is not about the removal of one individual. . . . The timing, when viewed with the recent call to re-open the case-files of unsolved political murders, will be regarded as a coincidence only by starry-eyed innocents from space – good luck to them. Those of us who have the slightest knowledge of behind-the-scenes manipulations since the trail of detection moved ever closer to the very apex of governance under the past regime, know that the nation was being brought closer and closer to the dismantling of one of the most sinister and corrupt governance machines that this nation has ever confronted – including even the incontinent reign of Sanni Abacha.

Ribadu's removal is therefore not an individual predicament . . . The issue is that an effective agency has been tampered with, unnecessarily, but with transparent motivations that constitute an assault on the corporate integrity of the nation.

There is more, but I think these lines capture the heart of his message.

Imnakoya at Grandiose Parlor writes:

I’m speechless! This must be a joke!

Despite the EFCC lapses, Ribadu is one of the best officers (if not the best) in the Nigerian Police Force. Despite overwhelming influences from the powerful political community, he has done what can best imagined in Nigeria - fighting corruption.

If this ill-timed study leave indeed marks Ribadu’s exit, I can only hope that his replacement finds the courage to continue the fight.

Soyinka is absolutely correct when he writes the tree of democracy cannot thrive on the compost of corruption. Here in the United States we are beginning to see the destruction of democracy by an interwoven web of corruption. At a minimum, democracy means a majority of the people have a say in how they are governed, and how the monies of government are spent. Corruption turns those decisions over to a few people and corporate interests trading power and money.

But these views of Ribadu are somewhat different from the views in the story I quoted previously by Tony Eluemunor:

Nigerians may not know it but the man Obasanjo used to ram in support for his failed third term bid and in getting the last April polls to go his way, Nuhu Ribadu, has become active again in advancing pro-Obasanjo plans.
. . .
Ribadu’s used his anti-corruption agency to discredit Obasanjo’s political enemies ahead of the April 2007 elections but his sins are now forgotten. He had produced reports indicting dozens of politicians, who were opposed to Obasanjo’s Third Term bid, and which INEC acted upon to bar such persons from contesting the elections.

Courts have been reversing such decisions in ruling after ruling. To show that INEC was insincere, scarcely any of those so barred from the polls have been prosecuted six months after.

There is more there, and it is worth a look. These things said, there are numerous possible explanations. As to the failed prosecutions, at first it looks like the actions of the Gonzales Dept. of Justice in the US, who forced US Attorneys around the country to prosecute Democrats running for office before the 2004 elections. Most of those prosecutions were later dropped or abandoned as without merit or evidence. They were a tool to discredit opposition candidates.

However, prosecutions may be dropped for corrupt reasons, rather than lack of evidence, because of threats or bribes to judges and prosecutors, as Soyinka says has occurred. The state governors are often the nexus of corruption in Nigeria.

So is Ribadu an anti-corruption hero? Is he a fixer for Obasanjo? He is certainly a hero in the eyes of many citizens of Nigeria, and to some, the last best hope against corruption. It is very difficult to advance in a corrupt system without participating in corruption. It is still possible to want to change things and to try to clean them up. He made enemies in the police force as well, both with prosecutions, and because his successes made the police look incompetent or corrupt.

The Daily Trust has a long article discussing the removal of Ribadu, Nigeria: The Coup Against Nuhu Ribadu, and discusses the story from a number of different angles. It concludes:

Hate him or like him, no one can deny the fact Ribadu brought in a commitment that has been unsurpassed in the history of the country in the fight against sleaze and combating the evils of financial and economic crimes in Nigeria. There may be truth in fears expressed in some quarters that the sacking of Ribadu may serve as the epilogue to anti-corruption crusade but the government should move in to assuage frayed nerves by appointing a committed person that is capable of continuing where Ribadu stopped.

As General Buhari once declared, the fight against corruption is not a tea party. Ribadu himself has said that his agency's commitment to prosecute powerful men and women engaged in sleaze has led to the killings of some of his officers. The dusk is closing in for a man who gave all to cleanse the country of rot. The bigger challenge is finding a man who will take over in this crucial period in the anti-graft fight that has led to the killing of some EFCC operatives. And anyone coming to take over from Ribadu must be ready to take up this challenge.

Nigeria's political dangers and Yar'Adua's changing position on AFRICOM

Policemen keeping the peace stops and searches youths on the Buguma Road in Ogbakiri, about 50 kilometres from the oil city of Port Harcourt in the Niger Delta: Armed groups have been demanding autonomy and greater control over oil resources in the Niger Delta.

Tony Eluemunor has written a fascinating summary of the current Nigerian political situation with his article Nigeria faces a tunnel at the end of the light. Conflict is increasing in the Delta region, and seems to be expanding, as this report would indicate. There are more violent actions, and more threats of violent action.

As Eluemunor reports, Yar'Adua's election is still under a challenge that may succeed. If the challenge is successful, Nigeria's constititution may not be up to the resulting situation.

So far, tribunals have invalidated the elections of five state governors.
. . .
It is expected that over 26 of Nigeria’s 36 state governors will be thrown out by the tribunals over election rigging, thus giving a judicial approval to the widely held belief that the polls were flawed.

The presidential election could also be invalidated. The President could remain in office, or the Senate President might temporarily take over. If the election is invalidated, the constitution mandates a new election must be held within three months.

This time frame would be the real source of the danger. A large percentage of Nigerians have no faith in the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) leadership, which has been roundly condemned for conducting the worst election in modern times, to handle the expected presidential elections. This mistrust is buttressed by the fact it has been demonstrated that the INEC chief was sponsored into that sensitive position by Uba, a former aide to Obasanjo, whose election as Anambra State Governor lasted for only three weeks.
. . . An updated voters’ register is long overdue and its preparation will certainly take more than 90 days.
. . .
There is also the possibility of having an interim national government, which the Obasanjo camp is waiting for as is the former military president Ibrahim Babangida’s group.

Yar'Adua faces opposition within his own, and from opposition political parties. His own party may oppose him as candidate. The opposition is gearing up. And Obasanjo is still manuvering for legislation that would allow him a third term.

Nigerians may not know it but the man Obasanjo used to ram in support for his failed third term bid and in getting the last April polls to go his way, Nuhu Ribadu, has become active again in advancing pro-Obasanjo plans. Ribadu is the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) chairman.
. . .
Ribadu’s used his anti-corruption agency to discredit Obasanjo’s political enemies ahead of the April 2007 elections . . . To show that INEC was insincere, scarcely any of those so barred from the polls have been prosecuted six months after.

(Sounds a bit likes Bush's Department of Justice trying to indict Democrats before the 2004 election.)

In the Delta the Navy says it is preparing to handle the insurgency in the country’s Niger Delta region because the region had become more complex for ordinary security agencies to manage.
. . .
The belligerence in the area was being subdued when on September 3, Henry Okah a kingpin in the Niger Delta insurgency and his seafaring companion, Captain Edward Atata were arrested in Angola for alleged gun running. Okah became prominent two years ago when he demanded the release of two Ijaws then facing trial – former Bayelsa Governor Diepriye Alamaiseye and Asari Dokubo, head of the Niger Delta Volunteer Force.

When the two men were released, Okah announced that MEND would unilaterally cease hostilities for a while to allow the newly elected Yar’Adua time to settle down and work on his electoral promises. Thus, while other armed Delta militias degenerated into hostage-taking and were being denounced as mere criminals, MEND remained above that recrimination and even threatened to join government forces in ending the hostage-menace.
Okah’s arrest in Angola has derailed the rapprochement between MEND and the government that had been achieved after President Yar’Adua’s inauguration in May 2007.
. . .
The Delta insurgency looks certain to become worse next year as the MEND accuses the government of conniving with Angola to arrest Okah. However, Yar’Adua’s request that Angola should extradite Okah to face trial in Nigeria is bound to keep the MEND belligerence in check, at least until it becomes clear whether the government would jail Okah or release him to appease to the people of the Niger Delta.
But as things are, even if Okah were allowed to walk away a free man on his return from Angola, there would be a new cause for concern with the rivalry between two militant groups in the delta escalating into a turf war.
This rivalry heightened when the leader of the Niger Delta Volunteer Force, Alhaji Asari Dokubo hailed Okah’s arrest describing him as a mere criminal. It would appear that there is no way out of the dilemma.
If Okah is held and tried in Nigeria, his movement will take
to arms whereas Dakubo will cause problems if the rival goes scot-free.

Shell is already talking about moving some operations out of the Delta, and the other oil majors may follow. So Nigeria may face financial setbacks that will exacerbate the political problems.


As Eluemunor concludes:

If Yar’Adua’s election is not nullified, the storm may die out. If it is, a titanic fight that might see the generals in power again could break out. People have began to speak about this possibility in hushed tones but there is a feeling that a military government would be resisted, its excuse of restoring sanity and filling a power vacuum notwithstanding. The military option emerged during Obasanjo’s bid for a third team. Unfortunately, it has not fully receded and the feared power vacuum, should the polls be annulled, is not making things any better.

I recommend you read the full article: Nigeria faces a tunnel at the end of the light. It certainly makes it a bit more clear why Yar'Adua might want to trade up godfathers, as some have said he did while visiting Bush in Washington, notably The Independent, Yar’Adua’s Washington Diplomatic Gaffe:

The quid pro qui from the US for Yar’Adua’s government for endorsing the AFRICOM idea is the pledge to help him surmount the political brickbats being hauled at him from both his own political party, the PDP, and the opposition parties. The US government knows that Yar’Adua’s government lacks legitimacy. Yet, Bush deliberately refused to comment on the election heavily censured by both local and international observers. By so doing, the US president left open a tiny window of blackmail. This is pay back time and the American establishment is pulling the strings.
It is not by mere coincidence that Yar’Adua’s state visit to the US came at a time when it is rumoured that he may have lost favour with the PDP hawks, who have reportedly concluded plans, in the even of the tribunal annulling the presidential polls and calling for fresh election, to field a presidential candidate other than Yar’Adua. This is what happens when a government lacks legitimacy as Yar’Adua’s obviously does. The man at the driver’s seat looks up to external forces to sustain himself in power rather than the people that elected him. But it is a dangerous gamble. In a world where the unwritten code of international engagement seems to be, as Bush himself once put it "you are either with us or against us," all those fighting US global hegemony are bound to see Nigeria as an adversary, being a military ally of their enemy, the US.

His announcement about "partnering" and AFRICOM has scandalized Nigeria and the continent, where many people feel, as it says in Business Day:

[T]he American-led war on terrorism was designed primarily to "secure Western access to other people's natural resources without being ready to pay economic market prices and compensations for these resources.

Has Yar'Adua been bought out by Bush and AFRICOM?

After meeting with Bush at the White House, Nigeria's President Yar'Adua appears to have reversed direction and announced Nigeria is ready to "partner" with AFRICOM. To understand what partnership means, see my earlier post on how it works in the Philippines, and how that relates to AFRICOM. Partnership may provide the US with everything it wants and needs, both access and resources. I don't know what combination of bribes and threats were directed at Yar'Adua, but combinations of bribes and threats are how Bush and his cronies do business. The story was reported by This Day, and in allAfrica.com: Nigeria: Yar'Adua in White House, Ready to Partner U.S. On Africom.

President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua yesterday at the White House in Washington, D.C., United States (US) stated that Nigeria would partner the US/AFRICA Command (AFRICOM) on security on the continent.

The Council of States of which the President is Chairman, recently voiced opposition to the command.

Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chief Ojo Maduekwe, who is part of the President's delegation to the US had himself stated that Nigeria would not support the presence of US troops on African soil under the auspices of AFRICOM.

But at a press briefing at the Oval Office, with President George W. Bush in attendance, Yar'Adua made known his new position.

"We have discussed on security issues, security within Nigeria, the Niger Delta, the Gulf of Guinea and peace and security on the African continent. We shall partner AFRICOM to assist not only Nigeria but also the African continent to actualise its peace and security initiatives. It is an initiative to have standby forces in each of the regional economic groupings in Africa," said the President.

The President did not give details of the discussion on AFRICOM, such as whether Nigeria will be used as the Command's base, an issue that has emerged contentious in recent times.

But his support at the White House was a clear departure from the leaning of his administration on the issue.

As CareTaker at African Loft writes:

This disclosure is opposite of what was disclosed by the Nigerian government in November, and clearly contrary to general expectation of AfricanLoft users (See AfricanLoft debate on AFRICOM) and the Nigerian public.

And as Omotaylor writes in the comments:

It will be a grevious mistake in the long term if Nigeria i.e. Yaradua deviates from his earlier decision and partners with the US on AFRICOM. It will be interesting to hear in the near future his full explanation and reasoning behind changing his mind. Leaders are accountable to the people for when the problem starts, the people are the same that would suffer for it.

Again, referring to my earlier post, Bush's AFRICOM may not need much of a geographic headquarters to accomplish what it wants, if it can get enough African "partners".

The APS in Ghana, and Nigeria's General Malu on AFRICOM

TEMA, Ghana (Nov. 20, 2007) Builder 2nd Class (SCW) Errol Browning, right, explains the plans of construction to William Boafo, deputy Minister of Defense, Ambassador Pamela E. Bridgewater and Commodore Matthew Quashie, Ghanaian Eastern Naval Command, at the Africa Partnership Station (APS) ground-breaking ceremony commemorating initial construction of a new medical clinic, which is to be used by the Ghanaian military population and civilian population. (071120-N-8933S-152 U.S. Navy photos by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class RJ Stratchko)

TEMA, Ghana (Nov. 20, 2007) Rear Adm. Tony Kurta, director for Policy, Resources and Strategy, U.S. Naval Forces Europe, left, William Boafo, deputy Minister of Defense, Ambassador Pamela E. Bridgewater, Commodore Matthew Quashie, Ghanaian Eastern Naval Command, break ground at the Africa Partnership Station (APS) ground-breaking ceremony commemorating the initial construction of a new medical clinic, which is to be used by the Ghanaian military population and civilian population. (071120-N-8933S-132)

TEMA, Ghana (Nov. 20, 2007) Ghanaian sailors and U.S. Seabees raise their country's colors at the Africa Partnership Station (APS) ground-breaking ceremony for the construction of a new medical clinic, which will be used by the Ghanaian military and civilian populations. (071120-N-8933S-082)

You can see more US Navy photos from the Photo Gallery - African Partnership Station.

From African Partnership Station Seabees Break Ground on Ghanaian Navy Clinic:

The Tema clinic is one of more than a dozen community relations projects planned during this six-month round of APS.

"It is very gratifying that after all the visits our interaction in the partnership has yielded something very good. As we stand here today, we are going to witness the ground breaking for a medical clinic to be built by the U.S. Seabees in partnership with our work services engineers," said Ghanaian Navy Commodore Matthew Quashie, Eastern Ghana Naval Command.

"The facility that is currently on their base is old and worn, they've asked us to build a new medical facility right outside the Navy base so they can not only treat their military personnel, but so the local people can benefit from the clinic as well," said Lt. j.g. Joseph Clements, project officer with Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 40.

At the same time Nigeria has reiterated opposition to an AFRICOM base in Africa. There is an interesting interview with General Victor Malu, former Chief of Army Staff in Nigeria, on the subject of AFRICOM in the Daily Trust.

Some years ago when he was the Chief of Army Staff General Victor Malu opposed the presence of American military in Nigeria. This earned him the fury of the then Commander-in-Chief, and Malu was consequently retired.

Two weeks ago, the Americans renewed their moves to set up their African Command (AFRICOM) in Nigeria, but the Council of State rejected this. In this interview, Malu explained how the US first made its efforts, why he opposed it and what setting up an American military base here would mean.

Malu: What the Americans wanted to do was not to set up a command. The Americans because of five years of Abacha's administration that blocked Americans from developing or updating their intelligence on armed forces of Nigeria took the opportunity of somebody who had no knowledge about military in the name of Obasanjo to come and associate with him and convinced him that they wanted to train us for peace-keeping. Americans cannot claim that they want to train us for peace-keeping. We've succeeded in peace-keeping where Americans have not succeeded. What they wanted was to update their intelligence on the armed forces . . .
. . .
To make matters worse, even when we have reluctantly accepted because of the pressure from our Commander-in-Chief, to allow the Americans to train us, the Americans insisted they must live in the barracks with the soldiers. I left Abuja and flew to Sokoto to go and meet the governor, to plead with him to give us an area outside the barracks we would prepare it for the Americans. The governor accepted to do that. But the Americans turned it down insisting that they must live in the barracks with soldiers. I asked General Danjuma who was my GOC as far back as 1970, I said sir, you are my GOC in 1970, would you have allowed any army of any other country to come and stay with your own troops in the barracks? Well, at a point I didn't know whether he understood me or not, but this was the type of argument that was going on. I don't have direct evidence but I have every conviction in my mind that it was due to the interference of the Americans when they found out that I was becoming a stumbling block that they gave Obasanjo as a condition for their cooperating with him that he must get rid of the COAS.
. . .
The issue of African Command is nothing but because of the oil interest on the Gulf of Guinea, going out to the Coast of Liberia and so on. Americans are finding an easy place where they can extract oil, and you know is a much shorter route than going around to go to the Middle East.
. . .
WT: There is this report people are finding difficult to believe. Right now, the American soldiers are occupying the last floor of the Defense Ministry.

Malu: I was in service before that happened. I remember I resisted that I was not going to have any American soldiers sitting with me in the building. That is to prove to you what I am trying to say. When America came we had a defence headquarters in the same place we have some blocks reserved for the Navy and the Air force. Americans are not interested in any of this, it was only where the army was. Having people sitting on one floor on top of you is like sitting with you, watching and observing everything you are doing.
. . .
If America wants to create democracy by use of force they would have invaded Saudi Arabia.

Why does the US NEED to have an enhanced military presence in Africa?

US, France, Cameroon, exercise in the Gulf of Guinea, March 2007

I happened to be flipping through channels before I went to sleep last night and came across a Charlie Rose interview with General Kip Ward, head of AFRICOM. I'd like to find the transcript to get the words right, but could not find it on the Charlie Rose website, though they should post the video eventually. In the course of the interview Rose asked General Ward to imagine Rose was the head of an African country, saying he had heard a lot about what AFRICOM was not, could the General tell him what it is? (something that a lot of inquiring minds would like to know.) General Ward had his answer ready. I can't remember his exact words, which is why I was looking for the transcript, but it was a completely meaningless answer, pure bureaucratese, meaning anything you want it to mean, the kind of answer that is a wall rather than a window.


Sokari asks questions about AFRICOM that need to be asked, and need to be answered:

• Why does the US feels it needs a military presence in Africa?


• What will the US military presence consist of in terms of military hardware and numbers of personnel?


• How does the US intend to operate and in what circumstances will it’s forces be mobilized?


• In what way will the US military presence dictate or determine the price of Africa’s natural resources and who gets access to them?


• In what way will the US military presence infringe on the internal affairs of independent African countries and determine their foreign policy towards other AU members?


• How will the US military presence influence the foreign policy of independent African states towards non AU countries such as China?


• How will the US enhanced military presence infringe of the rights of African citizens?


• How will Africom impact on continental migration and the rights of the millions of Africans without citizenship and the rights of refugees?

This blog has discussed the role of the Heritage Foundation in the creation of AFRICOM. One fear they are trying to stir is fear of the influence of China in Africa. As Sokari points out:

The US has always been at the forefront of Free Trade Agreements. Now it finds itself in $billions of dollars trade deficit with China it is crying, forgetting that China’s industrial growth and huge export market is part of the same globalisation that the US is itself the main proponent. The difference is simply that China is in the driving seat and not the US.

And as to China I think she is absolutely on target:

China is doing to Africa what Europe and the US have been doing for 100s of years. Instead of joining in Western economic paranoia we should recognise this is merely an extension of colonialism / neo-colonialism and economic exploitation and deal with it as such. The US and the West have their own issues with China and to some extent this is played out on our soil. We should be seizing the time and using this as a weapon to ensure we get the best deal for our resources and citizens.

Unfortunately, one of the questions she asks, excellent as far as it goes, is not complete - What will the US military presence consist of in terms of military hardware and numbers of personnel? We also need to ask: what kind of military personnel? How and how much does the US plan to employ private military and intelligence corporations.

I don't think the greatest immediate danger posed by AFRICOM is from US soldiers and sailors. One of the things that worries me is that I suspect the mercenaries and mercenary corporations are what the US plans to use in Africa, in addition to training African military as US surrogates. These mercenaries may be employees of the US State Department, or some other US government department, as they are in Iraq. Or they may be the employees of giant corporations, such as oil companies. Whatever US objectives, arms and mercenaries can only destabilize. The presence of actual US military personnel may just be window dressing. The dirty work will be done by private armies and private CIAs. Already in the US these are taking over the functions of the military and intelligence. I am hoping a change in US administration may change the direction of this trend, but there are no guarantees.

African Loft asked the question in an open forum: Does Africa need AFRICOM? This is the question that Sokari answered by asking her questions.

Kunle comments:

I feel sad that Africa is still some “distant treasure island” to be fought over and protected for selfish interests by foreign powers. It was Britain and France some decades ago (colonial era 1) now its the USA and China (colonial era 2?).

Ginger comments:

As already stated, almost everything the US does is based on self-interest. Nothing wrong with that, but that fact is worth keeping in mind by the so-called ‘beneficiaries’ of the current ‘magnanimity’ by the US.
. . .
Now I will not be surprised if they get their way, because in the final analysis, all they have to convince is just one man in each country. In Pakistan, they convinced Musharaf who become an ally in America’s War, even against the wishes of some of his own people. It is no surprise that Liberia is offering itself as a base: no better way to ensure the country does not return to its previous chaos. Now Nigeria… Nigeria is the big prize!

And that is where the ordinary enlightened person comes in. To ensure that no one man at the top mortgages his country for ‘personal’ gains.

What’s the conclusion of this rambling of mine? No to AFRICOM.

Another reason given for AFRICOM is combating terrorism. Ginger also makes an excellent point in regard to terrorism, particularly as that word is being used in context with Nigeria. His summary analysis is as clear and concise a description as I have seen of the problem:

And nobody should dismiss contrary opinions by simply labeling them as “America-bashers”, no sir! There are facts that stare us in the face.

AFRICOM or whatever does not make America bad, OK, so I am not making any judgment on their intentions. My take is simply as an African who thinks that my sovereignty should be respected by all. If you wanna visit my country, by all means you’re welcome, but first, apply for a visa, but I remain in command!

Islamic radicals? Thank you sir! As far as labels go, America applies them as it suits their purpose. Here in Nigeria, the government calls the ‘militants’ “Restless Youths”, when they want to be magnanimous but otherwise, “Terrorists”. Little does the public know that these youths were armed by politicians who used them to fight their political battles, but failed to mop up the weapons after the operation: nor pay for ’services’ rendered. The targets have simply been changed.

Same thing happened with America. The renegade and heartless Osama Bin Laden was an ally of America during the Russian incursion into Afghanistan. The Taliban and their likes used weapons that America provided through the CIA station agents in times past. When allies were changed, labels were changed. Terrorists yes, but it sure makes my hair stand to see people use labels for their convenience.

The militant youth of the Niger Delta are employed as armed gangs by the politicians when it suits political expediency. They are discarded and treated as criminals or "terrorists" when they are no longer needed, or when they represent the opposition. And all the while huge and dangerous stockpiles of arms are accumulating all around.