Nigeria might be spiritually haunted by the blood of Biafra’s genocide victims

By Dr. Anthony Obi Ogbo
By Dr. Anthony Obi Ogbo

The entire regions in Nigeria have been miserable recently. Since this year, this country has witnessed the ruggedness of fiscal austerity, borne out of inability of the ruling class to strategize on a constructive economic policy.  

In the last few days however, the sociopolitical trauma and misery that plagued Nigeria have basically nothing to do with an excruciating economic hardship. The country is fundamentally going through what may be considered the “May Day” effect. This circle comes every May 30 – the anniversary of the declaration of the Republic of Biafra. Each May 30 period, Nigeria shivers of guilt and frustrated conscience; tormented by their total lack of remorse and scorn of a crime against the Igbos.       

Biafra was proclaimed on May 30, 1967. Monday, the anniversary of the declaration of an independent Republic of Biafra, Nigeria, again trembled in confusion – especially when the President, Muhammadu Buhari took part in this genocide that terminated millions, including defenseless children who were starved to death in a failed bid to terminate the Igbo race from the face of the earth.

Even with a “No Victor-No Vanquish” declaration after the war in 1970 by the head of state, General Gowon (retired), the Igbos have been systematically denied their rights of true Nigerian citizenship; they have been socially and economically castigated by various regimes threatened by their ingenuity; they have in fact, been prohibited from discussing this war as well as reflecting on their terrifying plights.

Children victims of starvation. Most of them later died of starvation. Yet officers who took part in this genocide would write books where they bragged about their various commands, whereas families of victims would be prosecuted for simply expressing their tribulations.
Children victims of starvation. Most of them later died. Yet officers who took part in this genocide would write books where they bragged about their various commands, whereas families of victims would be prosecuted for simply expressing their tribulations.

Various regimes have been consistent with either destroying or suppressing  war documents and narratives to cover-up proofs of mass slaughter and shield their individual roles. Even as history of wars of other countries are integrated in the Nigeria’s learning system, the government would always proscribed scholarly dissertations of her own civil war, as ‘hate message’.

For instance, officers who took part in this genocide would write books where they bragged about their various commands, whereas families of victims would be prosecuted for simply expressing their tribulations. Monday in Ebonyi State, the police arrested some priests who were conducting an inter-denominational service for members of the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB). More than 200 armed officers had stormed the church, midway into the service and arrested the priests and other members. At Nkpor-Agu in Anambra State, the Nigerian Military attacked members of the Movement for Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) and the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), who were celebrating this anniversary.

In his own explanation in the past, President Buhari had actually said that Biafra was a hate word, and that mere mention of the name “Biafra” threatens peace and stability in the populace.  

To pacify his prejudice of the Biafra’s issue, he had singlehandedly influenced the legal process in arrest and prosecution of Nnamdi  Kanu, a United Kingdom-based  political activist the leader of  the Indigenous People of Biafra.  Kanu, it may be recalled was once granted bail by an Abuja Federal High Court, but was re-arrested with a fresh charge of treasonable felony. According to President Buhari, Kanu had smuggled equipment into the country just to preach hate messages.

It also might be interesting to know that in the Eastern Nigeria, still chastised by the system for being “Biafrans”, individuals are categorized as insurgents and jailed for as much as seven years for possession of handguns, whereas cattle herdsmen from the North walk around with assault rifles terrorizing villages.  Also, organizations from the East –side, peacefully demonstrating for their social needs and interests are manhandled by ruthless security forces, whereas  Buhari’s regime categorizes the Boko Haram terrorists as “misguided” brethren, releasing suspects from various jail houses and granting them amnesties.  The regime has since procured comfortable camps to rehabilitate these members of one of world’s deadliest terrorist organization.

Leader of Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu attends a trial on February 9, 2016. He was denied bail. Kanu, it may be recalled was once granted bail by an Abuja Federal High Court, but was re-arrested with a fresh charge of treasonable felony. According to President Buhari, Kanu had smuggled equipment into the country just to preach hate messages.
Leader of Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu attends a trial on February 9, 2016. He was denied bail. Kanu, it may be recalled was once granted bail by an Abuja Federal High Court, but was re-arrested with a fresh charge of treasonable felony. According to President Buhari, Kanu had smuggled equipment into the country just to preach hate messages.

With this ruthlessly narrow-minded approach to handling issues related to Biafra, Nigeria’s pursuit for true unity has always, miserably remained in obscurity. President Buhari has arrogantly shown a disregard for democratic rights of thought, opinion, and expression of the Igbos; he has outlawed their rights of assembly, and demonstration; and to make it worse, he has clogged their access to justice – leaving them totally detached from the anchor of national unity.

Beyond a ruthless disregard by this regime, the circumstances surrounding Biafra’s struggle are facing other major challenges. For instance, most Nigerians believe that the term ‘Biafra’ stands for secession or revolt, and therefore, sees any person that raises the Biafran flag, or wears a Biafran tee-shirt as a secessionist.  Yet, most Nigerians who witnessed this civil war from places other than Biafra saw with their naked eyes, the evils that were committed on this population. These Nigerians are a living testimony that the easterners who struggled for the Biafran state in the 60s wanted nothing other than their rights of self-existence and protection from a region where they were used, abused, hated, and frequently killed.  

Today, the political landscape has totally changed, and Nigerians, and indeed the ruling class must understand that celebrating or advocating Biafra should not be ignorantly misread as a call to breakup Nigeria, but must be embraced as a mission for a needed dialogue on how Nigeria could be structured for better governance. Let it be known then that resourcefulness of the Biafran fraternity lies in her strength to stand their grounds; their ingenuity to weather a hostile political terrain; and their capacity to defend what they believe in. Thus, until Nigeria as a country respects citizens’ cause and advocacy for their interests, a peaceful and united region would be completely unattainable.

Until the leaders of this country righty create the necessary dialogue to address “Biafra” and reconcile the wishes of survivors of this genocide, the blood and spirit of millions of victims of this war would always torment the ruling system with policy disaster, service ambiguity and sociopolitical misery.    

Nigeria ought to be worried that since the end of the war in 1970, this country is still struggling with leadership; dwindling from military coup to military coup – civilian regime to civilian regime;  and unable to provide the very basic amenities to the citizens.  Until the leaders of this country righty create the necessary dialogue to address “Biafra” and reconcile the wishes of survivors of this genocide, the blood and spirit of millions of victims of this war would always torment the ruling system with policy disaster, service ambiguity and sociopolitical misery.   

Dr. Ogbo  is the publisher of Houston-based International Guardian.

Biafra: Enough Already

By Dr. Emeaba Emeaba
By Dr. Emeaba Emeaba

Biafra—a failed attempt by the people of Eastern Nigeria to secede from a Nigeria that had mortally wronged them—was a very ill-wind that blew everyone badly, and has been an indictment to the Nigerian nationhood ever since.

Careless, easy-going and tolerant, in almost every way—politically, culturally, socially—Nigeria, a naturally big and mean West African chaos of a country with as many languages as there are tribes,  had it all and was prepared for everything but Biafra. Biafra came without as much as a dollop of mercy.

In a little less than three years, it stripped Nigeria of its jaunty fillip, rendering her south eastern reaches an earthly verisimilitude of hell. That scourge came impudently spewing death and destruction and left a harrowing swath of bestial mayhem, woe and misery. We are yet to recover.

In truth, you must be sixty and above to have an inkling of what Biafra—the cause of such widespread weeping and lamentation—was all about. Let me refresh your memory if you are younger than sixty. It began January 15, 1966, barely six years after Nigeria’s heady independence from Britain’s colonial administration. At this time, regional political actors played to the sentiments and suspicions of their constituencies by using the fear of domination of one region by another as a boogeyman to garner votes. A group of army majors, in a protest of the unpopularity of the government, came claiming the politicians were not doing it right; and touted their dream of turning the woe-begotten Nigerian nation into a prosperous, peaceful democracy.

In truth, you must be sixty and above to have an inkling of what Biafra—the cause of such widespread weeping and lamentation—was all about.

They decided to kill all the politicians as an answer to their purported belief that Nigeria was adrift and tottering at the brink of perdition. Uncannily, the coup makers, who had an Igbo speaker as their de-facto leader, killed all the name-brand Hausa-Fulani politicians. Somehow, they conveniently did not kill any Igbo politician of note, unwittingly giving their move a biased ethnic tinge. This faux-pas understandably angered the rest of the country enough to generate an Igbo-phobia and hate of murderous proportion. That was when the Igbo retaliatory massacres began. Within days, it had metamorphosed into a nightmare without end as thousands of people of Igbo extraction, and other kindredly-vulnerable people of eastern Nigeria were variously maimed, decapitated, or slaughtered.

All over Nigeria, no Igbo person was safe outside the eastern region.

And so, following the pogroms, secession from Nigeria, and the war that followed became inevitable. The Governor of Eastern region—Lt. Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu—declared the region an independent republic country of Biafra, since the Igbo, scattered all over Nigeria in their characteristic jealousy-inducing, aggressive individualism and daring spirit, could no longer live safely in other parts of Nigeria. At the urging of the British, who never did trust the Igbo for spearheading the clamor for Nigeria’s independence, the Nigerian Army invaded the Igbo Biafra country. Led by Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon – the army chief of staff who promoted himself General after the coup and became commander-in-chief – the Nigerian army attacked. The war—the darkest chapter in Nigeria’s checkered history—was on.

As a P.S., the Biafra war which resulted in the decimation of the Igbo tribe evolved into a triangular big-power contest between Britain, France, and the Soviet Union according to newly released British secret papers.

The Igbo people had scared the crap out of watchers as they made moves that proved they could pull off the secession. Ojukwu who had thought Biafra could survive with the revenues accruing from the oilfields in their territory did not reckon with those who had stakes in the area. There was Britain, the former colonial power scared they could lose their oil holdings. Then, there was the late-comer Soviet Union which saw a chance to get a footing in the African exploitation exercise. And, of course, there was France looking to increase her influence in an area in which their colonial expedition only netted small fry countries with nothing to exploit.

According to newly-released intelligence reports, the world looked elsewhere as Britain and the Soviet Union unashamedly sent arms to boost the Federal military government, under General Yakubu Gowon. France, on the other hand, was a little subtle in her dealings, publicly denying its involvement in arming the Biafrans, but sneakily making very large weapons shipments through the neighboring Ivory Coast and Gabon with the sole objective being “the break-up of Nigeria which threatens, by its size and potential, to overshadow France’s client Francophone states in West Africa.”

Between the three countries, and outnumbered, ill-armed, and starving by the numbers, Biafra became a pun.

Biafra, like all wars, brought out the beast in Nigerians and Biafrans alike. For example soon after the Abagana mayhem, where a single well-placed Biafran bullet hit a petrol tanker in a convoy of Federal Nigerian troops causing an explosion that killed so many, the Federal Nigerian high command’s reaction was decisively swift and brutal. The order was simple and terse, and echoed by Brigadier General Benjamin Adekunle who led the advancing Nigeria Army’s Third Marine Commando division: “Crush this rebellion once and for all. Do not take prisoners. Shoot anything that moves, including those not moving.”

A column of Biafran civilians, in a bumper-to-bumper formation—women, children, and old men—was clogging the few highways leading out of Abagana. Nigeria Air force’s Russian-supplied Ilyushin 28s and British-supplied MiGs-17s fighters hovered overhead. Manned by British mercenary pilots who had acquired the odious reputation for not fighting fair by conveniently avoiding military targets to strafe hospitals and sick bays, and bomb refugee camps, and drop napalm bombs on fleeing civilians and on open air church services, the fighters came in low, flying at tree top levels firing their machine guns indiscriminately into the columns of civilians. Wrecked Biafran civilian vehicles blocked the roads creating choke point traffic jams that slowed the movement of the civilians. The Nigeria Air force bombers circling above dive-bombed the massive traffic jams, toggling their heavy bomb loads into the trapped masses of helpless Biafran civilians. The napalm bombs had the nasty habit of throwing slow-burning, jellied petrol over victims that could not be extinguished until the blackened victim burnt to death on fire soaked earth. The refugees died horribly.

On the ground level, elements of the Nigeria Army armored division rolled close to the scene of the bombing, leveled their gun turrets at the wounded, dying, and dead civilians and hosed them down with 50 caliber bullets that can dissolve a man’s head at a thousand yards. It was a wholesale massacre that turned women, children, old men, goats, pigs, chickens, dogs, and cats into corned beef. The civilians were dying in the thousands turning the Abagana exit road into a highway of death. As victims of the onslaught lay screaming with their hideously mutilated limbs and heart-breaking injuries that could horrify surgeons, petrified old men, panic-stricken women and distressed children milled around in a dazed confusion. They suffered terribly and died horribly.

File: Compelling images of starving Biafran children were pervasive in 1967-70, pushing Americans to donate food and money. In 1968, the Red Cross was spending $1.5 million per month on humanitarian aid in Biafra.
File: Compelling images of starving Biafran children were pervasive in 1967-70, pushing Americans to donate food and money. In 1968, the Red Cross was spending $1.5 million per month on humanitarian aid in Biafra.

Down the road from the scene of wanton civilian slaughter, a sapper corporal of the Biafran Organization of Freedom Fighters (BOFF) had wired a small bridge, with a Biafran-made explosive device known as the Ojukwu bucket, so as to blow it when the Nigerian armored column rolled by. This was with a view to delaying the Federal Nigeria armored division advance and giving the next town the opportunity of escaping the wanton slaughter that was sure to come. He stood horrified as an endless flow of Biafran refugees: a press of old men, and elderly women, mothers with small babies, families fleeing together—they came in their thousands streaming over the bridge and could not be made to stop. Then the Nigeria Air Force fighters came in low, their wing guns blazing as they strafed the fleeing column. Soon after, the Nigerian army armored division advanced on the bridge, and not wanting to be delayed, started firing their cupola-mounted coaxial machine guns into the packed crowd, mowing people down by the numbers, spewing severed limbs, exploded heads, and trailing human entrails all over the bridge.

The BOFF corporal had but a second to make up his mind. Wait for the civilians to clear the bridge, the Nigerian armored column will cross the bridge to continue the slaughter in the next town. Kill a few to save many, was what he could come up with. He touched his face, his two shoulders, and his chest in a silent prayer, and twisted the charging handle immediately. The explosive charges popped in rapid succession dropping the bridge structure, still jam-packed with screaming people, into the murky river below with an impressive splash that was at once spectacular and horrific.

With that much carnage, and following the blockade imposed on Biafra by the Nigerian Federal Military government, Biafra’s secession attempt collapsed in January1970. Finally, after an estimated one to three million—mostly Igbo people—had been shot or starved to death, Ojukwu went into exile “in search of peace” as Biafra surrendered. The Igbo went back into the Nigerian fold crossly silent.

For those clamoring for Biafra, I have something painful to tell you. If by some remote possibility you are handed Biafra, the very same Igbo leaders who are raping the core Igbo states from behind without letup are going to be the Biafran leaders.

It is therefore hard to reconcile those images of famished, malnourished children, bloating and sometimes decapitated corpses lying around, and the utter despondence of what was Biafra with the ill-advised clamor of the clueless group purporting to invoke the ghost of Biafra because people of Igbo extraction were being marginalized.

Someone did not know much about Biafra.

You see, what the Give-us-Biafra group has most tellingly deceived itself into believing is that if the small Igbo-speaking area of Nigeria is carved out as an independent country thereby bringing the government closer to them, things will change for the Igbo man. Not so, bro. If, in the unlikely event that happens, it will simply metamorphose into a nightmare without end, for the Biafrans will need a passport to go to Abuja, Lagos, or even Ikot Ekpene next door. The Igbo, sojourning dare-devils as it were, could not be confined in a space that little. Those traders in far flung areas of Nigeria will feel the full jolt of the hair-raising fallout of such a gaffe.

For those clamoring for Biafra, I have something painful to tell you. If by some remote possibility you are handed Biafra, the very same Igbo leaders who are raping the core Igbo states from behind without letup are going to be the Biafran leaders. The Igbo leaders are the problem—the same representatives in government who should speak for the Igbo. They have Igbo governors who have collected state allocations and pocketed them. The Igbo people know those Igbo ministers, governors, local government chairmen, senators, legislators; they know their country mansions, the new hotels they have built with money belonging to all of us. Those are the people that ought to be confronted. Every month, we read in the papers how much money the state collected from the federal purse. We wait for things to begin to happen; they don’t. We are angry. We want Biafra. We want an Igbo President. We want our villages to become states. We forget that even an Igbo president is not responsible for fixing the road in our villages, or providing us with drinking water. This is the job of your Igbo governors—the prime culprits responsible for your angst—who has been pocketing your collective money.

If the Igbo man is suffering in a Nigeria that has ‘marginalized’ him, what are the Igbo representatives in government doing about it? The ‘little’ money coming in from the Federal government is being diverted with impunity by the same leaders. I would rather the Biafra agitators agitate for those leaders to produce the money for the advancement of the Igbo man. If you cannot make your Igbo leaders accountable; even if you are handed Biafra, the same leaders will show up to take that money, too.

Dr. Dr Emeaba Emeaba is the publisher of Houston-based Drum Magazine.

One freed Chibok girl still cause for shame, not celebration

Amina Ali, the rescue Chibok school girl, sits during a meeting with Nigeria's President Muhammadu Buhari at the Presidential palace in Abuja, Nigeria, Thursday, May. 19, 2016. The first Chibok teenager to escape from Boko Haram's Sambisa Forest stronghold was flown to Abuja on Thursday and met with Nigeria's president, even as her freedom adds pressure on the government to do more to rescue 218 other missing girls. (AP Photo/Azeez Akunleyan)
Amina Ali, the rescue Chibok school girl, sits during a meeting with Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari at the Presidential palace in Abuja, Nigeria, Thursday, May. 19, 2016. The first Chibok teenager to escape from Boko Haram’s Sambisa Forest stronghold was flown to Abuja on Thursday and met with Nigeria’s president, even as her freedom adds pressure on the government to do more to rescue 218 other missing girls. (AP Photo/Azeez Akunleyan)

The fact that one Chibok girl basically rescued herself last week shouldn’t make any of us feel better.

By Kristin Wright
By Kristin Wright

The family of Amina Ali Nkeki has a reason to celebrate. The rest of the world does not.

The response from the Nigerian government and the Obama administration to one abducted Chibok girl’s escape last week is symptomatic of a larger issue. Real action – not just posturing and attention seeking – is needed to rescue these girls, now missing for more than two years.

I was hardly surprised to see the Nigerian government immediately attempting to celebrate (and take credit for) the purported rescue of a second Chibok girl just days after Amina’s escape – the second girl, it turned out, was not actually among those taken in the mass kidnapping in 2014. After all, the Nigerian government has been more preoccupied with securing positive international impressions than they have been about securing freedom for the Chibok girls.

Now more than ever, we need to refocus attention on Amina’s escape, as she is currently the only Chibok girl from the mass kidnapping to emerge after two years of captivity. Her self-rescue should fill leaders in the free world with shame on behalf of her classmates’ continued imprisonment.

This is not the time for the world to celebrate. This is the time to confront our shame.

How have we allowed more than 200 girls to remain trapped in captivity for over two years, held by one of the world’s most brutal terrorist groups?

Amina was found last Tuesday by local witnesses with her baby, wandering out of the Sambisa Forest in northern Nigeria. This location is known to be a Boko Haram stronghold and has been thought to be a possible location where the Chibok girls have been held.

Within hours of Amina’s sighting, the Nigerian government was—unsurprisingly—eagerly attempting to take credit for her release. Their attempts to capitalize are disgraceful; they also make me realize why the search for remaining Chibok girls has been so unfruitful. It appears that the Nigerian government has been much more concerned about good press than actual results on behalf of the captured schoolgirls. While the girls wait, cowardice and corruption continue to be the prevailing reality.

Within the Obama administration, we’re seeing hopeful words and hashtag advocacy on the ongoing captivity of the Chibok girls (with First Lady Michele Obama raising the issue by tweeting a photo of herself joining #BringBackOurGirls). But the one action from the administration that holds the most promise has yet to be accomplished. President Obama still hasn’t visited Nigeria during his nearly two full terms in office. Not once. (Obama is reported to currently be tinkering  with the possibility of a trip to Nigeria in July. To that I say, better late than never.)

In an advocacy campaign launched earlier this year, Open Doors USA has been urging President Obama to prioritize a trip to Nigeria.

We’re also asking him to issue a statement on the desperate situation of persecuted Christians in Northern Nigeria, including the Chibok girls, as a result of Boko Haram and other groups.

We’re also encouraging him to put pressure on Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari to support investigations into allegations that prominent Nigerian politicians have been funneling financial support to Boko Haram. It isn’t too late for more Americans to add their voices to our call for action.

Last week’s news of one girl’s freedom can and should be an opportunity to advocate for those still held captive. For Amina, much care will be needed to help her begin to heal the physical and emotional scars of her ordeal. But I cannot help but rejoice for her family as their personal nightmare comes to an end.

I visited with several of the fathers of the kidnapped Chibok girls while in Jos, Nigeria, several months ago. As director of advocacy at Open Doors USA, I wanted to hear firsthand about the challenges facing the families in the wake of their daughters’ disappearance.

What I witnessed broke my heart.

Open Doors is on the ground in Nigeria, providing trauma counseling and practical support for the families of the kidnapped girls. But the needs are very deep, and the heartache these families endure on a daily basis is gut wrenching.

I’m incredibly grateful that the pain of not knowing what happened to their daughter is over for one family. But the voices of the other fathers still ring in my ear.

After describing his daughter to me, one father put his head in his hands and wept, softly crying over and over, “I miss her, I miss her, I miss her,” as tears ran down his face.

As I discovered while I was in Jos, at least 18 of the parents of the missing Chibok girls have died in the wake of their daughters’ kidnapping.

Tragically, even as Amina, the newly recovered Chibok girl, is reunited with her mother, she will also be learning of the death of her father.

“They didn’t die of old age,” one Chibok father was quick to tell me of the parents who have died. “They died of heartache.”

This is not the time for the world to celebrate. This is the time to confront our shame.

The world’s silence—and the inexcusable inaction of our leaders—have allowed over 200 innocent girls to remain captives for two years. It is time to demand action and insist that we do whatever is in our power to rescue the Chibok girls and reunite them with their families.

For more information about Open Doors’ campaign for action on behalf of the Chibok girls and other victims of persecution in northern Nigeria, visit http://live.opendoorsusa.org/petition/.

Kristin Wright is the advocacy director at Open Doors USA. She works with government officials to address issues of religious persecution throughout the world, and take action for those who are suffering.  

Why Senegal is a Fitting Partner for the U.S. in Defending West Africa

Soldiers parade during the closing ceremony of a joint military exercise between African, U.S. and European troops in Saint Louis, Senegal, February 29. The U.S. has signed an agreement increasing access to facilities in the West African country.
Soldiers parade during the closing ceremony of a joint military exercise between African, U.S. and European troops in Saint Louis, Senegal, February 29. The U.S. has signed an agreement increasing access to facilities in the West African country.

By John Campbell/Newsweek

Emblematic of the growing U.S. defense presence in West Africa is a new defense cooperation agreement signed on May 2 with Senegal. According to the low-key report carried by Associated Press (AP), the agreement improves access for the U.S. military to Senegal should they need to deploy in the event of a security or humanitarian crisis. In Dakar, U.S. Ambassador James Zumwalt said, “With this agreement, the United States military and the Senegalese military can plan better together, accomplish more with joint training, and better prepare to respond in concert to risks to our shared interests.”

According to AP, this new agreement updates another that dates from 2001. It provides U.S. access to certain facilities in Senegal and authorizes U.S. forces to make certain physical improvements, as necessary.

There has long been low-key military cooperation between Senegal and the U.S. With respect to democracy, Senegal is an African success story, with credible elections through which the opposition came to power. An overwhelmingly Muslim nation, Senegal is known for its religious tolerance; its first president, one of the 20thcentury’s most celebrated intellectuals, Leopold Senghor, was a Christian. Senegal also is a center for a network of Muslim Sufi brotherhoods that stretch from Dakar to Khartoum. West African Sufi Islam is known for its mysticism, its cult of the saints and its religious tolerance. It is anathema to the radical, jihadist groups such as Boko Haram in Nigeria. Dakar has shown concern about possible penetration by jihadist Islam. Senegal is one of the majority-Muslim West African countries considering the banning of the burqa, the veiling that hides the face of a Muslim woman, that has been used by suicide bombers to hide in crowds. It has already been banned in Chad and according to London’s Daily Telegraph, there is little opposition to its banning in Senegal.

Defense cooperation agreements between the United States and West African countries are not rare; there are more than 60. In terms of political and social developments, Senegal would appear to be a particularly appropriate partner for Washington in the region.

John Campbell is the Ralph Bunche Senior Fellow for Africa Policy Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

10 reasons Hillary Clinton will beat Donald Trump

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton takes a photo with supporters at the end of a campaign stop at East Los Angeles College in Los Angeles, Thursday, May 5, 2016.  (Damian Dovarganes, AP)
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton takes a photo with supporters at the end of a campaign stop at East Los Angeles College in Los Angeles, Thursday, May 5, 2016.
(Damian Dovarganes, AP)

Jennifer Rubin  |  The Washington Post

This week, we saw examples of no less than 10 reasons that Hillary Clinton is going to sweep to victory in November:

1. The economy is good enough. The jobs report (160,000 jobs created, the unemployment rate steady at 5 percent) is not stellar, but there is no sign yet of a serious downturn. Conservative economist Doug Holtz-Eakin emails, “The other good news from the employer survey was that average hourly earnings rose by 0.3 percent; up 2.5 percent over the past year. The workweek edged up modestly. Put together, average weekly earnings rose solidly.” Unless there is a serious economic crisis (as there was in 2008), the incumbent party has the strong upper hand.

2. Donald Trump is so reckless and scary on economic issues that he scares even Republicans. He bizarrely suggested he would negotiate the sovereign debt of the United States. That is a default and has never been attempted in U.S. history. His recklessness on this is likely a preview of things to come.

3. The GOP is badly divided, if not on the verge of a split. It is Politics 101 that the party in turmoil (Democrats in 1980, for example) loses. Already, donors are closing their wallets, and Republicans, including two past presidents and both halves of the 2012 ticket, are refusing to endorse Trump.

4. Trump’s crew is so tone-deaf to the split that it is likely to make it worse. Whether criticizing Mitt Romney for being pro-adoption or claiming to be clueless as to why the party’s idea man House Speaker Paul Ryan would object to Trump, the Trump team evidences little dexterity or self-awareness.

5. Trump lacks a money operation to match Hillary Clinton. He is no longer self-funding and yet his finance chair is not well-known to many Republicans. Many big and mid-sized donors have no intention of giving Trump money.

6. Trump cannot possibly learn in six months how not to appear racist or sexist. When RNC Chairman Reince Priebus lamely says of Trump’s “taco bowl” gambit that Trump is “trying,” one realizes how far beyond Trump’s capabilities this may be. He has shown no ability to rein in insults and slurs; with Clinton willing to bait him, we can only imagine the insulting comments he will make about her and all women.

7. We’ve come up with six reasons Clinton will win without any effort on her part. When all you have to do is say, “I’m for adoption,” or, “No, the U.S. stands behind its obligations,” you are in really good shape.

8. The ads write themselves. Clinton is already using the accusations and claims made by Republicans to attack and ridicule Trump.

9. Clinton knows how to reach out to Republicans. In the Senate she worked well with many Republicans, and her team is reportedly beginning to make introductions to Bush donors. Trump will need to spend a good deal of time and effort merely mending fences with his own party.

10. The media will finally get tough on Trump. Somewhat chastened by the free media time given to Trump and some outlets’ lack of tough questioning, the media is anxious to score points. Conservatives will claim this is liberal bias, but since many of Trump’s critics are themselves very conservative, there may be a newfound appreciation on the right for the MSM’s journalistic skills. Politics does in fact make strange bedfellows.

Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Washington Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.

How to steal from Africa, all perfectly legally

The City of London, arguably the heart and headquarters of a international network of tax havens.
The City of London, arguably the heart and headquarters of a international network of tax havens.

By Alex de Waal | Africa loses at least $50 billion a year — and probably much, much more than that — perfectly lawfully. About 60% of this loss is from aggressive tax avoidance by multinational corporations, which organise their accounts so that they make their profits in tax havens, where they pay little or no tax. Much of the remainder is from organised crime with a smaller amount from corruption. This was the headline finding of the High Level Panel on Illicit Financial Flows from Africa, headed by former South African President Thabo Mbeki, a year ago.

This amount is the same or smaller than international development assistance ($52 billion per year) or remittances ($62 billion). If we take the accumulated stock of these illicit financial flows since 1970 and factor in the returns on this capital, Africa has provided the rest of the world with $1.7 trillion, at a conservative estimate. Africa is a capital exporter.

The rest of the world didn’t take much notice of the Mbeki Panel’s findings until the Panama Papers revealed the extent to which this is just part of a global phenomenon. The rich aren’t being taxed. The rest of us pay for everything.

The OECD calls the phenomenon ‘base erosion’ (referring to the emasculation of the tax base of the affected countries) and ‘profit shifting’. The beneficiaries are a small fraction of the world’s wealthiest 1%, and the secrecy jurisdictions (aka tax havens) where they sequester their money. These locations include the City of London, numerous British overseas territories, Switzerland, and new entrants to the global business of looking after the monies of the hyper-wealthy and ordinarily wealthy, who would prefer not to pay tax. Countries including Mauritius, the Seychelles, Botswana and Ghana are seeking to enter this competition.

And the vast majority of this is perfectly legal.

Accountants’ alchemy

Two hundred years ago, the slave trade was legal. One hundred years ago, colonial occupation and exploitation were legal. This time the legal immiseration is done by accountants.

This dimension of unethical financial activity isn’t captured by Transparency International (TI) and its Corruption Perceptions Index. That index is, as it says, a measurement of perceptions. But of what andby whom? As the UN Economic Commission for Africa recently observed, it relies on asking key power players in a nation’s economy what they think of the level of corruption. Many of those are foreign investors. Using this approach a country like Zambia will unsurprisingly tend to rank high on corruption – 76 worst out of 168. Meanwhile, Switzerland will rank low – 7th.

But the perfectly legal transfer of the wealth of Africa to Europe isn’t captured by this index. As TI notes, “Many ‘clean’ countries have dodgy overseas records”. Consider this: the number one destination for Zambian copper exports is Switzerland, which in 2014 accounted for 59.5% of the country’s copper exports. Yet Switzerland’s own imports that year scarcely contained any mention of copper at all. Had the African country’s main exports just vanished into thin air? The 2015 figures suggest that in fact much of these exports were destined for China (31%), though Switzerland remained the number one destination (34%).

The answer to where the money goes lies in accountants’ alchemy. International corporations present their books in such a way that they pay as little tax as possible in either Zambia or China. And they don’t pay much in Switzerland either – because the Swiss don’t demand it.

Suddenly the ranking of Switzerland, 69 places ahead of Zambia in the honesty league, looks a bit suspect. But of course it’s all perfectly legal.

From Zambia’s point of view, what counts as corruption is defined by the rich and powerful. When their country is robbed blind by clever accounting tricks, against which their government and people have no recourse, it is just the operation of a free market controlled – as free markets so often are – by corporations that have enough power to set the rules.

Political money in a political marketplace

Another little noticed but significant feature of illicit financial flows from Africa is that there are occasional reverse flows. The movements back into African countries aren’t as big as the outflows, but they are important. What is happening here is “round-tripping”: spiriting funds away to a safe place so they can be brought back, with their origins unexplained, and no questions needing to be asked.

The same multinational corporation that is defrauding an African country can pay money into the offshore account of one of its political leaders. Or that leader can whisk funds away by other means. Our main concern here isn’t the money invested in real estate in France, yachts, fast cars, or foreign business ventures. These are personal insurance policies in case things go wrong at home, or tickets to the global elite club. Rather, our concern is the cash kept liquid, to be brought back home when needed – the money brought back to fix elections, buy loyalties and, in sundry other ways, secure leaders in power. These are political budgets par excellence: the funds used for discretionary political purposes by political business operators.

In the United States, almost any kind of political funding you can think of can be done in a perfectly legal manner, given a smart enough accountant and lawyer. Political Action Committees can spend as much money as they like in support of a candidate. Campaign finance is essentially without a ceiling.

In Africa, political finance laws range from lax to non-existent. Spending vast amounts of money on winning political office – or staying in office – offends no law. The monetisation of politics is one of the biggest transformations in African political life of the last 30 years. It is generating vast inequalities, consolidating a political-commercial elite which has a near-monopoly on government office, fusing corporate business with state authority, and making public life subject to the laws of supply and demand. Political markets are putting state-building into reverse gear, transforming peace-making into a continual struggle against a tide of mercenarised violence, and – most perniciously – turning elections into an auction of loyalties.

Political money is discrediting democracy. Some of the transactions that constitute Africa’s political markets are blatantly corrupt, but many are simply the routine functioning of political systems based on the exchange of political services for material reward.

Yes, there is corruption in Africa, just as there is corruption in international trade and finance. But when Prime Minister David Cameron opens the Anti-Corruption Summit next week on 12 May, we should be aware that the greatest fraud perpetrated on the majority of the world’s citizens – notably those living in Africa – is all perfectly legal.

Alex de Waal is the Director of the World Peace Foundation. 

Latest book on Buhari highlights governance lapses and solution strategies

1757c5bd80e59662c6aa279ef376ee1a.jpg

I have the pleasure of  writing the preface of Dr. Anthony Obi Ogbo newest book, “Governance Buhari’s way”,  released worldwide today. I don’t often do this but this author has been someone I share ideological thoughts with.

By Dr Olayinka Dixon-Oludaiye
By Dr Olayinka Dixon-Oludaiye

In his last book, The Influence of Leadership, a research study, Dr. Ogbo, a leadership and management scholar, explored how the political, cultural, social, and economic conditions in Nigeria influence the lives of Nigerian citizens through lived experiences of two citizens from each of the six geopolitical regions of the country. The research centered on people (Nigerian citizens), through the subjects of management and leadership, and through the processes of managing and leading.

Dr. Ogbo made substantial recommendations for leaders, which focused primarily on the themes categorized as moral philosophy, organizational change, transformation, and diversity management. These remedies, Dr. Ogbo contended, could help the present and aspiring leaders to develop effective leadership strategies to manage their citizens, public service system, and resources.

Governance Buhari’s Way is consistent with Dr. Ogbo’s exploration of solutions to the dysfunctional system presently operating in Nigeria. While the content critiques the styles and philosophy of the Nigerian President, Muhammadu Buhari, Dr. Ogbo researched and discussed some applicable models relevant to leadership behavior and practice, to deliver a structure for effective management of Nigeria, its people, and its abundant resources.

As Dr. Ogbo noted, this book is not a condemnation of Nigeria’s struggle for survival, but an academic work about the misuse of leadership in a democratic setting, and a foundationally intrinsic misunderstanding of leadership as against management structures. Using relevant concepts, the book appraised President Buhari’s apparent and reactionary temperament in handling the affairs of government, and considers how ill-informed choices or errors in judgement might derail Nigeria’s quest for unity. 

As the author noted, this book is not a condemnation of Nigeria’s struggle for survival, but an academic work about the misuse of leadership in a democratic setting, and a foundationally intrinsic misunderstanding of leadership as against management structures.

The book, Governance Buhari’s Way, cited incompatibility in President Buhari’s executive structure, categorizing them into three groups, “fanatics who worship him; cohorts who think they understand him; and underhanded politicians who have lied that they know him.”   On how an alliance between President Buhari and his incompatible cohorts would  inspire a  progressive change, the book invoked the interchangeable roles of the managing, and the leading, in the public service system – setting the records straight on the use of, so called, technocrats in running the public system.

The organization of this book centers on a literature review of significant concepts of transformation management.  Besides a discussion on the language of leadership, the book reviewed the application of moral philosophy in the governance system; the process of organizational transformation, and the philosophy of the change process. These concepts were adequately applied in appraising President Buhari’s unconventional style of leadership within a democratic system of government. They also underscore major reasons why his regime appears currently shaky, and might be headed for the worst, without an immediate structured intervention.

The Author’s writing approach in this book is unique – a mixture of academic language and conventional conversational humor. However, the facts, suppositions, and recommendations remain a scholarly composition of the science of “how not to manage people and resources”. As Dr. Ogbo put it, “In a complex economy, installing a leader without relevant skills is like hiring a tailor to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) to perform surgery, just because they can handle needle and thread.” In all, this book is an absolutely illuminating and interesting piece of work.

Education management scholar,  (Dr) Olayinka C. Dixon-Oludaiye is the publisher, Becky Magazine, County Meath, Rep of Ireland.

One year ago, Buhari promised to change Nigeria

Buhari still has adequate time to turn his fortunes around, but he must be wary of the kind of executive arrogance that undid Jonathan's party and government.
Buhari still has adequate time to turn his fortunes around, but he must be wary of the kind of executive arrogance that undid Jonathan’s party and government.

When Nigerians rouse from sleep on April 1, they will again head for filling stations to join the now de rigueur queues for Premium Motor Spirit.

By Fisayo Soyombo
By Fisayo Soyombo

This is no big news; queueing for hours at petrol stations has been the most recurring item on the itinerary of Nigerians not only for the past month, but also for the third spell in the past three months.

What is news is that when these same people woke up exactly one year ago, the majority of them trooped to the streets in jubilation. Three hours and 47 minutes into that day, opposition candidate Muhammadu Buhari was declared president-elect.

But while Nigerians hailed Buhari as a Messiah of sorts, they forgot to remind themselves that no Nigerian leader, democratic or dictatorial, had ever succeeded in delivering socioeconomic prosperity to the masses.

Joy so often short-lived

There was something familiar about the sheer joy that was unleashed on the streets of Nigeria on April 1, 2015.

More than five decades ago, on October 1, 1960, when Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa accepted the symbols of Independence from the Queen of England and cheerily declared that he was “opening a new chapter in the history of Nigeria”, it was to the delight of millions of citizens.

Elites clutched at their radios as devout Catholics would the Rosary, listening as the sonorous voice of Emmanuel Omatsola blared from Race Course, Lagos: Nigeria is a free, sovereign nation. Pupils holidayed; and when they returned to school, they were served unusual rounds of sumptuous meals and handed lovingly petite green-white-green flags.

But for all of Balewa’s education and popularity in international circles, his reputation for championing northern interests did little to foster unity and stability in Nigeria’s delicate multiethnic set-up. Both power and life were taken away from him in a coup six years later.

When Nigeria returned to democracy in 1999, after decades of torture at the hands of the military, the scenarios were repeated. Olusegun Obasanjo, a retired soldier who was on the throes of death in prison, was suddenly, miraculously handed democratic power.

Obasanjo had admitted that “the entire Nigerian scene is very bleak indeed, so bleak people ask me: where do we begin?” But he also promised to fight corruption, restore public confidence in governance, build infrastructure. Millions of overjoyed Nigerians believed him – the worst civilian government is better than the best military regime was the popular reasoning at the time.

In his book, This House Has Fallen, published a year into Obasanjo’s presidency, British journalist Karl Maier had written: “The government spends up to half its annual budget on salaries of an estimated two million workers… yet the civil service remains paralysed, with connections and corruption still the fastest way to get anything done. Up to 75 percent of the army’s equipment is broken or missing vital spare parts. The Navy’s 52 admirals and commodores outnumber serviceable ships by a ratio of six to one. The Air Force has 10,000 men but fewer than 20 functioning aircraft.”

Sixteen long years later, it is heartbreaking to see that these are still some of the issues dominating Nigerian political discourse.

Gloom of Buhari’s victory

Caveat: this is not an appraisal of Buhari’s reign – not yet. But some of his first words as president-elect back in 2015 were: “You voted for change and now change has come.”

Goodluck Jonathan’s presidency ended with a biting fuel scarcity that suffering masses felt would accompany Jonathan out of office. On the anniversary of Buhari’s victory, that scarcity they so despised is exactly what they’re grappling with. There are no noticeable improvements in erratic power supply, the unhealthy economy, the dearth of jobs. No “change”, really.

Buhari still has adequate time to turn his fortunes around, but he must be wary of the kind of executive arrogance that undid Jonathan’s party and government.

It is the same type of arrogance that made Minister of State for Petroleum, Ibe Kachikwu, declare in the face of the ongoing petrol scarcity: “One of the trainings I did not receive was that of a magician.” Only to tell prospective protesters days later: “Save your fuel, I am not going to resign” is dangerous.

That Femi Adesina, Buhari’s spokesman, told Nigerians a day earlier that: “If some people are crying that they are in darkness, they should go and hold those who vandalise the installations” betrays Buhari’s administration’s intolerance of criticism and suggests possible abdication of leadership.

Just in case Buhari has forgotten, in May, when he will have completed a quarter of his term in office, Nigerians will not only be carefully assessing the state of his “change” agenda, they will also be wondering if his party deserves to be retained in 2019.

Fisayo Soyombo edits the Nigerian online newspaper TheCable.

Megyn Kelly should learn from Glenn Beck’s failure

Screen-Shot-2015-10-24-at-12.07.01-AM

Megyn Kelly is a star.

By Joe Scarborough
By Joe Scarborough

The Fox News prime-time host runs a successful cable news show, has book publishers throwing millions of dollars her way, co-stars with Donald Trump in this season’s most compelling political soap opera, and is even starting to consider what life might look like after Fox News.

Kelly deserves whatever success comes her way. Few anchors in cable news history have been able to grab the number of viewers that The Kelly Files has garnered in two short years. Besides, who could fault a parent for tiring of a schedule that rarely allows her to sit down for dinner with her children or tuck them into bed at night?

If Kelly wants to leave Fox News for family reasons, good for her. But if Kelly is thinking of escaping Fox News because she thinks she has outgrown the man and his star-making machinery, I offer a suggestion: Call Glenn Beck.

From 2006 to 2008, Beck hosted a show on CNN Headline News. If that comes as a surprise to you, there is a reason. Few people watched the show, and it garnered even less buzz in the media world. Beck was making millions on his successful radio program, but few in politics knew or cared who he was.

Then Roger Ailes called.

Within months, Fox News introduced Beck to millions of TV viewers who tuned in every day. Within a year, Beck was holding political rallies on the Mall in Washington. Ailes’ wildly successful cable news platform even gave Beck the reach to launch a successful website called TheBlaze.

Beck began gracing the cover of magazines, raking in tens of millions of dollars a year, outpacing competitors on multiple media platforms, and, most important to him, controlling a central place in America’s political and cultural zeitgeist.

Beck began to believe he had outgrown Fox News. He was wrong.

After leaving Fox News in 2011, Beck quickly expanded TheBlaze into a multimedia platform. By 2012, he had signed a deal with Dish TV and reached into over 10 million homes. By 2013, he had expanded his operations in New York and bought a massive facility in Dallas. But the further he moved away from the shadow of the News Corp. empire, the less relevant he became.

Five years after his Fox News departure, Beck has been irrelevant to the 2016 campaign. That may be largely because his business has fallen apart since Beck left Fox News.

As he told staff members last year, “We are three million dollars in the hole! That means we are three million dollars from profit. That means I have to take three million dollars out of my wallet, and I have done this now for several years. I don’t have money left. I’m out . . . I need three million dollars by the end of the year. If we wait, it’s gonna be massive, bloody cuts.” Those massive cuts came later that year and the media empire Beck imagined creating while sitting comfortably in his Fox News anchor chair never materialized.

Perhaps Kelly could succeed where Beck has failed. But if I were Kelly’s agent, I would take a long hard look before telling my client to take that leap. Ailes’ media machine has few rivals in the United States. While broadcast outlets keep bleeding millions in revenue, Fox News rakes in more than $1 billion in profits a year as the channel grows in size and influence. And most important for hosts like Kelly, its audience is one of the most loyal. That means higher ratings, bigger book deals and more magazine covers.

Maybe the grass will be greener for Meygn Kelly than it was for Glenn Beck. But if history is any guide, Kelly’s smartest move may just be building on the remarkable platform Roger Ailes has handed to her.

Former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough hosts MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Nigerian Government must stop rejecting the Naira as a legal tender

naira1000

By SKC Ogbonnia
By SKC Ogbonnia

Section 20 of the CBN Act of 2007 clearly states that the Naira “shall be legal tender in Nigeria at their face value for the payment of any amount.” Yet this law has meant nothing to many Nigerian businesses which commonly reject the Naira in preference to the US Dollar. But these businesses are not alone. The Nigerian government is also guilty of the same charge. Perhaps this practice is not new by any stretch and far predates the current Buhari government, but an eye-witness account below exposes a specious dynamic.

Ikenga, a fellow Nigerian citizen resident in Houston, Texas, is a researcher in an international Oil & Gas project. Not long ago, the funding group voted to cite its multimillion dollar project in Africa, and Ikenga passionately lobbied for a Nigerian destination. Along with three expatriates he entered Nigeria this March to explore the project feasibility. Ikenga had arrived Nigeria with his Nigerian passport and planned to travel back into the US with his American passport since he is a dual citizen.

On departure back to the United States, he was informed by the officials of United Airlines that he might not travel because his Nigerian passport had expired a month before. Ikenga was told that such cases typically require a $200 Nigerian Visa in order to travel back to the United States of America. Yes, a Nigerian Visa to travel to USA!  If you have a problem connecting the dots, please you are quite in order… Be that as it may, the manager at the United Airlines, Mrs. Sue Gongul, was kind to intervene with uncommon leadership, untangling the quagmire with candor, and finally stating that the Nigerian Visa charge is usually waived if the passenger could show any proof of having paid for Nigerian passport renewal fees anywhere.

Ikenga quickly explained that he had indeed paid the e-passport renewal fees of $106, but it was not processed before his trip due to another bizarre experience very deserving of another perplexing thesis. In any case, he was advised to authenticate the receipt at the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS) office at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport (MMA) Lagos.

Now at the NIS desk, Ikenga’s predicament seemed not to matter to Mrs. C. A. Dibi, the Comptroller of Immigration on duty at the airport on March 22, 2016. Mrs. Dibi wasted no time to insist that the $200 must be paid regardless. Having missed his flight a night before due to a heavy Lagos traffic provoked by long queues at fuel stations, Ikenga simply accepted to pay the charge—even if that could finally prompt his traveling project team to say ‘bye-bye to Nigeria’. But this piece would not have made it to the reading media if the payment or the amount was still the problem.

The emergent problem is that when Ikenga requested to make the payment with the Naira equivalent of the $200, he was told point-blank by Mrs. Dibi that the NIS—a primary agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria—does not honor the local currency for the service being rendered. In Dibi’s words, “Go and ask anywhere; we do not accept Naira for visa fees.” In other words, though Ikenga had the Nigeria’s currency to tender, a comptroller of the nation’s Immigration Service encouraged him to employ the services of the illegal “Black Market” to change the naira into dollar. Obviously dazed, Ikenga grudgingly made the payment after buying the foreign dollar at the illegal rate of N323 instead of the naira equivalent at the official rate of N198. Ikenga’s view of Nigeria since then, including any notion of attracting foreign investment to his beloved native country, is better imagined than written.

The whole scheme is pennywise pound-foolish for Nigeria and ought to stop henceforth. While plucking dollars by hook or crook from expatriates or Diaspora Nigerians may appear superficially attractive, the illicit pattern does nothing but continually weaken the local currency, since there has been an ocean of naira competing for the few dollars in the marketplace. Even worse, the pattern not only typifies endemic corruption, it also serves as an echo chamber for Nigeria’s shady image.

In attempt to shore up foreign investment, President Muhammadu Buhari has been doing a marvelous job shuttling outside Nigeria to salvage our battered image. But his tireless efforts will amount to naught if the government is seen as promoting shady schemes targeted against expatriates inside the country. Moreover, the president made the appreciation of the Naira a campaign issue. Though he is understandably still blurred by the dizzying economic blues from the immediate past regime, any hope for the International Monetary Systems to appreciate the very naira without the desired example by Nigerian government agencies is sheer wishful thinking.

Dr. SKC Ogbonnia, Ph.D., is the current president of Nigerians in Diaspora Organization (NIDO) – Houston Chapter. SKCOgbonnia@firsttexasenergy.com

x Close

Like Us On Facebook