| African Radio Chicago - The ARC TFTU, Totally Fresh, Totally Unique! Broadcasting Africa - Everytime, Anywhere |
| Click Here to Experience & Share great moments on Gospel Waves |
Vanguard Online
Friday, September 05, 2008
Eight years ago, George
Bush Jnr stood on the
world platform in an
American Presidential
debate. He mixed up
Nigeria and India and
asserted that one of them
is a continent!
The contest seemed
uneven; a fumbling Bush
and a highly intelligent
and resourceful out-going
Vice President, Al Gore.
But Bush won, and not just
Americans, but also the
rest of the world was in
trouble.
With Dick Chenney,
another oil-guzzling
executive as Vice
President, the Bush
administration rolled over
the world combining the
worst of Ronald Reagan
and Margaret Thatcher but
not the positive attributes
of these far right
conservatives.
Now, Americans have
another choice to make.
But let me clarify that I
am not trying to compare
Senators John McCain or
Barack Obama with Bush;
clearly, either men will
lead the US better than
Bush. But there the
similarities end.
McCain has two
indisputable advantages
over Obama. A country
built on freedom, liberty
and justice has been
transformed into a war
mongering nation with a
voracious appetite for a
cold war even after its
adversary, the Soviet
Union had disintegrated.
For such a country, who
becomes the Commander-
In-Chief is an issue. And
here, McCain with his
experience in the Vietnam
War of blame has an
advantage.
Secondly, McCain is a
whiteman in a country that
has experienced four
hundred years of racism.
Obama’s advantages seem
quite numerous. First, his
character has never been
called to question. In
contrast, McCain’s
character has been for
philandering and business
deals with a fraudulent
company.
Also, while Obama is cool
headed, predictable, logical
and engaging, McCain is
known to be a maverick
who blows his tops. Other
Obama advantages include
age; being about McCain’s
son since the latter at 72 is
twenty five years older.
Obama seems quite
healthy, McCain is known
not to enjoy such good
health.
Obama’s intellect
compared to his opponent
is sparkling. One other
advantage, Obama’s
campaign of change seems
unassailable, while McCain’
s closeness and
endorsement of over
ninety percent of George
Bush’s policies is like an
abbatros.
Almost everything seems
to be going on well for
Obama; good campaigns,
fantastic fund raising
abilities which are
essential in American
politics and a huge
carnival-like convention
which unfortunately
nature in the guise of
Hurricane Gustav
disrupted for McCain.
There is also the choice of
running mates. While
Obama picked Senator Joe
Biden, a tested foreign
affairs expert with quite
some experience, McCain
inexplicably picked Sarah
Palin, a governor new to
the American political
system.
It is inconceivable that
Palin’s choice is targeted
at women voters those who
had propelled Senator
Hilary Clinton in the
Democratic primaries. The
mileage to be gained in
this is doubtful because
Palin is not a known
women rights activist or
advocate.
In fact, Obama’s policies
including on abortion are
far more pro-women than
the conservative views of
McCain and Palin.
Yet another factor that
may seem to favour
Obama is the concern of
Americans who since 911
and the unwise invasions
of Iraq and Afghanistan
have come to feel unsafe.
It is not unlikely that an
Obama presidency will
reduce tension in the
world, smoothen relations
with Russia, North Korea
and the Arab world and
make Americans safer in
an increasingly globalized
world. But all these Obama
advantages are not to
suggest that the American
Presidential race is already
won and lost.
Although the facts on the
ground favour an Obama
Presidency, but we are
dealing with human beings
not statistics.
Many factors combine to
determine voters' choice.
Some voters may agree
that Obama has better
leadership qualities and
would lead America better
than McCain but may
decide that they would feel
more comfortable with
McCain as president. In
other words, objectivity or
cold analysis does not
usually determine a voter’
s choice.
So the race may be close.
Whatever the outcome,
one thing is certain,
Obama has challenged the
American stereotype; he
has held a mirror to the
American face and is
making it to re-examine
itself.
In all these, let me make a
few clarifications. First,
Obama is not an
abolitionist like, Harriet
Tubman or Frederick
Douglas, not a black
nationalist like the
legendary Malcolm X, a
civil rights activist like
Martin Luther king and
Rosa Parks or a radical
black politician like Huey
P. Newton, Bobby Seale or
Stokely Carmichael.
But he is visible today
because he stands on the
shoulders of these
remarkable people.
Secondly, except in style
and with some caution, I
do not think an Obama
Presidency will radically
change the overbearing
and war mongering
American attitude. But it
will change the American
psyche.
The United States
composition reflects all
shades of humanity. Its
indigenous people, the
Indians were almost wiped
out by the new comers, the
Anglo Saxons who were
fleeing injustice, prison
and religious intolerance.
They were “pilgrims” who
came in the “May flower”.
Then there is the third
major group, the African
Americans who first
landed in Virginia in 1619.
They were kidnapped, sold
and hauled across the
oceans wailing and dying in
the slave ships. Then of
course there are others,
the Hispanics, Jews,
Chinese and other races
who came to America or
were brought under
different circumstances.
So the US in terms of
racial composition is
perhaps the most unique
country in the world; its
existence gives humanity
the opportunity and the
hope that human beings of
all shades and pedigree can
live together.
The major significance of
an Obama win would be to
cleanse the American
spirit of its residual
racism; the sense of
superiority and self
importance by whites and
inferiority by other races.
An Obama election would
be the fulfillment of the
centuries old American
dream encapsulated in the
July 4, 1776 Declaration of
Independence which
proclaimed “We hold these
truths to be self-evident
that all men are created
equal…”
VNANews Reaction:
It can only take a veteran
like Owei to analyze such
a complex situation so
precisely. I can't agree
with him more. Check this
out! Palin came on board
the race as it were, with a
baggage of unusuals; a far
from model conservative
family (an expectant 17
year old and a husband
who had been arrested for
DUI) as well as a state
embroiled in financial
impropriety allegations.
Yet it took just a few
minutes of a rehearsed
speech at perhaps
America's least celebrated
conventions in recent
history, for her approval
rating to jump, so much
that she can well be said to
tug McCain along in the
race. This is a reckless
euphoria America can ill
afford. While all
Americans have not learnt
their lessons since 2000 for
reasons Owei already
postulated, fact is that
present realities point to
dumping of sentiments
about personalities for
logic. According to an AP
news just breaking - The
nation's unemployment
rate zoomed to a five-year
high of 6.1 percent in
August as employers
slashed 84,000 jobs,
dramatic proof of the
mounting damage a deeply
troubled economy is
inflicting on workers and
businesses alike. The
remaining vital eight
weeks of the campaign will
make it clear that the
economy is the major
problem in America today.
The potentials for
reinstituting the American
dream is embedded in
Obama's community
service and mobilization
credentials and not
McCain's war medals!
Friday, September 05, 2008
Eight years ago, George
Bush Jnr stood on the
world platform in an
American Presidential
debate. He mixed up
Nigeria and India and
asserted that one of them
is a continent!
The contest seemed
uneven; a fumbling Bush
and a highly intelligent
and resourceful out-going
Vice President, Al Gore.
But Bush won, and not just
Americans, but also the
rest of the world was in
trouble.
With Dick Chenney,
another oil-guzzling
executive as Vice
President, the Bush
administration rolled over
the world combining the
worst of Ronald Reagan
and Margaret Thatcher but
not the positive attributes
of these far right
conservatives.
Now, Americans have
another choice to make.
But let me clarify that I
am not trying to compare
Senators John McCain or
Barack Obama with Bush;
clearly, either men will
lead the US better than
Bush. But there the
similarities end.
McCain has two
indisputable advantages
over Obama. A country
built on freedom, liberty
and justice has been
transformed into a war
mongering nation with a
voracious appetite for a
cold war even after its
adversary, the Soviet
Union had disintegrated.
For such a country, who
becomes the Commander-
In-Chief is an issue. And
here, McCain with his
experience in the Vietnam
War of blame has an
advantage.
Secondly, McCain is a
whiteman in a country that
has experienced four
hundred years of racism.
Obama’s advantages seem
quite numerous. First, his
character has never been
called to question. In
contrast, McCain’s
character has been for
philandering and business
deals with a fraudulent
company.
Also, while Obama is cool
headed, predictable, logical
and engaging, McCain is
known to be a maverick
who blows his tops. Other
Obama advantages include
age; being about McCain’s
son since the latter at 72 is
twenty five years older.
Obama seems quite
healthy, McCain is known
not to enjoy such good
health.
Obama’s intellect
compared to his opponent
is sparkling. One other
advantage, Obama’s
campaign of change seems
unassailable, while McCain’
s closeness and
endorsement of over
ninety percent of George
Bush’s policies is like an
abbatros.
Almost everything seems
to be going on well for
Obama; good campaigns,
fantastic fund raising
abilities which are
essential in American
politics and a huge
carnival-like convention
which unfortunately
nature in the guise of
Hurricane Gustav
disrupted for McCain.
There is also the choice of
running mates. While
Obama picked Senator Joe
Biden, a tested foreign
affairs expert with quite
some experience, McCain
inexplicably picked Sarah
Palin, a governor new to
the American political
system.
It is inconceivable that
Palin’s choice is targeted
at women voters those who
had propelled Senator
Hilary Clinton in the
Democratic primaries. The
mileage to be gained in
this is doubtful because
Palin is not a known
women rights activist or
advocate.
In fact, Obama’s policies
including on abortion are
far more pro-women than
the conservative views of
McCain and Palin.
Yet another factor that
may seem to favour
Obama is the concern of
Americans who since 911
and the unwise invasions
of Iraq and Afghanistan
have come to feel unsafe.
It is not unlikely that an
Obama presidency will
reduce tension in the
world, smoothen relations
with Russia, North Korea
and the Arab world and
make Americans safer in
an increasingly globalized
world. But all these Obama
advantages are not to
suggest that the American
Presidential race is already
won and lost.
Although the facts on the
ground favour an Obama
Presidency, but we are
dealing with human beings
not statistics.
Many factors combine to
determine voters' choice.
Some voters may agree
that Obama has better
leadership qualities and
would lead America better
than McCain but may
decide that they would feel
more comfortable with
McCain as president. In
other words, objectivity or
cold analysis does not
usually determine a voter’
s choice.
So the race may be close.
Whatever the outcome,
one thing is certain,
Obama has challenged the
American stereotype; he
has held a mirror to the
American face and is
making it to re-examine
itself.
In all these, let me make a
few clarifications. First,
Obama is not an
abolitionist like, Harriet
Tubman or Frederick
Douglas, not a black
nationalist like the
legendary Malcolm X, a
civil rights activist like
Martin Luther king and
Rosa Parks or a radical
black politician like Huey
P. Newton, Bobby Seale or
Stokely Carmichael.
But he is visible today
because he stands on the
shoulders of these
remarkable people.
Secondly, except in style
and with some caution, I
do not think an Obama
Presidency will radically
change the overbearing
and war mongering
American attitude. But it
will change the American
psyche.
The United States
composition reflects all
shades of humanity. Its
indigenous people, the
Indians were almost wiped
out by the new comers, the
Anglo Saxons who were
fleeing injustice, prison
and religious intolerance.
They were “pilgrims” who
came in the “May flower”.
Then there is the third
major group, the African
Americans who first
landed in Virginia in 1619.
They were kidnapped, sold
and hauled across the
oceans wailing and dying in
the slave ships. Then of
course there are others,
the Hispanics, Jews,
Chinese and other races
who came to America or
were brought under
different circumstances.
So the US in terms of
racial composition is
perhaps the most unique
country in the world; its
existence gives humanity
the opportunity and the
hope that human beings of
all shades and pedigree can
live together.
The major significance of
an Obama win would be to
cleanse the American
spirit of its residual
racism; the sense of
superiority and self
importance by whites and
inferiority by other races.
An Obama election would
be the fulfillment of the
centuries old American
dream encapsulated in the
July 4, 1776 Declaration of
Independence which
proclaimed “We hold these
truths to be self-evident
that all men are created
equal…”
VNANews Reaction:
It can only take a veteran
like Owei to analyze such
a complex situation so
precisely. I can't agree
with him more. Check this
out! Palin came on board
the race as it were, with a
baggage of unusuals; a far
from model conservative
family (an expectant 17
year old and a husband
who had been arrested for
DUI) as well as a state
embroiled in financial
impropriety allegations.
Yet it took just a few
minutes of a rehearsed
speech at perhaps
America's least celebrated
conventions in recent
history, for her approval
rating to jump, so much
that she can well be said to
tug McCain along in the
race. This is a reckless
euphoria America can ill
afford. While all
Americans have not learnt
their lessons since 2000 for
reasons Owei already
postulated, fact is that
present realities point to
dumping of sentiments
about personalities for
logic. According to an AP
news just breaking - The
nation's unemployment
rate zoomed to a five-year
high of 6.1 percent in
August as employers
slashed 84,000 jobs,
dramatic proof of the
mounting damage a deeply
troubled economy is
inflicting on workers and
businesses alike. The
remaining vital eight
weeks of the campaign will
make it clear that the
economy is the major
problem in America today.
The potentials for
reinstituting the American
dream is embedded in
Obama's community
service and mobilization
credentials and not
McCain's war medals!
Trying to portray Africa as
having a structure here in
the United States is probably
as easy a task as making a
case for population census in
Mars. There simply can be
no dumber way of holding
the attention of folks here.
You might as well play
Handel’s Messiah on your
1st date with a 22 year old
who grew up in Harlem. A
Nigerian was doing just that
when on a metropolitan
train-ride with several other
colleagues, one of whom was
a former Nigeria journalist,
he started rambling about a
story on a Nigerian news site
on the internet.
“How could Yar’Adua have
succumbed to such
blackmail?” he railed, “now
the country has been thrown
into mourning again.”
“Mourning? What about?”
the other Nigerian sought to
know.
“Yep. Mourning for Bakassi.”
“Wha’ you just say?” Their
American companion was
getting curious.
“Oh, he’s talking about a
Nigerian territory that was
officially ceded to Cameroon,
Nigeria’s eastern neighbor.”
“An’ wha’ yo’l call the
place?”
“Bakassi.”
“Oh yeah. I thought I heard
“back ass some’n’” the
American sister mused.
The three laughed while the
fourth, a young man of Asian
descent took his ear phone
off to share in the fun, but
what he got only sustained
his interest for a few seconds.
“How could Nigeria have
given away such an oil-rich
territory on a platter of gold?
Couldn’t Nigeria have paid
for whatever favor Cameroon
did for her during the civil
war in cash and kind of some
sort? Why give a whole clan
of Nigerians away to eternal
slavery and servitude in their
own land? Why…”
“Wait a minute my friend,”
the Nigerian journalist cut
in.
“Hey guys. I ain’t getting it.
You guys’ from Nigeria or
Africa right?”
“Nigeria” they chorused.
“That’s Africa right?”
“Right.”
“So which one is Cameron,
or wha‘ yo’l call it?”
“Well, Africa is a continent,
just like North America.
Nigeria and Cameroon are
two of the more than fifty
countries in Africa.”
“Uh for real? That was her
final submission, made even
better by the fact that she
would soon make her stop.
For the rest of her stay in the
car (American for coach) she
rummaged through her
purse, fishing out her
foundation and other facial
make-up, readying herself to
get off the train. The
explanation of the Nigerians
and the ensuing discusssion
was becoming technical;
what the American calls
“giving too much
information.”
“Ol’ boy, I read some of
those stuff about mourning
and gnashing of teeth over
handover of Bakassi. Yet no
picture of a moaning Bakassi
inhabitant was shown. One
of the the dailies showed the
face of a weeping girl,
covered with tears and nasal
effluents. I shook my head in
amazement at the extent of
what I call contract
journalism in Nigeria.”
“What you talking about?
Man, they’re writing what
they see.”
“Oh yeah. Now, give me one
reason why a Bakassi native
would rather be in Nigeria,
than Cameroun. Just one
reason.” Silence.
“Ehm, well. I guess because
they have always known
themselves as Nigerians.”
“I see. You’re an American
citizen by naturalization,
right?”
“Sure.”
“Why, guess you had always
known yourself as
Nigerian?”
“Well, yes, but being an
American citizen affords me
better oportunities and more
privilleges here in the US
and elsewhere.” Long silence
as they both stare at each
other, then burst out
laughing. “I see. Now I got
it!” More laughter.
“The question is who’s
crying for Bakassi? The only
resources in Bakassi today is
the hydrocarbon in the earth’
s crust and crude fishing
boats on land. Nigerian oil
producing Niger Delta has
suffered more than half a
century of neglect and
degradation by the federal
government and oil
producing companies. What
would be the plight of
Bakassi if the French in
conjunction with Cameroun
exploit the wealth in their
land? Maybe same plight as
Niger Delta. Maybe better. It
can never be worse. Who
suffers in the event of an
imbroiglio about Bakassi
sovereignty? The answer is
inhabitants of Bakassi who
would be bombarded by the
ambitious Camerounian
gendarmes. During the
Shagari era of Nigeria’s
second republic there were
serious skirmishes at the
Nigerian/Cameroun border
as the central African
country claimed the
territory. There were quite
some casaulties on both
sides. News came back to us
then that one Deji, a young
school leaver like myself
that joined the newsroom
same time as myself but left
to train as a Naval Cadet, got
killed in one of those coastal
assaults.”
“For real?”
“There was a huge debate
then and a lot of Nigerians
averred that President
Shagari should assert
Nigeria’s territorial
integrity and declare an all
out war on Cameroun. But
many Nigerians knew better.
During the Nigerian civil
war, Bakassi Peninsula had
been ceded to Ahmadou
Ahidjo led Cameroun by
Nigerian military leader,
Yakubu Gowon in exchange
of right of passage into rebel-
held south eastern Nigeria,
even though the Peninsula
had in an eraly 20th century
agreement between
Germany and Britain, been
ceded to Cameroun. One of
the better informed no doubt
was Joseph Wayas, Senate
President at that time, who
hails from the south east
region of Ogoja which
borders Cameroun and from
where tens of thousands of
people sojourn in Cameroun
for the better life they can’t
get from Nigeria. I visited
Ogoja area at that time and
to my surprise the
inhabitants listened to
Camerounian Radio Stations
which provided more
entertainment than their
local stations.
Now check this out. A
Nigerian soldier who served
in the Nigerian
Camerounian border during
the clashes personally told
me that scores of Nigerian
solders deflected to
Camerounian armed forces
where they got better
remuneration, including cars
of their own.”
“You’re kidding me.”
“Nope. Cameroun though
currently ruled by one of
Africa’s many despots, Paul
Biya, who has been in power
for more than a quarter of a
century and plans to stay on
for life, like most African
leaders anyway, is still home
to hundreds of thousands of
Nigerians who have defied
forced deportations and
threats of deportation. To
such sojourners the brutal
Police states created by
dictators like Biya of
Cameroun, Bongo of Garbon
and Museveni of Uganda
provide greater security to
their investments than the
state of anarchy and
insecurity in Nigeria’s
sloppy democracy.
The point I’m making is that
it is the duty of the Nigerian
government to resettle
Nigerians who have fled the
ceded territory.
Unfortunately from the
government’s record since
the last administration of
Obasanjo, this is not likely
going to take place. The
mourning is not as a result
of the loss of Bakassi.
Bakassi’s been gone since
the early 80s when the
Shagari administration
lacked the willpower to fight
for it. The crying baby on the
frontpage of the national
daily is the deprived and
dehumanized Nigerian
people. Period.”
Both gentlemen shook their
heads as they got off the
train and walked towards
their cars.
having a structure here in
the United States is probably
as easy a task as making a
case for population census in
Mars. There simply can be
no dumber way of holding
the attention of folks here.
You might as well play
Handel’s Messiah on your
1st date with a 22 year old
who grew up in Harlem. A
Nigerian was doing just that
when on a metropolitan
train-ride with several other
colleagues, one of whom was
a former Nigeria journalist,
he started rambling about a
story on a Nigerian news site
on the internet.
“How could Yar’Adua have
succumbed to such
blackmail?” he railed, “now
the country has been thrown
into mourning again.”
“Mourning? What about?”
the other Nigerian sought to
know.
“Yep. Mourning for Bakassi.”
“Wha’ you just say?” Their
American companion was
getting curious.
“Oh, he’s talking about a
Nigerian territory that was
officially ceded to Cameroon,
Nigeria’s eastern neighbor.”
“An’ wha’ yo’l call the
place?”
“Bakassi.”
“Oh yeah. I thought I heard
“back ass some’n’” the
American sister mused.
The three laughed while the
fourth, a young man of Asian
descent took his ear phone
off to share in the fun, but
what he got only sustained
his interest for a few seconds.
“How could Nigeria have
given away such an oil-rich
territory on a platter of gold?
Couldn’t Nigeria have paid
for whatever favor Cameroon
did for her during the civil
war in cash and kind of some
sort? Why give a whole clan
of Nigerians away to eternal
slavery and servitude in their
own land? Why…”
“Wait a minute my friend,”
the Nigerian journalist cut
in.
“Hey guys. I ain’t getting it.
You guys’ from Nigeria or
Africa right?”
“Nigeria” they chorused.
“That’s Africa right?”
“Right.”
“So which one is Cameron,
or wha‘ yo’l call it?”
“Well, Africa is a continent,
just like North America.
Nigeria and Cameroon are
two of the more than fifty
countries in Africa.”
“Uh for real? That was her
final submission, made even
better by the fact that she
would soon make her stop.
For the rest of her stay in the
car (American for coach) she
rummaged through her
purse, fishing out her
foundation and other facial
make-up, readying herself to
get off the train. The
explanation of the Nigerians
and the ensuing discusssion
was becoming technical;
what the American calls
“giving too much
information.”
“Ol’ boy, I read some of
those stuff about mourning
and gnashing of teeth over
handover of Bakassi. Yet no
picture of a moaning Bakassi
inhabitant was shown. One
of the the dailies showed the
face of a weeping girl,
covered with tears and nasal
effluents. I shook my head in
amazement at the extent of
what I call contract
journalism in Nigeria.”
“What you talking about?
Man, they’re writing what
they see.”
“Oh yeah. Now, give me one
reason why a Bakassi native
would rather be in Nigeria,
than Cameroun. Just one
reason.” Silence.
“Ehm, well. I guess because
they have always known
themselves as Nigerians.”
“I see. You’re an American
citizen by naturalization,
right?”
“Sure.”
“Why, guess you had always
known yourself as
Nigerian?”
“Well, yes, but being an
American citizen affords me
better oportunities and more
privilleges here in the US
and elsewhere.” Long silence
as they both stare at each
other, then burst out
laughing. “I see. Now I got
it!” More laughter.
“The question is who’s
crying for Bakassi? The only
resources in Bakassi today is
the hydrocarbon in the earth’
s crust and crude fishing
boats on land. Nigerian oil
producing Niger Delta has
suffered more than half a
century of neglect and
degradation by the federal
government and oil
producing companies. What
would be the plight of
Bakassi if the French in
conjunction with Cameroun
exploit the wealth in their
land? Maybe same plight as
Niger Delta. Maybe better. It
can never be worse. Who
suffers in the event of an
imbroiglio about Bakassi
sovereignty? The answer is
inhabitants of Bakassi who
would be bombarded by the
ambitious Camerounian
gendarmes. During the
Shagari era of Nigeria’s
second republic there were
serious skirmishes at the
Nigerian/Cameroun border
as the central African
country claimed the
territory. There were quite
some casaulties on both
sides. News came back to us
then that one Deji, a young
school leaver like myself
that joined the newsroom
same time as myself but left
to train as a Naval Cadet, got
killed in one of those coastal
assaults.”
“For real?”
“There was a huge debate
then and a lot of Nigerians
averred that President
Shagari should assert
Nigeria’s territorial
integrity and declare an all
out war on Cameroun. But
many Nigerians knew better.
During the Nigerian civil
war, Bakassi Peninsula had
been ceded to Ahmadou
Ahidjo led Cameroun by
Nigerian military leader,
Yakubu Gowon in exchange
of right of passage into rebel-
held south eastern Nigeria,
even though the Peninsula
had in an eraly 20th century
agreement between
Germany and Britain, been
ceded to Cameroun. One of
the better informed no doubt
was Joseph Wayas, Senate
President at that time, who
hails from the south east
region of Ogoja which
borders Cameroun and from
where tens of thousands of
people sojourn in Cameroun
for the better life they can’t
get from Nigeria. I visited
Ogoja area at that time and
to my surprise the
inhabitants listened to
Camerounian Radio Stations
which provided more
entertainment than their
local stations.
Now check this out. A
Nigerian soldier who served
in the Nigerian
Camerounian border during
the clashes personally told
me that scores of Nigerian
solders deflected to
Camerounian armed forces
where they got better
remuneration, including cars
of their own.”
“You’re kidding me.”
“Nope. Cameroun though
currently ruled by one of
Africa’s many despots, Paul
Biya, who has been in power
for more than a quarter of a
century and plans to stay on
for life, like most African
leaders anyway, is still home
to hundreds of thousands of
Nigerians who have defied
forced deportations and
threats of deportation. To
such sojourners the brutal
Police states created by
dictators like Biya of
Cameroun, Bongo of Garbon
and Museveni of Uganda
provide greater security to
their investments than the
state of anarchy and
insecurity in Nigeria’s
sloppy democracy.
The point I’m making is that
it is the duty of the Nigerian
government to resettle
Nigerians who have fled the
ceded territory.
Unfortunately from the
government’s record since
the last administration of
Obasanjo, this is not likely
going to take place. The
mourning is not as a result
of the loss of Bakassi.
Bakassi’s been gone since
the early 80s when the
Shagari administration
lacked the willpower to fight
for it. The crying baby on the
frontpage of the national
daily is the deprived and
dehumanized Nigerian
people. Period.”
Both gentlemen shook their
heads as they got off the
train and walked towards
their cars.
| “Nigerian Journalists, where are your cameras?” - We must take journalism out of the mundane to the next level where images and imagery tell a better story than a thousand dossiers. Read Our Thoughts about Elevating Web Journalism in Nigeria |
MBEKI'S MISTAKE
By Reuben Abati
FORMER South African President,
Thabo Mbeki has many Nigerian friends. But he
obviously failed to consult them in the course of his
bitter rivalry with his former Deputy President,
Jacob Zuma. He is now the loser having been
humiliated out of office by the more politically
savvy Zuma. This is Mbeki's big mistake. Rivalry
between a sitting President/Governor, and his
Deputy is a familiar episode in Nigeria's political
landscape, but usually, such confrontations are
resolved in favour of the senior man of power.
Nigerians would easily recall the bitter
confrontation between former President Olusegun
Obasanjo and Vice President Atiku Abubakar,
between Orji Kalu and his Deputy, Enyinanya
Abaribe in Abia State; and between former
Governor Bola Tinubu and two Deputies, one after
the other - Senator Kofoworola Bucknor-Akerele
and Mr. Femi Pedro.
In Nigeria, ambitious Deputies who make the
mistake of confronting their Principal are often
made to pay dearly for this. They are ostracized
and rendered irrelevant within the party. The only
exception to this rule, perhaps is Deputy Governor
Adebayo Alao-Akala (as he then was) who managed
to upstage his boss, Rashidi Ladoja in Oyo State.
But this was not due to any political dexterity on
Alao-Akala's part, the decisive factor in that battle
was the late Chief Lamidi Adedibu's overweening
and pervasive influence. Has Mr. Mbeki ever heard
of "Godfather" politics? His exit from power
appears too logical, too easy; it is almost
unbelievable.
Ordinarily in Nigerian politics, the king is always
right, and the Presidency in particular is so
powerful that the man in the chair can wield the
power of life and death. In comparison with South
Africa, it is not a question of differences in system
of government (parliamentary system as opposed
to a presidential system), but culture. If Thabo
Mbeki were a Nigerian President, he would still be
in power today. If Jacob Zuma were a Nigerian, he
would not have been in a position to humiliate, to
use a popular Nigerian phrase, "an incumbent"
President.
The parting of ways between President Thabo
Mbeki and Jacob Zuma occurred in 2005, when
following the conviction of Zuma's financial adviser
on the grounds of corruption and indications that
Vice President Zuma, as he then was, was complicit
in this, President Mbeki relieved Zuma of his
position as Vice President. Zuma was subsequently
charged to court, not only for corruption but also
rape in what became one of the most sensational
trials in post-apartheid South Africa. Zuma and his
supporters alleged political persecution. President
Mbeki insisted on the integrity of the Presidency
and the rule of law. But Zuma, pushed out of high
office, remained a member of the African National
Congress (ANC), the ruling party and while his
case was being heard in court, Zuma concentrated
on consolidating his influence and power base
within the party. A populist and a cynical politician
with a capacity to move the crowds, sing and dance
with them, Zuma is/was seen by the average ANC
member and black South African as a champion of
black interests in contrast to Mbeki who is seen as
pro-West, pro-white and somewhat too aloof. The
Mbeki government's inability to meet the
expectations of the black majority in a
post-apartheid season, the slow pace of economic
freedom and black empowerment further alienated
the Mbeki government from the black majority.
Losing this perception and popularity game was
bound to be costly. Mbeki should have called on his
Nigerian friends in politics. If Nigeria was too far
away, he could have sought counsel in Kenya or
Zimbabwe. There is Mwai Kibaki in Kenya. And the
old fox, Dr. Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. But I
would have recommended Nigeria's Obasanjo, who
deserves the top prize for giving effect to the idea
of politics as war. The beginning of Mbeki's end can
be traced to the December 2007 ANC elections.
Zuma dealt a deadly blow on him in that election,
when he and his supporters took over all the
positions in the party hierarchy, with Zuma
emerging as Chairman of the party. In South
Africa's parliamentary system, Zuma as party
chairman had technically gained an upper hand in
the power game. This would have been difficult to
achieve against "an incumbent" President in
Nigeria. Why didn't Mbeki consult Obasanjo? His
first lesson would have been about the power of
incumbency. Two years earlier, Mbeki could have
been advised by Nigerian strategists to remove
Zuma as Vice President and in addition engineer
his dismissal from the ANC for anti-party activities!
When former President Obasanjo became
dissatisfied with Atiku Abubakar's politics - his
opposition to the Third Term agenda, his open
declaration of interest in the 2007 Presidential
election, and his public criticisms of Obasanjo - the
first thing Obasanjo did was to isolate his Vice
President. Atiku was the leader of the political
machinery, the PDM that brought Obasanjo to
power. Wielding the power of the Presidential
office, however, Obasanjo dismantled the PDM. He
removed PDM and pro-Atiku persons from
positions of influence. He reduced Atiku's own
personal staff, scaled down the security around
him. In due course, it was clear to everyone in the
corridors of power that anyone who was seen either
exchanging greetings, or notes with Atiku would be
automatically considered an enemy of the
President.
State Governors who appeared to be loyal to Atiku
were slammed with corruption charges and the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC), which became Obasanjo's personal army
was unleashed on such Governors. Opportunism is
the engine oil of Nigerian politics. Some of those
Governors were impeached. Obasanjo even
changed the PDP Constitution and made himself
the most powerful member of the party. One by
one, those who had founded the party and invited
him to join it in 1998, were driven out of the party.
Atiku and his sympathizers and other
anti-Obasanjo forces, in an attempt to remain in
politics, had to form a rival political party, the
Action Congress. But Obasanjo's government still
found an answer to that by quickly setting up a
Presidential panel which indicted the Vice
President and thus technically declared him unfit
for Presidential office. The man went to court to
challenge the assault on his rights; he won all the
cases, but he was successfully distracted by the
system.
If Mbeki had taken classes in the Nigerian school
of politics, Zuma would have had a taste of this
Atiku treatment. He and his supporters would have
been hounded out of the party and the country; the
old apartheid machinery would have been carefully
resurrected to deal specifically with Jacob Zuma
and his friends. The stubborn ones among them
would have been kidnapped, threatened and
reported to the traditional chiefs of their original
communities. The ANC elections which brought
Zuma to power within the party would have been
rigged or it would have been inconclusive and if
concluded, the results could only have favoured the
incumbent President. If this would not be possible,
Mbeki and his supporters could have organized
thugs to disrupt the process. In the run-up to the
election, Zuma's supporters would have been
picked up and detained until after the election.
This is the Nigerian way. In Nigerian politics, the
end justifies not the means, but the meanness.
It is noteworthy that former President Nelson
Mandela is not on record anywhere as having taken
sides in the Mbeki-Zuma squabble. In Nigeria, a
man like that would have been forced by the
President to come out in his support, both publicly
and within the ANC. Mrs. Mbeki has also not said a
word. A Nigerian First Lady would have seized the
initiative. She and Mrs. Zuma would have had a
spat of their own in the public arena. Former
President Mbeki was too busy allowing democracy
to take its course. In Nigeria, democracy means
winning power and position by any means possible.
Nigerian consultants could have helped to remind
him that the anti-apartheid struggle ended long
ago, and that the new challenge is to stop ambitious
ANC apparatchiks.
The judiciary played a central role in the
Mbeki-Zuma affair. It was the ruling by a High
Court judge suggesting that Zuma's trial is
politically motivated and that the Mbeki
government has a hand in this that galvanized the
Zuma wing of the ANC into action against the
President. The party recalled Mbeki as President
and he quietly complied. If Mbeki had taken
Nigerian lessons, the High Court Judge would not
have had the effrontery to speak as he did. He
would have been reminded in all kinds of manner
that it'd be improper to give a ruling that could
jeopardize national security. Indeed, he could have
been quietly promoted or recommended for
promotion a few days earlier!
The meeting of the ANC National Executive
Committee where the decision to recall Mbeki was
taken, if this were in Nigeria, would definitely have
ended in chaos. First, an attempt would have been
made to bribe the members with oil and gas
contracts, mining contracts and offers of positions
in government. Traditional rulers from their
communities would have been asked to prevail on
them not to destabilize the country. Mbeki's likely
resignation would also have generated serious
tension between Zulus and Xhosas, with the latter -
Mbeki's kinsmen protesting that there is a Zulu
agenda against the President and that he, Mbeki
should be allowed to complete his tenure. In
parliament, all Xhosas would have queued up
behind their President; they would have staged a
walk-out or snatch the Mace or engage other
lawmakers in physical combat.
After the submission of Mbeki's letter of
resignation to Parliament, state Governors,
businessmen, rich men and women would have
prevailed on the lawmakers to reject the
resignation in the national interest. There would
have been arranged solidarity rallies where rented
crowds would have argued that the country would
come to a sudden end, if Mbeki leaves. And if
every option looked difficult, if the trouble-makers
refused to accept all pleas, the government itself
could have organized a phantom coup and Zuma
and some of his supporters would have been
arrested as the ring-leaders. Their trial would be
on-going until after next year's elections.
Some commentators have expressed fears about
the likely factionalization of the ANC in a
post-Mbeki era. The former President, if he were a
Nigerian, would in fact, have encouraged that. A
Nigerian President and his supporters would have
imagined the kind of humiliation that they could
suffer outside power and office. If Zuma were a
Nigerian, for example, by now, a probe of the
Mbeki era would have become the main task of the
new government. To prevent such humiliation,
Nigerian leaders cling to power at all costs.
Mbeki has been praised for being a disciplined
party man, for respecting the will of the majority,
his devotion to his country, his dignified conduct as
President, his careful management of South
African affairs in a post-Mandela season, his
commitment to the African renaissance, respect
for rule of law, his diplomacy and his skills as a
bridge-builder. Nigerian politicians have been
asked to learn from his example. It is like
preaching to the deaf. Nigerian politicians assume
that the best way to be a good party man is to turn
the party into a personal property. Zuma is far
more Nigerian than Mbeki. But running a country
is not the same as dancing toyi-toyi, or having a
sweet revenge. Mbeki may, in the long run, have
the last laugh. With his exit, South Africa has lost
its innocence...
Culled from The Guardian
By Reuben Abati
FORMER South African President,
Thabo Mbeki has many Nigerian friends. But he
obviously failed to consult them in the course of his
bitter rivalry with his former Deputy President,
Jacob Zuma. He is now the loser having been
humiliated out of office by the more politically
savvy Zuma. This is Mbeki's big mistake. Rivalry
between a sitting President/Governor, and his
Deputy is a familiar episode in Nigeria's political
landscape, but usually, such confrontations are
resolved in favour of the senior man of power.
Nigerians would easily recall the bitter
confrontation between former President Olusegun
Obasanjo and Vice President Atiku Abubakar,
between Orji Kalu and his Deputy, Enyinanya
Abaribe in Abia State; and between former
Governor Bola Tinubu and two Deputies, one after
the other - Senator Kofoworola Bucknor-Akerele
and Mr. Femi Pedro.
In Nigeria, ambitious Deputies who make the
mistake of confronting their Principal are often
made to pay dearly for this. They are ostracized
and rendered irrelevant within the party. The only
exception to this rule, perhaps is Deputy Governor
Adebayo Alao-Akala (as he then was) who managed
to upstage his boss, Rashidi Ladoja in Oyo State.
But this was not due to any political dexterity on
Alao-Akala's part, the decisive factor in that battle
was the late Chief Lamidi Adedibu's overweening
and pervasive influence. Has Mr. Mbeki ever heard
of "Godfather" politics? His exit from power
appears too logical, too easy; it is almost
unbelievable.
Ordinarily in Nigerian politics, the king is always
right, and the Presidency in particular is so
powerful that the man in the chair can wield the
power of life and death. In comparison with South
Africa, it is not a question of differences in system
of government (parliamentary system as opposed
to a presidential system), but culture. If Thabo
Mbeki were a Nigerian President, he would still be
in power today. If Jacob Zuma were a Nigerian, he
would not have been in a position to humiliate, to
use a popular Nigerian phrase, "an incumbent"
President.
The parting of ways between President Thabo
Mbeki and Jacob Zuma occurred in 2005, when
following the conviction of Zuma's financial adviser
on the grounds of corruption and indications that
Vice President Zuma, as he then was, was complicit
in this, President Mbeki relieved Zuma of his
position as Vice President. Zuma was subsequently
charged to court, not only for corruption but also
rape in what became one of the most sensational
trials in post-apartheid South Africa. Zuma and his
supporters alleged political persecution. President
Mbeki insisted on the integrity of the Presidency
and the rule of law. But Zuma, pushed out of high
office, remained a member of the African National
Congress (ANC), the ruling party and while his
case was being heard in court, Zuma concentrated
on consolidating his influence and power base
within the party. A populist and a cynical politician
with a capacity to move the crowds, sing and dance
with them, Zuma is/was seen by the average ANC
member and black South African as a champion of
black interests in contrast to Mbeki who is seen as
pro-West, pro-white and somewhat too aloof. The
Mbeki government's inability to meet the
expectations of the black majority in a
post-apartheid season, the slow pace of economic
freedom and black empowerment further alienated
the Mbeki government from the black majority.
Losing this perception and popularity game was
bound to be costly. Mbeki should have called on his
Nigerian friends in politics. If Nigeria was too far
away, he could have sought counsel in Kenya or
Zimbabwe. There is Mwai Kibaki in Kenya. And the
old fox, Dr. Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. But I
would have recommended Nigeria's Obasanjo, who
deserves the top prize for giving effect to the idea
of politics as war. The beginning of Mbeki's end can
be traced to the December 2007 ANC elections.
Zuma dealt a deadly blow on him in that election,
when he and his supporters took over all the
positions in the party hierarchy, with Zuma
emerging as Chairman of the party. In South
Africa's parliamentary system, Zuma as party
chairman had technically gained an upper hand in
the power game. This would have been difficult to
achieve against "an incumbent" President in
Nigeria. Why didn't Mbeki consult Obasanjo? His
first lesson would have been about the power of
incumbency. Two years earlier, Mbeki could have
been advised by Nigerian strategists to remove
Zuma as Vice President and in addition engineer
his dismissal from the ANC for anti-party activities!
When former President Obasanjo became
dissatisfied with Atiku Abubakar's politics - his
opposition to the Third Term agenda, his open
declaration of interest in the 2007 Presidential
election, and his public criticisms of Obasanjo - the
first thing Obasanjo did was to isolate his Vice
President. Atiku was the leader of the political
machinery, the PDM that brought Obasanjo to
power. Wielding the power of the Presidential
office, however, Obasanjo dismantled the PDM. He
removed PDM and pro-Atiku persons from
positions of influence. He reduced Atiku's own
personal staff, scaled down the security around
him. In due course, it was clear to everyone in the
corridors of power that anyone who was seen either
exchanging greetings, or notes with Atiku would be
automatically considered an enemy of the
President.
State Governors who appeared to be loyal to Atiku
were slammed with corruption charges and the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC), which became Obasanjo's personal army
was unleashed on such Governors. Opportunism is
the engine oil of Nigerian politics. Some of those
Governors were impeached. Obasanjo even
changed the PDP Constitution and made himself
the most powerful member of the party. One by
one, those who had founded the party and invited
him to join it in 1998, were driven out of the party.
Atiku and his sympathizers and other
anti-Obasanjo forces, in an attempt to remain in
politics, had to form a rival political party, the
Action Congress. But Obasanjo's government still
found an answer to that by quickly setting up a
Presidential panel which indicted the Vice
President and thus technically declared him unfit
for Presidential office. The man went to court to
challenge the assault on his rights; he won all the
cases, but he was successfully distracted by the
system.
If Mbeki had taken classes in the Nigerian school
of politics, Zuma would have had a taste of this
Atiku treatment. He and his supporters would have
been hounded out of the party and the country; the
old apartheid machinery would have been carefully
resurrected to deal specifically with Jacob Zuma
and his friends. The stubborn ones among them
would have been kidnapped, threatened and
reported to the traditional chiefs of their original
communities. The ANC elections which brought
Zuma to power within the party would have been
rigged or it would have been inconclusive and if
concluded, the results could only have favoured the
incumbent President. If this would not be possible,
Mbeki and his supporters could have organized
thugs to disrupt the process. In the run-up to the
election, Zuma's supporters would have been
picked up and detained until after the election.
This is the Nigerian way. In Nigerian politics, the
end justifies not the means, but the meanness.
It is noteworthy that former President Nelson
Mandela is not on record anywhere as having taken
sides in the Mbeki-Zuma squabble. In Nigeria, a
man like that would have been forced by the
President to come out in his support, both publicly
and within the ANC. Mrs. Mbeki has also not said a
word. A Nigerian First Lady would have seized the
initiative. She and Mrs. Zuma would have had a
spat of their own in the public arena. Former
President Mbeki was too busy allowing democracy
to take its course. In Nigeria, democracy means
winning power and position by any means possible.
Nigerian consultants could have helped to remind
him that the anti-apartheid struggle ended long
ago, and that the new challenge is to stop ambitious
ANC apparatchiks.
The judiciary played a central role in the
Mbeki-Zuma affair. It was the ruling by a High
Court judge suggesting that Zuma's trial is
politically motivated and that the Mbeki
government has a hand in this that galvanized the
Zuma wing of the ANC into action against the
President. The party recalled Mbeki as President
and he quietly complied. If Mbeki had taken
Nigerian lessons, the High Court Judge would not
have had the effrontery to speak as he did. He
would have been reminded in all kinds of manner
that it'd be improper to give a ruling that could
jeopardize national security. Indeed, he could have
been quietly promoted or recommended for
promotion a few days earlier!
The meeting of the ANC National Executive
Committee where the decision to recall Mbeki was
taken, if this were in Nigeria, would definitely have
ended in chaos. First, an attempt would have been
made to bribe the members with oil and gas
contracts, mining contracts and offers of positions
in government. Traditional rulers from their
communities would have been asked to prevail on
them not to destabilize the country. Mbeki's likely
resignation would also have generated serious
tension between Zulus and Xhosas, with the latter -
Mbeki's kinsmen protesting that there is a Zulu
agenda against the President and that he, Mbeki
should be allowed to complete his tenure. In
parliament, all Xhosas would have queued up
behind their President; they would have staged a
walk-out or snatch the Mace or engage other
lawmakers in physical combat.
After the submission of Mbeki's letter of
resignation to Parliament, state Governors,
businessmen, rich men and women would have
prevailed on the lawmakers to reject the
resignation in the national interest. There would
have been arranged solidarity rallies where rented
crowds would have argued that the country would
come to a sudden end, if Mbeki leaves. And if
every option looked difficult, if the trouble-makers
refused to accept all pleas, the government itself
could have organized a phantom coup and Zuma
and some of his supporters would have been
arrested as the ring-leaders. Their trial would be
on-going until after next year's elections.
Some commentators have expressed fears about
the likely factionalization of the ANC in a
post-Mbeki era. The former President, if he were a
Nigerian, would in fact, have encouraged that. A
Nigerian President and his supporters would have
imagined the kind of humiliation that they could
suffer outside power and office. If Zuma were a
Nigerian, for example, by now, a probe of the
Mbeki era would have become the main task of the
new government. To prevent such humiliation,
Nigerian leaders cling to power at all costs.
Mbeki has been praised for being a disciplined
party man, for respecting the will of the majority,
his devotion to his country, his dignified conduct as
President, his careful management of South
African affairs in a post-Mandela season, his
commitment to the African renaissance, respect
for rule of law, his diplomacy and his skills as a
bridge-builder. Nigerian politicians have been
asked to learn from his example. It is like
preaching to the deaf. Nigerian politicians assume
that the best way to be a good party man is to turn
the party into a personal property. Zuma is far
more Nigerian than Mbeki. But running a country
is not the same as dancing toyi-toyi, or having a
sweet revenge. Mbeki may, in the long run, have
the last laugh. With his exit, South Africa has lost
its innocence...
Culled from The Guardian
| TRAFFIC JAM Otherwise called go-slow in Lagos Nigeria. Operate the player below to listen to a 1/2 Hour special Discussion on the LAGOS/Koolhaas a film on Lagos |
| The Audacity of Americans by OWEI Lakemfa Also Read Our Comments Below the Article |
| Lessons from the fmr. Nigerian House Speaker's Corruption Scandal Read |
 |
 |
| Facts on Humor! Prof. Pat Utomi in Chicago. More |
| Dr. Reuben Abati |
| EDITOR'S PICKS |
| The Colors of Fall! |
| Nature Shots |
Rape! Bizarre, but they do
happen. A Nigerian woman
with a ministry on
relationships, talks about
rising Rape Incidents in
Nigeria. Click here to listen
happen. A Nigerian woman
with a ministry on
relationships, talks about
rising Rape Incidents in
Nigeria. Click here to listen
Have more than 30,000 Igbos
substantial claim to membership
of the Jewish Nation? Read.
substantial claim to membership
of the Jewish Nation? Read.
 |  | | | | | |
