Ostentatious public pronouncement is the opposite of decorum and diplomatic finesse!

But unfortunately, and boisterously, loud public pronouncement has become the mode d'emploi of America ’s conduct of relations with Nigeria in recent years.

During this year, 2005, I have had good cause to write several commentaries, amongst which are the following: America , Versus Nigeria : Of Debts, Disintegration & Friendships, With Enemies; America Means Well For Nigeria; Oh Really?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+Adujie+America+means+well+for+Nigeria%3F&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=America%2C+Versus+Nigeria%3A+Of+Debts%2C+Disintegration+%26+Friendships%2C+With+Enemies%3F&btnG=Google+Search

In these public commentaries, I had wondered why the United States resort to public condemnations and admonitions or pure bad-belle motivated reactions, regarding issues Nigeria and Nigeria . Why I wondered, the United States , a country with apparently good, cordial, diplomatic, trade with Nigeria and of course, close personal ties between current presidents of both countries?

During the preceding ten months, America has, in words and actions, portrayed itself, as if hostile to Nigeria’s national interests, including, a demonstration of hostility towards Nigeria’s security and economic interests etc.

Why else, would the United States , a supposedly friendly nation with Nigeria , always find itself, frequently engaged in, the throwing of verbal and undiplomatic projectiles and cudgels at Nigeria ? Why do the representatives of the United States frequently display a lack of due care and circumspection regarding their boisterous pronouncements about Nigeria ? As when they used bullhorns to announce that Nigeria would disintegrate in 15 years! A prediction, as ominous as it is, has since been updated and upgraded to occur in less that the original 15 years gestation period. And again, it was the US that opposed and created an impasse and the deadlock that eventually truncated Nigeria ’s attempt at leading the African Development Bank. It has been the US that has loudly demanded Charles Taylor, a man granted asylum in Nigeria , after due consultation with the US and others, and yet, the US continues to threaten and blackmail Nigeria over Charles Taylor!

First, I strongly believe that Nigerians would in due course, resolve our complex national contradictions amicably and peacefully, even despite the competing and sometimes conflicting interests that are common in multicultural and plural societies, such as Nigeria. We need to do these things for our own good, and not because the US or anyone else say so, demand it or threatens Nigeria .

Secondly, even assuming that there is a great probability of disintegration of Nigeria , or there was a risk of anarchy, or war; How would a public announcement now, by Nigeria ’s friend and trading partner, strategic regional partner, the United States , help matters? What sorts of an undermining, and underhand friendships are these from US?

Some have argued that the US means well for Nigeria and so, the US only engaged in altruistic and benevolent public warnings of impending disaster of anarchy, war and disintegration of Nigeria . Or it’s potential. But, what purpose does this tactic serve?

Why would my friend and neighbor put an advert on CNN to announce that my house has a fire-hazard, and proceed to announce to the whole world that me, his friend and neighbor, stands the risk of loss by fire? All these, occurs, before my friend and neighbor speaks to me about the fire-hazard!

Yes! A good friend should warn you about your bad breath, just so, you procure the best mouthwash in the market or preferably, make appointment to see your dentist!

But what good friend puts a paid announcement on Television, Radio and Newspapers to announce his opinion of your oral hygiene status, before he speaks to you about it? Unless of course, your “friend” intended to humiliate and ridicule you!

Whatever happened to the use of government-to-government channels, diplomatic channels and the so-called back-water channels? Why all these destructive glib talking?

What purpose does the US ambassador in Nigeria serve? And the Nigeria ’s ambassador in America , what role is left for them? What if phone calls are made to Nigerian leaders?

What if special envoys are sent to Nigeria for the purpose of fact-finding and truth?

Again, our friend, America , has come one more time, with unsolicited public pronouncements which are, and they essentially amount to offensive and undiplomatic remarks regarding Nigeria ’s internal political schisms. And the US has a fair share of challenges imbued in multi-culture and plural societies. Why is America yanking Nigeria ’s chains, even as it claims to know the complexities and political dynamics on the ground in Nigeria ? Is America looking to push Nigeria over the cliff and precipice? Are they attempting to hurry the predicted disintegration? Are what we are seeing a sort of Blackmail-for-Charles Taylor Program? Why these incendiaries?

Rumor has it. Rumors are rife, and speculations are abundant, that Nigeria ’s current president is angling to succeed himself in office as president of Nigeria in 2007. Whereas 2007 completes the second term for President Obasanjo, for which he was duly elected in 2003.

The Constitution of Nigeria specifies term limits for pubic office holders, more specifically, for terms of four years of an upper limit of two terms, for state governors and the president of the federal republic of Nigeria . There are rumors to the effect that, there is a third term agenda in the works. Speculations are rife, speculations which suggests that President Obasanjo has some hand in the agitations for constitutional amendment that will make self-succession possible for current state governors and the president himself.

President Obasanjo has repeatedly, emphatically and categorically denied this or roles in it; that have been ascribed to him. Despite these unsavory rumors, and regardless of the repeated denials of these phantom third term agenda, it is has now come to public knowledge that the United States , the good old United States! is participating in the beer parlor and gambling halls type-rumors about Nigeria ’s political future, particularly, the vexatious third term agenda tease! Instead of seeing this as an interference by the US

Some Nigerians seem fixated on extraneous and ancillary matters?

Why would the United States , an assumed friendly country with Nigeria , engage in these public commentaries regarding local political rumor mills in Nigeria ? Why would representatives of America announce sets of sanctions against Nigeria , before determining if the rumored self-succession plot in Nigeria is true?

What other countries would the United States visit with such patronizing, paternalistic and condescending attitude? When was the last time, that the US made high level public pronouncements regarding another country, a friendly country, and in reactions to a mere rumor?

Would the United States accept these sorts of attitudes from another country? Would the US accept this from Nigeria for that matter? Why would the US participate in rumor mongering regarding Nigeria ’s internal political matters? Is there a disinformation and destabilization process in place against Nigeria ?

Are these frequent unfriendly and hostile swipes and snide filled public pronouncements, are these pronouncements against Nigeria, well intentioned to produce a result in Nigeria, results, that are inconsistent with Nigeria’s national interests, which in any events, benefits America?

Some Nigerians seem to desire a rose tinted invasion and occupation of Nigeria by the Americans, or Europeans or the euphemistic and ubiquitous International Community! Upon which America, Europe, the International Community, will install Gani Fawehinmin as president of Nigeria and Wole Soyinka as his vice president and voila! Like magic, good governance will be preordained for Nigeria by the Americans and all Nigerians will be in happiness land, happily ever after! Absolute delusion grandeur!

Some Nigerians are now cavalierly, mentioning their desire for a military coup, they have argued their marginalization to political irrelevance by PDP and by President Obasanjo. They have argued that these painful political irrelevance to which they have been relegated, requires a correction, and only a military intervention, through a coup, could rectify their loss! Some have argued that the PDP and President Obasanjo have touched the untouchables with the president’s aggressively robust reform policies. Some hinge their coup demand on the vigorous pursuits of their kinsmen by the EFCC for their criminalities, all these, despite the cogent, complete, clear and convincing evidence against these monumental pillagers and plunderers!

It might be useful for the Nigerians with these sorts of mindsets, and attitudes of waiting for military coup or foreign invaders and occupiers, to seek personal interviews with Mr. Chalabi and his coalitions of Iraqi Exiles of Iraq first!

While at it, such Nigerians could also take a quick look at Afghanistan , and Haiti , Dominican Republic , countries that were invaded and occupied.

And to glean through Nigeria ’s history of military interregnums upon a supposedly brief interventions to set this right! Nigerians must also look at wayward military governance worldwide, and see the clear follies and foibles of military rule.

Countries, whose invasions and occupations were camouflaged as anything but usurpation of political independence and sovereignty.

And to the Nigerians who have been beating the drums of war, anarchy, disintegration etc, while advocating ethnic republics… they must realize the brutalities and the infinite horrors and catastrophes that they unwittingly seek. Nigerians must be alert to avoid walking into a trap and a self-fulfilling degenerative prophecy. Nigerians avoid smokescreens or there will be no winners.

It remains true, as it bears repeating here again, that the best cure for imperfect democracy is, surely more democracy! Nigerians should not truncate our democracy!

Robot  Villager

# 1 Ostentatious public pronouncement is the opposite of decorum and diplomatic finesse! But unfortunately, and boisterously, loud public pronouncement has become the mode d'emploi of America ’s conduct of relations with ...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 28.12.2005 16:30

Tea

# 2 What friendship exists between America & Nigeria?? What is the relationship between a Lion and a Dog? What have they in common to make them buddies? Is it the length of their canines or their comparable conquests in the jungle? I don't understand the multiple use of the rather inappropriate adj/word of 'friend'. Firstly, we all know that in international circles, there is no friendship, all that exists are interests and as such, nations could 'smile' at one another as long as interests do not conflict. Please, America is not our friend o, okay? We have pretty little in common. Even the biggest event here in Nigeria (either +ve or otherwise can hardly hit the headlines over there). America's remarks should not be a thing of worry to us; instead we should work with these as inputs to our decisions. That is a country already doing it's homework and planning on how to strategise for the worst conditions possible to its interests (& possibly World's impact) in Nigeria in the next 15 years i.e 2020! Ordinary vision 2010 of ten years ago, who can tell us the outcome today? Posted by Tea| 28.12.2005 19:34

antiobj2007  Villager

# 3 Obasanjo capitulates! Gives the US what they want, now they can protect their investments in the Niger Delta area and dabble less in a third term agenda that's not their business. What a trade off ? Again a sole decision without input from the legislative arm of Government. That is our President! SOURCE: Thisdayonline December 20, 2005 Posted to the web December 21, 2005 Lagos Nigerian authorities are crooning over the country's energy security partnership with the United States to protect the Niger-Delta region and the Gulf of Guinea. Mr. Funso Kupolokun, presidential envoy on Gulf of Guinea Energy Security, and John Campbell, the US Ambassador to Nigeria, have presented a communique on the areas of cooperation at a joint press conference in Abuja. The partnership is primed to work through four special committies whose responsibilities, ambassador Campbell has listed as disrupting illicit small arms trafficking; bolstering maritime and coastal security; promoting development and poverty reduction; and combating money laundering and other financial crimes. On the surface, there is nothing to quarrel with in the objectives of the partnership. The worry however is that experience has shown that treaties between two inordinately unequal partners invariably ends to the overall disadvantage of the weaker party, in this case, Nigeria. Even though details are unavailable, the communique on it shows that the treaty, at least, in its critical element of security is wrong in principle and would likely be harmful in practice. By implication, the treaty is a shameful admission that Nigeria lacks the capacity to protect its maritime boundaries and to secure law and order at home, be it in the Niger-Delta or elsewhere. This is nothing but a creeping symptom of a failing state. It is a fundamental issue if a country that ought to be an exemplar to the rest of Africa cannot protect its maritime boundaries and maintain law and order at home, all by itself without going into a partnership of unequals. In practice, the treaty holds dark foreboding. Talk about community development and poverty reduction are mere sops thrown in to sweeten the partnership. The real object of the treaty is aimed at securing the undisturbed exploitation of oil by the partners. From the Nigerian standpoint, Mr. Kupolokun has said that it is meant to a safeguard the oil wealth of the Niger-Delta which is crucial to Nigeria's achievement of 40 million barrels per day production of crude oil by 2010. Ambassador Campbell was equally blunt about US interest. Affirming that energy supply from Nigeria is very important and strategic to the US, he noted that the partnership exists to keep the supply lines open. Again, it is in American interest to partner with Nigeria on money laundering and other financial crimes as part of its war against international terrorism. Now, on the twin issue of oil and terrorism, the US has been uncompromising to the point of unilaterally imposing its own will on other nations. Iraq is only the latest imposition of that will. Its entire Middle-east policy, including American support for Israel in complete disregard for justice for Palestinians and others in the region, and the desire to impose democracy in the Arab states, is dictated by a desire to keep the area stable to allow for free flow of oil supplies to the US. America's new found interest in the Gulf of Guinea is only a demonstration of its current problems in the Middle-east and the need to maintain the other alternative sources of oil supply. To that extent, America is prepared to use any guile to get a security foothold in the region. Incidentally, that is the platform that the so-called partnership has provided for it in Nigeria. In going into the arrangement, Nigerian authorities seem to have forgotten the trend all over the world that while it may be easy for the US to insinuate its way into areas where it has strategic interests, it is often difficult, if not impossible to get it out as long as that interest persists. America has a long tradition, notably during the cold war era, of using all means, including murder and the promotion and maintenance of dictatorships, to preserve its affluent way of life. We believe that it is this fact of American history that has made the Abuja joint communique to proclaim glibly that the partnership will not entail the presence of US military personnel in the Gulf. This may well be duplicitous talk. The US has been known to deploy thousands of troops to a country in the name of advisers. At any rate, how can the object of the partnership to disrupt illicit small arms trafficking, and bolster maritime and coastal security be effected jointly without these so-called US advisers? How many of them will come to train our own armed personnel? Here, we easily recall the stiff opposition of former army chief of staff, Gen. Victor Malu, to what he saw as the subordination of Nigeria's armed forces, secrets and all, to the American army in the name of training cooperation. For his efforts, Malu was relieved of his job. We believe that there is every need for the National Assembly to conduct an inquiry into the Nigeria-US security partnership. If need be, it should hold public hearings on the matter. One important reason for a public hearing is the symbolism that treaty has for the Niger-Delta problem. This is an internal political problem which can only have a lasting resolution through internal mechanisms. Inviting an external strong-arm to impose "peace" may infact inflame the situation. Infact, we are yet to see where America's strong-arm meddlesomeness, be it in Taiwan, the Korean peninsula or Victnam, was able to settle a domestic problem for good. Posted by antiobj2007| 28.12.2005 21:54

I Love Nigeria  Villager

# 4 December 29, 2005 Third Term: Presidency reports Cohen to Bush; His comment an incitement – Presidency President Olusegun Obasanjo has reportedly directed Foreign Affairs Minister, Olu Adeniji, to send a protest letter to the United States President, George W. Bush, after being upset by the comment by a former official of the U.S. State Department. By Donald Ojogo Correspondent, Lagos A source in Aso Rock confirmed in a telephone interview that the directive arose from the remark by former U.S. Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Mike Cohen, that the American Government would oppose the rumoured third term ambition of Obasanjo. Said the source: “Initially, Mr. President felt that Cohen was expressing his opinion on the matter and had decided not to engage him in a debate, especially when the Presidential Assistant on Public Affairs, Femi Fani-Kayode, replied that Nigeria does not need lessons from the U.S. on democracy. “But with the way the man is going, it is clear that he has an agenda, and that is why Mr. President may have given that directive”. Fani-Kayode had described Cohen’s statement as an “irresponsible incitement” and said he did not see why the Presidency should make a formal complaint. Cohen had in an interview with a national newspaper insisted that the U.S would monitor the democratic system in Nigeria especially when the dust raised by the third term speculation lingers. “The same drama also played itself out during the Abacha regime with the political parties adopting a serving General (as the sole Presidential candidate) to the surprise of the entire world. So America does not want to take chances”, he stressed. He compared Fani Kayode to Tahir Aziz (Saddam Hussein’s Information Minister), saying the government’s spokesman is lying to the people on the issue. Cohen’s statement, the second in less than two weeks, comes on the heels of a warning by lawyer and human rights activist, Gani Fawehinmi, that Obasanjo should ignore the third term temptation. Adeniji could not be reached for comment on Wednesday having travelled out of the country. But Fani-Kayode denied that the President directed him to write a protest letter to the U.S. His words: “I don’t think there is any reason for that kind of thing. One, you have to draw a line between a serving government official and one that has left office. Cohen is only expressing his personnel views and not those of the U.S Government, so why write to protest the irresponsible inciting comment made by a barrack room bully. “His comparison of Nigeria with Iraq is the manifestation of crass ignorance, sheer arrogance and insincerity of purpose, but I will not trade insults into him. The Federal Government has better things to think about and do than to waste time in writing the U.S Government over a statement made by a former official, a statement that is ill-mannered and ill-motivated, especially coming from someone like Cohen who knows nothing about Nigeria. “There is no way the government of Nigeria could be drawn into an unnecessary controversy with the U.S with which we have a very cordial and an enviable relationship. We have a relationship that is predicated on mutual respect as two sovereign nations, hence Cohen should be seen as a security risk to both nations”. Posted by I Love Nigeria| 29.12.2005 16:15