Where is the outrage?

[MrOneNaija]

USA TO ESTABLISH MILITARY BASE NEAR NIGERIAN COAST

With the Middle-East proving too difficult to domesticate, American geo-strategists and neo-colonialists alike have their sights now set on perhaps the weakest people on earth today and their resources. What we may be witnessing with this talk of America wanting to enhance its political and military stranglehold on Nigeria and much of Africa is a new imperialist Western agenda in Africa with Nigerian 'leaders' acting as silent onlookers, if not as active collaborators. This brazen show of imperialist zeal by the USA in Nigeria's backyard is taking place unchallenged even as our Nigerian politicians remain unfocused and divided. There are hints here and there of warnings to national groups in places like the Niger-Delta to the effect that their self-determination will be caged. But the ultimate warning may be reserved for the Nigerian people in general - that America's so-called interests, nomatter how vile, will be seen as having priority over our collective national aspirations and rights.

Where is the outrage? Here we are rightly showing our disgust with Bush and his fellow mafia bastards and their murderous mercantilism in Iraq. Shouldn't we be showing the same concern for this neo-imperialist violence in the making?

The PUNCH
Wednesday, June 02 2004 Home Our Mission Contact Us

US set to deploy troops near Nigeria's coast ... backs emergency rule in Plateau

Emeka Madunagu and Femi Makinde, with agency report

The United States is set to deploy an aircraft strike carrier off Nigeria's coast, in a strategic move that is not unconnected with its huge investments in the region.

Agency reports indicated on Tuesday that the U.S Navy warship to be stationed in the Gulf of Guinea - about 750 kilometres from the Niger Delta region - would also be involved in a joint exercise with the oil-rich island of Sao Tome and Principe later this year.

Sao Tome is one of Africa's tiniest countries and its navy has only a small number of patrol boats. It's about 50 minutes by air, from Abuja, Nigeria's capital.

The Strike Group is one of the seven to be deployed between June and October in five regions around the world and that for Africa could eventually lead to the setting up of an American military base in Sao Tome and Principe.

The U.S already has a counter-terrorism base in Djibouti, which oversees the Horn of Africa.

A military website had recently reported that a massive U.S Navy operation was under way in the Gulf of Guinea and that it would be codenamed "African Coastal Security Programme."

The initiative is a revived security scheme, which would parallel initiatives already running in East Africa and the Sahel, aiming to counter piracy and maritime terrorism, prevent smuggling and protect offshore resources.

It would focus on the Gulf of Guinea oil-production zone, especially Nigeria, as well as the Bab al-Mandab oil-supply chokepoint (Eritrea, Djibouti and Yemen).

Under the ACSP, the U.S would be expected to provide the region with additional naval vessels, radar and communications equipment, coastguard training and co-ordination.

Agency report said on Tuesday that the deployment "is intended to be a massive demonstration of the Navy's global quick deployment capability."

On May 26, Secretary of the U.S Navy, Hon. Gordon England, had said the operation would be conducted in conjunction with members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Speaking at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C, England said, "With the help of Marine General Jim Jones, the Supreme Allied Commander in NATO, we are looking to enhance our operations in the ungoverned regions of Africa. The Gulf of Guinea, for example is an area where a Navy presence would send a strong message. Security, stability and reconstruction operations are needed in this important region, and the U.S, along with our NATO allies, will be there to help."

Defence officials said a report by the military authorities spoke of the need for security and stability in the Gulf of Guinea, in part because of the growing offshore oil operations there.

It quoted the deputy commander of the U.S European Command, Gen. Charles Wald, as likening Sao Tome in potential strategic importance to the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which is home to an American naval base.

Diego Garcia was the key staging base during recent U.S military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

He told reporters last year that Sao Tome could be an ideal site for one of the Pentagon's Forward Operating Locations.

FOLs are bases available for temporary use by American forces in the event of a crisis. The Gulf of Guinea falls under EUCOM's area of responsibility.

Although the island lacks sophisticated naval facilities, the U.S Trade and Development Agency, the report said, is now financing feasibility studies for the development of a deepwater port and expanded airfield facilities to enhance trade and travel to the island.

The U.S Navy secretary's assertion, although not elaborate, may make it appear that the U.S government intends to use this to stop the incessant attacks on its oil installations and staff in the Niger Delta by pirates, who are believed to be sponsored by syndicates engaged in the theft of Nigerians crude oil.

On a number of occasions, these installations have been either shut down or vandalized while their workers were held hostage or killed.

Last March unidentified pirates murdered seven oil workers, including two Americans, in the Olero Creek.

Efforts by the Nigerian armed forces to deal with the security threat in the area have been hindered by the tricky nature of the terrain, which has many creeks.

This development confirms speculations over the past two years that the U.S had been making plans to protect its installations which periodically come under threats from pirates and various interest groups.

Early in the life of the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo, there were reports that the U.S was considering setting up a military base in Nigeria.

Some reports had it that Nigeria and the United States had in fact signed a military pact but these were vehemently denied by Abuja and Washington, D.C.

A Strike Group typically includes an aircraft carrier, a guided missile cruiser, two guided missile destroyers, an attack submarine and a supply ship.

An extract from the website of the U.S Navy states that as carriers operate in international waters, its aircraft do not need to secure landing rights on foreign soil. These ships also engage in sustained operations in support of other forces.

The Carrier Strike Group could be employed in a variety of roles, all of which would involve the gaining and maintenance of sea control.

The CSG's role includes the protection of economic and/or military shipping; protection of a marine amphibious force while enroute to, and upon arrival in, an amphibious objective area; and establishing a naval presence in support of national interests.

The agency report said that SaoTome's chief of defence staff had earlier in the year said that his country would hold joint military manoeuvres with the U.S but U.S officials questioned about his comments said they were unaware of such plans and would be unable to discuss them in any event for security reasons.

According to a fact-file of the U.S Department of State, in 2001, Sao Tome and Nigeria reached an agreement on joint exploration for petroleum in waters claimed by the two countries. After a lengthy series of negotiations, in April 2003, the joint development zone was opened for bids by international oil firms.

The JDZ was divided into nine blocks; the winning bids for block one, ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, and the Norwegian firm Equity Energy, were announced in April 2004, with Sao Tome to take in 40 per cent of the $123 million bid, and Nigeria the other 60 per cent. Bids on other blocks were still under consideration in April 2004.

Sao Tome stands to rake in significant revenue both from the bidding process and from follow-on production, should reserves in the area match expectations.

In 2003, the International Maritime Bureau identified these two regions as having the highest (and rising) global incidences of piracy beyond Indonesia and Bangladesh. They are also among the world's least regulated waters, with 19 maritime jurisdictions lying between the oilrigs of Angola and Mauritania.

Each country is expected to be producing oil offshore by 2014, yet hardly any have operational navies. Even Angola, an established producer with the region's largest army and longest coastline, does not have a single patrol vessel. Not surprisingly, formerly prodigious fish and cephalopod stocks are disappearing as unlicensed foreign vessels clean up unchecked.

The Nigerian coast, according to a May 7 report by IMB, was the most dangerous maritime belt in Africa between January and April 2004, during which there were 10 piracy attacks and the deaths of 10 crewmembers, including two Americans.

The United States over the past few months has donated no fewer than three ships to the Nigerian Navy, to assist it in policing Nigeria's waters.

Meanwhile, the United States government on Tuesday broke its silence over the May 18 declaration of emergency rule in Plateau State by saying that such an action was necessary during periods of civil unrests to restore peace.

Outgoing U.S Consul-General in Nigeria, Ms. Robyn Hinson-Jones, told newsmen in Lagos that it was a recognized principle that government was under the legitimate obligation to apply measures that would lead to the restoration of law and order in a trouble spot.

She, however, counseled against the arbitrary use of force in the application of such a mechanism.

"Every government has an obligation to maintain peace. Where there is civil unrest, and we certainly have had this experience in the United States as well, fortunately not very often, but from time to time it happens, where there is civil unrest, there is an obligation of the government to find a way to bring about peace.

"Our concern is that when those occasions unfortunately happen, that force is used in a responsible way so that human rights abuses do not take place. So, whether there should be a state of emergency or not, I have no comment on that. But my concern is that there would be controlled use of force where it is necessary."

Turning to other matters, Hinson-Jones said she had had an enjoyable stay in the country and noted that Nigeria was making steady progress in the area of economic reforms.

But she urged the government and people of Nigeria to work together to restore the nation to its pride of place by decisively dealing with the challenges posed by corruption, advance fee fraud, instability, religious and communal violence, among others.

The diplomat stated that Nigeria had a good chance to rise above its current problems if its could ensure respect for the rule of law, a secure environment for business as well as the conduct of free and fair elections, saying that much work needed to be done to assure the international community that the country would be a good haven for investors.

"I really do believe that the only way that Nigeria is going to have significant investment is first and foremost, you have to got to believe in yourselves. Foreigners are not going to bring their money to Nigeria if Nigerians are taking their money to foreign countries. You have to believe in yourselves. You have demonstrate that the Nigerians who have money are willing to put it right here in Nigeria because they believe in Nigeria," she counseled.

She said the American government had demonstrated its willingness to promote dialogue among the people of the Niger-Delta through a number of conflict resolution initiatives, but noted that it was up to the people of the area to learn to live together and settle their differences without recourse to violence.

Hinson-Jones also explained that the periodic travel advisories issued by the U.S Department of State were meant to guide American citizens intending to travel to a particular area for security purposes.

The PUNCH, Wednesday, June 2, 2004

[Obugi]

Mr OneNaija,

The Americans are welcome. Why camp out at sea or on some tiny island, I hope they establish a base in the Delta. We need the Americans to protect the Delta from the Igbo.

Obugi.

[Bunch17]

We need the Americans to protect the Delta from the Igbo.

Obugi

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm or are you for for real?

[Acting Major Benbella]

Years ago, on the old board, I noted that most American investments in Nigeria are going into investments in oil drilling and wondered then why similar investments - no matter how small- are not going into other sectors of the Nigerian economy? I noted then also that Nigerian oil assets are mostly off shore and thus easy to takeover by the United States without being involved in the messiness of a Nigerian involvement.

Sometime last year, the New Yorker did an extensive article on the oil discoveries in Sao Tome and was, I think, scathing on its attack on Nigeria and some of its representatives in Sao Tome. A similar tone was also evident in pronouncements egarding Nigeria from people lose to the government and president of that island nation. I suspected that something was up or about to happen.

The U.S. presence in the Gulf of Guinea, as reported in the Punch newspaper story, will soon become a reality. This will in a short time be translated into a constant naval presence in the Gulf. Such a U.S presence will further circumscribe the ability of Nigeria to act independently there. But our leaders and our naval and other military experts and strategists do not have any substantial opinion on the matter.

I cannot really place my finger particularly on the time when Nigeria made the determination not to grow into the destiny that Providence had planned for her. When God choosed to move His attention elsewhere. But I have often for want of a specific time, placed it on the eve of the Nigerian Civil War and what transpired during that war and afterwards.

But I remember vividly how Nigeria in the 1970s made Africa the centerpiece of its foreign and security policy. I remember also, how soon that centerpice shrinked to become no longer "Africa" but "West Africa". Then, I blamed the reduced ambition to want of economic capacity and therefore short-term. I forgot to remember that there is the lack or dearth of strategic thinkers in that country.

A strong and capable Nigeria will never brook a permanent U.S. presence in its backwaters. Anymore than the U.S. will tolerate a permanent Nigerian naval presence in its strategic waters. But we have become a country without direction and with abundant weak minded leaderships. We also tend to forget the lessons of history.

Two hundred years ago, the Nigerian people of Haiti rose against the greatest military power of that time and declared its independence and freedom from France. In defense of liberty they fought and defeated the French Grande armee. The first act of the new liberated country was to ban slavery. This was years before the tepid English ban of the human trade. Haiti was hated ever since. It paid a colonial debt which France imposed on her worth 21 billion dollars and has never recovered since. In February this year, when Haiti and the rest of the world should have been celebrating two hundred years of liberty its re-bel priest and president was a prisoner of the American Expeditionary Force and being cajoled to leave the country of his birth, never to return. You wonder what his and the other Haitian ancestors fought for and died in massive numbers for. It is like the journey ended where it began exactly.

A U.S. naval presence in the Gulf of Guinea would compromise whatever leadership Nigeria throws up for the foreseable future. It will further compromise Nigeria's ability to defend vigorously what it perceives as its national security interest. What Nigeria leader will act against U.S interest when it benefits Nigeria without the fear that the marines will arrive one day to escort him out of Aso Rock and out of history? A better approach would be for Nigeria to be responsible for maintaining the security of the Gulf from piracy, attack on and destruction of the offshore oil installations. This way, whatever security need is prompting U.S presence will be removed or minimized. But we are not in a position as a country to negotiate this kind of security deal and maintain it. Where is our navy? What are the country's strategic goals? Where are its national security vision? The lack of vision, more than the lack of skill and resources, is what drives countries into oblivion.

[Kenn]

Acting Major!


>>>The lack of vision, more than the lack of skill and resources, is what drives countries into oblivion.<<<


Brilliant piece!

[admin]

Zaiyol
Villager
Posts: 207
(6/2/04 16:46)
U.S. set to deploy troops near Nigeria's coast
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emeka Madunagu and Femi Makinde, with agency report

The United States is set to deploy an aircraft strike carrier off Nigeria's coast, in a strategic move that is not unconnected with its huge investments in the region.

advertisement

Agency reports indicated on Tuesday that the U.S Navy warship to be stationed in the Gulf of Guinea - about 750 kilometres from the Niger Delta region - would also be involved in a joint exercise with the oil-rich island of Sao Tome and Principe later this year.

Sao Tome is one of Africa's tiniest countries and its navy has only a small number of patrol boats. It's about 50 minutes by air, from Abuja, Nigeria's capital.

The Strike Group is one of the seven to be deployed between June and October in five regions around the world and that for Africa could eventually lead to the setting up of an American military base in Sao Tome and Principe.

The U.S already has a counter-terrorism base in Djibouti, which oversees the Horn of Africa.

A military website had recently reported that a massive U.S Navy operation was under way in the Gulf of Guinea and that it would be codenamed "African Coastal Security Programme."

The initiative is a revived security scheme, which would parallel initiatives already running in East Africa and the Sahel, aiming to counter piracy and maritime terrorism, prevent smuggling and protect offshore resources.

It would focus on the Gulf of Guinea oil-production zone, especially Nigeria, as well as the Bab al-Mandab oil-supply chokepoint (Eritrea, Djibouti and Yemen).

Under the ACSP, the U.S would be expected to provide the region with additional naval vessels, radar and communications equipment, coastguard training and co-ordination.

Agency report said on Tuesday that the deployment "is intended to be a massive demonstration of the Navy's global quick deployment capability."

On May 26, Secretary of the U.S Navy, Hon. Gordon England, had said the operation would be conducted in conjunction with members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Speaking at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C, England said, "With the help of Marine General Jim Jones, the Supreme Allied Commander in NATO, we are looking to enhance our operations in the ungoverned regions of Africa. The Gulf of Guinea, for example is an area where a Navy presence would send a strong message. Security, stability and reconstruction operations are needed in this important region, and the U.S, along with our NATO allies, will be there to help."

Defence officials said a report by the military authorities spoke of the need for security and stability in the Gulf of Guinea, in part because of the growing offshore oil operations there.

It quoted the deputy commander of the U.S European Command, Gen. Charles Wald, as likening Sao Tome in potential strategic importance to the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which is home to an American naval base.

Diego Garcia was the key staging base during recent U.S military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

He told reporters last year that Sao Tome could be an ideal site for one of the Pentagon's Forward Operating Locations.

FOLs are bases available for temporary use by American forces in the event of a crisis. The Gulf of Guinea falls under EUCOM's area of responsibility.

Although the island lacks sophisticated naval facilities, the U.S Trade and Development Agency, the report said, is now financing feasibility studies for the development of a deepwater port and expanded airfield facilities to enhance trade and travel to the island.

The U.S Navy secretary's assertion, although not elaborate, may make it appear that the U.S government intends to use this to stop the incessant attacks on its oil installations and staff in the Niger Delta by pirates, who are believed to be sponsored by syndicates engaged in the theft of Nigerians crude oil.

On a number of occasions, these installations have been either shut down or vandalized while their workers were held hostage or killed.

Last March unidentified pirates murdered seven oil workers, including two Americans, in the Olero Creek.

Efforts by the Nigerian armed forces to deal with the security threat in the area have been hindered by the tricky nature of the terrain, which has many creeks.

This development confirms speculations over the past two years that the U.S had been making plans to protect its installations which periodically come under threats from pirates and various interest groups.

Early in the life of the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo, there were reports that the U.S was considering setting up a military base in Nigeria.

Some reports had it that Nigeria and the United States had in fact signed a military pact but these were vehemently denied by Abuja and Washington, D.C.

A Strike Group typically includes an aircraft carrier, a guided missile cruiser, two guided missile destroyers, an attack submarine and a supply ship.

An extract from the website of the U.S Navy states that as carriers operate in international waters, its aircraft do not need to secure landing rights on foreign soil. These ships also engage in sustained operations in support of other forces.

The Carrier Strike Group could be employed in a variety of roles, all of which would involve the gaining and maintenance of sea control.

The CSG's role includes the protection of economic and/or military shipping; protection of a marine amphibious force while enroute to, and upon arrival in, an amphibious objective area; and establishing a naval presence in support of national interests.

The agency report said that SaoTome's chief of defence staff had earlier in the year said that his country would hold joint military manoeuvres with the U.S but U.S officials questioned about his comments said they were unaware of such plans and would be unable to discuss them in any event for security reasons.

According to a fact-file of the U.S Department of State, in 2001, Sao Tome and Nigeria reached an agreement on joint exploration for petroleum in waters claimed by the two countries. After a lengthy series of negotiations, in April 2003, the joint development zone was opened for bids by international oil firms.

The JDZ was divided into nine blocks; the winning bids for block one, ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, and the Norwegian firm Equity Energy, were announced in April 2004, with Sao Tome to take in 40 per cent of the $123 million bid, and Nigeria the other 60 per cent. Bids on other blocks were still under consideration in April 2004.

Sao Tome stands to rake in significant revenue both from the bidding process and from follow-on production, should reserves in the area match expectations.

In 2003, the International Maritime Bureau identified these two regions as having the highest (and rising) global incidences of piracy beyond Indonesia and Bangladesh. They are also among the world's least regulated waters, with 19 maritime jurisdictions lying between the oilrigs of Angola and Mauritania.

Each country is expected to be producing oil offshore by 2014, yet hardly any have operational navies. Even Angola, an established producer with the region's largest army and longest coastline, does not have a single patrol vessel. Not surprisingly, formerly prodigious fish and cephalopod stocks are disappearing as unlicensed foreign vessels clean up unchecked.

The Nigerian coast, according to a May 7 report by IMB, was the most dangerous maritime belt in Africa between January and April 2004, during which there were 10 piracy attacks and the deaths of 10 crewmembers, including two Americans.

The United States over the past few months has donated no fewer than three ships to the Nigerian Navy, to assist it in policing Nigeria's waters.

Meanwhile, the United States government on Tuesday broke its silence over the May 18 declaration of emergency rule in Plateau State by saying that such an action was necessary during periods of civil unrests to restore peace.

Outgoing U.S Consul-General in Nigeria, Ms. Robyn Hinson-Jones, told newsmen in Lagos that it was a recognized principle that government was under the legitimate obligation to apply measures that would lead to the restoration of law and order in a trouble spot.

She, however, counseled against the arbitrary use of force in the application of such a mechanism.

"Every government has an obligation to maintain peace. Where there is civil unrest, and we certainly have had this experience in the United States as well, fortunately not very often, but from time to time it happens, where there is civil unrest, there is an obligation of the government to find a way to bring about peace.

"Our concern is that when those occasions unfortunately happen, that force is used in a responsible way so that human rights abuses do not take place. So, whether there should be a state of emergency or not, I have no comment on that. But my concern is that there would be controlled use of force where it is necessary."

Turning to other matters, Hinson-Jones said she had had an enjoyable stay in the country and noted that Nigeria was making steady progress in the area of economic reforms.

But she urged the government and people of Nigeria to work together to restore the nation to its pride of place by decisively dealing with the challenges posed by corruption, advance fee fraud, instability, religious and communal violence, among others.

The diplomat stated that Nigeria had a good chance to rise above its current problems if its could ensure respect for the rule of law, a secure environment for business as well as the conduct of free and fair elections, saying that much work needed to be done to assure the international community that the country would be a good haven for investors.

"I really do believe that the only way that Nigeria is going to have significant investment is first and foremost, you have to got to believe in yourselves. Foreigners are not going to bring their money to Nigeria if Nigerians are taking their money to foreign countries. You have to believe in yourselves. You have demonstrate that the Nigerians who have money are willing to put it right here in Nigeria because they believe in Nigeria," she counseled.

She said the American government had demonstrated its willingness to promote dialogue among the people of the Niger-Delta through a number of conflict resolution initiatives, but noted that it was up to the people of the area to learn to live together and settle their differences without recourse to violence.

Hinson-Jones also explained that the periodic travel advisories issued by the U.S Department of State were meant to guide American citizens intending to travel to a particular area for security purposes.

-----------------------

Kenn1
Villager
Posts: 933
(6/2/04 21:07)
Re: U.S. set to deploy troops near Nigeria's coast
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



>>>A Strike Group typically includes an aircraft carrier, a guided missile cruiser, two guided missile destroyers, an attack submarine and a supply ship.<<<


Invasion by other means! It is as much an economic war as a military one. This US presence is inevitable, for good or ill. Our response as a nation ought to be economic. The presence of the US and NATO troops in that region has internationalized it immensely. We have to repackage our country properly for the onslaught or windfall! Development of chosen towns within the Niger-Delta will bring the world to our doorsteps. They will learn we are not animals, but people simply desiring freedom and progress, like Americans.

The opportunities are massive, but the challenge is stiff.

[Kenn]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3767751.stm

[Kenn]

Why we're deploying troops near Nigeria - US

Emeka Madunagu

The United States Defence Headquarters, otherwise known as The Pentagon, has explained that the deployment of seven aircraft carriers around the world, including the Gulf of Guinea, is intended to sharpen its capability to defend American interests worldwide against any threat.

Under the operation, codenamed "Summer Pulse '04," the seven Carrier Strike Groups will be engaged in scheduled deployments, surge operations, joint and international exercises, and other advanced training and port visits.

"Summer Pulse 04 will be the Navy's first exercise of its new operational construct, the Fleet Response Plan. FRP is about new ways of operating, training, manning, and maintaining the fleet that results in increased force readiness and the ability to provide significant combat power to the President in response to a national emergency or crisis," the statement issued Wednesday said.

The Pentagon said that the deployment, which begins this week, would involve the Norfolk-based USS George Washington CSG and the San Diego-based USS John C. Stennis CSG, both currently deployed, and Yokosuka, Japan-based USS Kitty Hawk.

USS John F Kennedy CSG, which is based in Mayport, Florida, will begin a combined and joint exercise early this month, followed by a scheduled overseas deployment while the Norfolk-based USS Harry S. Truman CSG will conduct a scheduled training exercise followed by overseas pulse operations with the Norfolk-based USS Enterprise CSG, beginning early this month.

USS Ronald Reagan will conduct operations in the U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Southern Command theaters during the ship's interfleet transfer from Norfolk, Virginia, to its Pacific Fleet homeport of San Diego.

Although The Pentagon was not specific about which CSG is heading for the Gulf of Guinea, there are indications that USS Harry S. Truman may have been selected for the exercise.

The CSG has been deployed in the Atlantic Ocean since mid-2003, after it participated in the U.S led Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The Harry S Truman Battle Group is a war fighting force made up of up to 12 surface ships and submarines in addition to eight aircraft squadrons equipped and trained to work as a forward deployed force providing a deterrent against aggression and protection of vital U.S. interests around the world.

It was commissioned on July 25, 1998, and competed its final pre-deployment certification exercise in October 2000.

The statement added that, "Summer Pulse 04 will exercise the logistics and shore infrastructure necessary to execute a large scale surge operation, stress the operational concepts in the Navy's Sea Power 21 strategy, and improve Navy interoperability with numerous allies and coalition partners as well as other U.S. military forces.

"Under the FRP construct, the Navy can provide six CSGs in less than 30 days to support contingency operations around the globe, and two more CSGs can be ready in three months to reinforce or rotate with initially responding forces, to continue presence operations in other parts of the world, or to support military action in another crisis.

"The near-simultaneous deployment of seven carrier strike groups provides the Navy and the joint combatant commanders an opportunity to exercise the FRP while maintaining the ability to respond to crises around the globe, enhance regional security and relationships, meet combatant commander requirements including forward presence, and demonstrate a commitment to allies and coalition partners. "Summer Pulse 04" is scheduled to conclude in August."

The PUNCH had exclusively reported the deployment on Wednesday and quoted the secretary of the U.S Navy, Hon. Gordon England, as saying that the deployment in the Gulf of Guinea would involve a joint exercise with its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C on May 26, England said, "With the help of Marine General Jim Jones, the Supreme Allied Commander in NATO, we are looking to enhance our operations in the ungoverned regions of Africa. The Gulf of Guinea, for example, is an area where a Navy presence would constitute a strong message. Security, stability, and reconstruction operations are needed in this important region, and the U.S., along with our NATO allies, will be there to help."

USS Harry S. Truman is participating in the exercise named: "Combined Joint Task Force Exercise 04-2 (CJTFEX 04-2) from June 12-21.

It will involve elements of the U.S Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Special Operations, as well as forces provided by the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, France, Germany and Peru.

It will also provide ground for a bilateral training exercise between the U.S and Britain.

A U.S Navy statement said on Thursday that it represented the continuation of many planned U.S. Joint Forces Command's events, which will involve individual services' training sites, systems, and events to meet the needs of combatant commanders to fight in a joint environment.

It would prepare USS Harry S. Truman and USS John F. Kennedy for eventual deployment to support "real-world operations" by October.

Agency report said on Tuesday that military officers from the US and Europe as well as Canada and the United Nations met in Luxembourg last week to discuss terrorism and the security of oil supplies in Africa.

It quoted U.S officials as saying that the meeting was the first in a series designed to provide the main forum for an exchange of security information about Africa.

No African official was present at the meeting, but the African Union will be invited to the next meeting, which is planned for later this year.

When our correspondent contacted the U.S European Command by telephone on Thursday, an official of its Public Affairs Department, Lt. Commander Terrence Dudley, said he did not have specific details about the deployment in the Gulf of Guinea.

He advised our correspondent to send questions to him by e-mail and promised to respond by Friday.

The PUNCH, Friday, June 4, 2004

[CIkpatt]

My personal opinion: Considering the times (today's) and with benefit of a clear foresight, we should not be threatened and I don't consider the NDelta as a region threatened by the deployment of US troops in nearby waters.

In the near short and long term, it will turn out in our specific favor. If I had the power, a strategic location of a US Military Base in that region is not what should not be positively considered and accepted.

And I agree with the US representative who testified the following...which also is in line with my opinion above:

"And it's a focus because we realise that we need to be proactive versus reactive, in terms of dealing with some of the issues that we are dealing with elsewhere in the world - terrorism, illegal immigration, arms trafficking - and the best way to do that is to be proactive in sowing the seed corn of stability and security in Africa." [/

[MrOneNaija]

BE HAPPY, UNCLE SAM IS HERE TO PROTECT YOU

Is it possible that given their track record, the USA can truly be a stabilizing democratic influence by virtue of their military presence in our backyard? Why does America need to flex its military muscle in Nigeria's neighbourhood to make us poor and defenceless Africans more secure and stable? All the rationalization about security and stability is just that - the hollow rationalization of an imperialist onslaught with threatening undertones.

History is our best teacher in these matters. America and other Western powers have shown time and time again that their military presence in most parts of the world is essentially and adversarial one. From the point of view of the local population, such military presence has historically served as a political tool for the imposition of unpopular puppets who feel they owe allegiance first and foremost to their foreign masters whose economic interests they must defend. Nigeria and the rest of Africa do not need American military bases for their own security. Only unpopular and undemocratic national tyrannies submit themselves to foreign military powers. The USA is exploiting the terrorism rhetoric in order to maintain its stranglehold on Africa's resources. That some people are welcoming this alien intrusion is enough to remind us just how effective this 'security and stability' propaganda has become.

If America were really concerned with the security of Nigerians and that of other Africans, they should help develop viable national armies. But above all, they should help a truly democratic culture to take hold not just in Africa but in the rest of the world. America's peculiar policing of the world has made us less secure today. Local potentates who embrace Uncle Sam's muscle approach to governance end up plunging their societies in chaos and instability. We are witnessing in Nigeria and elsewhere these days a situation whereby members of national elites with pretensions to leadership are 'conditioned' - blackmailed is probably a better expression - to believing that the only way to political power is through surrendering to America's diplomacy of manifest destiny and mercantilist greed. Yet, America's shortsighted diplomacy of thuggery and clientelism has not dampened the democratic yearnings of nationalist groups around the world whose interests and aspirations have traditionally been relegated to the background even as Uncle Sam actively recruits or supports local 'leaders'. America's 'security and stability' rhetoric may buy time for local tyrannies but sooner or later, the people will want to have their say or way.

It will be interesting to see how Obasanjo who has hurriedly handed Bakassi to Cameroon and her foreign backers will react to Uncle Sam moving nearer to keep watch over him and the cabal supporting his anti-people regime.

[MrOneNaija]

Daily Independent Online. * Monday, June 07, 2004.

US Navy to patrol Nigeria's oil rich waters

- Joint US/Nigeria military exercise on course

By Oguwike Nwachuku

Deputy Editor, News

(with agency reports)

A United States Navy battle group is set to flex muscles in the oil-rich waters of the Gulf of Guinea, off West Africa, including Nigeria, as America's interest in oil in these areas gets deeper.

Confirmation of the development came from US diplomats at the weekend. They also said Washington is honing plans to escape its dependence on unstable Middle East supplies by securing more African crude.

And they raised hopes of a joint Nigeria-US operations taking off soonest, as a Naval admiral from the US is billed to visit Nigeria in August or September to put finishing touches to the issue said to be already under consideration.

The foray by a heavily armed carrier group into the waters off Nigeria, Sao Tome, Equatorial Guinea and other African oil producers, comes at a time when fuel prices are topping the US political agenda and security crises in the Gulf region are pushing demands for greater diversification in energy supplies, according to agency reports.

An Abuja-based US diplomat told AFP on condition of anonymity that the Gulf of Guinea is "a place where there is not normally an American presence" and described the operation as "a show of force".

He added: "Operation Summer Pulse '04 aims to demonstrate the capabilities of the US Navy; before we only had two or three operations involving aircraft carriers at any one time," he said, adding that seven carrier groups are to be deployed in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, the Mediterranean and the Gulf of Guinea.

"The Navy wants, through this exercise, to demonstrate to the world that, even with all its current responsibilities, it can still position half-a-dozen aircraft carriers with all the necessary support ships in the four corners of the world, at the same time".

However, the Nigerian military also told AFP that it has no knowledge of any upcoming joint programmes in the Gulf of Guinea.

"Honestly, I don't think Nigeria is involved in the operation. I cannot confirm our involvement because I don't have any information on it," said Nigerian defence headquarters spokesman, Lt-Colonel Ganiyu Adewale.

A statement posted on the Pentagon website said: "Beginning this week and continuing through August, the Navy will exercise the full range of skills involved in simultaneously deploying and employing carrier strike groups around the world.

"Summer Pulse '04 will include scheduled deployments, surge operations, joint and international exercises, and other advanced training and port visits".

The US diplomatic explained that future joint US-Nigerian military exercises are under consideration, but that the planned visit to Nigeria of a US admiral has been postponed "until August or September".

With crude prices - and hence the pump price for US fuel consumers - near all-time highs, and with violence and sabotage threatening to disrupt oil exports from Saudi Arabia and US-occupied Iraq, US policy makers are increasingly looking to West Africa for secure crude supplies.

[MrOneNaija]

America'S ONSLAUGHT ON NIGERIA'S SOVEREIGNTY IN THE NIGER-DELTA


Thisday Online
Dateline: 13/06/2004 01:04:42

US Presence in Gulf of Guinea
Sunday Comment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the news broke on June 2 that the United States of America would be deploying warships to the Gulf of Guinea off the Nigerian coast, there has been considerable unease among attentive Nigerians. The disquiet is not so much on account of the news itself as the conflicting reports that have since followed.

Are the Americans really coming to the Guinea coast? If so, what exactly would be their mission here? Is the Nigerian government aware of their impending presence or are they coming at the invitation of Abuja?

Newspaper reports on these and similar questions have not been re-assuring. Early reports said the Americans were coming to protect their fellow countrymen and to safeguard their investments and installations in the roiling Niger-Delta. Later reports even went as far as saying that American and Nigerian troops would mount joint patrols in a collaborative effort to combat the tidal insurgence in the oil-producing region.

In response to these reports, what we have had on both sides of US and Nigerian officialdom have been denials full of heat but without illumination. At first, we were told that the deployments were a routine, that they would go round all regions of the world as a way of flexing America's muscles at international terrorism, and that Nigeria has no part to play in the exercises whatsoever.

The most blatant of the denials came from both an official of the US consulate in Nigeria, Storm Jackson, and Nigeria's minister of defence, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso. In Jackson's emphatic words, "The U.S government has no intention whatsoever to deploy troops in the area. Nigeria is a sovereign state and we believe that it is capable of providing its own security." As for Kwankwaso's, "There are no American troops inside Nigeria or off the coast of Nigeria."

On technical grounds, both officials may be correct. To the extent that the Gulf of Guinea is some 750 nautical miles outside the Nigerian waters, Jackson's claim that the US is not deploying troops in the Nigerian 'area' is technically correct. So also is Kwankwaso's - since the troops are yet to be deployed they cannot be "inside Nigeria or off the coast of Nigeria".

The problem, however, is that the issue goes beyond semantics. Subsequent reports have confirmed that the Secretary of the American Navy, Hon. Gordon England has since May disclosed plans to send American and NATO forces to the "ungoverned regions of Africa", with specific reference to the Gulf of Guinea. The navy secretary's explanation for the deployment is that it is part of a second initiative to "look beyond Iraq to help promote security and stability in other important areas...so the seeds of terrorism are not

sown in the first place." England's report was on VOA's Daybreak Africa service of June 1, and posted on the radio station's web site the same day.

Apparently confronted with this piece of evidence, the US has finally owned up to the fact that its warships will soon move close to Nigeria's territorial waters in an exercise described as an operation to "demonstrate the ability of the Navy to provide credible combat power across the globe by operating in five theatres with other U.S and coalition forces." According to the Media Office of the American Fleet Forces Command, the operation, which will start soon and last till August, will seek to elicit the involvement of US allies, partners, and coalitions at some point.

By itself, there is nothing wrong in a super-power such as the US undertaking military exercises or deployments in international waters either by itself or jointly with allies. What seems worrisome in this particular case is the amount of dissembling and verbal somersaults and contortions that have foreshadowed the operation. In this instance, Nigerians have every cause to be worried in the face of this administration's opaque military dealings with the U.S.

Here, we easily recall the defence pact by which the US would help train Nigerian soldiers. When Nigeria's chief of army staff, Gen. Victor Malu, opposed how the so-called training was being conducted, he was eased out of his job. Again, we recall the alleged understanding by which Nigeria was to become part of the obstructionist-countries to the effectiveness of the International Criminal Court (ICC) simply because the US is opposed to its citizens being subjected to international justice.

Against this seemingly subservient past, it is easy to see why Nigerians are fearful of US motives for deploying troops close to Nigeria's coast and why they are unable to disbelieve the proposition that they are coming to police the Niger-Delta region.

Enough of the shenanigan. It is time for Abuja to come out plainly to state unambiguously, Nigeria's own position on the US naval presence in the Gulf of Guinea. Such a brief must include definitive answers to the long-rumoured talk of a possible deployment of US troops in the Niger-Delta, either alone or in partnership with Nigerian soldiers.

If the federal government would not provide answers willingly to these riddles, then the Senate committees on defence and foreign affairs need to step in to fill the void. One way or another, Nigerians need to be re-assured.

[DeepThought]

MrOneNaija
Face reality.Where have you been? Nigeria does not have a responsible government.
The Americans can and will act as they please

Admin:
>>The presence of the US and NATO troops in that region has internationalized it immensely. We have to repackage our country properly for the onslaught or windfall! Development of chosen towns within the Niger-Delta will bring the world to our doorsteps. They will learn we are not animals, but people simply desiring freedom and progress, like Americans.<<

Dream on. The US or the world couldn't care less wether we are animals or not. They are not here to learn anything.
Only for what they can benefit

[LeCarre]

Sometimes Nigerians as a whole are so caught up in fighting the ideological battles they are emotionally invested in, they miss the forest and lose the war as a result. The data as we like to say is so plentiful, yet many have missed it:

1. American special forces and regular Army troops have been heavily involved in Nigeria since 1999; at least 2 battalions of Nigerian troops have been retrained in American military doctrine, rekitted and re-armed by them since then. Coupled with the "counsel" provided by Military Professionals Incorporated (the resting place of American soldiers after leaving the Pentagon), the Nigerian military is so Americanized, I'm frankly amused that so many are now saying our sovereignity is threatened because a naval flotilla is coming to the Bight of Biafra (yes I refuse to succumb to Nigeria's efforts to wipe history!).

Mr. Obasanjo did the deals to shield himself from coups by the Army; whatever bargain he struck, oh well . . .

2. Few noticed that about a week or two after the killing of the two Americans in the Delta, a the French Ambassador noted that France was ready to take whatever steps are necessary to protect its investments and citizens in the Delta (aka military intervention).

news.biafranigeriaworld.c.../0168.html

The unequivocal message coming from the Europeans and the Americans is that the Delta is increasingly considered fair game - it is "ungoverned" - hence free for "pacification" in order to secure access to oil fields. The Nigerian government is scrambling to stop such a scenario from unfolding (sounds familiar to Saudi watchers who know that the Americans will seize Arabia's oil fields should the House of Saud totter - an increasing probability).

This is what informed the massive "security operations" in the Delta in the last 2 weeks, resulting in the deaths of dozens if not hundreds of civilians.

A monstrous crime has being committed as we write - the people of the Delta have being criminalized (pirates as they are called) in order to make their murder palatable. Any coincidence that Shell leaked the report from WAC Global Services (never heard of it until now) that the Delta will become as dangerous as Colombia or Chechnya in the next few years such that by 2008, Shell will have to liquidate its assets in the region or go offshore.

From the perspective of the planners in the wings, the Shell report is the blank check for the expansion of the Delta's militarization which for some reason most Nigerian elites are ignoring, and the media is complicit in by allowing the language of piracy to become the baseline reference point for much of the Delta's populace. What can be wrong with an intensification of the campaign to flush out pirates and oil bunkers?

I can only ask that the souls of the innocent rest in peace as the war for Nigeria's oil resources expand.

Nigeria and Chechyna in the same breath! How the mighty have fallen!

postscript: funny it is that people who oppose SNC and dialogue are willing to act to please the Americans. So you want to develop Potemkin villages in the Delta just to prove we are not animals. As the Yoruba will say, "o ma se" or how sad and pathetic. Funny it is the same impulse Mr. Obasanjo is often criticized for by the same crowd - responding only to foreign pressure.

[CIkpatt]

In the long run, it is of strategic importance and benefit that "we" (Niger Deltans) have an "American presence" in our region.

What some see as a baseline and unwelcome militarization of the region ultimately is what many visionaries see differently and positively. Indeed, isn't the "presence" what NDeltans would normally seek should they have their way?

The Americans are not stupid! They know exactly what is going on in the NDelta and I find them creditworthier and easier to deal with than the evil we contend with as fellow Nigerians. If they ain't bothering us, what have we to complain about?

I understand the issue of scapegoating indigenes and calling them "pirates" in order to justify replication of Odi. That is a style of the Nigeria government and I am convinced it is a ploy to actually cover government sponsored bunkering activities that is everything from ethnic to mafioso.

Should the Nigeria government oppose the "American presence", it is not because of little pipeline busters who steal kerosine and petrol in rusty 5 gallon jerry-cans. Rather, it is because the US Navy can effectively stop the routine bunkering with oil-tankers from our ports to refineries across Europe and the Americas.

Let's not pretend we did not know what Shell has "leaked" about impending conflict in that region. Several Intelligence organizations and reports have hinted. I wonder what they are now afraid of!

I have said, and repeat here again: only one easy and fool-proof solution can save us from anticipated conflicts - that is, resource control rights slowly phased in. I have suggested an initial 15% resource control rights to be given resource-endowed indigenous groups, communities or states. Initial percentile may be subject to programmed incrementals (15% at end of every consecutive 4 year period) until full resource control effects. This way, all states in the union will be given ample time and opportunity to harness/manage own resources without statutory allocations from the Feds being withdrawn cold turkey.

I am lost at what this has to do with (not) supporting the SNC. A case of mixing apples with oranges, isn't it?

[Celticologist]

Nigeria and the AU should also deploy their third world forces to somewhere close to the US. Why all the complaints about US forces?
Nigerian soldiers aren't always busy anyway; they NEVER pay for public transport and are very notorious for internal aggression. They need a change of environment and lifestyle for once.
Deploy them from many of the cantonments dotted around Lagos to some 'friendly' nations close to the US; like Cuba, also arm them with enough juju to last the assignment period.

Is this something so hard to do?.

[MrOneNaija]

For those who naively think that the predatory American military designs in the West African sub-region are in our long-term national interests, they should read the well-articulated views in the following piece by Mr. Odion-Akhaine. How can anybody fail to understand the simple logic that any position built on a lie can only engender more lies? America is erecting its military presence in Nigeria's backyard - with impunity while arrogantly and deceptively insisting that that presence is meant to fight terrorism. Right now, those who seem to be comforted by Uncle Sam's latest intrusion in our national space are the rogues in Aso Rock. This alone should have alarmed the Nigerian people.

THE GUARDIAN
CONSCIENCE, NURTURED BY TRUTH
LAGOS, NIGERIA. Sunday, June 20 2004

The US Threat In The Gulf Of Guinea
By Sylvester Odion-Akhaine
The US incursion into the Gulf of Guinea under the pretext of a military exercise is a very fundamental development that Nigerians of all classes should worry about. The effeminate nature of the debate since the news of the US threat broke in the press is a cause for concern.

By now one expects sabre-rattling from the Nigerian military or high-level denunciation and propaganda engagement; the civil society organisations ought to be organising rallies and press conferences; and the media, a sustained and co-ordinated blitz; and from the churches, the virtue of freedom from oppression. This is not currently happening. It is worrisome. Clearly, we are facing a new threat of recolonisation. Unfortunately, Nigeria is saddled with conservative politicians and equally a conservative military, some, perhaps, in the payroll of Pentagon. And that also partly explains why this dangerous development can be condoned in our backyard. As Samuel Huntington once put it in his Political Order in Changing Societies, "the truly helpless society is not one threatened by a revolution but one incapable of it."

Strategically, US military doctrine has shifted from deterrence, containment to that of occupation with the exit of USSR from the global scene. Let the point be made outright that the West will do anything to re-colonise the rest of the world if what the rest of the world have, is dependent on its survival. Oil and gas, certainly appear a basis for that. The invasion of Afghanistan and the current occupation of Iraq are anchored in the hardware politics of energy resources. Afghanistan geographical position is described in strategic terms as " as potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from central Asia to the Arabian Sea." With the Taliban off the scene, the 1040 miles pipeline can now be run across from central Asia into the Arabian Sea and if Iraq is eventually pacified its oil reserve will also become the private property of the US. But thanks to the Iraqi resistance, the game is not yet going according to plans.

A long while ago, some of us, including Professor Omo Omoruyi, General Victor Malu, Tony Iyare Rear Admiral Aikhomu among others had warned that the Obasanjo administration was selling the destiny of our country by implication that of the black man to the Americans, the nation watched as though nothing was wrong. In fact Iyare's weekend column in the Punch was rested over his article titled: "The Dangling Eclipse" last year. Now the Americans are here; and that is the challenge. In this piece, I shall explain briefly how Obasanjo sold Nigeria to the US; why US is racing to Africa, especially West Africa and the implication of having US in our backyard with greater insight.

Obasanjo's collaboration with the US security circles dates back to the assassination of General Murtala Mohammed in 1975 and when he left office in 1979 that relationship was sustained through such innocuous structure as the African Leadership Forum. When he was "elected" into office in 1999, it was Jimmy Carter who rationalised that though the election was full of irregularity, it was not enough to warrant annulment. As he came into office his immediate concerned was how to tame the coup-prone military. Then he brought in the Virginia-based Military Resource Initiative (MPRI) to do the job.

This was unsuccessfully resisted by some element of the military command led by the then Chief of Army Staff, General Victor Malu who warned against giving our homeland doctrine to the Americans who were then asking for it. General Malu maintained that the US had no business teaching us peace-keeping as they had never succeeded in any peace-keeping operations when it came with the so-called Operation Focus Relief. Those who doubted Malu then should simply review what is going on in Iraq where the Americans are committing genocide. Yet General Malu who ought to have been honoured for his patriotism was dumped into retirement. The Nigerian army is not just a push over. I am familiar with the rating the Sierra Leone operation led by General Kobe of blessed memory got in the global military circle.

Don't be surprised that the US might have taped it via satellite for study in their military academies. Yet that military was humiliated by bringing in US army sergeants to help in the detonation of bombs after the Ikeja military Cantonment incident in 2002. The country has since become increasingly dependent on US arms. Between 2002-2003 Nigeria may have received about 18.1 million in various military assistance from the US. Those familiar with the aid circle, there is what I call plough back, where money given either as soft loan or grant goes to the donor country by means of purchase of items from it.

The 2003 election marked a turning point in the collaboration of the current administration with the US to subvert our national interest. That election as it were was massively rigged and both the British and the US were reluctant to foist it as fair. However, it became a basis to draw Obasanjo further into their orbit of dependency. Obasanjo sold out the African group in the Commonwealth over the Zimbabwean crisis and even volunteered Nigerian land to the white farmers during the last Commonwealth summit in Nigeria. During the last visit to Nigeria by the US president George Bush, Obasanjo entered into a secret military and oil deal with the US, which he has refused to disclose to Nigerians over which his ministers have prevaricated.

The closest admission of the deal is the one By T.D. Hart of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He did say that the Bush visit served as basis to cement socio-cultural and military ties. It is common knowledge that the British Marines and the US Marine's operatives are in the Niger-Delta as undercover agents. During the last year's oil rig hostage crisis, as reported by Andrew Williams, the UK director of the military company, Northbridge Services, two teams of Special Boat Services, Special Air Services and Royal Marines were deployed to "undisclosed" location. Without the dZcor, that location is no other than Nigeria.

The Nigerian government buoyed by several meetings with American officials, including the Assistance Secretary of State for Africa, Walter Kansteiner and President Bush is currently implementing a genocidal agenda on behalf of the Americans in the Niger-Delta, in which youths of the area are being wasted under the a new security operation code-named Operation Restore Hope. In the last few weeks, the security operation under the command of Brigadier-General Elias Zamani has murdered over 20 youths in the Niger-Delta.

The General, probably thought, he is doing a national duty, unbeknown he has begun a dirty war on behalf of the Americans. The pretext is piracy. Anyone familiar with the Nigerian oil complex knows that the real pirates are senior public officials involved in the illegal bunkering business, not the youths who are fighting for self-determination in a badly screwed federation. Let the General be reminded that "Genocide whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law."

The US strategic circle has long viewed Nigeria and indeed West Africa as its Plan B, for energy supply. The strategic importance of the Nigerian oil informed its lukewarm attitude over the annulment of June 12 presidential election and explained why it embraced the military dictatorship of General Sanni Abacha. The US has long been seeking for a lead into Equatorial Africa.

First, it wanted to us the pretext of the formation of Rapid Response Initiative in 1997 as a basis, but General Abacha in spite of his regime legitimacy crisis saw through that security wool. Abacha non-compromising posture put the programme into abeyance. And was soon resuscitated as soon as Abacha was out of the scene. Its security frenzy in West Africa got a boost with the development in the Persian Gulf and its all-time low relations with the uncompromising Hugo Charvez in Venezuela.

The on-going Al Qaida activities in Saudi have increased its discomfiture. All this are anchored in the objective reality of Richard Cheney report, Vice President, National Energy Policy Development Group which revealed a growing demand for oil and gas in the US which see it increase its oil import by about 50 per cent by 2020. This will see the US importing two of every three barrels of oil that it will require. The only way to guarantee this is by looking abroad. Failure to meet this projection amount to real threat to US national security. So the diversity plan centres on the Caspian Sea area, Latin America and Africa, especially West Africa, whose deposit, light sweet crude is cost effective for being easy to refine or as the US Department of Energy puts it, "Taylor-made for US East Coast markets." Currently, Nigeria oil constitutes about 9.7 per cent of US imports and certainly covets Nigeria's estimated 22.5 billion barrels of crude reserve. Its concerns in Nigeria include ExxonMobil and Chevron Texaco; both are also operating in Angola; in Equatorial Guinea ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil, Amerada Hess, and Ocean Energy dominate the oil production and its allied activities; in Sudan, it is currently trouble-shooting in order to take over oil production there.

In the face of this national security problematic, security has dominated all of US transactions with virtually all-African countries. Sao Tome has conceded to it the space to build so-called deep-water port while it is discussing airfield access agreement with another Nigeria's next door neighbour, Benin Republic. It was not surprising when the NATO Supreme Commander, US General James Jones admitted that US plan to boost its troops presence in Africa. And Theresa Whelan, the Director of Pentagon's Office of African Affairs drove the point home when she said that the US has security concern over off-shore oil.

Diplomats generally believed that the deployment of its battle group carrier to the Gulf of Guinea is dress rehearsal for US military involvement in the region. The broad implication of this is that by the roll call, all Sub-Saharan African countries will become US satellites and dependants without sovereignty. Once the US has its boot on the ground in Africa, the region will witness a replay of the dynamics in the Persian Gulf. The prospect is best imagined than experienced.

Of great importance is the word employed by General Jones to the effect that they would be enhancing their operations in the ungoverned regions of Africa is indicative of US colonial design, which must be vehemently resisted. This design is not only against Nigeria's national interest but also the destiny of the blackman as this may well be the beginning of the second transatlantic slavery. Nigerian state actors need to heed the words of Eric Margolis, author of War at the Top of the World- The Struggle for Afghanistan, Kashmir and Tibet, that where geopolitics and oil are the issues, there are no friends, only competitors and enemies.

What is to be done

My recommendations are as follows: Nigerian government needs to repudiate all forms of subservient and compromising agreements it may have entered with the US, especially under the Obasanjo Administration; Nigerian oil should be open to all manners of honest buyers; the Nigerian army and the government should make it clear that we will not tolerate pax Americana in our backyard.
A constructive and quiet diplomacy should immediately be adopted to engage with our neighbours, especially, Sao Tome and Benin that Nigeria will not countenance any form of agreement with any power that undermines our security. The issue of the US threat to Nigeria and African security in general should be top on the agenda of the next AU summit. Above all, the popular groups in Nigeria including labour need to embark on an immediate protest. It is imperative as it took such actions to forestall the Anglo-Nigerian Defence Pact in the 1960s. Before we all find ourselves dishonourable graves, my clarion to all Nigerian patriots: your country needs you.

* Akhaine is with the Department of Social and Political Science, Royal Holloway, University of London.

[CIkpatt]

Nigerian government needs to repudiate all forms of subservient and compromising agreements it may have entered with the US, especially under the Obasanjo Administration; Nigerian oil should be open to all manners of honest buyers; the Nigerian army and the government should make it clear that we will not tolerate pax Americana in our backyard.
A constructive and quiet diplomacy should immediately be adopted to engage with our neighbours, especially, Sao Tome and Benin that Nigeria will not countenance any form of agreement with any power that undermines our security. The issue of the US threat to Nigeria and African security in general should be top on the agenda of the next AU summit. Above all, the popular groups in Nigeria including labour need to embark on an immediate protest. It is imperative as it took such actions to forestall the Anglo-Nigerian Defence Pact in the 1960s. Before we all find ourselves dishonourable graves, my clarion to all Nigerian patriots: your country needs you.

Mr. OneNaija,
Akhaine may have a good heart but no one runs a govt. on raw emotions as he obviously has in metric tonnes and expect good results.

If Nigeria has engaged in "...subservient and compromising agreements" with the US, I think Akhaine should help us point to them.

If "...Nigerian oil should be open to all manners of honest buyers", Akhaine should tell us who are the dishonest buyers currently trading with Nigeria outside OPEC compliance. Or, if Akhaine is suggesting we quit OPEC, he may really have a point worthy of consideration.

That "...Nigerian army and the government should make it clear that we will not tolerate pax Americana in our backyard" is not an issue at all. It appears Akhaine simple has a problem is the Americana spirit and/or the country called USA. What he has forgotten to do is take into consideration today's global socio-economy and weigh what Nigeria really stands to loose or gain by alienating friendly relations with the USA.

But how is the Nigeria security being undermined? Akhaine has not clearly articulated. To write "...A constructive and quiet diplomacy should immediately be adopted to engage with our neighbours, especially, Sao Tome and Benin that Nigeria will not countenance any form of agreement with any power that undermines our security" is somewhat mis-directed: I think Akhaine should hold Olusegun Obasanjo responsible for foreign policy failure that has not engaged in such constructive and quiet diplomacy to strengthen relations with neigboring African countries.

Mr. OneNaija, don't say we are naive in supporting an "American presence" in gulfs of Guinea and Biafra. I, for one, do not factor speculations as to what the Americans are up to when supporting that presence.

Call it selfish - but I am looking at the long-term benefit for my peoples of the NDelta (and Akwa Ibom State in particular), knowing that opportunities can only abound for mutual gains that the future has in stock. Mine is purely for political and security (with prospects of translating into economic) leverage that the Nigeria government cannot provide my people.

I am not interested in what there is to be lost for Nigeria or the non-existent Nigeria national security network. What is there to be lost by my people? We have lost all there are already, mind you.

[Celticologist]

This design is not only against Nigeria's national interest but also the destiny of the blackman as this may well be the beginning of the second transatlantic slavery.

Second Slavery came to town when post-independence African leaders began to unleash misrule on their own brothers, creating more poverty, death and destruction on the way. Loss of hope amidst killing, maiming, and delibrate/systematic repression of opposition led to thousands fleeing their land of birth.

The issue of the US threat to Nigeria and African security in general should be top on the agenda of the next AU summit.

And what will the AU do afterwards?. The AU is an organization that has never had any lasting positive impact on the life of Africans. The present brigade of AU leaders have failed Africans.
What we see is the yearly familiar replay of talk, more talk, "summit", posh cars and aggresive escort drivers bringing them to "summit", imported wives smiling on TV, more "summit and final communique of general talk.

End of Summit!.

[I Love Nigeria]

Celticologist,

What might your recommendations be?

We should just lay down and die?

[MrOneNaija]

Ikpatt,

Any decent human being should identify with the long-suffering people of the Niger-Delta and their collective aspirations for an improved standard of living. Yet, in so doing, one cannot afford to lose sight of the long-term. I have reproduced below some of the segments of your last post under this thread which I assume do convey a position inadvertently supportive of the untenable status quo in our polity. Allow me to reiterate the view I expressed in my last post here. Amongst other things, I stated:

"How can anybody fail to understand the simple logic that any position built on a lie can only engender more lies? America is erecting its military presence in Nigeria's backyard - with impunity while arrogantly and deceptively insisting that that presence is meant to fight terrorism. Right now, those who seem to be comforted by Uncle Sam's latest intrusion in our national space are the rogues in Aso Rock. This alone should have alarmed the Nigerian people. "

You did ask a pertinent question as to how the American military presence in our backyard should be deemed as undermining our national security. The answer is obvious. To the extent that foriegn imperialist hegemonisms historically tend to be anti-people even as they support and nurture local tyrannies whose raison d'être is the protection of the economic interests of their alien masters, an American military presence targeting local advocacy groups cannot be seen as salutory or in our long-term national interests. I have elsewhere drawn attention to Obasanjo's so-called military reforms, pointing out how bogus and self-serving those reforms have been. LeCarre has also rightly stated in his post above how the current Obasanjo dictatorship has entered into "security" deals with America and how such "security" deals are intended primarily to shield Obasanjo from overthrow. Have you, even vaguely, imagined that the British and American military presence in the Niger-Delta is meant to provide security - economic or otherwise - for the local people or to help sustain democratic practice in the region?

I hope, for your own good, that you are not setting yourself up for a hard fall by closely aligning yourself with the American military presence in our midst. Again, I suggest you pay close attention to the reckless and paternalistic rhetoric of American representatives as they try to justify their military adventurism in the West African sub-region.

"What is there to be lost by my people? We have lost all..." - Ikpatt.

These are poignant words. It is impossible not to grasp their derivative moral authority. At the same time, we must urge caution in these matters, in the knowledge that the ruthless cabal in Aso Rock would seem to be quite comfortable with the gung-ho military posturing of Uncle Sam as well as that of his British poodle in the Niger-Delta. So far, what the "political and security leverage" the American military presence in the Niger-Delta and in the rest of Nigeria has done is secure Baba and his pack of wolves called collaborators. That is why the sinister clowns (and their foreign backers) have been laughing all the way to the bank - in Nigeria and overseas - at the expense of the average Niger-Deltan or Nigerian.

CIkpatt wrote, inter alia:

Mr. OneNaija,
Akhaine may have a good heart but no one runs a govt. on raw emotions as he obviously has in metric tonnes and expect good results.

If Nigeria has engaged in "...subservient and compromising agreements" with the US, I think Akhaine should help us point to them.

But how is the Nigeria security being undermined? Akhaine has not clearly articulated. To write "...A constructive and quiet diplomacy should immediately be adopted to engage with our neighbours, especially, Sao Tome and Benin that Nigeria will not countenance any form of agreement with any power that undermines our security" is somewhat mis-directed: I think Akhaine should hold Olusegun Obasanjo responsible for foreign policy failure that has not engaged in such constructive and quiet diplomacy to strengthen relations with neigboring African countries.

Mr. OneNaija, don't say we are naive in supporting an "American presence" in gulfs of Guinea and Biafra. I, for one, do not factor speculations as to what the Americans are up to when supporting that presence.

Call it selfish - but I am looking at the long-term benefit for my peoples of the NDelta (and Akwa Ibom State in particular), knowing that opportunities can only abound for mutual gains that the future has in stock. Mine is purely for political and security (with prospects of translating into economic) leverage that the Nigeria government cannot provide my people.

I am not interested in what there is to be lost for Nigeria or the non-existent Nigeria national security network. What is there to be lost by my people? We have lost all there are already, mind you.

[I Love Nigeria]

odili.net/news/source/200...2/321.html

Yes, the yankees can land on our shores!

Pini Jason
Friday, July 2, 2004

The Allied Forces in Iraq, led by the United States of America, hurriedly handed back the sovereignty of Iraq to the Iraqi Interim Government on Monday 28 June 2004, two days ahead of the planned 30 June. The handover was low-keyed and took place in the heavily guarded 'Green Belt' away from many Iraqis. Ordinarily, such a monumental event should have been marked with celebrations. But it wasn't. The security situation in Iraq made the handover look like a political equivalent of a hurried military retreat!


The whole Iraqi adventure has turned out a disaster for America. It is yet too early to compare it with Vietnam but some historians are already making notes. After the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11 2001, the whole world felt revulsion for the dastardly attack. But when President George Bush used that to redefine America's relationship with the rest of the world"you are either with us or with the terrorists and drew a new map of the 'arc of evil'"I was nervous of the consequences to global peace. It was my opinion then that George Bush was declaring a new cold war and not fighting global terror.

Today it is very, clear that George Bush has become the new face of the once despised ugly American. Many Americans believe that Bush's war on terrorism has actually made the world less safe for Americans and the rest of us. It was under Bush that the Middle East Road Map to peace was shredded and trashed.

'Fighting terrorism' became for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a convenient catchphrase for crushing the Palestinians. The region is more violent and dangerous today than George Bush met it. And the whole Gulf region and beyond could become a hostile territory for the United States.

The reason is simple. George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair led their nations into the Iraqi quagmire on misinformation. He would have taken on Syria if he were not stymied in Iraq. Of course, after 9/11 we knew that global war against terror immediately put nations like Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, North Korea and Somalia on America's hairline in accordance with Bush's doctrine of 'regime change'. He didn't need the lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction to attack these countries. Some of us expected it. But having lied about his mission in Iraq, he had to change his story to that of exporting freedom and democracy to Iraq.

It is on this democracy front that America is likely to face its greatest challenge in Iraq. Throughout the negotiation to hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis, the American government avoided handing over to a democratically elected government.

I don't know for how long it can avoid that without falling into the same contradictions that its relationship with autocratic regimes in that region has been. The true test of America's sincerity about democratization of Iraq will ultimately lie on one man, one vote. But on that, America faces another problem.

During Saddam Hussain's regime, many of the majority Iraqi Shiites fled into Iran. After Saddam's overthrow, they came back to Iraq.

They constitute a great influence and challenge to the Allied forces. And they were the ones insisting on elections instead of an un-elected government. In order words, the Shiites are taking the democracy challenge to the Americans.

The calculations today is that should there be an election in Iraq, the Shiites will sweep the poils. The Shiites are already in control in Iran. And between Iran and Iraq, the Shiites will be sitting on the world's largest source of oil supply to America!

A Shiites victory in Iraq could embolden the radicals in the region. American puppet regimes like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Jordan could come under serious threats. Egypt and Turkey could be destabilised. Algeria where an Islamic Fundamentalist party, FIS won elections in 1992 and it was annulled, some say with American acquiescence, could become volatile again.

Radically dormant Syria could revamp its radicalism. This scenario may be far fetched, but should it happen, the implication will be that oil export route to America will be under serious threat in the entire gulf region.

And this has implications for the Niger Delta Basin.
Even if America deploys more force in the region, it will still look elsewhere for safe energy source. The nearest and the safest will be the Gulf of Guinea, where Nigeria's Niger Delta is the most important. Nigerians have been expressing fears about the presence and the activities of the Americans in the Niger Delta in recent time. America is showing increasing interest in the security situation in the Niger Delta.

From donating Naval patrol boats it has upgraded the level of interest to physical patrol of Nigeria's Coast with aircraft carriers! American oil companies are equally increasing their activities in Sao Tome, just as Nigeria is signing joint exploration deals with the tiny country. If America lands marines in Sao Tome, there is nothing Nigeria can do about it even though it will be looking directly into the barrel of American guns!

Will America physically secure the oil fields in the Niger Delta? To answer that is to go back in time to the seventies. After the Yom Kippur war of 1973, Muammar Ghadaffi of Libya orchestrated the Arab boycott of oil supply to the West. President Jimmy Carter, the Bible thumbing, pious peanuts farmer from Georgia bared the iron teeth hidden under his cabaret smile. He threatened to physically occupy the Libyan oilfields, for he would not allow a third World country to threaten Western civilisation (such altercation is always reduced to our civilisation versus their savagery!).

Of course Ghadaffi called his bluff. He told Carter that he was welcome, that the oilfields had been mined, that one marine on Libyan soil, and he would explode the entire field, that his nomadic people did not need the petro-dollar as the Americans needed the oil!

So if American supply line is threatened, I don't expect them to sit and wring their hands. A man with a pillow over his nose will kick wildly to avoid suffocation! It is in the line of his duty for the new American Ambassador, Mr. John Campbell, who is doing his second tour here, to reassure Nigerians that the American Naval presence in the West African coast has no specific purpose for any country in the region. Fair enough.

But that can only remain true for as long as there is no escalation of threat to American interests in the region or in the Arabian Gulf. I don't ever see America shying away from protecting its interest anywhere in the world. We must not be naive about that. Our security forces and the leaders in the Niger Delta must think about that. Events in the Niger Delta have come under the ambit of globalization!

Of course, some of these scenarios may change by November, if George Bush is not re-elected. It is obvious that his foreign policy has been a disaster for America and the world. When he said he does not consult his father, George Bush senior, I believed him.

If he did, his father would have told him why he let Saddam be after blowing his forces out during the Desert Storm. America should learn a lesson: never elect a man who does not know what the people from Greece are called!

[I Love Nigeria]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 12, 2004
U.S. General Proposes Aid in Nigeria
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 3:30 p.m. ET

ABUJA, Nigeria (AP) -- A top U.S. military commander proposed American help Monday in monitoring West Africa's Gulf of Guinea to secure an unstable region that holds as much as 10 percent of the world's oil reserves.

Gen. Charles Wald, the deputy commander of the U.S. military's European Command for Europe and Africa, said he raised the offer in talks with West African and national officials in Nigeria -- Africa's biggest oil producer and most populous nation.

Britain's Jane's Weekly defense publication has said the United States was readying a proposed African Coastal Security Program to block pirates, smugglers and other criminals in the Gulf of Guinea and around Africa.

The issue is being studied in preliminary feasibility surveys, European Command officials have told The Associated Press.

In Abuja, Nigeria's capital, Wald said he and Nigerian officials, including Deputy Defense Minister Roland Oritsejafor, discussed finding ``a way that we can cooperate together in monitoring the waters off the Gulf of Guinea.''

Wald called it a ``hugely important'' issue to West African nations bordering the gulf.

``It is up to the political leaders, if they decide it is in their common interests to protect the area, we will support that,'' he said.

He gave no immediate details of what assistance might be involved. Jane's has suggested U.S. help could include naval vessels, communications equipment and training, as well as a counterterrorism base in the Gulf of Guinea.

Earlier this year, the United States funded a feasibility study on the creation of a possible deep-water port at the island nation of Sao Tome and Principe, off Nigeria.

Nigeria, Africa's largest oil exporter, is the world's No. 7 oil exporter and the fifth-biggest source of U.S. oil imports.

Surrounding nations in the Gulf of Guinea likewise are increasing production amid a West Africa oil boom, as the United States, Europe and Asia look for alternatives to oil from the politically volatile Middle East.

Asked whether the United States was willing to help stem attacks against Nigeria's oil industry, Wald said, ``Wherever there's evil, we want to get there and fight it.''

Nigeria's oil industry has been plagued by armed attacks from militants -- many seeking a share of the country's oil wealth -- that at times in the past year shut down 10 percent to 40 percent of Nigeria's daily production of 2.5 million barrels of crude a day.

``Where you have wealth, if you don't protect it, you are vulnerable to terrorists and illegal arms dealers and so you are not safe,'' he said.

The West and Central African regions produce 15 percent of U.S. oil imports, a figure that could rise to 20 percent in the next decade ``if it remains attractive to investment,'' according to a U.S. Congress-commissioned report last week by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The study urged Washington to increase intelligence and counter-terror efforts in Africa. It also should increase funding for training of African armies from $10 million to $100 million, with an equal amount devoted to African peace initiatives, the analysts said.

Wald said the United States was interested in expanding training and ``potentially'' helping equip regional peacekeepers to stem conflicts themselves, Wald said.

Three African nations are singled out by the Congress-commissioned report as facing the most dire terrorism threats in Africa -- Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria -- nations with large Muslim populations with which the authors recommended ``expanding engagement.''



Copyright 2004 The Associated Press | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top