US-Registered Planes Barred Over Mideast Areas Amid Tensions

This map provided by the Department of Defense, Thursday, June 20, 2019, shows the site where they say a U.S. Navy RQ-4 drone was shot down. The Department of Defense says the drone was flying over the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz on a surveillance mission in international airspace in the vicinity of recent IRGC maritime attacks when it was shot down by an IRGC surface to air missile fired from a launch site in the vicinity of Goruk, Iran. (Department of Defense via AP)

BY JON GAMBRELL

DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES (AP) — The U.S. on Friday barred American-registered aircraft from flying over Iranian-administered airspace in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman over the Revolutionary Guard shooting down a U.S. military surveillance drone, affecting a region crucial to global air travel.

The Federal Aviation Administration warned of a “potential for miscalculation or misidentification” in the region after an Iranian surface-to-air missile on Thursday brought down a U.S. Navy RQ-4A Global Hawk, an unmanned aircraft with a wingspan larger than a Boeing 737 jetliner and costing over $100 million. The U.S. said it made plans for limited strikes on Iran in response, but then called them off.

The FAA previously warned of a risk in the region, but Friday’s warning threw into stark relief a danger both it and analysts warned was real after the shooting down of a Malaysian Airlines flight over Ukraine in 2014. That could further imperil the bottom lines of Gulf long-haul carriers, which already have faced challenges under the Trump administration.

“The threat of a civil aircraft shoot-down in southern Iran is real,” warned OPSGROUP, a company that provides guidance to global airlines.

The FAA made a similar warning in May to commercial airliners of the possibility of Iranian anti-aircraft gunners mistaking them for military aircraft, something dismissed by Tehran some 30 years after the U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian passenger jet.

Iran had no immediate reaction to the U.S. announcement.

The FAA said its warning would affect the area of the Tehran Flight Information Region, without elaborating. The FAA’s operations center referred questions to its press office, which did not immediately respond to queries from The Associated Press. However, that likely only extends some 12 miles off of the Iranian coast, aviation experts said.

There are “heightened military activities and increased political tensions in the region, which present an inadvertent risk to U.S. civil aviation operations and potential for miscalculation or misidentification,” the FAA said. “The risk to U.S. civil aviation is demonstrated by the Iranian surface-to-air missile shoot-down of a U.S. unmanned aircraft system on 19 June 2019 while it was operating in the vicinity of civil air routes above the Gulf of Oman.”

The Persian Gulf is home to some of the world’s top long-haul carriers, who already have been battered by Trump’s travel bans targeting a group of predominantly Muslim countries, as well as an earlier ban on laptops in airplane cabins for Mideast carriers. The major carriers, Etihad, Emirates and Qatar Airways, as well as low-cost carriers, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Iran said the drone “violated” its territorial airspace, while the U.S. called the missile fire “an unprovoked attack” in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf. OPSGROUP said the Iranian weapons system that shot down the drone was comparable to the Russian Buk system used in 2014 Malaysian Airlines shootdown in Ukraine.

“Any error in that system could cause it to find another target nearby - another reason not to be anywhere near this part of the Straits of Hormuz,” OPSGROUP said.

President Donald Trump initially tweeted that “Iran made a very big mistake!” He later appeared to play down the incident, telling reporters in the Oval Office that he had a feeling “a general or somebody” being “loose and stupid” made a mistake in shooting down the drone.

A U.S. official said the military made preparations Thursday night for limited strikes on Iran in retaliation for the downing of a U.S. surveillance drone, but approval was abruptly withdrawn before the attacks were launched.

The official, who was not authorized to discuss the operation publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, said the targets would have included radars and missile batteries.

The New York Times reported that President Donald Trump had approved the strikes, but then called them off. The newspaper cited anonymous senior administration officials.

The White House on Thursday night declined requests for information about whether Trump changed his mind.

The incident immediately heightened the crisis already gripping the wider region, which is rooted in Trump withdrawing the U.S. a year ago from Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal and imposing crippling new sanctions on Tehran. Recently, Iran quadrupled its production of low-enriched uranium to be on pace to break one of the deal’s terms by next week while threatening to raise enrichment closer to weapons-grade levels on July 7 if Europe doesn’t offer it a new deal.

Citing unspecified Iranian threats, the U.S. has sent an aircraft carrier to the Middle East and deployed additional troops alongside the tens of thousands already there. All this has raised fears that a miscalculation or further rise in tensions could push the U.S. and Iran into an open conflict, 40 years after Tehran’s Islamic Revolution.

“We do not have any intention for war with any country, but we are fully ready for war,” Revolutionary Guard commander Gen. Hossein Salami said in a televised address Thursday.

___

Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor and Deb Riechmann in Washington contributed to this report.

US Prepped For Strikes On Iran Before Approval Was Withdrawn

In this Oct. 24, 2018, photo released by the U.S. Air Force, members of the 7th Reconnaissance Squadron prepare to launch an RQ-4 Global Hawk at Naval Air Station Sigonella, Italy. Iran's Revolutionary Guard shot down a U.S. RQ-4 Global Hawk on Thursday, June 20, 2019, amid heightened tensions between Tehran and Washington over its collapsing nuclear deal with world powers, American and Iranian officials said, though they disputed the circumstances of the incident. (Staff Sgt. Ramon A. Adelan/U.S. Air Force via AP)

BY LOLITA C. BALDOR, DEB RIECHMANN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States made preparations for a military strike against Iran in retaliation for the downing of a U.S. surveillance drone, but the operation was abruptly called off with just hours to go, a U.S. official said.

The official, who was not authorized to discuss the operation publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, said the targets would have included radars and missile batteries. The New York Times reported that President Donald Trump had approved the strikes Thursday night, but then called them off. The newspaper cited anonymous senior administration officials.

The White House on Thursday night declined requests for comment.

Asked earlier in the day about a U.S. response to the attack, Trump said, “You’ll soon find out.”

The swift reversal was a stark reminder of the serious risk of military conflict between U.S. and Iranian forces as the Trump administration combines a “maximum pressure” campaign of economic sanctions with a buildup of American forces in the region. As tensions mounted in recent weeks, there have been growing fears that either side could make a dire miscalculation that led to war.

According to the official who spoke to The Associated Press, the strikes were recommended by the Pentagon and were among the options presented to senior administration officials.

It was unclear how far the preparations had gone, but no shots were fired or missiles launched, the official said.

The military operation was called off around 7:30 p.m. Washington time, after Trump had spent most of Thursday discussing Iran strategy with top national security advisers and congressional leaders.

The downing of the U.S. drone — a huge, unmanned aircraft — over the Strait of Hormuz prompted accusations from the U.S. and Iran about who was the aggressor. Iran insisted the drone violated Iranian airspace; Washington said it had been flying over international waters.

Trump’s initial comments on the attack were succinct. He declared in a tweet that “Iran made a very big mistake!” But he also suggested that shooting down the drone — which has a wingspan wider than a Boeing 737 — was a foolish error rather than an intentional escalation, suggesting he may have been looking for some way to avoid a crisis.

“I find it hard to believe it was intentional, if you want to know the truth,” Trump said at the White House. “I think that it could have been somebody who was loose and stupid that did it.”

Trump, who has said he wants to avoid war and negotiate with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, cast the shootdown as “a new wrinkle ... a new fly in the ointment.” Yet he also said “this country will not stand for it, that I can tell you.”

He said the American drone was unarmed and unmanned and “clearly over international waters.” It would have “made a big, big difference” if someone had been inside, he said.

But fears of open conflict shadowed much of the discourse in Washington. As the day wore on, Trump summoned his top national security advisers and congressional leaders to the White House for an hour-long briefing in the Situation Room. Attendees included Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, national security adviser John Bolton, CIA Director Gina Haspel, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and Army Secretary Mark Esper, whom Trump has said he’ll nominate as Pentagon chief.

Pompeo and Bolton have advocated hardline policies against Iran, but Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, said “the president certainly was listening” when congressional leaders at the meeting urged him to be cautious and not escalate the already tense situation.

On Capitol Hill, leaders urged caution, and some lawmakers insisted the White House must consult with Congress before taking any actions.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said no specific options for a U.S. response were presented at the meeting. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “The administration is engaged in what I would call measured responses.” And late Thursday, House Republicans on the Foreign Affairs, intelligence and Armed Services committees issued a statement using the same word, saying, “There must be a measured response to these actions.”

The Trump administration has been putting increasing economic pressure on Iran for more than a year. It reinstated punishing sanctions following Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of an international agreement intended to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from earlier sanctions.

The other world powers who remain signed on to the nuclear deal have set a meeting to discuss the U.S. withdrawal and Iran’s announced plans to increase its uranium stockpile for June 28, a date far enough in the future to perhaps allow tensions to cool.

On Thursday, Iran called the sanctions “economic terrorism.”

Citing Iranian threats, the U.S. recently sent an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf region and deployed additional troops alongside the tens of thousands already there. All this has raised fears that a miscalculation or further rise in tensions could push the U.S. and Iran into an open conflict 40 years after Tehran’s Islamic Revolution.

“We do not have any intention for war with any country, but we are fully ready for war,” Revolutionary Guard commander Gen. Hossein Salami said in a televised address.

The paramilitary Guard, which answers only to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said it shot down the drone at 4:05 a.m. Thursday when it entered Iranian airspace near the Kouhmobarak district in southern Iran’s Hormozgan province. Kouhmobarak is about 1,200 kilometers (750 miles) southeast of Tehran.

Taking issue with the U.S. version of where the attack occurred, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted that his country had retrieved sections of the military drone “in OUR territorial waters where it was shot down.” He said, “We don’t seek war but will zealously defend our skies, land & waters.”

Air Force Lt. Gen. Joseph Guastella, commander of U.S. Central Command air forces in the region, disputed that contention, telling reporters that the aircraft was 34 kilometers (21 miles) from the nearest Iranian territory and flying at high altitude when struck by a surface-to-air missile. The U.S. military has not commented on the mission of the remotely piloted aircraft that can fly higher than 10 miles in altitude and stay in the air for over 24 hours at a time.

“This attack is an attempt to disrupt our ability to monitor the area following recent threats to international shipping and free flow of commerce,” he said.

Late Thursday, the Federal Aviation Administration barred American-registered aircraft from flying over parts of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

Democratic leaders in particular urged the president to work with U.S. allies and stressed the need for caution to avoid any unintended escalation.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said he told Trump that conflicts have a way of escalating and “we’re worried that he and the administration may bumble into a war.”

____

Associated Press writers Jill Colvin, Lisa Mascaro and Matthew Lee in Washington, Jon Gambrell in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and AP video producer Padmananda Rama contributed to this report.

Russia And Africa Gearing For Inter-Parliamentary Conference

Image: Duma via In-Depth News

BY KESTER KENN KLOMEGAH

MOSCOW, (IDN) – With high optimism, Russian legislators plan to use the forthcoming Russia-Africa inter-parliamentary conference scheduled for July 3 to discuss effective ways of strengthening Russia-African relations with a focus on new mechanisms for exploring business opportunities in Africa.

More than 30 African countries will take part in the conference in Moscow, an indication that African governments have a renewed interest in and looking forward to developing policy ties that could foster greater economic engagement and investment in sustainable development on the continent.

The agenda of the event includes discussion of legislative support for trade, economic and humanitarian cooperation between Russia and the African countries, and the exchange of legislative experience.

Ahead of the conference, the Chairman of the State Duma, Viacheslav Volodin, explained that “strengthening relations with African countries, including humanitarian and trade and economic cooperation, is one of the priorities. The development of inter-parliamentary relations should intensify cooperation between our countries.”

“We hope that our dialogue will be open, cooperation will be based on the principles of mutual benefit and the absence of double standards. We believe that interference in the affairs of sovereign states is unacceptable. I hope you will support our approaches to the development of bilateral relations, because, like no one else, you are well aware of the pernicious outside influence on internal politics. We do not accept such approaches, and once again I consider it necessary to confirm this, only relations based on the principles of friendship, mutual support, and benefit, built on dialogue can have a future,” he added.

Volodin stressed that the business component of Russia's relations with African countries is growing: in particular, the trade turnover increased by more than a quarter compared to 2016 and amounted to about 26.1% or $17.4 billion. “This is mainly Russian exports,” added the Chairman of the State Duma.

“We propose to move from intentions to concrete steps, and our peoples will better understand each other through parliamentary relations. It is necessary to take certain steps together to work on the African continent,” Volodin said.

Building relations more effectively through parliamentary framework would certainly help to create an incentive for Russian businesses, Volodin said, and added that business representatives “need support, they need confidence, and this confidence parliaments will have to provide”.

The Chairman of the State Duma hopes that dialogue at the forthcoming event will be open, and that cooperation will be based on the principles of mutual benefit and the absence of double standards. "We believe that interference in the affairs of states is unacceptable, only relations based on the principles of friendship, mutual support, and benefit, built on dialogue can have a future,” Volodin concluded.

Deputy Chairwoman of the State Duma, Olga Timofeeva, stressed that the mutual interest of Africa and Russia is growing. “In recent years, with its demographic and economic potential, Africa has become a new world center for global development. Russia has great potential, and there are still a lot of connections that we can tune up with you,” said the parliamentarian.

She also said that there are seven friendship groups with African countries in the State Duma that are ready to work within new formats of interaction. The parliamentarian expressed her hope that this meeting will become the basis of our long-term cooperation.

Russia regards Africa as an important ally in the protection of international law, according to the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, Mikhail Bogdanov, who further stressed: “Russia regards Africa as an important and active participant in the emerging polycentric architecture of the world order and an ally in protecting international law against attempts to undermine it.”

He reminded that the relations of the Russian Federation and Africa have a long history and are lined-up on the principles of equality and mutual respect. In recent years, communications have intensified and are developing in various directions. “Invariably, and not playing with words, but in practice, we support the principle ‘African solutions to African problems’ formulated by the African countries,” said the Deputy Minister.

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Rwanda to the Russian Federation Jeanne d'Arc Mujawamariya appreciated efforts to use conference platforms to exchange views on common problems, common issues for the African continent and the Russian Federation.

While emphasizing that “Russia never participated in the colonization of Africa,” the Rwandan diplomat also added: “we hope the State Duma will outline priorities for cooperation and offer a comprehensive program, proposals for cooperation between the Pan-African Union and the State Duma, which will allow our parliaments to work effectively as legislative bodies.”

The Rwandan diplomat Jeanne d'Arc Mujawamariya hopes that the conference will highlight the prospects for the development of cooperation, in particular, in the economic sphere, between Russia and the countries of the African Union.

Sanusha Naidu, a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Global Dialogue based in Pretoria, South Africa, explained that, from all perspectives the key issue in this kind of interaction is for African legislators to play an asserting role for a pragmatic engagement with their Russian counterparts.

“The critical juncture is for parliamentary diplomacy to be more than just a talk-shop. There needs to be ownership in the way African legislators apply their role of oversight as a critical function and not as a rubber stamp. The engagement needs to be transparent with the Russian counterparts and about holding the executive accountable on both sides,” she wrote in an emailed comment.

“This is what African legislators can ask their colleagues to do terms of respecting the sovereignty and independence of Africa’s engagement with external partners. It is about recognising that parliamentary diplomacy and an inter-parliamentary engagement must be about partnership of mutual interests, benefits and respect,” Naidu added.

Developing such partnerships, shaped by the way the architecture of the global system is evolving. It is never too late to initiate and strengthen interactions or modes of diplomacy. What is important is for the partnership to be defined by terms of reference not based only on one set of interests. It must be mutual-partnership and engagement , and necessarily defines how to advance the interests of Africa’s people, according to the researcher.

“The significance is that the interaction has to build around Africa’s development and to ensure that the partnership is not predicated by narrow selfish interests. This is why accountability and legislative oversight, among others, as drivers will determine whether the interaction is just an exercise in optics or it is about asking the awkward questions and shining the light in the dark spaces based on a real engagement,” Naidu concluded.

Russia held its first Russia-Africa interparliamentary conference, under the theme 'Russia-Africa: Horizons of Cooperation' in the Kremlin in June 2010. It was initiated by the State Duma with the support of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affair.. [IDN-InDepthNews – 21 June 2019]

SOURCE: IDN

Migrant Children Describe Neglect At Texas Border Facility

 

In this June 15, 2019, file photo, migrants cross the Rio Bravo illegally to surrender to the American authorities, on the U.S.-Mexico border between Ciudad Juarez and El Paso. A legal team that recently interviewed more than 60 children at a Border Patrol station in Texas warns that a traumatic situation is unfolding for some 250 infants, children and teens locked up for up to 27 days without adequate food, water and sanitation, according to a report published Thursday, June 20. (AP Photo/Christian Torres, File)


BY CEDAR ATTANASIO, GARANCE BURKE AND MARTHA MENDOZA

EL PASO, TEXAS (AP) — A 2-year-old boy locked in detention wants to be held all the time. A few girls, ages 10 to 15, say they’ve been doing their best to feed and soothe the clingy toddler who was handed to them by a guard days ago. Lawyers warn that kids are taking care of kids, and there’s inadequate food, water and sanitation for the 250 infants, children and teens at the Border Patrol station.

The bleak portrait emerged Thursday after a legal team interviewed 60 children at the facility near El Paso that has become the latest place where attorneys say young migrants are describing neglect and mistreatment at the hands of the U.S. government.

Data obtained by The Associated Press showed that on Wednesday there were three infants in the station, all with their teen mothers, along with a 1-year-old, two 2-year-olds and a 3-year-old. There are dozens more under 12. Fifteen have the flu, and 10 more are quarantined.

Three girls told attorneys they were trying to take care of the 2-year-old boy, who had wet his pants and no diaper and was wearing a mucus-smeared shirt when the legal team encountered him.

“A Border Patrol agent came in our room with a 2-year-old boy and asked us, ‘Who wants to take care of this little boy?’ Another girl said she would take care of him, but she lost interest after a few hours and so I started taking care of him yesterday,” one of the girls said in an interview with attorneys.

Law professor Warren Binford, who is helping interview the children, said she couldn’t learn anything about the toddler, not even where he’s from or who his family is. He is not speaking.

Binford described that during interviews with children in a conference room at the facility, “little kids are so tired they have been falling asleep on chairs and at the conference table.”

She said an 8-year-old taking care of a very small 4-year-old with matted hair couldn’t convince the little one to take a shower.

“In my 22 years of doing visits with children in detention I have never heard of this level of inhumanity,” said Holly Cooper, who co-directs University of California, Davis’ Immigration Law Clinic and represents detained youth.

The lawyers inspected the facilities because they are involved in the Flores settlement, a Clinton-era legal agreement that governs detention conditions for migrant children and families. The lawyers negotiated access to the facility with officials, and say Border Patrol knew the dates of their visit three weeks in advance.

Many children interviewed had arrived alone at the U.S.-Mexico border, but some had been separated from their parents or other adult caregivers including aunts and uncles, the attorneys said.

Government rules call for the children to be held by the Border Patrol for no longer than 72 hours before they are transferred to the custody of Health and Human Services, which houses migrant youth in facilities around the country.

Government facilities are overcrowded and five immigrant children have died since late last year after being detained by Customs and Border Protection. A teenage mother with a premature baby was found last week in a Texas Border Patrol processing center after being held for nine days by the government.

In an interview this week with the AP, acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner John Sanders acknowledged that children need better medical care and a place to recover from their illnesses. He urged Congress to pass a $4.6 billion emergency funding package includes nearly $3 billion to care for unaccompanied migrant children.

He said that the Border Patrol is holding 15,000 people, and the agency considers 4,000 to be at capacity.

“The death of a child is always a terrible thing, but here is a situation where, because there is not enough funding ... they can’t move the people out of our custody,” Sanders said.

The arrival of thousands of families and children at the border each month has not only strained resources but thrust Border Patrol agents into the role of caregivers, especially for the many migrant youth who are coming without parents.

But children at the facility in Clint, which sits amid the desert scrubland some 25 miles (40 kilometers) southeast of El Paso, say they have had to pick up some of the duties in watching over the younger kids.

A 14-year-old girl from Guatemala said she had been holding two little girls in her lap.

“I need comfort, too. I am bigger than they are, but I am a child, too,” she said.

Children told lawyers that they were fed oatmeal, a cookie and a sweetened drink in the morning, instant noodles for lunch and a burrito and cookie for dinner. There are no fruits or vegetables. They said they’d gone weeks without bathing or a clean change of clothes.

A migrant father, speaking on condition of anonymity because of his immigration status, told AP Thursday that authorities separated his daughter from her aunt when they entered the country. The girl would be a second grader in a U.S. school.

He had no idea where she was until Monday, when one of the attorney team members visiting Clint found his phone number written in permanent marker on a bracelet she was wearing. It said “U.S. parent.”

“She’s suffering very much because she’s never been alone. She doesn’t know these other children,” said her father.

Republican Congressman Will Hurd, whose district includes Clint, said “tragic conditions” playing out on the southern border were pushing government agencies, nonprofits and Texas communities to the limit.

“This latest development just further demonstrates the immediate need to reform asylum laws and provide supplemental funding to address the humanitarian crisis at our border,” he said.

Dr. Julie Linton, who co-chairs the American Academy of Pediatrics Immigrant Health Special Interest Group, said CBP stations are not an appropriate place to hold children.

“Those facilities are anything but child friendly,” said Dr. Julie Linton. “That type of environment is not only unhealthy for children but also unsafe.”

The Trump administration has been scrambling to find new space to hold immigrants as it faces criticism that it’s violating the human rights of migrant children by keeping so many of them detained.

San Francisco psychoanalyst Gilbert Kliman, who has evaluated about 50 children and parents seeking asylum, says the trauma is causing lasting damage.

“The care of children by children constitutes a betrayal of adult responsibility, governmental responsibility,” he said.

___

Burke reported from San Francisco. Mendoza reported from Santa Cruz, California.

June 12, Ndigbo And Soyinka’s Red Herring

Wole Soyinka speaks during an interview at his home. Date: April 03, 2009. Image: Ann Johansson/Corbis/Getty

BY IDOWU BANKOLE

JUNE 20, 2019

I decided not to write on this year’s June 12 Democracy Day having written two articles, back to back, on it last year. On June 13, 2018, I lauded President Muhammadu Buhari in this column for taking the bold initiative of “honouring Abiola with Grand Commander of the Federal Republic, GCFR, Nigeria’s highest award, and declaring June 12 Democracy Day. Some have queried the president’s motive. My answer is simple. Whatever informed the decision, it was the right thing to do. And if in doing what is right, he is reaping some political capital, so be it,” I concluded the article, titled, “June 12: I still remember”.

A week later, worried by the ethnic tint of the celebrations, I wondered whether Buhari’s action had gravitated from its essence – the symbolism of righting a historic wrong – to a celebration of Yoruba triumphalism. Besides, in the one year since Buhari’s declaration, we have had a general election which outcome eviscerated the very idea of democracy, thus violating the spirit of June 12 – a repudiation of the country’s primordial fault-lines of ethnicity, religion and prebendalism.

June 12 was about the free and fair election. It was about the right of the people to choose their leaders without let or hindrance. It was about inclusiveness. It was against bigotry, prejudice and ethnic profiling. It was about merit. Moshood Abiola’s Social Democratic Party, SDP, had a Muslim-Muslim ticket, with Babagana Kingibe on the ballot. Yet, it didn’t matter. Abiola defeated his opponent, Bashir Tofa, of the National Republican Convention, NRC, in his home state of Kano.

It didn’t matter to Ndigbo that their illustrious son, Sylvester Ugo, a Christian and former governor of the defunct Central Bank of Biafra, was on the NRC ticket, majority of them voted for Abiola. So, any election to be used in celebrating this electoral feat must encapsulate its spirit, otherwise, it will lend credence to Olu Fasan’s assertion in his Vanguard column last week that: “Due to the empty symbolism of the president’s decision and its crass politicisation, June 12 only gives Nigerians another public holiday. Beyond that, it signifies nothing meaningful.”

The 2019 general elections were unarguably the worst since 1999, the very antithesis of whatever June 12 represents. The joint Nigeria International Election Observation Mission of the National Democratic Institute, NDI, and the International Republican Institute, IRI, on June 18 gave a damning verdict of the polls in Abuja. “The 2019 general elections fell significantly short of standards set in 2015. Citizens’ confidence in elections was shaken,” said Daniel Twining, IRI President.

“Election stakeholders should take concrete steps to address the concerns of citizens with regards to the polls in order to rekindle their faith in the power and possibility of credible elections,” said the two United States-based organisations that have been involved in Nigerian elections since 1999. There was nothing, therefore, to write about the June 12 debauchery in the name of celebrating democracy; or so I thought until I read Wole Soyinka’s article, “A democracy day primer.”

Inimitably, he lamented, just like everybody else, that “this year’s recall of an uplifting day in the year 1993 comes up against a background of its most shameful disavowal: the 2019 elections – still under judicial contestation – an event that would be more accurately described as an exercise in body count rather than ballot count,” because the poll epitomised Nigeria’s “final descent into the abyss of human degradation,” and “reflected a pattern of savagery and abandonment of human sensibilities that have eaten away the sheerest sense of community in the nation.”

But his potshot at Ndigbo in the same article is both objectionable and beyond the pale. It was unwarranted. Soyinka lured himself into a conspiracy theory, insinuating that some people took the Democracy Day celebrations as an opportunity to jeer at and vilify the Yoruba. He found that unconscionable and lamented that some are trying to reduce the June 12 struggle to that of an ethnic project, calling such an inclination “a depressing travesty of the realities, a denial of the existence of a nation’s collective sense of justice and its tenacity in pursuit of that objective.”

But Soyinka should take a look at the mirror and the face(s) of those who cynically appropriated the struggle to the exclusion of every other people will gawp at him. They will be familiar faces because they are his kinsmen. Pretending otherwise is a disservice to his age-long reputation as a fervent purveyor of truth. Conscience, to borrow an axiom, is an open wound which only truth can heal. Ethnic cavilling is a non-starter. Soyinka should know better than anyone else.

So, I find it difficult to understand the point he was trying to make when he wrote: “After the annulment, I recall that, when we tried to mobilise opposition to that sadistic impostor, fanatic voices of ethnic irredentism informed us bluntly, verbally and in print, that the Yoruba should go and solve their problems themselves, since we had let them down in the lead-up to the Biafran War of Secession, and should seek no collaboration from that side of the Niger.”

Can’t Soyinka and his ilk for once leave Ndigbo out of Nigeria’s self-inflicted lesions? That claim is nauseating, ridiculous and very unfortunate coming from him. Just as it is condescending when he wrote that: “It is gratifying, therefore – and here we come to some cheering news! – that this tendency has become a source of concern to many of the leaders of that former secessionist state.” Assuming, without conceding, that Soyinka tried, as he claimed, to mobilise opposition against Babangida’s monkeyshines and was rebuffed by the Igbo, who would blame them after their experience in the 1960s?

The crisis that heralded the “Wild-wild West and “operation wetie” phenomena and precipitated the genocide against them was a battle for political supremacy between the North and the West. It had nothing to do with Ndigbo. Yet, when the chips were down, they were used as cannon fodders, brutally massacred in their millions, using starvation as “legitimate weapon of war”.

To ensure a complete decimation – physically and economically – those who survived the genocide were stripped of their hard-earned wealth by giving them a paltry 20 pounds each. Yet, Ndigbo were at the forefront of the battle to revalidate the annulled June 12 election. Soyinka knows that. So, why this malevolent narrative?

Ibrahim Babangida didn’t hand over to an Igbo. Soyinka’s kinsman headed the Interim National Government, ING. The annulment had the backing of Yoruba monarchs even when Igbo royals rebuffed Babangida’s attempt to inveigle them into accepting the malady. Rather than sheltering under sophistry, Soyinka should take a cue from Abiola’s son, Kola, and reveal the identities of these Igbo irredentists.

Penultimate week, Kola told Nigerians his own June 12 story in an interview with the Sun newspaper. Most of the major actors who betrayed the cause, including those masquerading today as pro-democracy aficionados but only became converts and joined the National Democratic Coalition, NADECO, when Sani Abacha refused giving them political positions in his government, are Yoruba, not Igbo. And Kola said that much. He named the two-faced political jobbers.

Soyinka knows that Igbo patriots like Ndubuisi Kanu, Ebitu Ukiwe, Ralph Obioha, et al, were NADECO’s driving force. Perhaps, he is referring to the role played by Arthur Nzeribe of the Association for Better Nigeria, ABN, infamy. But how about Abimbola Davies?

It will be selective amnesia for him to claim not to know that for every Alani Akinrinade, there was a Ndubuisi Kanu who co-founded NADECO; for every Beko Ransome-Kuti, there were Olisa Agbakoba, Chima Ubani, Chidi Odinkalu, et al.; for every Kunle Ajibade who was imprisoned on trumped up charges, there was Chris Anyanwu, who nearly went blind in prison and Ben Charles Obi, who didn’t quite survive his prison ordeal.

Is Soyinka claiming to be unaware of Ralph Obioha, a man born into wealth but who gave everything up for the sake of June 12? Obioha’s African Trust Bank, Safari Brewery, vegetable oil company, cement company were destroyed by the military. Unlike some of his Yoruba compatriots who used the public till to rehabilitate themselves, Obioha is yet to recover. He may never recover. Who remembers him today?

If Soyinka was not on a mischievous voyage for whatever reason, he would be appealing to his friend, Buhari, to honour Humphrey Nwosu, the man who delivered the freest and fairest election in the annals of Nigeria’s electoral politics, as he honoured Abiola, Kingibe and Gani Fawehinmi. Soyinka knows those who betrayed June 12. If he follows the evidence, it will lead him inexorably to his own neck of the woods and not to the South East.

To pretend otherwise is sheer red herring.

SOURCE: VANGUARD

Stressful Speculations About Public Debt In Africa

Debt indices in Africa’s ‘Belt of Distress’ Source: Devarajan, Gill and Karakülah (2019), using IMF data, and Ministry of Finances, Central Banks and National Statistics Offices of the countries in the table.

BY INDERMIT GILL, KENAN KARAKULAH, AND SHANTA DEVARAJAN

CAPE TOWN (BROOKINGS) -- Earlier this month, the African Economic Research Consortium held its 50th Biannual Plenary and Workshop in Cape Town. The topic was Growing with Debt in African Economies, and the discussions were energetic and educational. We presented a paper at the plenary, a preliminary version of which can be found here.

Our main points are that public debt dynamics in many countries in sub-Saharan are now working against their stability and growth and, indeed, that of the subcontinent, but the story does not have to end in tears. We come to this conclusion by asking three questions: Has there been an increase in the capacity of African economies to bear higher levels of debt? Do markets and governments in emerging Africa have enough information about each other to make good decisions if there is a debt crisis? And, should we be confident that debt distress in Africa will be resolved in an orderly manner?

Our answer to each of these questions is no. This blog explains why; a companion blog will propose remedies.

1. Have African countries been getting more debt because they have improved policies and institutions over the last 10 years, or only because debt relief wiped their slates clean?

To figure this out, we looked at levels and trends in public debt, economic growth and poverty, and changes in the quality of policies and institutions for about 45 countries. The idea was to figure out whether debt has helped increase welfare, and whether countries have been borrowing more on the markets because their policies and public institutions are better. The public debt numbers are from country sources, the income and poverty numbers from the usual multilateral development institutions, and the data on the quality of country policies and institutions from the World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessments (CPIA) between 2007 and 2018.

We found that the quality of policies and institutions has deteriorated or not improved in most countries. The biggest deterioration is in countries that had the highest increases in public debt.

Naturally, not all policies matter equally. So, for example, a country might have worse environmental and social policies, but better macroeconomics, financial sector and trade policies, and budgetary and tax systems. That’s not hard to figure out. Table 1—which ranks countries by the extent of the increase in their public debt-to-GDP ratios during the last decade—shows the most relevant subcategories of the CPIA for all countries: macro management and debt policy, financial sector, quality of budgetary and financial management, and efficiency of domestic resource mobilization. It says three things:

There are more red and pink cells than green, and the pattern gets worse as you go from countries that had moderate increases in debt to those at the top of the table.
There are only a few countries that have had across-the-board increases in the quality of policies and institutions since 2007. They are Togo, Cote d’Ivoire, and Zimbabwe.
The weakest areas are domestic resource mobilization, macro policies, and quality of budgetary and financial management. The only bright spot is a general improvement in financial sector policies, except in Ghana, Uganda, Mali, and Sierra Leone.

Bottom line: The World Bank’s take on the quality of policies and institutions in sub-Saharan Africa is that it has not improved since debt relief. So it is surprising that the Bank has largely been silent about African debt. It should pay more attention to its own assessments.

2. Will debt markets get to know Africa well enough to respond well when the next crisis comes?
During the Latin American debt crisis in the 1980s, there was a syndrome that came to be known as “Buenos Aires is the capital of Brazil.” If something went wrong in Argentina, investors in New York would pull out of Brazil, and so on.

The same contagion will likely afflict emerging markets in Africa. One sign is that sovereign bond spreads are clustered between 400 and 500 basis points for African economies accessing market, except South Africa. That is to be expected in a frontier region. But the main reason for expecting contagion is that the main provider of information about these economies is seriously unreliable.

In emerging markets people pay a lot of attention to what the International Monetary Fund (IMF) says and does, especially what it says about a country’s growth prospects and whether it plans to backstop a country’s economy with a program. Look at what the IMF has been doing. It has signed arrangements with 16 countries since oil prices crashed in 2014. Look also at what the Fund has been saying, especially the gap between what will happen to debt and growth in countries that are borrowing from the IMF, compared with those that are not. Table 2 summarizes the findings:
IMF program countries are expected to reduce debt-to-GDP ratios by almost 10 percentage points between 2017 and 2024, non-program countries less than 1 percentage point.
Program countries are projected to grow by an average of 5.2 percent annually, non-program countries by 3.7 percent. 1.5 percentage points can make the difference between sustainability and distress.

As a reality check, we took a look also at the actual growth rates of these groups. During the high growth period of 2010 to 2015, both groups grew by 4 percent annually. IMF program countries are now expected to outperform themselves.

We cannot reasonably expect the IMF to be accurate in its projections; forecasting is a tricky business. But we should expect it to be unbiased. Instead, it seems to be supplying the market systematically bad numbers. For a region that is depending more and more on markets, this cannot be good.

Bottom line: African researchers should be subjecting the Fund’s analysis to a lot more scrutiny. Both the growth forecasts and—what is the same thing—debt sustainability assessments of the IMF and World Bank should be treated with skepticism.

3. In countries that become distressed, will debt resolutions be reasonably orderly?

To figure this out, it seemed sensible to look at what is happening in countries that are already in crisis. We looked closely at a group of countries in what we call the belt of distress—a group of seven countries just north of South Africa. They include Madagascar, Mozambique, Zambia, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Angola, and the Republic of Congo.

Following an earlier paper that two of us have written (summarized here) we used three measures of debt sustainability—the latest debt to GDP ratios, change in this ratio over the last 9-10 years, and the difference between the rate of interest and the rate of growth during the last five years. Other than Madagascar, things look pretty bad; Zimbabwe’s national accounts are being redone, so expect its growth rate to change (Table 3).

Contrary to common belief about this round of debt increases, a sizable part of the public debt is external; more than half usually. But, again contrary to popular perceptions, not a lot of it is owed to China (except in the Republic of Congo). The rise in external debt has been mainly because of big devaluations, in the neighborhood of 50 percent for oil-exporters like Angola. All have been running primary deficits for a long time and adding to their debt.

If you think of the three main risks as China, currency, and corruption, the serious ones involve currency and corruption. All these countries have had big devaluations (all except the Republic of Congo, which does seem to have a China problem). And all have had a worsening of corruption. There are stories of bribes being taken to provide guarantees, of hiding debt, and of undisclosed terms with lenders from China and other countries.

Bottom line: Nothing in the way that currently distressed governments have been handling their problems provides confidence that debt resolutions will be orderly. If this continues and—as we expect—soon includes Africa’s bigger economies, it could be a real mess.

NIGERIA: ‘No Government With Questionable Characters Can Beat Corruption’

Image via Human Rights Watch

THIS DAY, JUNE 20, 2019

Nseobong Okon-Ekong holds a conversation with Dr. Adetokunbo Ade-Banjo, a UK-based Development Economist, on issues around sustainable development in Nigeria

The economic and social problems confronting the nation continues to mount in spite of efforts by various governments. What is responsible for this? 

 
Presently our economic and social problems have reached an unimaginable crescendo, which emanated from economic inequalities and the inability of successive governments to formulate remedial strategies to reduce or alleviate the economic slide. Apparently, the rot did not start in the last four years; it has been degenerating since the oil price shock of 1973. This has affected our economic development, as the country is heavily reliant on oil exportation.

Nigeria has evolved into a peculiar capital economy. Our political style has helped to erode the middle class in the country, and it is either one has or one languishes in abject poverty. I don’t think successive governments have done enough to ameliorate the problems. For example, we cannot have the interest rate at between 18-25%, yet expect economic growth. We cannot refuse to improve on our infrastructure, the power, security etc. yet expect foreign investors in the country. Our educational system is undesirable.

The curriculum is not in tandem with the world standard. Its fragmented. What is taught in the south is different from the North. We have allowed religion to dig deep into our existence; hence the mind of the people are programmed and they cannot think out of the box. These resulting failures lead to break down of law and order, kidnapping, ‘yahoo-yahoo’, terrorism, rape, extortion and all other social vices one can think of in a collapsing state.

Our political architecture is a fraud, hence we have failed and are still failing on all fronts. As a result of the rigid nature of our political structure, we tend to sideline the vibrant minds of the nation and employ the ‘agberos’ (illiterates, thugs etc.) to run the strategic sectors of our economy. The government needs to be all-inclusive and honestly search for Nigeria’s that can help redesign and revamp the country irrespective of political affiliation. I would suggest an assembly of Nigerian technocrats across the world to brainstorm on industrialising Nigeria.

What are the solution to the nation’s problems?

Our problems are multi-faceted. Where do I start? There is poverty in the land, the consequences of which is mass suicidal missions by the youths. The statistics don’t lie. Forty-five percent of our youth are unemployed and many are also unemployable. It is looking like a wasted generation. Most people do not have access to the basic amenities, essential for survival. Businesses are collapsing; most foreign investors are leaving the country due to insecurity and collapse of law and order. In some states, there is perpetual anarchy. Chika Okeke, a small shop owner in Abuja said: ‘For Nigeria to prosper, the state could harness the vim of her 200millions plus citizens. Instead, she ignores them, except when politicians need votes. People expect nothing from the government.”

In my opinion, the government knows how to tackle these problems but decides to turn the other way. The Trader Money is a charade. They promised to create so much employment for the youths, instead, they operate a secret employment system for their children, friends and family. The government has to first of all change the consciousness of the citizens. We have to be conscientious about the country. ‘Nigeria First’ should probably be the slogan and not religion. It may sound absurd to the feeble-minded but religion needs to be relegated to the background and should be an individual ideology but not the state.

Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) states that Nigeria is a secular state. ‘The government of the federation or of a state shall not adopt any religion as a state religion.’
Most successful countries in the world are secular and are economically driven, not by religion.
We need to reduce the power at the centre, make it softer, and give more power to the states. The system whereby the state governors take a bowl to Aso Rock on a monthly basis is a disgrace to Nigeria and a bad way of running the economy. I will suggest the states rely on their Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) and subsidized by the Federal Government should the need arise.
Another important and immediate remedy is the rejigging of the federation. True federalism is the way to go. Let the local governments be independent of states and they should be responsible for all the grassroots development. Why is the Federal Government responsible for some infrastructure within the states? It is a wrong action.

Do you think the programmes of the President Buhari administration is positively impacting on the suffering masses? 

 
I am aware of two to three programmes the government takes pride in and they are the Npower, the Trader Money and the School Feeding programmes. I am not here to condemn their efforts. However, it is a wrong approach to eradicating poverty and assessing the needs of the masses. As you know, there is a harrowing cry of hunger in the land and the youths have taken to different heinous ways to survive. Some will say at least the government is doing something. Yes, they are, but what is worth doing is worth doing well.

Let me start on the Npower project. The last time I heard the youths accessing the N-power in the website was in 2016/ early 2017. Who were the beneficiaries of the programme? What is the percentage of the masses they say the programme has impacted? I remember they offered N40, 000 a month to each of the successful candidates to teach a rural school without basic amenities.
Regarding the Trader-Money, this programme is surrounded by so many controversies, yet the government went ahead with it close to the election period. Why were recipient’s PVC numbers required to access this money? In modern-day Nigeria, the N10,000 cannot be meaningfully invested. The government did not also spell out the term and the frequency the money will go out to the people in the market.

Instead of these programmes, I would have thought, a mega neighbourhood renewal scheme in the 774 local government of the federation. Organise training for the masses on entrepreneurship, cooperatives, technology and small scale farming. Make available pots of money that can be accessed to organisations and a group of people for meaningful sustainable developmental schemes in the community.

The fight against corruption is said to be the cornerstone of President Buhari’s government, Do you think the policy is yielding any positive result?

The country is basically built on corruption in my assessment, hence it has dug deep into our existence and no government plagued with colourful and questionable characters can boastfully say they can beat corruption hands down in our land. It is not worth going into the history of corruption as everyone in the country has been affected by it one way or the other. I heard a commentator on Nigerian affairs say that a child born during the Second Republic or after, does not know how to survive without engaging in corruption.

To fight corruption, we need to strengthen our institutions, take proper audit and introduce stringent bureaucracy in all government agencies. Eradicate nepotism; give roles to a deserving person irrespective of his/her religion, creed or tribe.

I may even suggest we contract employment into our ministries to international organisations that will do a proper assessment and recruitment into public service positions. In my opinion, what the government is doing is not fighting corruption but recouping stolen funds from people against their style of governance. I remember an opposition governor was picked up immediately after his tenure. As you may see now, many governors have petitions against them but no organisation has deemed it fit to swing into action to investigate and prosecute.

Again, I have not read publicly the policy of the government on corruption; all I see as the headlines are houses that had been crossed by the EFCC and money that had been recovered. What do we do with the money and where is the money? Some said they are kept somewhere as there may be a court action in the future. From experience when properties acquired illegally are recouped, the agency will keep them for a specific period of time, after which they approach the court for disposal. In the last four years, nothing has been done regarding the property/money recouped.

Can corruption be adequately tackled in Nigeria?

Yes, it can. It can be adequately tackled with proper orientation and change of our mind-set. Firstly, we must change the curriculum to teach young ones about nationhood and conscientiousness. We need the right people to direct the affairs of the government. What we have now are politicians with money to burn or someone that has a godfather who is ready to roll-in the Naira to get a preferred candidate to power.

Corruption will be tackled when the people are conscious of their rights and question the status-quo to account for their stewardship. Otherwise, the deceit would continue. We need to change the way we do business in Nigeria, how we elect our leaders and our electioneering processes. Corruption begins in the classroom! Let us say no to it from the nursery school level. Whistleblowers rewarded and not victimised, put the right people in the right post rather than nepotistic appointments. I will call it a national corruption sweep, a top/down approach.


The All Progressives Congress (APC) government that prides itself as a progressive party has been in power for four years and is on the second lap of another four years, can Nigerians continue to trust its ability to pilot the affairs of this nation?

I campaigned for APC, most importantly, mobilised electorates for the party in 2014, even though I did not practise partisan politics. I still do not as I am not a card-carrying member of any political party in Nigeria. However, that does not mean I am not leaning towards a political ideology. Going back to 2014, APC was received with high hopes and an alternative to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) that had bastardized the reason for our existence, the hope of a one Nigeria.

I remember, the country was divided across tribal lines, and we witnessed unparalleled corruption and impunity in the wayward running of the country’s economy. As a progressive, one would expect an improvement in the three fundamentals for sustainable development, viz. environment, society and the economy. On the environment, the South-south region is still plagued with degradation, oil pollution in the water; this has destroyed most lives and reduces job opportunities in the region. In 2017, I recall billions of Naira was earmarked for the clean-up, that was the last we heard of the project. There is still no improvement in the environment. Evidently, we now operate in an impoverished society; the average family cannot eat two meals a day. Almost 65% of the population survive on less than one Dollar a day. Our communities are riddled with hate, religious bigotry, high-level crime, terrorisms, kidnapping to mention a few. Apparently, there is looming anarchy in the land.

On the economy, the government is not doing enough to create jobs, yet the standard of living spirals beyond economic projections. According to IMF data mapper 2019, Nigeria’s inflation rate is at 11.7% (hyper-inflation) growth rate pegged at 3.2%, however, projected to reduce to 2.40% in 2020. Our exchange rate keeps fluctuating as the Naira was devalued through the back door.
Probably, APC won for the second term because the citizens have confidence in the way the three economic growth indicators were managed. I am not sure they will be able to fool the populace the second time, should they run the affairs of the country the way they did in the first term.


The security situation in the country continues to pose a problem for the citizenry, what do you think is responsible for this.

The security in the country is abysmal, from kidnapping to terrorism, not to mention daily car jerking and ritual-killings. Statistics show that more people have lost their lives in the last four years, in comparison to the 10 years preceding the emergence of the APC government. It is not too difficult to notice the collapse of security in the country at the moment. We have had a retired Air Force chief murdered in cold blood and nothing has been done about it till date.
Our security apparatus do not get their priorities right. Heard a retired Police officer on the television on the 5th of June 2019, saying we should not expect any magical performance from the Police as they are not adequately equipped. The government has allowed for duplication of duties. The soldiers are now carrying out duties designated for the Police and the Civil Defence is now policing certain areas without basic training. Another reason for security breakdown under this government without talking from one side of the mouth is the fact that that there are lopsided appointments, nepotism, and politicising of security appointments. In a sane country, it should never be the duty of the President to appoint an IGP, Army Chief etc. They should rise through the ranks and be recommended by their governing body. Their appointment only needs to be ratified by the President and the legislators. In a voice note that recently went viral, a herdsman explicitly said APC means ‘Always Protect our Cows’. The man stated that the government cares more about the cows than an average citizen of Nigeria.

In what particular area(s) has the administration of President Buhari met the aspirations of the people?

For me, the present administration has been an onlooker so far. They spent the first two years blaming the previous government instead of getting on with the job at hand. The infrastructures are in a dire straits. An average Nigerian will surely die should he or she suffer from a serious ailment in Nigeria. I would have expected this government to focus on mass health service reform in the country as aftermath of the President’s return from his long medical trip in 2017. How many Nigerians will survive a minor ailment with the current health structure? Most of the politicians take their families abroad for medical attention, which leaves 74.2% of Nigerians to die in dilapidated health services and facilities.

To say the administration has met the aspiration of the people is a misplaced accolade. World Poverty Clock has revealed that 91,885,874 people in Nigeria now live in extreme poverty. In June 2018, the World Poverty Clock had named Nigeria the poverty capital of the World with statistics showing 87 million people living in poverty.

The latest numbers indicated that since June 2018, four million Nigerians have joined the poverty club occasioned by factors such as unemployment and insecurity among others.
According to the World Bank, a person can be said to be living in extreme poverty if they live below the poverty line of $1.90 which translates to N693.5 per day. The hope and aspiration of the people have been shattered.

You are a Development Economist trained in the United Kingdom, what should be the priority and focus of any government desirous on making meaningful change?
In principle, the government should provide social security that enables citizens to create their own economic security. As you may know, our transportation system is in shambles, local farmers find it harrowing to sell their produce in the market, there is no easy access to loans, and no help from the state while the lands are polluted. The bank interest rate is in the region of 23%, unemployment, underemployment etc. A good government builds on an environment that allows her citizen to create wealth, through the provision of public goods, at a level necessary to ensure a globally competitive economy and a functioning society.

What are the prerequisites for meaningful developmental landmarks in this country? 

 
They are: Government effectiveness, rule of law, control of corruption and quality of regulatory framework.

As I have said before, even though the government prides itself on fighting and reducing corruption, I can say authoritatively that, they are not fighting it, but recouping stolen money from their critics. Corruption fight should not be limited to the illegal acquisition of properties or money, nepotism is also corruption. Favouring one section of the country with a juicy appointments is corruption.
Rule of law is when the laws are clear, publicized, and stable; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and contract, property, and human rights. The processes by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced are accessible, fair, and efficient. Can this be honestly said about present day Nigeria?

The way the government is set up cannot allow it to be effective. Our so-called constitution is a decree handed down by the military junta, written and rectified by dictators, yet we want the government to be effective in a democratic clime?

In comparison, Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security, Mr Teo Chee Hean shared how Singapore has balanced economic, social, and environmental priorities to achieve sustainable development.

As a small, densely populated island nation with no natural resources, Singapore’s own sustainable development experience has focused on four key areas: Building a sustainable economy; creating a sustainable living environment; ensuring sustainable development for the people, and contributing to international collaboration.

With no natural resources, Singapore had to be resourceful to make a living for themselves. This has entailed finding ways to create and add value, producing goods and services that are in demand by others, and making careful use of resources.

There is a prevailing opinion that the Buhari government is desirous in Islamising and Fulanising the country. Do you share these thoughts and what is the consequence if it becomes real?

My head says what if this assertion is true, what becomes of Nigeria? My heart says Nigeria is too complex to be subjected to Buhari’s alleged Fulanisation agenda. However, if one reflects back to some statements the President had made in past regarding religion and tribes, it would not be out of place to join the chorus on Fulanisation and Islamising of Nigeria by the present government. Why was the government negotiating with groups supporting the herdsmen invasion and killing of innocent citizens? It’s good to be watchful at this time.

Do you support the creation of more states and local governments to steer growth and developments? 

 
The answer is very simple. As most states of Nigeria are not sustainable, I think we should revert to the six geo-political zones, with equal distribution of the federal resources. The creation of states was the brain work of the military juntas and should be abolished with immediate effect. I will suggest that sates should merge.

Can local government administration be truly independent in this country considering the fact that they are tied to the apron string of state governors?

The selection of local government chairmen is probably the handiwork of the state governors INEC leaves the election of local government chairmen to the states. As a result, we have to be careful about the clamour for LG autonomy. It will only leave the state as it is in chaos. I was privileged to plan and organise a Security Summit for the 774 local governments in 2017. With our stringent efforts to ensure the summit took place, the ALGON were too fragmented to make the summit see the light of day. These are the people we are planning to hand over the chunk of the budget to. As I have said, LG should handle some projects as they are closer to the grassroots, however, they should be made to apply for funding with immense justification for their spending.

What is your view on security vote? Should it be scrapped?

Absolutely, without a shadow of doubt. Need I say more? What are the governors doing with the money. As I have said earlier, we need to do away with military ideas. This is a democracy. For crying out loud, Let the people decide how they want to be governed and how they want their taxes and common resources spent.

Some people advocate revolution as a solution to the nation’s problems. What is your view on this?

The revolution in this context is not the usual one, like the Arab spring or the Tiananmen Square revolution in China 1989 etc. Not the type that people carry weapons or barricade the roads to make their grievances known, as such resulting in collateral damages and unnecessarily loss of lives and properties. The revolution I subscribe to is an all-inclusive movement and a new orientation. A revolution, all stakeholders in the Nigeria Project have a part to play.
We will dialogue, advise, and experiment until a sustainable new Nigeria emerges.

You are based in the United Kingdom. Is the country benefitting from your wealth of experience. When are you returning home to fully participate and contribute your quota to the development of the country considering that in another five or 10 years, age may not be on your side?

Absolutely, age may not be on my side, but I am sure Nigeria will benefit from me given the opportunity to serve. There are millions of Nigerians with enormous experiences and are yearning to share or contribute to the development of their country. I have relocated once and spent close to two years working relentlessly to partake in the country’s development architecture.

My last attempt was two years ago. Whilst in Abuja, I organised seminars, attended many symposia and carried out a series of life-changing training for the youths. Apparently, the country was not as receptive as envisaged. New ideas were faced with outright challenges and objection. My goal is to keep trying, share my ideas and show a very thick skin irrespective of the challenges. It is my country. My consciousness will continue to reign, as I know, an opportunity will come to right most of the wrongs foisted on the people. We deserve better. Nigeria will be developed to an enviable standard very soon. This country will not go into oblivion.

Syrian Refugee Arrested For Terrorism After Planning Attack On US Christian Church

BY STEVE WARREN

PITTSBURGH (CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING NETWORK) -- Department of Justice officials announced Wednesday that a Syrian national has been arrested on terrorism charges, including his plan to attack a Christian church in Pittsburgh, PA.

Mustafa Mousab Alowemer, 21, a resident of Pittsburgh, was arrested on a federal complaint charging him with one count of attempting to provide material support and resources to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), and two counts of distributing information relating to an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction in relation to his plan to attack a church.

According to an affidavit filed in US District Court in Pittsburgh:

The FBI Pittsburgh JTTF investigation of Mustafa Mousab Alowemer (Alowemer) revealed that Alowemer plotted to bomb a church located on the North Side of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (the Church), using a weapon of mass destruction (i.e., an explosive device). According to Alowemer, his motivation to detonate a device at the Church was to support the cause of ISIS and to inspire other ISIS supporters in the United States to join together and commit similar acts in the name of ISIS. Alowemer also targeted the Church in order to "take revenge for our ISIS brothers in Nigeria." Alowemer was aware that numerous people in or around the Church could be killed by the explosion.

According to the complaint and information provided to the FBI by the Department of Homeland Security, Alowemer was born in Daraa, Syria, and was admitted to the United States as a refugee on Aug. 1, 2016.

In planning the attack, Alowemer used multiple social networking and mobile messenger applications to communicate with an individual whom he believed to be a fellow ISIS supporter. During his communications, Alowemer stated his support for ISIS, and his desire to answer the call for jihad or travel to conduct jihad. Alowemer also distributed propaganda materials, offered to provide potential targets in the Pittsburgh area, requested a weapon with a silencer, and recorded a video of himself pledging an oath of allegiance to the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi.

Between April 16 and June 11, Alowemer met four times in person with an FBI Undercover Employee (UCE) and/or an FBI Confidential Human Source (CHS). At the June 11 meeting with the UCE and CHS, Alowemer provided additional details about the bomb plot and provided the materials he had purchased for construction of the device.

Alowemer expressed a desire to meet one more time to conduct planning and coordination prior to carrying out the attempted bombing in July 2019.

"Targeting places of worship is beyond the pale, no matter what the motivation," Assistant Attorney for National Security John C. Demers said in a press release. "The defendant is alleged to have plotted just such an attack of a church in Pittsburgh in the name of ISIS. The National Security Division and our partners will continue our efforts to identify and bring to justice individuals in our country who seek to commit violence on behalf of ISIS and other terrorist organizations. I want to thank the agents, analysts, and prosecutors who are responsible for this investigation."

"Our top priority is protecting the citizens of western Pennsylvania," said US Attorney Scott W. Brady. "Everyday investigators and prosecutors work tirelessly behind the scenes to disrupt terrorist activity and keep our community safe. While the public does not always see the results of the hard work of these dedicated men and women, this case is a visible demonstration of our commitment to rooting out terrorists and bringing them to justice."

A charge is merely an allegation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

SOURCE: CBN

Black Lawmakers Get Biden's Back Amid 'Segregationist' Uproar

Jim Cloyburn. Image: Chip Somodevilla/Getty

BY LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ, HEATHER CAYGLE

POLITICO
Senior members of the Congressional Black Caucus leaped to former Vice President Joe Biden’s defense Wednesday after he touted his bipartisan work with known segregationists as a time of “civility.”

Progressives pounced on the remarks, and two other White House hopefuls criticized the 76-year-old Democratic presidential poll leader over his comments at a fundraiser Tuesday night. But more than a half-dozen CBC members argued that Biden’s remarks were taken out of context and that the former senator’s call for decency is needed now more than ever.

“I worked with Strom Thurmond all my life,” House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the highest-ranking African American in Congress, said of the infamous segregationist senator. “You don’t have to agree with people to work with them.”

Clyburn is preparing to host his annual fish fry event in South Carolina this weekend, a must-stop on the Democratic presidential circuit. Nearly all of the two-dozen Democratic hopefuls, including Biden, are set to attend.

At the fundraiser in New York, Biden pushed back at liberal critics who say he’s out of touch for thinking he can work with Republicans after the hyper-partisanship of Donald Trump's presidency. Biden recalled his days in the Senate working to find consensus with hard-line segregationists like James O. Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia.

“At least there was some civility,” Biden said of that era. “We got things done. We didn’t agree on much of anything. We got things done.”

Clyburn wasn’t alone in his support of Biden, a longtime friend. In interviews with roughly a dozen CBC members, most defended Biden, who has long relationships with the caucus’ most senior members after a 36-year tenure in the Senate.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said he had yet to see Biden’s full remarks from the fundraiser but agreed with his overall sentiment.

“I disagree with the overwhelming items that have come out of the mouth of Donald J. Trump. But we managed to work together with his administration to enact historic criminal justice reform,” Jeffries said.

“I think we here in the House Democratic Caucus have ourselves taken the position that sometimes you have to work with the opposition to the extent they’re in power without compromising your values if you can get things done.”

“If he was able to work with Eastland, he’s a great person,” Rep. Bennie Thompson, who represents a district in Eastland’s home state of Mississippi, said of Biden.

Rep. Cedric Richmond, co-chairman of Biden’s campaign, declined to weigh in.

“I’ve heard the hoopla around [the comments]. But I haven’t had a chance to look at what he said,” Richmond told POLITICO. “I’m going to reserve comment until I’ve actually seen what he said.”

Biden’s remarks come as the House holds a historic hearing on a commission to study reparations for the descendants of slaves, and as Americans celebrate the anniversary of Juneteenth, the emancipation day of enslaved African Americans.

Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) said she didn’t want to “reinterpret” what Biden said, adding that she thinks “he’s well equipped because of his experience” to work in a time of polarized government.

“He’s tested with it, he’s been there, he’s lived it and he’s done well with it,” she said.

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) was one of the only CBC members interviewed by POLITICO who took issue with Biden’s comments. Rush said the former vice president should be “more understanding” and “deliberate” as he attempts to be inclusive.

“I would not want to give segregationists the currency to be at the table,” Rush said. “Segregationists at their core are those who believe in white superiority and black inferiority. There can be no compromise with someone in this day and time as someone who would define themselves as a segregationist.”

Rush paused as he walked away and turned back to say: “Did he really say that? Oh lord.”

Fellow CBC member and presidential candidate Cory Booker called on Biden to apologize, taking issue with Biden making light of being called "son" and not "boy" by Eastland.

"You don’t joke about calling black men ‘boys.’" Booker said in a statement. "Men like James O. Eastland used words like that, and the racist policies that accompanied them, to perpetuate white supremacy and strip black Americans of our very humanity."

This is just the latest example of Biden triggering the ire of the left after saying something that appears out of step with the party. Earlier this month, Biden quickly reversed himself after igniting a firestorm over his support for the Hyde amendment, which bars federal funding for abortions.

But Biden has a deep well of support within the CBC, in part due to his service in the Senate but also his time as vice president under Barack Obama.

“I think that sentiment is more important than ever because there’s lots of folks on the other side of the aisle that we don’t get along with, that we don’t agree with their views, yet we need to accomplish certain things that advance the interest of the American people,” said Rep. Donald McEachin (D-Va.), who has endorsed Biden. “So I think the comment was very appropriate.”

Trump Administration Unveils Its New Africa Strategy — With Wins And Snags

Karen Dunn Kelley, the deputy U.S. secretary of commerce, speaks during the opening ceremony of the US-Africa Business Summit on Wednesday in Maputo, Mozambique. (Antonio Silva/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

BY DANIELLE PAQUETTE

DAKAR, SENEGAL (WASHINGTON POST)  — The Trump administration’s message to Africa has been blunt: Choose the United States over China and Russia.

Officials unveiled the details of that policy challenge Wednesday in the southern Africa nation of Mozambique, urging hundreds of African business leaders at an economic conference to ramp up partnerships and trade with American companies.

U.S. firms deliver “unrivaled value,” Deputy Secretary of Commerce Karen Dunn Kelley told the crowd. “Yet we have lost ground to the increasingly-sophisticated — but too often opaque — business practices of foreign competitors.”

The White House’s solution is Prosper Africa, a new effort that shifts American focus on the continent from aid to industry.

The $50 million program will offer technical help to companies looking to enter or grow in Africa, which is urbanizing more rapidly than anywhere else on Earth. The region is projected to have 1.52 billion consumers by 2025 — nearly five times the size of the U.S. population.

But Americans are missing out on that market, Kelley said: U.S. exports to Africa have dropped by nearly a third since their 2014 high.

The administration seeks to reverse that trend by searching for business opportunities, trying to reduce trade barriers, connecting firms to financing and guiding them through bureaucracy, among other commerce-boosting tactics, she said.

Kelley highlighted one example of success: Texas energy company Anadarko Petroleum Corp. gave the greenlight Tuesday to start construction of a $20 billion gas liquefaction and export terminal in Mozambique — the biggest such project ever approved in Africa.

Meanwhile, the United States International Development Finance Corporation, a government agency launching in October following a bipartisan congressional push, will double the amount of money available for American investment in low-income countries, including some in Africa.

“We know that the U.S. government can and must do more to capitalize on the competitive advantage of U.S. companies,” Kelley said, “and the entrepreneurial spirit of the African people.”

The specifics of Trump’s Africa policy emerge six months after national security adviser John Bolton announced the administration was switching gears on the continent — with an emphasis on countering the rising influence of China and Russia.

The “predatory practices” of those rivals threaten the financial independence of African nations by strapping them with debt, he said in December — and squash opportunities for America to expand its economic footprint.

“They are deliberately and aggressively targeting their investments in the region to gain a competitive advantage over the United States,” Bolton said in a speech at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, where he mentioned China 14 times.

The condemnation received mixed reviews in Africa, where China is generally popular as the continent’s biggest trading partner and Russia is making aggressive inroads.

Russian President Vladimir Putin plans to meet with 50 African leaders on his home turf in Sochi at the first Russian-African Summit. The meeting is meant to bolster “Russia’s active presence in the region,” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said last year.

And Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged $60 billion last September in financial aid to Africa. China will forgive debt in poorer nations, he added as Beijing hosted dozens of African dignitaries. The sky was uncharacteristically blue that week because air-polluting factories had shut down for the summit.

Xi has also visited the continent multiple times. He arrived in the West African nation of Senegal last year, for example, to hand Senegalese President Macky Sall the keys to a new $52 million wrestling stadium, courtesy of China. (Wrestling is huge in Senegal.)

“Say what you want about what the Chinese are doing in Africa, but their leaders do make the effort to go there and build personal relationships,” said Eric Olander, managing editor of the China Africa Project, a news site in Shanghai.

U.S. diplomacy is less flashy. American efforts tend to unfold behind the scenes: training military forces, helping cities rebuild after devastating floods, distributing fertilizer to farmers, helping regions get rid of disease-spreading flies.

Trump has not visited the continent. (His elder daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump made a positive splash in April when she danced with cocoa farmworkers in the Ivory Coast.)

Commerce secretary Wilbur Ross was supposed to promote Prosper Africa at Wednesday’s U.S.-Africa Summit in Mozambique — an event attended by 11 African presidents — but canceled due to a scheduling conflict.

America’s new strategy in Africa is regarded as a positive step, said Gyude Moore, Liberia's former minister of public works, but the absence of political star power at its unveiling was insulting.

“There’s a saying: What you’re doing is so loud, I can’t hear what you’re saying,” Moore said. “The U.S. does not have the decency, the courtesy, to send a Cabinet-level official to this event.”

In the optics battle with China and other competitors, “we’re losing,” said Todd Moss, a former Bush administration diplomat in West Africa.

Another roadblock is misconceptions among American decision-makers about African markets, said Melissa Cook, founder of African Sunrise Partners, an investment strategy group.

“When you talk to U.S. companies, people say, ‘oh, well, it’s only 2 percent of world GDP’ or ‘oh, it’s scary and dangerous — we don’t need to be there,’” she said.

In Senegal’s capital city of Dakar, African shopkeepers work alongside Chinese vendors, hawking sandals, fabrics, purses and fake eyelashes.

That’s where Abdoulaye Niang, 42, sells pots and pans. Chinese characters and French words dominate signs. People communicate with body language and Wolof, Senegal’s mother tongue.

“A lot of the Chinese people here speak it,” he said. “I don’t know any Americans who do.”

News about President Trump — the incendiary tweets, the trade disputes, reports that he referred to some African nations by a derogatory term — has popped up periodically on his Samsung smartphone.

“I don’t think Africa truly interests him,” Niang said. “All he cares about is money.”

Islamic Extremists In Burkina Faso Reaffirm Allegiance To ISIS As Christians Flee

A member loyal to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant waves an ISIS flag in Raqqa, on June 29, 2014. | (Photo: Reuters/Stringer)

BY SAMUEL SMITH

Islamic extremists in West Africa have reaffirmed their allegiance to the Islamic State and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as deadly attacks occurred with greater frequency across the Sahel region in the last several months.

The Long War Journal, a news outlet operated by the Washington-based policy institute Foundation for Defense of Democracies, reports that militants in Mali and Burkina Faso released a short video Saturday renewing their fealty to the caliphate of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

The video comes as deadly attacks blamed on extremist groups continue to be carried out in northern Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger and Nigeria, resulting in the loss of countless lives.

According to FDD senior fellow Thomas Joscelyn, the Islamic State West Africa Province continues to compete with al-Qaeda loyalists in the region for the allegiance of potential terrorists.

Joscelyn explained that the new video published on Saturday is “intended to underscore the commitment of Baghdadi’s followers despite setbacks in Iraq and Syria.” In Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State has largely been pushed out of its strongholds, but sleeper cells do still exist.

“The footage is introduced with a text slide declaring the fighters’ solidarity with the Islamic State, saying they are still ‘loyal’ to their oath and will continue to battle the forces of unbelief, which claim to have ‘eradicated the caliphate,’” Joscelyn details.

“The jihadists ask Allah to grant Baghdadi’s caliphate ‘glory’ in ‘perpetuity.’ The text then declares that the jihadists’ ‘renew’ their [pledge of allegiance] to the ‘caliph of the Muslims, the mujahid Sheikh Abu-Bakr al-Husseini al-Qurashi al-Baghdadi.’”

Amid a rise in attacks in northern Burkina Faso, concerns have been raised about Christians being driven almost completely out of villages. A number of attacks in recent months have targeted churches and worshiping Christians in the country.

The evangelical aid charity Barnabas Fund reports that as many as 49 Christians have been killed since April 28 in Burkina Faso while as many as 82 pastors and 1,145 Christians have been displaced to the city of Kaya from northern parts of Burkina Faso.

SOURCE: THE CHRISTIAN POST