Goodluck Jonathan: Far Better Than His Peers.

by Eze Eluchie

In assessing all past and serving heads of the Nigerian State with a view to determining who is the best among the lot, it is clear to state from the onset that only Heads of Government who emerged from democratic processes will be considered – those who emerged from coup plots will not be considered as they are actually treasonable felons and ought to be prosecuted at anytime when we begin to get our efforts at self-governance aright.

The contenders to the position of Best Nigerian Ruler are thus restricted to Tafawa Balewa, Shehu Shagari, Olusegun Obasanjo, Umar Yar’Adua and the incumbent, Goodluck Jonathan.

Qualities to consider in arriving at an objective decision will include:
1.      Development of National Infrastructure
2.      State of National Security
3.      Expansion of the democratic space and adherence to rule of law
4.      Efforts at ensuring human capacity development
5.      Level of fundamental freedoms enjoyed by the general population
6.      Engendering conducive environment for investment

A scrutiny of the factors enumerated, the state of national affairs at the inception of the administrations of the four Presidents stated above and at the time when the said Presidents departed office will reveal that by a wide margin, the incumbent, President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan stands heads and shoulders above his peers.

President Jonathan’s regime, unlike non other before him, was dogged from its inception by spirited efforts at scuttling the administration including the unleashing of a most vicious political insurgency masqueraded as Islamist terrorists; vested interests invested heavily in sabotaging State infrastructure and agencies, infiltrating the regime with stooges whose actions and comments brought ridicule and odium to not only the State and its peoples but also the Presidency; Yet, appreciable progress was attained in diverse fields of national development and innovations in governance served to bring some succor to significant proportions of the population long sidelined by the oddities of the Nigerian state.

In the area of expansion of the political space and freedoms enjoyed by Nigerians, the Jonathan presidency raised the bar to new and far higher levels that will make populations in established democracies cringe in envy. The incumbent Nigerian President was once dubbed the ‘most insulted President in the world’, yet the previously notorious State security agencies were not unleashed on anyone.

The fact that a coalition of foreign powers had massed to ensure his departure from office coupled with palpable threats to unleash unparalleled violence on the polity in the event of an electoral impasse and his often expressed mantra that his political aspirations was not worth shedding the blood of any Nigerian, served to engender an unprecedented concession of defeat even before the final results of the Presidential elections had been released – despite undisputed widespread acts of systemic electoral malpractice and evidence of compromise amongst officials of the National Electoral Commission. Nigerians will forever remain grateful for this singular act of statesmanship.

Ineffectiveness in addressing large-scale high profile corruption which was wiping the very soul of the Nigerian contraption and hesitancy in frontally confronting terror and some other faults of the regime only underline the fact that all positive attributes can never be found in the same person individual.

Being human, perfection was certainly not possible; however his pluses far outweighed his minuses. The array of choices Nigeria has had in it’s over 50 years of flag-independence from the United Kingdom explains to a great deal why we are where we are whilst the rest of the world keeps on forging ahead.

As he departs office later today, President Jonathan will go in peace resting in the assurance that within his capabilities he had tried his best and that his countrymen genuinely appreciate that amongst his peers, he has been the best thus far. Fare thee well.

Tomorrow, a new chapter begins with the Muhammadu Buhari presidency.



Picture: President Goodluck Jonathan

China - US Relationship: Daring The Dragon

by Eze Eluchie

Growing up as a lad in the suburbs of a city that was to later metamorphose into the most populous city in sub-Sahara Africa (depending on whose population figures you opt to believe), one quickly learnt that the most important lessons in life were not taught in schools or classrooms but informally on the streets.

One of such lessons learned was the fundamental need to take turns at play or whatsoever – a lesson learnt whilst playing with peers. Another, and perhaps more critical lesson, was the practice of, with a view to avoiding repayment obligations, putting up a quarrel with ones creditors, and using the guise of the ensuing acrimonious relationship as fodder to refuse to pay back due debts.

A childhood acquaintance of mine had become so adept at this second lesson described above that some of us had to practically flee from him whensoever he tried to make trouble with us – he had formed the uncanny habit of picking up quarrels with whomsoever amongst his friends when he either had some treats on him or was in high anticipation of getting some goodies from some of his older siblings or relatives. In one particular instance, seeing that his efforts to catch up with us to pick a quarrel had failed, our rascal friend crawled back to his mum in a fit of hysterical tears, crying that he would now be forced to share the sweets in his pocket because none of us was ready to quarrel with him.

No doubt, the relationship between States often times imitates what transpires in inter-personal relationships. When however pranks by youngsters gets replicated in inter-States relationships, with a potential to adversely impact global peace and commerce, then there is sufficient course for concern for all interested in the well-being of the human race. The worry takes on added impetus when the countries involved are global powers with stockpiles of nuclear warheads sufficient to annihilate planet Earth.

It is with the forgoing in perspective that one considers the increasing foray by elements of the United States military, under the guise of operating in international waters, into the volatile waters of the South China seas, an area that has gained notoriety as a constant source of friction between China and several of its neighbors amongst which include Malaysia, Philippines and Vietnam.

The past few months has witnessed noticeably increased numbers of close contacts between US and Chinese military personnel and equipment in the waters of the South China seas. One can only speculate that it not an issue of if, but when, one of these close contacts will result in the firing of anti-aircraft missiles and or torpedoes, and or the death of a few service men and worse escalations between these two global super powers.  aerial and naval interceptions b

The excuse given by US authorities as justification for their forays into the South China Seas sounds as hallow as it is porous – loyalty to allies/obligations under bilateral military protection treaties and protection of international trading routs, indeed. If these were truly the case, one would wonder why there is no similar efforts at protecting international bilateral military protection agreements and efforts at protecting international trading routes, one would wonder why similar proactive measures were not deemed worthy around the territories of Russia, Yemen, Iran and Syria.

Could the interest in provoking conflict with China be with a view to frustrating the redemption of the over U.S.$1.22 Trillion owed to the land of the ancient Dragons by the US? Certainly in the event of an  outbreak of conflict between the US and China, the Chinese may as well kiss goodbye to the trillion dollar debt owed them by the US, unless of course in the very unlikely scenario that both countries emerge from such conflict with the Chinese being a position to enforce collection of such debts.

Perhaps, like we did as kids growing up in the suburbs of Lagos, it is in the best interest of the Chinese to keep on running away from provocative acts. Unfortunately, knowing the psyche of the Chinese, running away from conflict cannot be a permanent vocation – they are bound, sooner than later, to stand up and seek to defend their integrity. 

The ensuing conflagration will be severe. 

Picture: Flags of US and China 

If African, Would Greece’s Alexis Tsipras Be Alive By Now?

by Eze Eluchie

From the night of the 25th of January 2015 when the leftist Syriza Party, for the time in its history, won the Parliamentary elections in Greece in a landslide victory, garnering 149 out of the 300 seats in the parliament, it was clear to close watchers of European politics and Euro-skeptics alike, that the terrain would not be as stable as touted and that the boat was about to be rocked.

And rock the boat the Syriza leadership sure did. 

Faced with the debilitating effects of ruinous ‘debt relief’ conditions set by the Troika of the  International Monetary Fund, the European Commission, the European Central Bank and other Breton Woods institutions, the Greeks, were in the buildup to the 2015 parliamentary elections desirous to support whosoever promised them an alternative. Juicy alternatives which Syriza offered: promising amongst other goodies, an end to ‘the vicious circle of austerity’, a renegotiation of the entire bailout package, increased public expenditure on social services.

To up the stakes in its ‘confrontation’ with the Troika and its appendages, soon after it assumed office, the Syriza party under the leadership of new Greek Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras, raised the specter of repayment of over 279 Billion Euro in reparation for damages occasioned to Greece by the power house of Europe, Germany, resulting from losses and damages suffered during World War II. The tell-tale look and reaction Prime Minister Tsipras got from the 'powers that be' over these demands was quite suggestive of impending consequences. 

In a nutshell, Syriza was promising direct frontal confrontation with the almighty Trioka - a significant component of what I will hereafter refer to as 'The Establishment'.

The prospect of Greece defaulting on its debts to the ‘international community’ and a likely domino effect of such default on other equally heavily indebted states in Europe and beyond, and the probability of a Greek exit (dubbed ‘grexit’) from the Euro, sent palpable shivers down the spineof the establishment.

Similar threats of this nature, from other climes, had been met with very drastic repercussions, attracting international ‘economic and socio-cultural’ sanctions, Security Council and or International Criminal Court investigations into ‘human right abuses’, sundry spurious allegations of all manners of crimes, and ultimately regime change – this ultimate solution could either be in the form of a coup d’etat or outright assassinations of identified heads of the Government which had dared to challenge the ‘world order’.

Being alarmist or a conspiracy theorist? Certainly not!

Greece’s Alexis Tsipras has not been the first populist leader to insist on ditching debt repayment agreements and threaten to damn the consequences of such action. Across Africa, history is littered with  the carcasses of Heads of Governments, who in realization of the dire consequences of a vicious circle of indebtedness to the Establishment on their populations, and dared insinuate, suggest or hint at non-compliance with the crippling debt repayment conditions which served to pauperize domestic populations, destroy societal norms and fabrics and leave an entire people stripped of their humanity under the guise of ‘open markets’ and ‘privatization’ scams.

The quintessential example of an African heads of Government-victim of the audacity to dare the Establishment was Burkina Faso’s Thomas Sankara. When this young revolutionary military officer who headed the Government  of Burkina Faso had, in an address to the Organization of African Unity in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in July 1987, had advised that a clear way to rid African States of the burden of foreign debts was to simply refuse to pay those debts and become self reliant, living on what each country was able to produce and enhance trade relationships amongst African States. In Col. Sankara’s words, "Either we resist collectively and refuse categorically to repay the debt, or we are not able to do this, one by one, isolated, we will suffer death". Most discerning observers had known that Sankara's bold speech had all the making of a valedictory address. Three months after Thomas Sankara’s famous address at the OAU meet in Ethiopia, he was killed in a military insurrection spare-headed by his erstwhile deputy, Blaise Campore , who expectedly announced in his inaugural address that Burkina Faso would abide by all its foreign debt obligations.

Others examples abound. Those who dared demand debt cancellation and or those who dared ask for reparations: I will leave readers to add their victims to this list.

The question that readily comes to the fore is: If Greece’s Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras had been the head of government of an African country, and he dared state the positions he has repeatedly held with regards to debt repayment and reparations, would he still be in office by now? Would there have been a coup by some renegade soldiers by now, during which the Prime Minister would have been liquidated? Would a successful assassination have been executed by now? My intuition tells me that the answers to the questions raised above are all in the affirmative!

If Prime Minister Tsipras continues in the line he is towing, the options of silence may yet be explored by the 'powers that be'.

Picture: late Thomas Sankara (Burkina Faso) and Alexis Tsipras (Greece)