A Cattle Rearing Army?

by Eze Eluchie, 

At a time when brave young Nigerians soldiers fighting terrorists in our North Eastern flanks have featured in a video recording that has gone viral in Nigeria, begging their Commander-in-Chief for food and appropriate enabling environment to exist, talk less of being combat-ready and capable; and when within a space of 2 week Boko Haram terror elements killed several Nigerian soldiers including 4 Lieutenant Colonels; and when millions of dollars (some provided by foreign donor governments and agencies meant for Internally Displaced Persons have been diverted to spurious uses by high ranking government officials; Nigeria’s Chief of Army Staff, General Tukur Buratai announces that the Army has sent some of its officers to Argentina for training, not to be better soldiers, but to learn ‘cattle rearing’@£#$ and that the Army intends to establish cattle grazing facilities in all its Divisions@#??????

When it is realized that the Federal Government, which coincidentally has a man who has a cattle ranch as President, had not too long ago floated the idea of appropriating lands across the Nigerian contraption to ease transit problems of Fulani herdsmen and the same Federal Government had through one of its Ministers, in addition embarked on the importation of some special specie of grass from Argentina for the cows consumption (Perhaps in importing this special grass, the Agriculture Minister had forgotten that it was not solely the grass that made the Argentine cows so productive. Other factors which this ‘extremely hyper intelligent’ Nigerian government should likewise have included in its import list from Argentina must include Argentine water, Argentine climate, and of course Argentine soil where the cows will trod on); one begins to appreciate the true direction of the Army Chief’s drift towards creating a specialized Cow Herding Brigade or Unit in the Army.

General Buratai, this your Army Cattle Grazing fields hogwash is merely another ruse to appropriate lands owned by others for cattle grazing! This regime has been more about Cows! Cows!! And Cows!!! Without giving a hoot about the people!

Nigerians appreciate the sacrifices of the dedicated soldiers who are doing their very best, even in the absence of necessary equipment's to save the society from terrorists and other criminal elements. But this idea of training soldiers as cattle herdsmen is far, far, far beneath the rank of soldiering or what some of those who volunteered to join the Nigerian Army thought the noble duties of a soldier entails.

What becomes of a soldier ordered/deployed by his commanding officer to the 'Cattle Rearing Brigade of the Nigerian Army who has conscientious objections to such service? Will he be disciplined, subjected to court martial proceedings and or dismissed from service?

Restructuring and Renegotiating the Nigerian contraption will allow for those who prioritize cows over human beings to be at liberty to do what they feel is best in their own context without dragging other peoples down their self-chosen paths.

What mortal sin could Nigeria and Nigerians have committed to deserve this Buhari fellow and his ineptly clueless bunch?

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/12/nigerian-army-set-cattle-ranches-nationwide/

Picture: A ‘military cow’ – the likely outcome of Nigeria’s efforts to create cattle ranches at all its Divisions.

Foreign Interference in Domestic Elections

by Eze Eluchie,

With the probable exception of levying war on or physical occupation of a country, interference with intent to influence whosoever gets to ascend into leadership, from foreign authorities, on the selection process(es) of any given country’s leadership stands out as the worst disrespect and abuse of sovereignty any country can suffer from another. By seeking to decide for a country who gets to rule over them, the interfering country not only seeks to place itself in the manner of a colonial authority but worse still, it seeks that notorious position whilst at the same time creating an impression on the minds of the nationals of the country whose (s)election process has been interfered with, that the externally imposed stooge is a product of local preferences and processes.

The practice of one State seeking to decide who rules over other States is certainly not a new vocation; it is a vile practice dating back centuries but which has, with increased international interaction and collaboration amongst states, become a common feature of international relations and the so-called ‘new world order’. Countries with a focused and conscious leadership will ordinarily want other countries they share borders with to be governed by entities who are, at the very least, of like minds, or where possible, of a subservient disposition. With increased globalization, the borders of any given country is now far beyond its mere physical borders, extending to countries far removed from its territory but with which it has sizable relationships. As the meaning of ‘borders’ has been stretched under the concept of globalization, so also has the extent to which countries wish to interfere in the leadership (s)election processes been stretched to, in some instances, to virtually any country in the world.

Foreign interference in leadership (s)election processes can be subtle or brazen, intellectual or military or an admixture of several styles. Often times, a majority of the citizens of the territory whose leadership (s)election process is being interfered with by foreign authorities may be unaware of such interferences. For instance, the fact that the erstwhile colonial overlords of African countries have interfered in the leadership (s)election processes of the now ‘independent’ African States has been one of the worst guarded secrets in International Affairs: whilst the British routinely interfere in their former territories (Anglophone African countries), the French play same role in the Francophone African countries.  These interferences usually comes in the form of reports of so-called ‘international election monitoring and observer missions’ which subtly issue real threats when results of polls do not toe the line of the colonial overlords and simply look the other way with such comments as ‘though there were pockets of irregularities, such irregularities do not impugn the integrity of the process’, if the ‘overlords’ preferred was able to emerge victorious despite palpable local wishes to the contrary. At other instances, military interventions and coups are instigated to scuttle a regime deemed not-compliant and ensure the emergence of stooges.

Notorious instances of foreign interference in the leadership (s)election process of countries include the United States and Belgian instigated assassination of Patrice Lumumba of Congo DRC, and the imposition of a stooge, Mobutu Sese Seko in his stead in 1966. Congo DRC is yet to recover from the ensuing disaster unleashed by the foreign interference as war and strive now bedevil what is universally recognized as a country that ought to, on account of its resources, have been a leading and industrial light in the African continent. The scuttling of the electoral victory of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) during the 1991 Algerian elections and the imposition of a more compliant military junta by foreign authorities has served, till date, to deepen distrust of the democratic process by Islamists across Arabia.     

The 2015 Presidential elections in Nigeria is yet a more recent instance of foreign intervention in the leadership (s)election process of countries. In addition to unwarrantedly sending key officials of its administration to ‘caution’ Nigerian authorities over ‘interfering in Nigerian elections’, the United States adopted policies and actions that showed it (and by extension the amorphous ‘international community’) would not accommodate the then incumbent administration if it emerged victorious in the elections. The icing on the ‘foreign interference’ cake during the Nigerian 2015 Presidential elections was the visit, a few days to the 2015 elections, by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Ms. Fatou Bensouda, to disrespectfully and flagrantly threaten the incumbent authority in Nigeria with ‘investigation and prosecution’ before the ICC in the event of any post-election violence. The quantum of threats scared the living daylights out of then incumbent President, Goodluck Jonathan, who did not even bother for definitive results to be released before conceding defeat to his main adversary, despite evidence of widespread debilitating electoral fraud that would have truncated the election process.

It is in the light of the foregoing that one appreciates and understands the angst and indignation expressed by United States President, Barack Obama, and a wide array of US citizens and politicians from diverse political parties and their security establishments in response to credible and highly probably evidence of foreign interference in the 2016 US Presidential elections.  The likelihood that the major global superpower would be ruled by a person who probably got into office not solely on the basis of the desires of the American people but rather with support from elsewhere is most worrisome. The inherent and underlying insult and utter lack of respect of a states sovereignty embedded in foreign interference in the US presidential elections stank to the heavens! This is, however, exactly the same sentiments felt by discerning citizens of those countries whose leadership has been determined by foreign authorities for quite awhile.

The fundamental concept of mutual respect for the sovereignty of states upon which inter-state relations is predicated upon is fatally assaulted when foreign authorities take it upon themselves to interfere in the leadership (s)election processes of other states. It is hoped that states will desist from the urge interfere in the leadership (s)election processes of other states and when such allegations of interfering with other countries electoral process is established, there ought to be an international mechanism to sanction the erring state.

Picture: Patrice Lumumba (victim of 1960 foreign interference in Congo DRC) and Donald Trump (supposed beneficiary of Russian interference in US 2016 presidential elections).

Will A Buhari Ever Concede Defeat in an Election?

by Eze Eluchie,

Ghana’s John Mahama lost the presidential elections and immediately called the winner to concede defeat and express a willingness to work towards the progress of Ghana;

When his predecessor in office, Goodluck Jonathan, had called Buhari to congratulate him on victory at elections that were yet being collated, Buhari, though he welcomed the novel show of sportsmanship, expressed surprise and palpable shock with the former President's conduct;

Can one envisage Nigeria’s Muhammadu Buhari, if he loses the presidential elections in Nigeria, to call the winner to concede defeat and express a willingness to work towards the progress of Nigeria? Or merely threaten that the "blood of monkeys and baboons will flow" as he did with past elections where he lost?  

When one appreciates the desperation and utter shamlessness with which thousands of armed soldiers, policemen and other security personnel were deployed by Nigeria’s ruling junta to intimidate the electorate in local elections which have thus far been organized under its watch, particularly the gubernatorial elections in Edo and serially rescheduled Legislative elections in Rivers States (held on 10th December 2016) and the deliberate mismanagement of the electoral processes by an entity that was supposed to be an impartial organizer, the INEC, to attain pre-desired objectives which were contrary to the aspirations and wishes of the electorate in those localities, it can rightly be presumed that any thoughts or hopes of having any semblance of a free and fair electioneering process come 2019, when the tenure of the current junta expires, can be dispensed with.

From all indications, Nigeria’s current ruler will not voluntarily concede when he is defeated in an election - the wishes of the people must however prevail and nothing, absolutely nothing, should be allowed to stand in the way of fulfilling the wish of the electorate.

It is increasingly becoming clear that means other than the present jaundiced pretense at democratic elections orchestrated by his crony, Mahmood Yakubu who presides over the ‘Independent’ National Elections Commission (INEC), will have to be deployed to extract the Nigerian polity from the vice grip of the head of Nigeria’s current ruling junta, a junta that has thus far in its astonishingly short period of less than 2 years in office at the helms of Nigeria’s affairs, managed to destroy and or damage virtually all facets of national life and endeavor: from the economy, to sports, to social and ethnic cohesion, to even the basic thoughts of continued sustainability and existence of Nigeria.

Let the Nigerian contraption be restructured and Renegotiated whilst there is yet time.

Picture: Nigeria’s ruler, Muhammadu Buhari and his appointee as INEC Chairperson, Mahmood Yakubu.