The Russian breather - but for how long?

by Eze Eluchie

When Russia's Foreign Minister (Sergey Lavrov) invited his Syrian counterpart (Walid al-Moallem) to a meet in Moscow, scheduled for a date when United States federal legislators were scheduled to reconvene to formally begin consideration for President Barack Obama’s request for congressional backing to found military attack against Syria, it was obvious that some form of announcement geared at resolving the buildup against Syria would trail from the Moscow summit of Russia and its major ally in the Middle East. Two options seemed viable from the Summit: One, an announcement increasing Russian military assistance to Syria to fortify its protégé against what seemed an inevitable attack from US forces, a move that would certainly have upped the ante as it would have meant that strikes against Syria would also signify US strikes against Russia. The second projected outcome of the Moscow summit had been an announcement that Russia would support a broad based open ended dialogue process which would, whilst offering a chance of peace in Syria, ensure face-saving safe passage for the al-Assad dynasty, which had been allied to the Russians for decades.

The absolutely brilliant and totally unanticipated offer of international control and demobilization of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal announced after the Moscow summit, and which was instantly welcomed and agreed to by the Syrians completely took the wind out of the sail of the build-up to a needless and wasteful military operation being orchestrated against Syria.  With details of how the disarmament process would be pursued still hazy, and most probably extremely difficult to effect, in view of the fact that Syria was still engaged in a protracted civil war, world leaders nevertheless saw no qualms in falling over themselves in a bid to grasp at what seemed the sole dignified lifeline to all parties at avoiding a crisis that was brought about in part by an apparent senseless addiction to self destruction by the Syrians and in another part by the 'red line' political gaffe of US President Obama (see http://ezeluchie.blogspot.com/2013/05/when-tail-wags-dog.html). 

From UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, to Chinese, British, French and US governments, the sigh of relief that there could be a political solution to the Syrian impasse which spared the world the gory spectacle of watching cruise missiles bombarding defenseless civilians in Damascus and other Syrian cities, and the ensuing damages and fatalities that would result from likely retaliatory strikes Syria and its allies may unleash at their foes, reverberated across the continents.

The offer from the Russians was indeed stunning. And like all 'successes', soon enough, it had many entities claiming ownership and credit for it.

At last someone had hearkened to the call to put on a reasoning cap.

But for how long will the sense of relief last? Unfortunately not for quite long. 

The very forces which unleashed the initial chemical weapon attack in the suburbs of Damascus on the 21st day of August, be they fringe elements within al-Assad's army or rouge rebel commanders, will certainly be miffed that their objective of expanding the conflict by drawing in more combatants has been rubbished by the brilliant offer proffered by the Russians. Those who deployed the chemical weapon attack have neither claimed credit for the deed nor have they informed anyone that their stock of such lethal weapons would be handed over for containment and eventual destruction - there will most likely be further chemical weapon attacks in Syria.

In the euphoria of a time for rethink and deeper reflection brought about by the Russian offer, several questions seem to have been temporarily swept under the carpet. These include:

1. With denials from all sides of the Syrian conflict as to origin of the use of chemical weapons, what happens in the event of another chemical weapon attack before or during efforts to contain and demobilize chemical weapons officially under the control of al-Assads forces?

2. With Russia's claims that Syrian rebels had used chemical weapons in the ongoing conflict, who will contain and demobilize the chemical weapons at the disposal of the several real and fringe Rebel elements? If only one sides chemical arsenal is demobilized, the problem is merely half addressed, which in the context of this unfortunate episode, means the problem has not been addressed.

3. Will a new 'red line' have been crossed in the event of a new chemical weapon attack?

4. Will the already assembled armada in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea be put to instantaneous use in the event of a renewed chemical weapon attack without prior efforts at identifying with certainty, the culprit?

5. With the expertise for chemical weapon development available at the click of the mouse on the internet, and so many desperadoes out there, can it be ascertained with any element of accuracy who deployed what, when and where?

It is suggested that a comprehensive global ban and destruction of all stockpiles of chemical weapons, held by all countries, irrespective of stature or perceived might,  and entrenchment of regulatory mechanisms under the auspices of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to prevent the production and stockpiling of such weapons will erase the likelihood of the world being pushed to the brink over usage of such lethal weapons.

Vladimir Putin's masterstroke has given the world a breather, but for how long?  

Picture: Russian President, Vladinir Putin, basking in and seemingly enjoying his new found role as global peace maker.

Terrorism and blackmail as political strategy.

by Eze Eluchie

All over the world, in territories where periodic elections take place to enable persons intending to rule over a people have an opportunity to market themselves to the populace and canvass for votes, it is common occurrence to see politicians engage in whatsoever they deem necessary to endear themselves to their constituency to secure victory at the polls. 

In genuine democracies, electioneering periods, when the politicians canvass for votes, are always a sweet period for the electorate – the people rightly feel their power, albeit for a very short time-span, as the politicians swoon over themselves in desperate efforts to get each and every single vote they can possibly amass. Stiff necked politicians who ordinarily would not be caught dead with persons they consider as classes beneath their status, are forced to shake hands, embrace, and mingle with ordinary folks. 

To convince the electorate of their ability to better the lot of society, politicians in ‘real’ democracies often times go the extra mile to do good. In their daily public lives, the mannerisms, actions, policies and projects executed or initiated in previous and or present offices held, such politicians strive for excellence – as a basis to convince the electorate to entrust them with greater political and public responsibilities and offices.

When however persons aspiring to rule over a people, resort to threatening the populace and exhibiting their linkage and control over a terrorist organization that has bombed and killed thousands of people over a three year orgy of violence, inclusive of bombing the United Nations Headquarter complex in Nigeria, several Churches across northern Nigeria and several military and para-military facilities across the land, as the reason why they must be allowed to rule over a people, then something is obviously terribly wrong. 

On February 28th, 2013, a  day when terrorists elements detonated bombs in three locations across the city of Maidugri (Bornu State), a city which had attained notoriety as the heartthrob of Boko Haram terror activities, in the process killing some Nigerian soldiers and citizens, some politicians who had repeatedly claimed an ability to ensure the end of terrorist activities if they are elected into office, had the temerity to take a victory walk down major streets and a market place in Maidugri – as planned and expected, the terrorists under the control of these political actors allowed ‘smooth passage’. A logical equivalent of such despicable spectacle would have been for members of the Democratic Party in America to have taken a victory walk down the streets of Fallujah, Iraq, in the midst of efforts by the Republican Party controlled United States governments efforts to quell militancy in that city or for opposition politicians in any of the European countries contributing troops to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to parade down the streets of Kandahar, Afghanistan, in a move to spite and show the government ‘back home’ as unable to address terrorism.

Again, one can only place part of the blame on the desk of President Goodluck Jonathan, more particularly so on the Minister for Justice of the Federation and the various security agencies charged with internal security, for allowing such criminality to go without adequate sanctions. When I last checked, we still had laws in Nigeria which prohibit terrorism and support for terror organizations. No doubt, President Jonathan is trying to show an accommodating spirit, openness to criticism and acceptance of opposition antics, but there is a limit to rascality – that limit is clearly crossed when, under the guise of opposition politics, terrorist activities is endorsed, championed and used as a tool to blackmail and manipulate the population.

As the countdown to the next general elections in 2015 begin, in keeping with the various threats made by some of the opposition elements to the effect that ‘the dog and the baboon would all be soaked in blood”, one can only advise that the Federal Government has to be alive to its responsibilities for the protection of life and property of Nigerians and residents of the country as we are certainly looking forward towards what portends to be very dire days ahead.

Capitulating to terror and blackmail can never be an option.

Restructuring and renegotiation of the contraption will wade off the ensuing descent into abyss. 



Muhammed Buhari affirms that come 2015 general elections:  “if what happens in 2011 should again happen in 2015, by the grace of God, ‘the dog and the baboon would all be soaked in blood. ”,  “God’s willing, something will happen in 2015.”
http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/buhari-blames-fg-for-security-challenges/115819/
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/05/2015-ll-be-bloody-if-buhari/

An opposition State trumpeting their sway over the terrorist enclave
https://ekitistate.gov.ng/2013/03/apc-governors-meet-in-maiduguri-reiterate-commitment-to-merger/


Picture: ‘Opposition’ APC Governors- Babatunde Fashola (Lagos), Rochas Okorocha (Imo), Adams Oshiomhole (Edo); Ibikunle Amosun (Ogun), Rauf Aregbesola (Osun); Kayode Fayemi (Ekiti), Kashim Shettima (Borno) and Tanko Al-Makura (Nassarawa) walking down the path of infamy in Maidugri, Bornu State on the day when terrorists, ostensibly under their control, unleashed bloody mayhem across the city resulting in numerous fatalities.

Borrowing To Rig Elections

by Eze Eluchie

Question: How do you raise the billions in slush funds required to bankroll the purchase of elective offices in a skewed democracy, such as monies to hire thugs and bribe election commission officials prior to and during elections and purchase favorable judgments in the event of loss at the polls?

Answer (as per a government led by an alliance of professional criminals - APC):  Enrich your ‘leader’ with an obscenely lucrative 'infrastructural' concession agreement; then re-purchase same spurious concession agreement; reconvene the rubber-stamp State House of Assembly to speedily and with all due claim to ‘urgency’, approve a ‘supplementary budget proposal’ which allows the State government to approach the capital market to obtain loans (further mortgaging the future of the State) to once more ‘buyout’ the ‘leader’! And pronto, you have enough funds to go into (s)elections and capture the votes! 

In order words, use the people’s money to buy power to rule over the people – wow, not even Abraham Lincoln would have anticipated this devilish translation of his eternal definition of democracy.

As election period approaches, there will be a noticeable rush for various strata’s of governments in our various contraptions, as exemplified by the present dubious pursuit of the Lagos State Government of southwestern Nigeria, who having exhausted public funds for non-existent or white-elephant projects and to fill personal accounts in offshore havens, rush to the capital market, and in some instances, international lending agencies, for financial facilities geared towards further mortgaging an already impoverished and hapless population and sourcing funds to prosecute electoral campaigns.

The absence of regulatory mechanisms in our polity exposes the peoples of our contraption to manipulation in the hands of smart alecs.

A fundamental question surfaces – is it possible to have a democracy in a polity without established regulatory mechanisms? Could this be why the concept of democracy has always seemed light years away in societies where regulatory mechanisms are non-existent or extremely weak?

Again, I call on the Federal authorities to exercise powers vested in it to checkmate the obvious bare faced criminality going on at the State levels in the name of ‘governance’. The issue crops up, ‘’who checks excesses at the Federal level?’

A restructured and renegotiated contraption will easily put such smart alecs where they need to be – behind steel bars.

http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/national-news/131845-posers-for-lagos-over-n253b-road-concession-buyout-plan

Picture: ©Alfredo Martirena cartoon

Corruption obviates democracy