What Really Are The Objectives Of The US-NATO Coalition In Syria?

by Eze Eluchie

The successes being recorded by Russia over ISIS, over a relatively short period, puts a solid question mark over the intentions and activities of the US-NATO coalition in the war against ISIS.

With Russian Air Force jet strikes taking down ISIS Command and Communication Centers, obliterating ISIS weapon storage centers and generally diminishing the ability of ISIS and other terror groups operating in Syria, the question of what targets have attracted U.S-NATO coalition forces in Syria becomes a subject of interest to anyone interested in understanding and or unraveling the seemingly unending Syrian debacle.

ISIS has clearly been pummeled into continuously defensive maneuvers in the past two weeks, compared to when they could still boldly seek to seize and retain territories in the face of clearly ineffective U.S-NATO coalition aerial ‘bombardments’ which seemed to focus on wasting multi-million dollar missiles to target insignificant contingent of ISIS terrorists on SUV’s.

Some of the actions of members of the U.S-NATO Coalition, particularly Turkey has been indicative of, if not tacit support for ISIS, at the very least compromised position in efforts at confronting ISIS. Turkey's decision to attack Kurdish Peshmerga forces when they were on course to routing ISIS troops gives further credence to the believe that perhaps there might have been ulterior aims in previous efforts against ISIS.

The US-NATO Coalition in Syria seems to have different objectives than the destruction of ISIS.

It is hoped that the U.S-NATO Coalition will rethink there so far ineffective approach to confronting ISIS and consider the more direct, practical and effective approach been deployed by Russia in addressing the ISIS carnage. The international community is clearly in support of efforts by Russia to destroy ISIS.

It is apparent that a new definition of the term ‘international community’ may be in the offing!



Picture: A Russian Air Force Su-34 Bomber in operation over Syrian airspeace at  Aleppo

As the Nigeria Project Turns 55

by Eze Eluchie 

‘Each bag you handle lifts Kenya higher’

-     Inscription on the luggage handling area at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, Nairobi, Kenya.

Message: Everyone counts. No one is insignificant.

Clearly, in Nigeria, we missed the road a long time ago. The task for Nigerians as we commemorate the 55^th anniversary of our ‘Flag independence’ (describing what we have as ‘independence from colonial overlords is grammatically and factually incorrect), is to retrace our steps and evolve a polity where every citizen counts and no one group thinks they have a monopoly of any virtue or vice.

We not only do not deserve to be where we are, we are in addition also adversely affecting development across the African continent by our continuing inability to get our acts right. 

Let October 1^st 2015 be a day we reflect on the best means of a holistic restructuring and renegotiation of the Nigerian State.

Picture: National Flag of Nigeria

What Difference: Refugee Vs. Economic Migrant

by Eze Eluchie 

What really is the difference between a ‘Refugee’ and an ‘Economic Migrant’?

A close look at all who are forced for one reason or the other, be it civil or military strife, kleptomaniac and brutally draconian rulership, natural and climate change-linked disasters or whatsoever, to leave their homelands, family friends and all, will reveal an uncanny resemblance, making distinction near impossible except to those who already have preconceived mindsets and a ready-made mind on who they would like to see in their territories and who they would not want anywhere near their territories.

Some of these similarities include:
1. Circumstances in the home countries of the Refugee/Economic migrant had made life precarious;
2. The Refugee/Economic migrant left people behind in his home country – there are always those who stayed back;
3. The Refugee/Economic migrant had made up his/her (their) minds to leave their home countries;
4. The Refugee/Economic migrant basically leave their home countries to safeguard their lives and that of their families.
5. The Refugee/Economic migrant looks forward to making a better life for self and family at whatever new country settled in;
6. The Refugee/Economic migrant took great risk in leaving own homeland;

The difference in the reception for the 'Refugee' and so-called ‘Economic migrant’ is however stark, particularly in Europe.  For starters, whilst the former is entitled to being welcome, provided with accommodation and a near-red carpet reception spiced with rallies and marches-of-support for those forced to leave their countries of origin, the later is forcefully kept out of public glare and the media, dumped in compartments that would make animal right advocates rile in disgust, and deported back to the very region (no one really cares to be sure of the specific country) from which the ‘economic migrant’ was escaping from, to a certain likelihood of persecution, incarceration and likely death.

The dichotomy being displayed in the ongoing differences in treatment of ‘refugees’ from conflict ridden Arabia, some of who arrive loaded with cash, equipped with sophisticated mobile phones with which they send out GPS coordinates to be rescued by relevant agencies in their targeted destinations of choice and how ‘economic migrants’ who arrive stripped of all possessions and dignity from excruciating sojourns across hostile deserts and having to slave their way through perilous routes casts a shadow on humanity.

Why the emphasis on differentiating between a ‘Refugee’ and ‘Economic Migrant’? A differentiation the European Union Foreign Policy Chief, Federica Mogherini, and the European Union member states, has gone to great extent in stressing in the wake of the overwhelming influx of persons from Arabia into Europe in the past few weeks and of persons from sub-Sahara Africa across the Mediterranean. Excuses such as economic costs, lack of facilities and so on will likely be rendered, but the real answer to this question is disgraceful as it diminishes and erodes from the notion of the collectivity of humanity.

What are the consequences of this differentiation? Quite a lot! For starters, the death of one makes headlines across the world whilst the death of thousands of the other goes unsung, unannounced, unpublished and unfactored and does not give rise to popular clamor to open up the borders for more.

The continuing differentiation and segregation between ‘refugees’ and ‘economic migrants’, playing out globally, is uncalled for and ought to be discontinued. At the very least, continuing such segregation amounts to outright large-scale and widespread discrimination against identifiable peoples - a crime against humanity under appropriate international laws.


Picture: Spot the difference between the death of a 'refugee' child and an 'economic migrant' child.