Author: The Nation

• Dele Afelumo

Many students and workers intending to migrate to the UK, USA Canada, Australia and New Zealand have to do an English proficiency test. These tests come amorphously in different sizes and shapes but with acronyms such as IELTS, TOEFL, OET et cetera – depending on which of the five countries is conducting them. Unfortunately, these tests have become conduit pipes through which humongous amounts of money are being siphoned from those intent on, willy-nilly, having a taste of life, work or education in other climes. It rankles all minds that pretend to the slightest claim to rationality why someone who has had English as his language of instruction from elementary to university level elsewhere is being asked to sit for a test in English to prove that he is actually proficient in it. Behind the veneer of objectivity in assessing proficiency in this language is a covert attempt to continue to milk citizens of other countries and continents – especially Africa – dry, through apocryphal, puerile and phantom  reasons of testing their English language. There is no doubt that, testing English proficiency has become one of the most dishonest, labyrinthine intellectual swindles of all-time and the earlier these tests are cancelled, the better for the world.

As at today, English is the most widely spoken language in the world; followed by Mandarin, Hindi – in that order. The British are the original owners of English language and for their language to be embraced and adopted universally across the world, that in itself should be a sort of pride.

In our contemporary world of today, having someone whose language of instruction in education in his fatherland is English but in his desire to explore other climes or earn higher degrees decides to migrate to the West and is being forced to write a proficiency exam in English is akin to mental slavery. The reasons adduced for starting these proficiency tests in 1989 are untenable and intellectually vacuous today but I concede – I stand corrected though – that the main motive is for economic exploitation on the parts of their schemers.  It is like using the minutest resources of a famished, gaunt-looking fellow to feed a rotundly robust, comfortable but insatiable other fellows deeply ensconced in greed and avarice.

Dare I skirt the edge of hubris and posit that many Africans are even better than some British folks through their mastery of English – albeit, some pronunciational quiddities and quibbles, notwithstanding? Recently, I entered the restroom of a popular, country-wide supermarket here in the UK after my grocery shopping. There laid a bold write-up in one of the urinals warning everyone of its decrepit state: “We Apologies (sic), this one is not in other (sic)”. As I finished, I took the bold print, exasperated by the bastardisation of the King’s own language, and went to one of the staff – a female – in the top echelon there. I complained that the write-up was pedestrian, hollow, shallow and embarrassing to the conglomerate such as theirs. In shameless smugness, she didn’t condemn the mistakes. Rather than concoct a face-saving, self-exculpating alibi, she angrily took the bold print from me without any modicum of remorse or honest apology. I sauntered out, pensively contorted my head and in deep soliloquy ruminated over the frightening hypocrisy that is all about testing immigrants’ English language proficiency! An English flatmate had this to write recently during our conversations in our chatter boxes: “…in the end somethings (sic) have to be tolerated….”

Can you believe that? But he’s a British postgraduate student immune from writing English proficiency tests!

By the provisions of those proficiency tests, they have expiry dates ranging from two to three years after the results are released to the candidates. I am yet to decipher the justifications – be they medical neurodegenerative disorders or unsubstantiated glib reasons – that someone who has passed the test once with good scores would then lapse into an aphasic or cerebral atrophic states, within two or three years, incapable of  decoding the arcane methodologies of the language again! Any reason that justifies that other than pecuniary exploitation falls flat-footed to deceive only the undiscerning.

Read Also: Power of English Language Learning Communities: Your Path to Fluency

Yes, it may be somewhat trite and apt to ask this writer if anyone is being coerced into leaving his country of birth, in the first instance. But to ask such is like letting out some putrid excrescences flow into a glittering tureen. Without any sophistry or equivocation, mobility of labour is a form of globalisation to enhance integration and was promoted by the International Labour Organisation Convention 97 since 1949 and ratified by 42 countries at the time. It hasn’t been abrogated but was revised further in 1970s to give better impetus to labour migrants and in 1990,  the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their families was approved and ratified. So, it is no sin to seek ‘greener pastures’ beyond the confines or shores of one’s country. The atavistic fear of mass migration to the West is banally unfounded as other measures can still be put in place to checkmate that. Furthermore, asking such a question is tantamount to whittling down the important contributions of immigrants in the West for so many years. There are many medical personnel, lecturers, politicians, sportsmen and women and businessmen of African descent who are contributing enormously to the economic growth of their host countries.

In atonement for the sins of centuries through slavery, the UK and other governments where English proficiency is done, there seems to be an interpretative coyness that breeds aloofness. They can no longer pretend – or feign ignorance – that these tests are not yielding billions of pounds from the poor of the poorest countries of the world and should not therefore, sit idly by and watch this form of exploitation continue ad infinitum through inaction. Now is the time to abrogate it. If the UK went on a diplomatic row with China a few years ago on the implicit belief that modern slavery was being carried out there, it should stop its own form of mental slavery cunningly shrouded in secrecy as an altruistic remedy to the flailing fortunes of English language through incessant writing of proficiency tests in English to burnish the credentials of the countries comparatively better off than the countries of Africa and Latin America.

I am of Yoruba stock and I cannot boast of a distinctive proficiency in any of Nigeria’s major indigenous languages other than my own native Yoruba. I had English language instruction from the time immemorial. Although English has always been a fascinating language for me and never was a hard nut to crack through my years in elementary, college and university, the same thing may not be true for some others. Some minor contextual and syntactic infractions are allowable in any language but to hold on tenaciously to those minor infractions to justify the exploitative practice through English proficiency tests, when the original owners of the language themselves are also guilty of those infractions, is to deceive the whole world.

The UK and other countries where those tests are offered cannot plead self-abnegation through overt or covert complicity in the whole deal. For a new dawn anchored on justice, equality and an  assuagement for years of slavery, reparations are what the Western countries should endeavour to offer  Africa and not cunningly-choreographed  proficiency tests in English to further impoverish the poor to nourish the burgeoning bodies of the rich.

•Afelumo, a physician, writes from UK. He writes via drdeleafelumo98@gmail.com

• By Alade Fawole

Since February 2022 when Russia launched its Special Military Operations into neighbouring Ukraine, no region or part of the world has been spared its negative effects. From the disruption in the export of grains and fertilizer on which several countries depend, to the influx of millions of refugees into neighbouring countries, to disruption of oil and gas supplies from Russia to West European countries, to unilateral imposition of stiff economic and other sanctions against Russia and the deliberate and cruel weaponization of the US dollar and global trade against Russia and any nations that supports it or refuses to join the US-led sanctions bandwagon, the whole world is reeling from the impact of the war.

 Africa is also severely impacted by the shortage of grains and fertilizer, and is a collateral victim and casualty of the US sanctions as well. It is partly in this regard that the African Union has shown interest and sent a diplomatic delegation led by President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa to Ukraine and Russia. The purpose is to explore the diplomatic options to end the war.

But how much can African diplomacy, with all its good intentions, accomplish? I remain quite sceptical. I cannot see that the war can be brought to an end by moral suasion, or mere persuasion and expression of goodwill. First, not all African countries are opposed to Russia, which is not what Ukraine and its NATO backers want. Ukraine is unlikely to respond so favourably to South Africa which is accused of being in bed with Russia, its fellow BRICS member, to which it has been accused of supplying weapons. And South Africa is due to host the next BRICS summit this August in Johannesburg, a meeting to which Russian President Vladimir Putin is entitled to attend physically if he so chooses. This puts South Africa’s nonalignment into serious question in the eyes of both the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the US. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, leader of the African Union delegation, is therefore in an uncomfortable position. Besides this, the actual diplomatic gravitas that the other African leaders in the team can bring to the table is suspect, tenuous at best.

But away from their perceived weaknesses as a delegation, the question remains whether the African leaders understand the real issues that provoked the invasion in the first instance. If they do, the next poser concerns what they intend to propose that would suit each side.

Let me begin with Ukraine, the hapless victim of the destruction and disruption of war. Apart from having suffered extensive physical destruction, horrendous military and civilian casualties, vital portions of its sovereign territory in the east and south are under Russian military occupation, in addition to Crimea which Russia had occupied since 2014. Even Ukraine’s access to the Black Sea is constrained by the Russian navy whose Black Sea fleet has been headquartered in Sevastopol in the Crimea for almost 250 years. It had to take the UN-brokered deal for some limited export of grains and fertilizer to be allowed from the Black Sea, an arrangement that Turkey that controls strategic access to and from the Black Sea through the Bosphorus Straits had to supervise.

Ukraine’s demand is to regain all its sovereign territories illegally occupied by Russia. How can Africa’s diplomatic initiatives ensure this reasonable demand is fulfilled, in the face of Russia’s recalcitrance? How can they convince Russia to totally evacuate those territories whose populations consist of ethnic Russians who had been subjected to discrimination and oppression under successive anti-Russian regimes in Kiev since 2014 without some guarantees? That would be a hard task if any.

Read Also: Ukraine war: Russia launches second pre-dawn missile attack in three days

Now to Russia. President Putin made it unmistakably clear before the commencement of the Special Military Operations that Russia has three core objectives for the invasion: first is to demilitarize Ukraine, second is to de-Nazify Ukraine, and third is to prevent Ukraine from joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Let me briefly unpack these three objectives for clarity.

For Russia, demilitarizing Ukraine means degrading its military capability to the point that it can no longer pose an existential threat to Russia. This is akin to what the Allied Powers did to Germany after the First World War in 1919, such that what remained of its military would not be capable of threatening neighbouring countries. Russia has thus far succeeded in this, in that the best of Ukraine’s fighting forces have been destroyed on the battlefield and its stock of weapons and ammunitions also badly depleted. Ukraine has not been able to mount and sustain any serious offensive to drive Russian forces off its soil in spite of billions of NATO weapons it regularly receives. The pitched battles have been bloody on both sides, but Russia maintains the upper hand because of its much larger armed forces and ability to produce and replenish the fighting forces with required weapons and equipment. On this score, Russia will most likely be reluctant to negotiate, except on its own terms.

De-Nazifying Ukraine involves getting rid of the power and influence of the brutally anti-Russian neo-Nazi elements, especially the Azov Brigade controlling the government and the armed forces in the country. This was the same group the US wanted to destroy until the Russian invasion converted them into useful tools to accomplish America’s anti-Russia objectives in Ukraine. How do the Africans hope to persuade Russia to desist from pursuing this existential objective? I am not holding brief for Russia but persuading Putin to leave the neo-Nazis in power in Ukraine is tantamount to leaving fire on the roof while going to sleep. That would be a hard proposition for Russia to accept, especially against the backdrop of the brutalities they are known to have inflicted on the ethnic Russians from 2014 when over 14,000 people were reportedly killed in eastern Ukraine.

The third, and for Russia a non-negotiable objective, is to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO so that it would never become a major threat to Russia. The Russian president had been saying repeatedly since 2008 that Russia considers extending NATO membership to Ukraine unacceptable existential threat. Russia is a great power with more nuclear weapons than any country on earth, and its concerns should not be casually waved aside. It was for a similar reason, an existential imperative, that the US was willing to engage in a nuclear showdown if the then Soviet Union did not remove its offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba, a mere 93 miles from the coast of Florida, in October 1962. What was unacceptable to the US then cannot be acceptable to Russia today. Devoid of sentiments, great powers do not take kindly to existential threats, and Ukraine is suffering the consequences of ignoring this reality of world politics that, in power politics, the rights of small and weak states count for very little when great powers perceive threats to their own existence. Russia knows fully well that Ukraine is merely a proxy, for the US has publicly said it is using the war to weaken Russia and cause a regime change, and President Putin is unlikely to regard any diplomatic initiatives that ignores this with seriousness.