The Nation Newspaper

Tag: America

  • In America: The Trayvon Martin verdict

    In America: The Trayvon Martin verdict

    As I write these lines, protests are being staged in more than 100 cities against the discharge and acquittal by a Florida court of George Zimmerman, the neighbourhood vigilante who confronted an unarmed African American teenager, Trayvon Martin, against advice from the police, and then shot him dead in the fight that ensued.

    Martin was on a visit, with his father, to a gated community in Sanford, central Florida. He had gone to a store to buy some snacks, and was on his way back at dusk when Zimmerman, a mixed-race Hispanic, spotted him and immediately called the police to report that a suspicious person was in the neighbourhood.

    The police, it is necessary to re-state, had asked him not to go after the person. But Zimmerman did.

    A fight broke out. As Zimmerman’s bloodied head showed, he took a bad beating. According to his testimony, which Martin was not around to contest – nor any eyewitness for that matter — Martin had knocked him to the ground, banged his head on the concrete floor repeatedly, and was reaching for the gun Zimmerman was wearing in his holster with intent to kill him. Zimmerman reached the gun first, and shot Martin in self defence.

    It took 44 days and a national uproar for the police to arrest and question Zimmerman about the killing. The police chief said that, under the circumstances, Zimmerman had committed no crime. He had merely stood his ground.

    Bowing to pressure from a public that judged his remarks insensitive and casuistic, the police chief resigned. He now stands vindicated, Florida-style.

    A six-person jury, all women five of them white and the other ‘Hispanic,’ returned the verdict that, under Florida law, Zimmerman had reason to fear for his life and acted justifiably.

    The verdict has ignited a debate about an issue that the prosecution and the defence skirted throughout the trial – race, the “colour line” as W.E.B Du Bois, the pre-eminent African American scholar of the last century called it.

    Du Bois, who was no romantic, believed that the colour line would be the problem of his century. It is the problem of the 21st century as well, and not just in America. And it may well continue even into the next century. The noted socio-economist and Nobelist, Gunnar Myrdal in his classic study of race in the United States characterised being black in America as a caste condition – a condition from which it is impossible to escape.

    You can shed your class or your religion or your tastes or your habits or your accent or your diction, but you cannot shed your skin. Some persons of colour do crash the racial barrier —they call it “passing” — but they are the exceptions, and the consequences are not always pleasant.

    This race-based caste system is not as deeply ingrained, as rigidly ascriptive as in India, for example. But it operates all the time, in ways subtle and unsubtle. And race itself is a constant subtext.

    The Trayvon Martin verdict may not be about race principally. But race definitely played a part in the tragedy that claimed the young man’s life. If he had been a young white man, it is unlikely his presence in the community – not loitering, not wandering aimlessly but heading to the house of his father’s girlfriend – would have attracted Zimmerman’s attention to the point that he would call the police and go after him despite instructions to the contrary.

    There was a time when bells rang out loud in department stores to put security guards on notice at the approach of African-Americans who were generally regarded as potential shoplifters. Now the surveillance is more subtle, even if no less discomfiting. You are asked whether you need help, and given the kind of suffocating attention other patrons rarely get.

    The case of Dr Ruth Simmons illustrates just how far that practice continues. Dr Simmons, eminent literary scholar and the first black president of an Ivy League institution, Brown University, in Rhode Island — it was at her instance, by the way, that our late and much-lamented compatriot, the literary titan Chinua Achebe, relocated from Bard College, New York — one day went shopping, or just looking through stuff at one of New York ’s very famous department stores.

    As she headed toward the exit, a security guard stopped her and asked to inspect her purse. She obliged. She had bought nothing, and her purse contained nothing incriminating. But the guard was not satisfied.

    The guard took her to a private room, and there gave her a most intrusive and degrading frisking. Still he found nothing. For him, it was all in a day’s work, until the store learned the next day the identity of Dr Simmons from her attorney. She graciously accepted their apologies and made no issue of the matter. That was racial profiling at work.

    At American diners, you no longer find the kind of creeping discrimination on plaques in hotels in the former racist enclaves of Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola and South Africa that proclaim “Right of admission reserved.” But it is never far from the surface.

    Whenever I dine out, I survey the scene, looking out for the good tables where one can stretch one’s feet and generally compress, and watch where the waiter will seat me. If he or she seats me near the toilet or the radiator or facing a blank wall when better-appointed tables are available, I demand to be seated elsewhere and make mental a note of the encounter.

    Next, I pay close attention to how I am being waited on vis-à-vis other patrons. If they just slap the plate on the table and move on but fuss on diners of a different colour, it confirms my worst fears. When I finish eating, I clean my mouth with the napkin, take the check to the counter and pay the exact amount on it, leaving nothing for the waiter.

    The waiter in turn rejoices that he or she didn’t waste precious energy fussing on an African American who, true to type, does not reward hospitality. If the service is good and the waiter pleasant, I give the customary hospitality of between 15 and 20 percent. But I doubt whether that changes the perception of the African American as a tightwad. The waiter might just conclude that the individual is different. And the cycle perpetuates itself.

    Going about life in this manner can sometimes subvert the moral law that dwells in each of us. An expatriate Nigerian friend was walking from the parking lot to his office one wintry morning when the young white woman ahead of him, a secretary, lost her balance and fell.

    “I hope you are all right,” he said to her and walked on.

    “How very ungallant,” I remonstrated. “That’s un-African.”

    “Siddon there, Johnny-just-come,” he shot back. “If I had pulled her up and she later reported that I was fondling her under the pretext of helping her, nobody would give me the benefit of the doubt.”

    The fellow, I should add, always dresses formally no matter the time of day, in the belief that the police are less likely to mess with an African American attired like a professional.

    There you have it, the insidious and sometimes morally corrupting legacy of racism.

    No society is perfect, and America has come a long way indeed. Who among us ever believed that in his or her lifetime America would elect and re-elect a black man president? Those marching in “Justice for Trayvon” rallies across America belong in all colours and races. I have experienced great generosity and kindness and courtesy from most of those I have met here.

    But I also know many who have suffered racial indignities.

    It used to be said at least in recent times that sport and entertainment transcend race. But some of the most bigoted things I have ever read relate to two of the most outstanding African American athletes of this age – Tiger Woods and Venus Williams. And, oh, you should hear or read some of the things they say or write about Michelle Obama.

    Also, who can forget how European soccer fans throw bananas at players of African descent on the pitch as if they were starving monkeys and taunt them to distraction by recreating the noises of chimpanzees?

    The Trayvon Martin verdict may not principally centre on race. But you cannot isolate race from it any more than you can isolate it from the facts of contemporary life in America and Europe. The colour line, alas, is also the problem of the 21st century.

    You can believe that the law took its mysterious course in the Zimmerman trial, and yet show some empathy for two parents who lost their son. But it is hard to see Trayvon Martin as anything else but a victim.

     

  • In America: A sad day for civil rights

    In America: A sad day for civil rights

    Last week, as the civil rights community and African Americans in particular awaited the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County vHolder, the mind called up an incident that had occurred some 19 years earlier, in 1994.

    I was on assignment in Washington, D.C., and had gone to the sprawling Barnes & Noble Bookstore downtown during a break, more to feed my eyes than to purchase all those seminal books I wished I could add to my collection, based on their rave reviews and the reputation of their authors.

    As I was leafing through one volume, I noticed a middle-aged man stop as he approached me from the other end of the aisle, take a close look at me, and then move one. When he went through this procedure a second time, and then a third, I could hardly contain my discomfort.

    On his fourth round, he stopped just a few feet from me, and taking my full measure with his eyes, said, in a voice that was non-threatening but inquiring: “Sir, would you be Justice Clarence Thomas?”

    I still had a fairly decent head of hair and a moustache sprinkled with grey, was roughly of the same age, and might indeed be thought to bear some resemblance to the contemporary associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the second black person to hold that distinction.

    My discomfort grew into panic.

    The last person you want to be mistaken for in progressive circles or in the African American community is Justice Clarence Thomas. In his three years on the Court, he had more than earned the denunciation that greeted his nomination and the vilification that dogged his confirmation hearings. He was the polar opposite of the great legal icon he was named to replace, Justice Thurgood Marshall, whom The New York Times described on his retirement as “a model and a monument.”

    If word went round that Thomas was in the neighbourhood, there was no knowing what might follow. Any trace of panic on my part could make matters worse.

    So, I summoned my voice at its most untroubled, looked my interlocutor in eye and said, “No, sir. I am not Justice Thomas. I do not know him. I have never met him. I have never . . .”

    Apparently sensing my deep unease, he cut in.

    “You are not Justice Thomas, I can tell,” he said. “You have an accent.”

    Was I mightily relieved!

    But the feeling was short-lived. As if determined to prolong my agony, he said, almost off-handedly, “But you sure look like him.”

    As soon as he turned the corner, I dropped the book, ran out of the store and jumped into the first available taxicab.

    To return to Shelby County v Holder, the case that called forth the foregoing recollections: the case originated in a petition by a county in Alabama, a state with an odious record of racial discrimination, urging the courts to strike down a law that bars nine states from changing their voting laws in ways that could disenfranchise residents without the approval of the United States Department of Justice.

    The law, revalidated by the Court’sunanimous decision in 2006, was enacted as part of the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965, which made it possible for generations of African Americans to register to vote for the first time, without having to pass stultifying literacy tests and without having to show that they owned property.

    The tests were so brazenly manipulated that very few even among educated and propertied African Americans could pass them, leading a frustrated the Rev. Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., to complain that, at the rate at which it was being carried out, voter registration of the black residents of the state of Alabama would take about 150 years.

    Some five decades later, the right to vote continues to be circumscribed, especially in states controlled by the Republicans, in ways that on their face seem to apply to the general population but are at bottom designed to suppress the votes of African Americans and Latinos who tend to support the Democrats.

    It is notorious, for example, that African Americans generally flock to voting centres to cast early ballots after Sunday worship. To prevent that, some states outlawed Sunday voting. In a variation of that theme, they also cut early voting so drastically that, as happened last November, voters in many cities had to wait in line eight hours to cast their ballots, a steep price for persons at the lower end of the economic scale.

    In yet another variation of that theme, the Republican majority in many states redrew electoral districts in such a way as to dilute the black vote and make the election of African Americans or a Democrat virtually impossible. So that, today, although Republican candidates polled at least a million votes fewer than Democratic candidates, they hold a commanding majority in the U. S. House of Representatives.

    It took spirited legal challenge mounted by disaffected citizens, with the backing of the Justice Department, to block the enforcement of the more brazen of these voter suppression laws during the 2012 U.S. General Elections.

    Scarcely five months later, a county in Alabama – a state in which an election was cancelled recently because an African American was favoured to win despite all the mago mago – was asking the Supreme Court to void the federal law mandating Department of Justice to vet changes of that kind to the state electoral laws.

    Last week, a month to the 50th anniversary of the historic March on Washington and its highpoint, Dr King’shistoric “I Have a Dream Speech,” the Court did just that, effectively cutting the heart out of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, in a 5-4 ruling that seems to have been scripted from the oral arguments it had heard in March 2013.

    Chief Justice John Roberts, for the Court, said as he had said during the oral arguments, that the United States had changed to the point that the law no longer reflected current racial realities in the United Sates.

    His four fellow conservatives on the Court, including Clarence Thomas, duly concurred.

    Separately, Thomas, who as is his habit had sat impressively through the 79 minutes the oral arguments lasted and had asked no question nor demanded any clarification from attorneys to the parties,entered it as his opinion that voiding Section 4 of the Act requiring the nine states to obtain federal clearance before changing their voting laws did not go far enough.

    He said he would also have struck down Section 5, which seeks to prevent the 9 states from circumventing the prohibitions of Section 4. He went on to note gleefully that, with Section 4 voided, Section 5 had become otiose.

    In a powerful dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reached back to a speech by – who else? – Dr King about how the “moral arc of justice,” though long, “always bends justice” to admonish the Court’s majority for the great harm it had just done to civil rights and justice. Its decision, she said, was an egregious error and a disservice to Dr King’s legacy and the nation’scommit-ment to justice.

    The Court’s ruling is only the latest in a long line of illiberal judicial opinions that have curtailed class actions, made it harder to sue manufacturers of dangerous drugs, employees accused or discrimination in the work place, and, in the words of the commentator Frank Rich, continued to do “everything to permit the abridgment of the rights of minorities even as it strengthens the rights of corporations.”

    This is the company Clarence Thomas keeps and revels in.

    Planting Clarence Thomas in the Court was a masterstroke by President George W. Bush and the Conservative Establishment to slow down, if not reverse, the march of civil rights and indeed the progressive agenda in America. And it has worked beyond their most optimistic calculations.

    The first President Bush probably spoke a greater truth than he realised or intended when he declared that Thomas, who had no judicial experience whatsoever, was “the best man for the job.” Their job.

    In the African American community, there were dozens far more qualified than Thomas on every score. But none could be counted upon like Thomas then – and even now — to be the scourge to his own people.

    The U.S. Supreme Court could not have gutted perhaps the single most important piece of legislation from the civil rights era without Clarence Thomas’s collaboration. His abstention would have saved it, at least for now.

    Next time anyone in the African American community tells me that I look like Clarence Thomas, Iwill call 9-1-1.

     

    •Portions of this comment first appeared in my March 5, 2013, column, titled “In the Shadow of Rosa Parks.”

     

  • More Nigerians studying in America – U.S Consul

    There are more Nigerians studying in the United States than from any other African country, the American Consul General, Jeff Hawkins has said.

    Speaking on the ties between Nigeria and the U.S, Hawkins said: “about 7,000 Nigerian students are studying in the country.”

    This, he said, among other exchange programmes, shows Nigeria and the U.S share deep diplomatic ties that the Consulate General Office would continue to encourage.

    Aside educational exchange, art promotion, according to him, is another area in which the US is building cultural bridges with Nigeria.

    He made the statements on Wednesday at his residence where he hosted American artist, Prof. Mimi Wolford, whose parents once served as U.S diplomats in Nigeria and some Nigerian young artists.

    While observing that art is a major communication tool for peace, Hawkins said, bringing the American artist to Nigeria to meet with the art community and students, in addition to showcasing the works of young artists is geared towards building cultural bridges between the two countries.

    He urged Nigerian politicians and elite to borrow a leaf from Prof. Wolford and her parents, who, during their stay in the country involved hugely in the exhibition of Osogbo art works.

     

     

  • Sammie Okposo takes Praise Party Live to America

    Sammie Okposo takes Praise Party Live to America

    AWARDS winning singer and Globacom Ambassador, Sammie Okposo will be rocking United State of America this summer with some of his colleagues from Nigeria. The singer is exporting his concert having held a successful Lagos edition last Easter.

    Tagged Sammie Okposo Praise Party Live, the concert will kick-off on August 13 in New York, Atlanta and Maryland. Nigerian singers already on the bill are Nikki Laoye, Bouqui, Tim Godfrey and Frand Edwards. Talks are however still on to feature gospel superstars, Micah Stampley and William Murphy.

    On why he’s taking the show to America, Okposo said it’s becoming imperative to keep promoting the brand all over the world. “Firstly, it’s all about reaching out and evangelising the word via gospel music. Secondly, it’s about promoting my music beyond the shores of Africa to reach out to my already existing fans and make new ones thereby creating a platform where they will be treated to the best of Sammie Okposo and same for other Nigerian artistes on the bill. Thirdly, it’s about creating an environment where Nigerian gospel artistes can interact and synergise with their counterparts from America with the possibilities of duets, publishing and marketing opportunities”.

  • One in 10 Americans is a shopaholic, says survey

    A NEW survey shows that over one in ten Americans, 11 per cent, to be exact, consider themselves to be shopaholics. This is no surprise, particularly considering the survey was done by CouponCabin.com, a website that lures people into buying things they probably don’t need by offering temporary discounts.

  • Looking for security in an insecure world

    Looking for security in an insecure world

    •In the long run, security is not attained by force of arms but by the calmative influence of justice and prosperity.

     

    In America, the Boston Marathon bombing fades from memory. Benghazi is now the roiling tale. Congressional inquiries have been constituted. The media is awash with Republican charges that the Obama Administration has concealed its negligent handling of the consulate attack in Benghazi that left the American Ambassador and three other officials dead. Congressional Republicans huff that the Obama cohort is guilty of such transgressions that make the Watergate cover-up appear to be the epitome of benign transparency and fidelity in governance. These fire-eating conservatives hope this episode will not only serve as Obama’s Watergate but also double as the Waterloo for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential aspirations.

    Checkmated at the ballot box by an American electorate demographically too black and brown (Latino) to for their liking, the Republicans seek to gain through the trapdoor what they could not win through the front. They dream of toppling Obama while amputating the legs of a Clinton candidature years before that horse is brought to the starting gate. What the Republicans now do is tawdry and ethically bankrupt. What they practice is not in the spirit or practical ways of a mature democratic republic. They delude themselves into believing they represent the final line of defense laboring to save America from the great unwashed horde of the dark-skinned people who call themselves Americans but who shall forever be alien and foreign in the hearts of the white conservatism.

    Yet what their abuse of public office for political gains does is to turn American governance into the stuff of which fledgling banana republics are made. So blinded by hatred, they undo that which they purport to save and invite the very calamity against which they purport to fight. Not since the Civil War has a major political party been so spellbound by and attached to an obvious wrong. These racists meanly depict Obama as a monkey in a suit. But, they are the ones who behave as baboons.

    They attack Obama as if he is a bacillus; save for the hue of his skin, he is their own. I care not for his milquetoast policies and his ersatz populist rhetoric rings hollow in my ears; but I defend his right to be as narrow and purblind as they are. The simple but harsh truth about Benghazi is the fate of the vanquished quartet was sealed when the decision was made to overnight in the rough city. In a lawless place, danger assumes governance of the evening. Remaining in Benghazi after the sun had left the city placed these men on a limb. Those who attacked them realized their scant predicament and were all too ready to cut them down.

    By the time the attack commenced, no rescue operation could be had. The victims’ sole means of escape at that point laid in the miraculous. Neither President Obama nor then Secretary Clinton would have been personally involved at this level of operational detail. Neither can be blamed for what happened lest one asserts the proximate cause of the deaths was America’s involvement in the war itself. If that is the charge, then Republicans are likewise guilty because they pursued the war with even greater bloodlust than the Democrats. It is a sad commentary on American political leaders that they will spend more time on Benghazi than examining wrong-footed decision to war against Iraq based on false accusations. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis perished as did thousands of Americans. The war was a lie but their deaths were all too true. To send this vast number to premature graves is the ugliest act thus far committed this century. For humanity’s sake, let’s hope it maintains this evil distinction and that no subsequent event surpasses its malevolence. Sadly, no one will ever be made to answer for this massive wrong. Yet, Republicans are hell bent to see a few Democratic careers interred by Benghazi, which ultimately will be gauged as a salient tragedy but one of insignificant strategic import in the great tide of events. The loss of the four men was tragic. Measures must be taken to avoid the facile repetition of such an easily-perpetuated tragedy. On another level, America must realize this represents the inevitable human costs to be paid for the muscular empire America seems intent on building.

    On the domestic scene, the Boston bombing is also a price America bears for the global situation it helped author. Whether the bombers were formally linked to any known incendiary group is, in some ways, immaterial. The bombers share the worldview of these notorious organizations. They see the world as unjust and believe America is the primary author of that injustice. In a world of over 6 billion people, there will be hundreds of thousands willing to kill because of that belief. Some of these people are Americans or live in America. Again, such is the price of hegemonic empire.

    Responding to the marathon bombings, America will augment budgets for the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. Already America has spent more on Homeland Security than it did prosecuting World War II. At least, the World War finally ended. The fight Defense and Homeland Security fight has no end. It does not even have a military solution yet Defense and Homeland Security seek to win through force of superior weaponry and gadgets. Once again, technology has been perverted by the vain and arrogant to accomplish a feat for which it is terribly suited.

    The true battlefield of this contest is shaped by politics, economics and governance and not by military hardware. However, those in control never want to hear such things because they ultimately define and measure things in terms of power and might. Thus, they attack problems instead of seeking to first answer them. They clench their fists then fire a bomb. Yet, they act indignantly when some desperate soul detonates a home-made bomb on a crowded street in one of their hallowed cities. What the bomber did was inhumane and the imperialists find solace in calling the bomber a deranged extremist. This description may be apt. Nonetheless, that the bomber is an extremist does not necessarily mean the government he opposes is not extreme in its application of violence in foreign nations.

    The Boston bombings were cruel homicides but, in the minds of their perpetrators and of many people around the world, they were no more misguided and cruel than the drone strikes America visits upon innocent people around the world. As such, the Boston bombings are an outcrop, the blowback, of a global political economy America has done more than any other nation to create. No global system can be perfect because we are fallible in the conception and implementation of all we attempt. There shall always be disagreements and confrontation. Justice is in shorter supply than the situations its application might resolve. As long as there is man, there shall be war and woe. To expect American power to usher in perfect peace asks too much. Moreover, had Germany won World War II or the Soviet Union won the Cold War, the world would be worse than it is. That said, the world is bad enough. Whatever benevolence existed in the initial stages of post-WWII Pax Americana has waned, being steadily replaced by a steely arrogance that knows few answers yet brooks little opposition. Killing bin Laden matters little; the turn of events will produce another.

    I have no want to debate the causes of the violent extremism in much of the world. One point is unassailable. Societies achieving long-term justice and prosperity are more peaceful and their people are less vulnerable to extremist views and to the formation of violent organizations. Among the lessons to be learned from the Boston bombings, this is the most important.

    There is another lesson from Boston germane to our local circumstance. Faced with many security challenges, Nigeria currently debates changes to its internal security/law enforcement architecture. This debate mostly is couched in terms of whether to revive the local police. How the American internal security/law enforcement structure tackled the Boston bombings offers guidance that can benefit Nigeria. In Nigeria, the ongoing debate draws a stark dichotomy between the current federal police and advocates of state police. It is as if Nigeria must select one or the other. Much of the debate is more influenced by a proponent’s political stance on federalism than on what is the most pragmatic solution to our security threats. Those who believe the central government has too much power espouse state police almost to the exclusion of retaining a national law enforcement presence. Those supporting the current federal distribution of power oppose the state police. Most people reach their conclusions not based on what is best for the internal security but upon which tack supports their overall theory of federalism.

    Because protection of life and limb is such an existential purpose of government, we must reverse our thought processes on this vital issue. Development of the nation’s security architecture should not become hostage to political debate. Instead of shaping the security architecture to accord with a prior political notion of federalism, we should first discern the most pragmatic, effective security apparatus. Then, we adjust the federal structure accordingly so as to enable this more efficacious system. This process accords with the viewpoint that government is not an abstraction nor is it the playground of competing factions among the elite. Instead, government is intended to advance the real and tangible interests of the people.

    Viewed against this backdrop, shaping the debate as a choice between state and federal police is a false ultimatum. First, we need not select one over the other. There is ample reason and evidence pointing to the need for both. Second, we should expand the conceptual scope of discourse from “policing” to “law enforcement.” In the aftermath of the Boston event, the American law enforcement machinery ramped into gear. However, this effort did not become the sole property of a federal agency or the state police. Instead, law enforcement at three levels – local, state and federal – joined hands to investigate the crime and apprehend the culprits. Each level of law enforcement has its different skills, expertise and talents. Over the long-run, America has found this division of labor to be most effective.

    Local and state law enforcement bodies are essential because most everyday, mundane crimes are of local impact. Locally-based law enforcement has greater knowledge of the community. This means the law-abiding citizens will have greater confidence and familiarity with local agencies. It also means the agencies will have better knowledge of the criminals and their activities because the local agencies will have greater knowledge of local culture, society and the political economy. Meanwhile, law enforcement at the federal level focuses on those complex crimes that do not respect local boundaries and that might involve vast criminal syndicates spanning several state or even international borders. Thus, while the U.S. does not have a national police force, it has several specialized agencies that tackle specific crimes. For example, DEA battles illicit narcotics. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) deals with cases that have been expressly by statute deemed federal crimes.

    Even with this rough division of labor, there is significant overlap between local and federal officials. When this happens, as in Boston, ad-hoc task forces are formed. Depending on the nature of the criminal problem, such multi-jurisdictional task forces can have indefinite life spans.

    There is no functional reason prohibiting Nigeria from establishing a similar division of labor. It can establish state police to address the vast majority of common crimes. Simultaneously, it can remodel the federal law enforcement structure to create or strengthen existing agencies to address those momentous issues, including but not limited to organized crime, narcotics, terrorism, and human trafficking that are too big and complex for state police to handle.

    Nigeria faces myriad security challenges. These challenges are not the fault of any one person, group or section of the nation. The geneses of these problems reach far back into the past but threaten to stretch far into the future if left unattended. We needn’t point fingers at each other. Better that we spend time pointing out possible solutions. Now is not the moment for stilted debate about the merits of more or less federalism and power distribution between the federal government and the states. While this political debates drags on, our security problems become more acute and biting. This column has been a constant, regular critic of American governance. However, it is wrongheaded not to acknowledge an important instance where America’s methodology may help Nigeria’s future. The division of labor between state and federal law enforcement bodies is one such instance. Here, Nigeria has some important lessons to learn from America. What have you got to lose but your insecurity?

     

    08060340825 (sms only)

  • American jailed 15 years in North Korea

    American jailed 15 years in North Korea

    North Korea sentenced U.S. citizen Kenneth Bae to 15 years imprisonment with hard labour on Thursday for what it said were crimes against the state.

    It said a move that will likely see him as a bargaining chip in talks with the Washington.

    Bae 44, was born in South Korea but is a naturalised American citizen and attended the University of Oregon.

    According to U.S. media, he recently lived in the Seattle suburb of Lynnwood.

    A North Korean defector said Bae will likely serve his sentence in a special facility for foreigners, not in one of the repressive state forced labour camps.

    More than 200,000 people are incarcerated in these camps, beaten and starved, sometimes to death, according to human rights bodies.

    Bae’s sentencing comes after two months of saber-rattling by Pyongyang that saw North Korea threaten both in the  U.S. and South Korea with nuclear war.

    Bae is believed to be a devout Christian, according to human rights activists in South Korea, who say he may have  been arrested for taking pictures of starving children, known as “kotjebi’’ or fluttering swallows.

    He was part of a group of five tourists who visited the northeastern pary of North Korean city of Rajin in November  and has been held since then.

    Some media reports have identified Bae as the leader of the tour group and NK News, a specialist North Korea news Website, said he was the owner of a company called Nation Tours that specialised in tours of north-eastern part of  North Korea.

    The reports could not be verified and North Korean state news agency KCNA did not list any specific charge other than crimes against the state, and used a Korean rendering of Bae’s name, Pae Jun-ho, when it reported the Supreme Court ruling.

    “North Korea has shown their intention to use him as a negotiating card as they have done in the past,’’ said Cheong Seong-chang, senior fellow at the Sejong Institute, a Seoul-based think-tank.

    Bae’s sentence was heftier than the 12 years handed down to two U.S. journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, in 2009. It took a visit to Pyongyang by former President Bill Clinton to secure their release.

    North Korea appears to use the release of high profile American prisoners to extract a form of personal tribute, rather than for economic or diplomatic gain, often portraying visiting dignitaries as paying homage.

    According to North Korean law, the punishment for hostile acts against the state is between five and 10 years imprisonment with hard labour.

    “I think his sentencing was heavy. North Korea seemed to consider his acts more severe,’’ said Jang Myung-bong, honourary professor at Kookmin University in Seoul and a North Korea law expert.

    North Korea is one of the most isolated states on earth. Its official policy of “Juche’’ or self-reliance is a fusion of Marxism, extreme nationalism and self sufficiency centred on the cult of the ruling Kim family.

    Bae will not however be incarcerated in one of the North’s notorious slave labour camps, such as the one where defector Kwon Hyo-jin was locked up. There, Kwon said, prisoners were worked to death and often survived only by eating rats and snakes.

    “If an American served jail together with North Korean inmates, which won’t happen, he could tell them about capitalism or economic developments. That would be the biggest mistake for North Korea,’’ said Kwon, a North Korean sentenced to one of its camps for seven years until 2007.

    He defected to South Korea in 2009.

    “Bae would be sent to a correctional facility that only houses foreigners which was set up as a model for international human rights groups,“’It was not known if Bae had been taken immediately to jail.”

    Ling, the journalist, told U.S. television that she was placed in a five by six foot cell when captured and then kept in a regular room afterwards.

    Bae was given counsel by the Swedish Embassy in Pyongyang, which has consistently declined to comment on the case, as the U.S. does not have diplomatic relations with the North.

  • God bless America

    God bless America

    For days, I have been following with great interest the developments in the Boston Marathon blast in the United States in which three persons died and about 180 were injured.

    Again, America, the world’s most powerful nation literarily came under attack. Though not of the magnitude of the 9/11 attack, the incident reinforced the danger of terrorism globally despite the efforts to curb the disturbing trend.

    An otherwise peaceful event which has held annually for years turned tragic just when some of the runners started crossing the finish line. While one of the suspected bombers was killed in a shootout, there has been a massive manhunt for the other as at press time.

    My heart goes to the victims of the attack and their families. One can only imagine the agony the victims are experiencing considering the components of the bomb that sprayed nails, ball bearings and other metal fragments into the crowd. I listened to the head of the medical team in one of the hospitals where the victims are being treated and remember him talking of a number of amputations that have been done to save lives.

    I am still haunted by the smile of the eight year old Martin Richard who was killed while standing by the finish line with his family when an explosion tore through the area. Richard’s mother, Denise, suffered a brain injury and his 6-year-old sister, Jane, reportedly lost a leg.

    It’s difficult to understand why some people will choose to cause grievous harm to others to make whatever point they have or protest against anything. We can only hope that the security agencies will get to the root of this particular case and prevent a reccurrence.

    One particular thing that has struck me about the whole incident is how the efforts of the first responders, rescue team, medical team and others have been repeatedly acknowledged by all, including President Barrack Obama.

    Unlike in our country, their ‘heroic sacrifice’ did not go unacknowledged. They must be very proud of themselves and will not hesitate to rise up to the occasion if they have another opportunity to do so.

    America and other developed nations have a way of demonstrating that the life of every of their citizens matters through the way the governments respond to crisis. This is what is evident in the handling of the Boston blast.

    In an incident in which only three persons died, the response at all levels has been massive. President Obama has not only spoken on the matter, he has been part of the special service for the victims during which he assured that the bombers would be found and held ‘accountable’.

    In order to get the only two suspects, security agents have launched a manhunt for them with the Boston city almost shut down. I have been intrigued by the amount of information that has been shared with the public by the security to get the suspects. The access given to the media during the operation has been incredible. The willingness of the people, including their families, to speak on what they know about the suspects is very commendable.

    There is indeed a lot for us to learn on how to handle situation like this. The lessons must not be lost on us as we join the world in sympathising with America over this unfortunate incident.

  • America: Where did your dream go!

    America: Where did your dream go!

    •The people must protect democracy for democracy to protect the people.

    This piece returns to the American scene because it is important for Africa to understand the dynamics of America’s political economy. It is insufficient to imbibe the myths hoisted on you. If you accept them, you would believe America invented the words “democracy, justice and right.” Further, you would believe America’s actions are always and everywhere defined by these notions. To accept this perspective is to align on the wrong side of a grave deception. America occupies the pinnacle of military and economic power; possession of such might gives the nation an ability to broadcast its favored version of history and events with a force none can match. This dominance of the portals of information reshapes the minds of others. The frequency with which the fables are told becomes seen by the innocent and unaware as indicative of the accuracy of the message. That you regularly publish something does not make it true. It just makes the average nation and person think it’s true.

    America has always been an imperfect nation that engaged in many ignoble things along the road of national evolution. Slavery, the nearly total eclipse of Native American populations, and the strong-armed theft of the southwestern United States from an unfairly beaten and supine Mexican nation scar the nation’s path to greatness. American would rather you discount these things as mistakes from a dead past. But the past never fully dies; it exists in the present it helped create. These benighted events are as integral to American history as the march toward democracy, economic development and human rights. One set is the full counterpoise of the other. Those who say America is God’s country belittle God, reducing Him to a mortal who respects might and money more than compassion and goodness. America is not God’s nation; it is a man’s nation, save that man is stronger than any other at the moment. Like other nations, America is a mixture of good and bad, of noble and base, and of those who love democracy and those who so despise it that they would turn it into something different if given a chance at a chance. American democracy is not a monolith nor is it an altar at which all Americans worship. It is a composite human organism suffering a terrible affliction within. Some of its parts want no part of it. Ironically, the relatively smooth yet elitist operation of the system has provided those who would undermine democracy the money and power to do so.

    As such, America is a great republic turning small. Today’s America represents a textbook on how to lose democracy not strengthen it. For African nations like Nigeria, there is no lesson more poignant. You will learn much about how to grow your democracy by understanding how America is forfeiting hers. By learning how America bankrupts its democracy, you just might discover how to keep your own.

    Thus, this column frequently returns to the American scene not because America is a positive lesson. We examine America because too many of you perceive it as the pinnacle, when it is not. Once it was; now it is not. However, perception commonly trails reality. This err can be fatal to Africa. Thus we must cure it before it leads Africa backwards.

    Last week, the American government criticized the pardon granted former Bayelsa Governor DSP Alamieyeseigha. Local media was alive with this story. However, something was missing in much of the analysis of this bilateral spat. Reasonable people may differ about the merits of the action so there is little profit in trampling this worn ground. Suffice it to say the act was legal. There also is little utility in arguing that America’s statement represented an unwarranted interference in Nigeria’s internal affairs as America is the supreme global interloper. The American government sees it as its divine right to tell others what to do. This is what America does. What most of the media commentary failed to address was the American government’s obvious hypocrisy in criticizing another nation of corruption when America could not handle what it had in hand.

    While fustigating the pardon came, this same Administration recently found one, possibly two, banks willfully guilty of laundering drug money, with each institution washing nearly one billion dollars in dirty money. This was criminal action performed by senior bank officials. Yet, no criminal charges were had. The excuse was that invoking criminal sanctions would harm the banks. Because the banks were so large and important, such action would damage the economy. Put another way, the law cannot touch them because the officials hold important positions handling other people’s money. This begs a question: What do you call a banker who will not be charged for misappropriating other people’s funds? He is no longer a fiduciary custodian of the funds: he has become a thief in the making.

    Rarely has such a feckless excuse been given by law enforcement officials unwilling to enforce the law. In effect, the Justice Department lent its good offices to injustice. Eschewing the constitution and the laws they swore to uphold, administration officials revealed that Money Power trumped justice in their universe.

    No one was asking the government to set torch to the banks. Certain bank employees were guilty. Punishing them would not crash the banks or ruin the economy. We would have survived just as we make do when a bank official expires or falls ill. These people should have been sanctioned as severely as any drug pusher. Without willing bankers, the drug industry would not be as big, violent and lucrative as it is. It would not menace society as it does. Yet, the bankers were given a free pass. All the banks did was to pay a civil fine. The fine represents noting more than a “tax” on criminal behavior. Justice may be blind but she evidently has acquired a great deference to money.

    Worse, the same Justice Department declared it will not investigate, let alone, prosecute any of the misconduct that precipitated the 2008 global financial meltdown and concomitant recession. This mocks justice. Again the excuse was a spineless wonder. Officials rationalized the financial wrongdoing was too complicated and too massive to prosecute. What! Every major financial crisis is built on a mountain of crimes. The 2008 decline was no exception. Systematic accounting fraud by senior officials in the largest financial institutions reduced the world economy to its knees. Over 20 trillion dollars in nominal wealth was destroyed. Millions lost jobs they shall never regain. Lives becoming synonymous with poverty and unable to bear the weight of their decline, hundreds took their own lives. Meanwhile, the incomes of bank officials responsible for the morass grew, as if they fed off the misery of the economy.

    Authorities pursued wildcat criminals like Bernie Madoff whose one-man pyramid scheme inevitably collapsed. However, Madoff and those like him were fringe players in a larger drama. By foregoing any attempt to prosecute the wrongdoings leading to the financial crisis, the American justice system gave blanket pardon to the perpetrators of a trillion dollar criminal undertaking. In one swoop, the justice system immunized an entire class of professional wrongdoers. It was as if the Administration said, “You stole so much in such an arcane way, we’d rather you keep the loot!” Senior officials in the large financial houses are now above the law. As long as theft is not blatant and is aptly buried in the balance sheet, banker criminals will not be sanctioned and can remain among the most powerful and respected members of society.

    Not only does this pardon shield past wrongs it gives a green light to future sinister conduct. By its permissiveness toward financial wrong, government has approbated the resumption of the hircine behavior that produced the 2008 crisis. This means another financial crisis is inevitable. Shorn of its nigh unintelligible legal jargon, the government’s position is that sophisticated financial crimes which profit large banks are no longer illegal. A nation has reached the height of financialism when criminal justice officials, in contravention of Congress’s legislative prerogative to define crime, unilaterally deem legal financial conduct every sentient person knows is illegal. Sadly, the height point of financialism is a low form of corruption, as barren as the public office corruption bedeviling Africa. However, because people have been indoctrinated to see America as the exemplar of good governance, we don’t see its corruption for what it is.

    America’s big financial institutions are rife with crime but rifer with money able to fuel political campaigns. Consequently, financial firms have disproportionate sway over politicians, including the occupant of the White House. Yet, many firms are populated with senior officials who should be indicted. Instead, they deploy profits improperly acquired to buy undue influence in government. Because of this undue weight, government looks at the financial sector as sacrosanct to the extent that government has decreed that no serious crime can be committed therein. Wall Street is now America’s Vatican and Washington is but government for hire. In comparison, Nigeria’s prosecution of a handful of banking officials, while far from exemplary, still exceeds the American government’s performance in similar circumstance.

    In all, the reasons given by the American government for effectively pardoning the entire class of people who crashed the global economy are not as colorable as the reasons given for the Alamieyeseigha pardon. There may be people with cause to question that pardon. The American government is not one of them. Washington should first remove the forest from its eye before shouting to everyone to come view the speck in Abuja’s. At bottom, America’s grouse is not against corruption. In its hubris, America believes it should define those forms of corruption other nations should commit and those they should not.

    Meanwhile, people who celebrated Obama’s reelection, believing it would free him to become his truer self have gotten their wish. They now wish they hadn’t. The first months of Obama’s second term have been as pleasant as a rotting fish in one’s bed. This column has repeatedly declared Obama a consummate manipulator prone to do the opposite of what he says. For years, I have labeled him a Rockefeller Republican. That description has proven too ebullient. Although he continues to deceive people with his winsome personality, the man has become Nixonian in action.

    During the campaign, he pledged allegiance to the middle class, vowing not to balance the budget on their backs. Yet, outside the glare of the media, his Administration recently sent tens of thousands of government workers on unpaid furlough. Many will be permanently dismissed, never again to find work. By and large, these workers voted for him, hoping against hope that he would bring the change he promised. What they got in return for their trust in this man is change that will impoverish them. They have learned the bitter lesson too late. To lean on Obama is to lean on a mirage. You will fall.

    Obama also claimed he would not undermine Social Security and public health care benefits. However, he joined the Republican congressional leadership in temporizing as the deadline for comprehensive government budget cuts expired. Unable to hide delight as his boss’s political legerdemain, Obama’s chief economic advisor let the rat out of the trap. The advisor revealed the president’s public opposition to the cuts was political theatre. Obama actually wanted the reductions. The cuts would allow Obama to achieve the social service reductions he wanted yet allow him to escape blame for the austere measures. Obama could claim the Republicans forced him into cuts that, in reality, he wanted all along. In other words, He conspired with his Republican interlocutors to confound the electorate and as well as members of his own party who did not expect this level of fiscal austerity from him. That they did not know better was because they did not want to know their president. They would rather believe him than to know him. This may prove a costly preference.

    From the onset of his presidency, Obama set his heart on dismantling the social safety architecture constructed by Franklin Roosevelt, the Democratic Party’s greatest president. Though waving a liberal banner, Obama seeks the conservative Holy Grail: to shrink and privatize social security and public health.

    That Obama does these things although contrary to the interests of the people who voted for him does not make him evil. Like most American politicians, he is more hired hand than elected official. In America, elections mean less than the money that funds them. Without funds, there is no campaign, thus no victory. It is a myth that Obama’s campaign was dependent on no one because it was fueled by millions of small donors. Without the vast sums given him by Wall Street interests, Obama would not have made it. His election was purchased by the few. To the few, he owes his loyalty. This is the way of modern American governance. Elections keep it democratic in form. However, the system has been distorted to where all major candidates are simply indebted to different members of the same class of deep-pocketed donors. Thus, Republicans are now extreme conservatives and the Democratic Party has become moderately conservative on economic matters. In substance, American government is no longer democratic in terms of abiding the will of the electorate. It is democratic only in the venal sense that it is now open for purchase to the highest bidder.

    In the end, democracy is a rather odd species of governance. While other forms of governance leap at self-perpetuation, democracy recoils from longevity. Its core theme is the fundamental equality of man. Yet, not all people believe it. However, democracy does not penalize those who despise it. It allows them the freedom to amass the economic and political power to deracinate the very mode of government that provided them the space and freedom to prosper. A sad trait of human nature is the nearly universal and uncanny ability of elites to come to the wrong conclusion regarding the relationship between their personal attainment and the governing system in which they operate. The wealthier people become, the more they believe their fortune is unilaterally derived. They believe they achieved it despite the system. As such, the system becomes the enemy to their continued advance and fulfillment. They buy and bend the system to fit their purpose. The more it fits them, the less it accords with the majority of society. This is how democracy is placed on the auction block. This is the current state of American governance. It is nothing to celebrate. Emulate it at your peril for you will progress no further than you already have.

     

    08060340825 (sms only)

     

  • Obama, America and the rest of us

    Obama, America and the rest of us

    ALL over the world, decision makers, as well as the common but educated people, stayed glued to their television sets to monitor last Tuesday’s presidential election of the United States of America. As the sole surviving superpower, no one could ignore the development. Besides, the arrival of Barrack Obama on the scene in 2008 had alerted everyone to possibilities in the USA. He became the first black man elected to the most powerful office in the world. On November 6, he offered once again to consolidate his hold on power and prove that ascendancy in that country is transparent.

    But, he had to fight a good fight to scale the hurdles. The combination of the Republican Party and its candidate, Mitt Romney, could not be easily defeated. Romney fought hard. He ran a good race. He shook the incumbent and showed that in that country, it is not a one-way track.

    The outcome of the election was not as interesting as the run up to it. Every issue was discussed. Each candidate was weighed. Every pronouncement was verified and the national interest took precedence over all other things. It was America, after all. Besides, the rules were known to all. Almost all Americans understand the dichotomy between the popular and electoral votes. They know, as the Al Gore experience bore out in 2000, that you do not occupy the White House simply because you have more votes than your opponents. You need, by some strange and weird calculations, electoral votes that reflect the diversity of the American nation.

    In the process, it is shown that everybody matters. The youth and the aged have to speak out; the Hispanics and Blacks must be heard, while the rich and the poor must be brought on board. As such, both Obama and Romney ran huge bills canvassing support. It was obvious that traditional support areas for the Republicans and Democrats could not do the magic. Romney, a Mormon, was trying to break another barrier and free the society, just as Obama was determined to prove that the black man is not bereft of ideas.

    Interestingly, within hours, the results started pouring in. No one cried foul even when the machines chose to malfunction in some parts of the country. There was no allegation of manipulation in anyone’s favour. All through the exercise, no thought was spared any electoral commission or even the polling officials. It was not an issue whether gun-totting security men were needed to safeguard materials. No one ever speculated that some areas could be denied voting materials or others over-supplied.

    I had looked forward to the effect of Hurricane Sandy on voting in the New Jersey and New York areas. It turned out a non-issue, even with the warning that things could go awry again within 24 hours of the voting. It was a civic responsibility and the voters would not, at any cost, be denied that right.

    And the result. It was such a close race, at least by the popular votes cast. Only one per cent separated the candidates. Yet, it did not stop Romney from promptly congratulating Obama. He did not have to wait for the full votes to be in. As soon as the president crossed the magical 270 votes mark, the Republican challenger accepted that the game was over. His moving speech drew tears from some and showed how the American system works. And, in victory, Obama was gracious. He stretched forth his hands and recognised that the Romney cannot be ignored.

    In any case, the fact that the Republicans retain control of the House of Representatives is an indication that it is not total victory for Obama and his party. There have to be bipartisan cooperation if the society is to move forward. The figures, the intrigues, the sweat and the speeches all indicate that the celebration would have to stop in days and Obama must role up his sleeves if he is to go down in history as a great president who rose to meet the challenges that the election has brought forth.

    Just immediately after the American election, China also made a bid to change leadership, but the choreography showed the difference. As it is in the Catholic Church where the cardinals decide for all, the Central Committee of the Communist Party had the only say in the matter. All that others had to do was salute and clap like happy spectators at a soccer match.

    In our country, 2015 is just around the corner. Simple issues like producing a credible voter register,  logistics, where to keep sensitive materials, the roles of security forces, honesty of poll officials, vote counting, tally and announcement are still serious challenges. There is, the truth be told, nothing transparent about the Nigerian electoral system despite last year’s constitution amendment.

    Some of our leaders (or rulers), who would be attending the Obama inauguration in January, are already planning how to pervert the process next time. In the USA, the people spoke, their voice was heard, the system responded and the future is thus bright. Can the same be said of Nigeria? When would our elections reflect the General Will? Until we get the electoral process fixed, there can be no meaningful development. We can only keep dreaming of our place in the world by 2020. Or even 2090.