The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Diplomacy

  • Edumark boss counsels pupils on diplomacy

    The Chief Executive Officer of Edumark Consults, Mrs Yinka Ogunde, has implored  secondary school pupils to be abreast of information with respect to international issues and etiquette. She said getting acquainted with the aforementioned would prepare them for the world ahead.

    Mrs Ogunde made the call during The African FutureTrust Model United Nations (TAFMUN) which held at the Oriental Hotel, Victoria Island, where she spoke on the theme: ‘Preparing them for the future’.

    TAFMUN, organised by  FutureTrust Initiative for Capacity Building (FTI), an NGO, is modelled after the United Nations general assembly to expose secondary school pupils to international affairs.

    They are given roles as delegates of various countries and research problems of such countries and propose resolutions.

    Lauding the intiative, Mrs Ogunde said: “My generation was not prepared for this world of global village and global technology; but in another way we were prepared through education and information that we were exposed to. The youths of today should be fully prepared for the future that cannot fully be envisaged by exposing themselves to international issues and their impacts on them”.

    Ogunde added that the times of children being seen and not heard had long gone, noting that they  should be equipped for leadership and decision making roles through education and information.

    Earlier, the Founder FTI, Mrs Maureen Egbuche, advised the delegates, SS2 pupils from various secondary schools, to inculcate the attitudes and knowledge that would be instilled in them.

    She said they would be trained in areas such as critical thinking, capacity building, international etiquettes and rigorous debates. She added that at the end of the conference, each delegate would be required to submit a 16-page research on International issues in Nigeria.

    “Pupils will engage in rigorous debates as ambassadors, experts and activists to tackle the international community’s pressing issues. It is a time to step out of your comfort zones and we are confident that pupils who participate in our conference will become the policy shapers and world leaders of tomorrow”, Egbuche said.

    TAFMUN 2016 Secretary General, Miss Chisom Ogbummmuo, also advised delegates to be cooperative, cultivate friendships as well as see the world as it ought to be during the training.

  • Niger Delta and PMB’s diplomacy

    The tension and uncertainty in the Niger Delta caused by recent violent attacks against oil installations and facilities in the area by resurgent militancy has created doubts about the diplomacy and peace-making ability of President Muhammadu Buhari. In the minds of some people mostly detractors of the President and even ordinary Nigerians whose views are coloured by the prevailing and excruciating hardship in the country, the President is seen as something of a war-monger. This however, is far from the truth.

    President Buhari’s attitude, posturing and utterances about the Niger Delta situation is affected by the fact that as a lover of Nigeria, who is pained by the sorry state of the nation, the anti- corruption crusader finds it difficult to make the link between any form of agitation for restitution for wrongs done any group, with the destruction and damage of national infrastructure especially those that benefit everyone let alone, infrastructure and national property sited in those parts of the country from where the agitations are coming.

    Yet another reason why PMB is perhaps piqued with the militants and for which reason, he loses his cool, is because as a young man, he was a participant in a brutal civil war that led to the death of several thousands of Nigerians and many years after, some people are taking steps that could lead to a repeat of that experience. Happily, there are several voices of caution coming from Nigerians of all walks of life prescribing and urging restraint on all sides to the Niger Delta problem and demanding for dialogue.

    This writer would like to appeal to our fellow country people in the creeks of the Niger Delta, to give peace a chance and not further compound the present economic downturn that has hit Nigeria hard with a recession. No doubt, the Niger Delta and indeed other parts of Nigeria has not been fairly treated over the years by successive governments but the way to go is not to make prosperity and governance impossible through violence and confrontation with the government. It should be noted that the problems of neglect affecting the Niger Delta today, strictly speaking, is not PMB’s doing, but the summation of poor and irresponsible governance over the years. PMB is now at the receiving end of demands for restitution because governance and government is a continuum; the onus is on the government of the moment to be held responsible. Nonetheless, restitution and justice in our society cannot come overnight and there is not so much a government, any government can do in the short space of a year and a few months of a four-year mandate! Thus the best approach is peace and dialogue and the willingness to allow a spirit of give and take.

    On the side of the government however, it is important that the latter eschews sending uncertain and ambiguous signals as well as make utterances that do not promote trust, confidence and the foundation for fruitful dialogue. One expects the body language of President Buhari on the Niger Delta issue and the agitation by separatists in the South-east to be one that shows that the President believes in the unity of Nigeria and is prepared as leader of the nation, to deploy his best endeavours to build consensus and defeat the pull of centrifugalism in the polity.

    This writer challenges the President who clearly is a passionate nationalist to employ and deploy the body language that is changing the ethics and values of Nigerians in the fight against corruption and in his diplomatic endeavours to apply to domestic issues so that the unity of the country will be embedded in the hearts and minds of Nigerians and not something that depends on threats and the ability of the Nigerian Army to enforce. Such unity cannot stand and would be tenuous at best. Being an elderly and wise man, the President can do this and score excellent results the way he has been able to charm the international community to buy into his anti-corruption campaign and desire to elevate and diversify the nation’s economy away from oil.

    The Niger Delta problem cannot be resolved by military action. Recently,   retired Colonel Abubakar Umar was on point on this. Of course it is right for the President to say that if the militants currently engaged in economic sabotage fail to embrace peace, the government would have no option but to use violence. The government however should be wary of sending signals that it prefers a showdown by goading the militants into confrontation. The point is that in a real military encounter, the nations’ army would surely overwhelm any group of armed persons no matter how well armed, they are. In the process of engaging them militarily, two things would happen; one, the option of dialogue would have been foreclosed giving the impression that the channels of conflict resolution in the polity is weak or non-existent and that the parties are now implacable enemies and second, in seeking to teach the militants a lesson, the nation’s army would inflict more damage and destruction on the economic infrastructure of the nation through aerial bombardment thus committing a similar crime like the militants. In this connection, the militants would have succeeded in provoking the government to cause more devastation with its own hands. Bearing in mind that the militants are not the government, the present administration would still be saddled with the unpleasant task of embarking on reconstruction of these facilities, or a successor government would be tasked with the unpleasant and expensive assignment. On a balance this would extend and deepen the woes of the nation which military force was intended to deal with. It should be noted that since after the civil war, more than 40 years ago, the South-east which suffered most from that war in terms of destruction of lives, properties and infrastructure is still yearning and waiting for reconstruction, rehabilitation and restitution. The country cannot successfully tread the same part again on the Niger Delta issue.

    Nigerians who watched proceedings and read reports of the outing of the country at the recent Tokyo International Conference on African Development in Nairobi, Kenya last week, were full of pride at the performance and conduct of President Buhari. As the leading salesperson of the country, PMB did very well and won Nigeria not only admiration but many friends. The Nairobi conference sponsored by the Japanese government showed the Nigerian leader as a confident diplomat and crowd puller and has reinforced the successes and expectations of his earlier foreign trips in quest of foreign help in the area of investments, capital inflow, repatriation of stolen assets and monies of the country, and the fight against terrorism.

    Following the above, it cannot be said that such a magnet in international circles, PMB cannot apply the same charm that has yielded pledges of cooperation and assistance from World leaders to the domestic arena in dealing with manifestations of discontent to give the nation the peace, unity and harmony it desperately needs to overcome its present challenges.

     

    • Okoroma, a Public Affairs Analyst writes from Abuja.

  • Ideology, opportunities and diplomacy

    In  welcoming China’s  president to the British Parliament this week, the Speaker  spoke of a meeting of  two nations both ancient  and modern. In response the Chinese leader wondered at new opportunities for both nations in a collaborative world .In  the US the  Vice  President  Joe  Biden  in announcing his intention not to run for the presidency  of the US  was  escorted to the venue of the announcement by his wife   and  the President of the US who  did not utter  a word at  the event where the Vice President took the opportunity to enunciate the ideology of the Democratic Party for the 2016 US  presidential elections.  In  Russia, the  president told a think thank that the  US  is supporting  terrorism in Syria while at  home our lawyers created a conundrum over the trial of the senate president on  assets declaration there by tasking our separation of powers in a presidential system  of government in rather extravagant fashion. These  then  are the issues for consideration today  and  I think they are quite juicy for scrutiny  and analysis.

    Starting with China the visit of Chinese President Xi  Jinping to the UK  this  week  was bound to stir powerful historical   and political   memories  with ideological  antecedents. The  most powerful  dictatorship in the world was being hosted by the mother of Parliaments  and the world’s leading  constitutional  monarchy  and democracy. Surely  this was a meeting of ideological incompatibles in terms of either side’s perception of power, human rights and rule  of law. The  Communist Party of China led by President Xi  Jinping has a membership less than a million members yet it holds sway over the lives and security of one and a half billion Chinese people, the largest population of any nation in the world today. Whereas British  democracy runs on the well  known gruel  of one man, one vote majority  democracy. So  it is crystal clear that it is not democracy or ideology that has brought the successor of Mao and Deng to London but good old and new, ancient and modern  business  and  economic  opportunities, as  both the Speaker and the Chinese leader so rightly remarked in their speeches at the Mother of Parliaments this week in London. Already  it has been reported  that trade agreements worth  30  bn  pounds  are in the offing from the four day state  visit  of the Chinese president.

    The  announcement  by Vice  President Biden that he would not run for president  was obviously  closely monitored by the incumbent  and lame duck President  Barak  Obama for obvious reasons. The  first is to ensure that the president’s  preference for Hillary Clinton the Democratic Party’s front runner presidential candidate  is not derailed. The second  is to ensure governmental unity and focus  in the last  days of the Obama Administration.  That really must be why Obama himself followed or led his Vice  President to the event and  followed him out without a word at the ceremony. Yet Biden had his say even if he did not have his way  to  contest for America’s  highest office  for now or ever. He  said loudly that he would  not  contest but he would not be silent and Obama could hear that clearly as he was standing by his side policing him as it were on the occasion. Biden then took a swipe  at the tone of the Democratic Party  campaign  by stating that the Republican  Party was not an enemy but an opposition party and should be respected as such and not treated as an enemy. This  has  however  not prevented the hostile  legislative  witch  hunt of Hillary  Clinton on the Benghazi  matter  on which  she was reportedly grilled for 11  hours  this week. Biden   went on to say that consensus and compromise are not pejorative  words and have pragmatic use in US politics  and  diplomacy   as has been amply demonstrated under the Obama administration in which  he has played  his own part and would continue doing till the end.

    More  importantly he  said  the Democratic  Party must run the 2016 Presidential  election on the legacy of the outgoing Obama  presidency if it is to maintain its ideology of reducing the gap of income inequalities  between the rich and the poor in a US in which about a hundred families own the bulk of America’s  gargantuan wealth and earnings. To  me it was a good farewell  speech by the US Vice President to presidential ambition and a   good wake up warning to those in the presidential race as well as the Democratic Party on its core values, and  a  clear  message  not to take victory in  the  2016   presidential  race  for granted.

    In  Russia aside  from the fact that Syria’s  President Bashar Assad paid a visit to thank  Russia’s  President Vladmir  Putin for supporting him against the Syrians trying to oust him  from power,  the Russian president accused  the US of  supporting  terrorism which  of course  cannot  be true but which showed  that there is no love lost between the US and  Russia  at least  under their two incumbent presidents today. Indeed  it is a clear  sign that a serious personality clash  between the two leaders has overtaken the course of diplomacy and further  bilateral relations between the two  nations. Putin  accused  the Americans  of choosing who  to support amongst the rebels  fighting Assad and in the process  backing the wrong horses who Russia said are plain, raw  terrorists. Rather  than make the same mistake Putin said Russia would stick by Assad and in  the process  fight and   root out  ISIS which  he identified as a global threat  rather than a Syrian  problem. One  is yet to see how the US would  react to this  as the  US  is more interested in not losing any American lives in Syria than anything else and that is rather  strange  for a nation which had been concerned about spreading American values  and making the world safe for democracy. Obviously  on Syria the  Obama Administration is behaving like  the proverbial cat that would eat fish  from a pond without  getting its paws wet while the Russians have  evolved a heads on winner takes all approach  on the same  matter  and are enjoying its glamorous diplomatic  dividends and spoils of adventure which  the US of  course  thinks  is a misadventure that will soon backfire.

    At  home  the trial of the Senate president is being politicised  mostly  by  lawyers,  aided and abetted by the media. A  clear administrative issue  is being overblown by  all parties  to the trial. The tribunal  has taken a sensible decision  to await the decision of a higher court on its jurisdiction, an issue raised  by the Senate President’s lawyers earlier on. But  a debate is on, on who should have asked the tribunal  to stay proceedings between the prosecutors and the defendants as if that  too is an issue which I contend it is not. It  does not matter who kills a snake as long as it is killed. It  is simple  courtesy  for the tribunal not to jump  the gun  but to wait  for a decision of a higher court and not  embark  on an exercise  in futility if the higher court rules  one way  or the other. This is not even trite law  but common  sense but so many SANs  have been quoted on the matter saying contradictory things as if  a Ph.D  dissertation  is to evolve from  the debate which  I found  confusing and distracting from the focus on the case,  which  is an important litmus test  for the anti  corruption war  of this new Administration. Again, long live the Federal Republic  of Nigeria.

  • Dogara: Using diplomacy for nation-building

    Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Yakubu Dogara, recently brought his diplomatic prowess to bear when he pushed Nigeria’s interest before world leaders at the highest level of meetings of world heads of parliaments. He was one of the heads of parliaments from across the world who converged on New York, United States of America for the Fourth Conference of Speakers of Parliament organised once every four years by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) at the United Nations Headquarters.

    IPU is the umbrella organisation of leaders of parliaments with its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland and such meetings are only held, to underscore its importance, once in every four years. The summit was a unique forum for dialogue and cooperation between parliaments at the highest level, with the overall theme of the conference focused on peace, democracy, and development as seen through parliamentary lens.

    The conference was part of the series of high-level meetings leading up to the UN Summit which will hold late September, where new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will be launched. It was  preceded by the Tenth Meeting of Women Speakers of Parliament, which  held in August.

    Speaker Dogara didn’t confine himself to the historic UN General Assembly hall where plenaries took place but went steps further during breaks and sometimes, even late nights, to hold bilateral meetings with Speakers of parliaments of different countries from Africa, Asia and Europe. The first of such legislative diplomacy held on the eve of the conference was the Speaker’s bilateral meeting with delegation of Chinese MPs led by Chairman of the National People‘s Congress (NPC) Mr. Zhang Dejian. There he  used the opportunity to solicit for China‘s support for Nigeria‘s bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

    “We appreciate China for its effort to democratise the institution of the United Nations and appeal that you support our bid to occupy a permanenr seat on the security council,” Dogara told the Chinese team. In response, Mr. Dejiang agreed that there must be a better representation of developing countries in the United Nations and that Nigeria, being an influential country in the world, deserved a seat on the council. “We support the legitimate demands of Nigeria for a permanent seat on the UN security council, together with the reform of the UN,” Mr. Dejiang said.

    Also,  agreements were reached on the establishment of a parliamentary friendship group between Nigeria‘s National Assembly and the NPC of China.

    The Speaker had also appealed to the Chinese government to review its five percent tax on Nigeria‘s agricultural exports and he agreed to take up the issue with the their authorities back home, in addition to another promise to attract Chinese investors to Nigeria. They also pledged to support Nigeria in the fight against terrorism, describing it as a global scourge.

    In another bilateral parley, Dogara secured a commitment from the state of Israel in Nigeria‘s recent efforts to rout Boko Haram insurgents before the end of the year. Speaker of Isreal‘s parliament Knesset, Mr. Yuli-Yoel Edelstein, gave the nod when he met with Hon. Dogara who had solicited for Israel‘s support to Nigeria to help end Boko Haram and other security challenges, in addition to attracting investment in agriculture, solid minerals, energy and tourism.

    Edelstein said while responding to the demand made by Rt Hon. Dogara that Israel will continue to support Nigeria‘s fight against terrorism as according to him, there must be global action against terrorists. “We must unite to fight terrorism and not to divide them into their terrorist and our terrorists. Israel is committed to fight against terrorism because terrorists use divisions between nations and even democratic countries,” he stated.

    Dogara had told Mr. Edelstein that  the international community must  find a global solution to terrorism as no nation is insulated from its scourge. He said Nigeria‘s North East region has been under Boko Haram terrorists and the scale of devastation was unimaginable while further urging the Israelis to invest in Nigeria‘s agricultural sector which has the potential to create wealth and generate employment for millions of jobless youths.

    He noted that the Israelis were able to transform a desert nation into one of the most agriculturally viable nation on earth and that  other sectors such as solid minerals, energy and tourism have a lot of potentials waiting to be tapped.

    The Speaker also solicited for technical support from the Isreali parliament Knesset to enable the National Assembly establish its own security outfit by equiping the Sergeants-At-Arms. He said plans are underway to transform the Sergeant-At-Arms into a modern and sophisticated security outfit as it obtainable in other parliaments even as he disclosed that Nigeria-Israel parliamentary friendship group will soon be established.

    Coming closer to home, Dogara held bilateral meetings with president of Niger‘s National Assembly, Mr. Amadou Salifou. Part of the outcome of the talks is the reiteration of the Nigeriens of their commitment to supporting Nigeria‘s fight against Boko Haram, with Mr. Salifou  saying Nigeriens will continue to support the big brother (Nigeria) until Boko Haram is extinct. He said Niger had already won the war on its own side of the border.

    Similarly, Speaker Dogara also met with his Senegalese counterpart , Moustapha Niasse, who delightfully informed him that he is half-Nigerian as some of his cousins are from Sokoto State. Dogara lauded  Senegal‘s smooth democratic transition in recents years as an example for other African countries to emulate.

    In the same vein, talks were held with the Second Deputy Speaker of Burundi‘s National Assembly, Hon. Nduwimana Edouad,  where Dogara called on African nations to look inward and find solutions to their problems instead of relying on foreign nations. He said Nigeria must, as a matter of necessity, maintain an afrocentric foreign policy because of its commitment to peace and stability in Africa.

    In yet another engagement, Speaker Dogara held talks with Speaker of the Serbian parliament, Ms Maja Gojkovic, where he assured her that Nigeria will neither forget nor abandon its old friends who offered helping hands during the civil war. An agreement was also reached to also establish a parliamentary friendship group between the two nations.

    At the end of the conference,  the Speaker spoke passionately about President Muhammadu Buhari‘s fight against corruption and pleaded with the international community, especially Western nations, to help return billions of dollars looted from Nigeria. He said Western nations have both moral and legal obligation to Nigeria and other African countries to ensure that monies stolen from Africa are repatriated. According to him, the return of such funds will help create jobs for millions of jobless young men and women and ultimately reduce to the barest minimum, the surge of migrants to Europe from Africa.

    Before leaving America, the Speaker took a trip to Washington DC where he met with some key members of Congress and other stakeholders. During the visit, he asked them to pressurise their governments to make the necessary military hardware available to Nigeria in order to rout out Boko Haram terrorists among other issues discussed.

     

    • Hassan is Special Adviser on Media and Public Affairs to Speaker Dogara
  • Diluting diplomacy?

    Diluting diplomacy?

    •Cost considerations should not hamper foreign policy objectives

    President Muhammadu Buhari’s recent announcement that his administration would undertake a comprehensive review of Nigeria’s missions overseas is a logical response to shortfalls in funding and a need to properly focus the nation’s diplomatic activities.  But it should not be achieved at the expense of broader foreign policy goals.

    The president’s concerns are clearly justified. The country is said to have 119 missions scattered across the world on which it will spend N34 billion this year. Some of these missions are located in relatively obscure nations with little social, political or economic relevance to Nigeria. Others have only a handful of Nigerian citizens.

    In spite of the huge sums expended on their maintenance and upkeep, many of the country’s missions are disgracefully dilapidated eyesores, which do nothing to enhance national prestige. And as is all too common with most things Nigerian, they have become conduits of corruption. The 2014 national budget contained N872.46 million for fuelling and maintaining generators in foreign missions, including those in places like New York and Washington. The budget also included N30 million for the fuelling of non-existent boats and aircraft purportedly owned by the country’s missions abroad.

    However, it is also clear that Nigeria’s place in the world is such that it cannot but have a robust diplomatic footprint upon the global stage. As the largest black nation in the world, the country is burdened with the historic mission of elevating the black race, consistently arguing its cause and resolutely preventing its continued degradation. That was why the country took up the anti-apartheid cause as its own, even if it was not directly affected by that odious system of institutionalised racial discrimination.

    Such ambitious foreign policy goals cannot be achieved on a shoestring budget. Diplomacy is particularly expensive because its successful prosecution assumes an ability to be present when important decisions are made, a refusal to abandon one’s friends and allies, and a preparedness to put one’s money where one’s convictions are.

    What that means for Nigeria is the vigorous pursuance of its diplomatic interests in three main spheres: the West African sub-region, where it is by far the dominant power; the African continent, where it is a key guarantor of political stability and economic growth; and nations in Europe and the Americas where it has a large and growing diaspora.

    It would be incorrect to visualize diplomatic involvement in these areas merely as egoistic grandstanding without substantial returns: remittances from the Nigerian diaspora totalled US $ 63.17 billion between 2011 and June 2014. In 2013 alone, it was an estimated $20.77 billion. Indeed, Nigeria is in the happy position of enjoying a near-perfect symbiosis between its geopolitical and altruistic interests.

    In the light of this, the Federal Government should seek to balance its cost-cutting tactics with the enhancement of the country’s foreign policy strategies. The anti-corruption war must be taken to foreign missions with a vengeance; the sundry scams and extortions many of them have become notorious for must be wiped out. Greater attention should be paid to the shenanigans of embassy officials who use their positions to perpetrate fraudulent practices. Ludicrous items must expunged from the foreign affairs budget.

    But more effort should also be devoted to ensuring that the country has an effective presence in the places it needs to be active in. That would mean the creation of more consulates in countries with large numbers of Nigerian citizens, as well as the rehabilitation of foreign missions in order to make them more effective proponents of trade, investment and cultural exchange.

    Successful foreign policy is like delicious stew: it is not cheap, but its rewards are truly satisfying.

     

  • ‘Effective communication key to diplomacy’

    ‘Effective communication key to diplomacy’

    The Department of Mass Communication of the Nnamdi Azikiwe University (UNIZIK) in Awka the Anambra State capital, has held its maiden lecture on how to promote diplomacy using communication as tool. FRANKLIN ONWUBIKO (400-Level Mass Communication) reports.

    Communication has been described as an indispensable tool in promoting diplomacy and conflict resolution. This was the thrust of arguments at the maiden lecture of the Department of Mass Communication of the Nnamdi Azikiwe University (UNIZIK) in Akwa, the Anambra State capital.

    The lecture, held at the Stella Okunna Mass Communication Auditorium, was the first in the series, which would afford staff and students to discuss trendy issues in the practice of communication.

    The guest lecturer and the Secretary to the Anambra State Government, Oseloka Obaze, delivered a paper titled: Grasping the essence of international communication and diplomacy.

    The essence of diplomacy, Obaze said, is to foster mutual understanding among countries and to protect national interests and avert needless conflicts. He said the success of diplomacy depended on the forthrightness and clarity of communication with which it was carried out.

    According to Obaze, who has been to 63 countries, communication could make or mar countries’ relations. “How you communicate, what you say, write, dress, your eye contacts, sitting posture, body language, attitude and the personalities involved count a lot in international diplomacy,” he said.

    Since communication and diplomacy go hand-in-hand, Obaze said it was important that countries select their diplomats meticulously. He proposed what he called “KISS Model” as the best form of communication, which he analysed as “Keeping It Straight and Simple”.

    Obaze said when communication messages were kept straight and simple, it would reduce chances of ambiguity on the part of the receiver of the intended message. He frowned at students’ attitude of abbreviating text messages in communicating, especially on the social media. He said such communication could make messages to be meaningless because social media users commit syntax and grammatical blunders, which could alter the message being conveyed.

    Earlier, the Head of the Department of Mass Communication and coordinator of the lecture, Prof Stella Okunna, described the series as meeting of the towns and gowns, where undergraduates and post-graduate students meet with experienced communicators to learn latest techniques and practice.

    Prof Okunna said it was a privilege for the participants to listen to the guest speaker, who she described as experienced government official.

    In her remark, Deputy Director of UNIZIK 94.1FM, Dr Ifeoma Dunu, described the lecture as enriching and a mind-opener for effective communication. According to her, the lecture was geared towards making students to be exposed and enlightened on trendy issues in communication practice.

    In an interview, president of the Association of Mass Communication Students (ASOMACS), McDonald Ifeme, who spoke on behalf of the students, described the lecture as apt and incisive, adding that the guest lecturer analysed the intricacies of international communication and diplomacy. He praised the head of the department and orgnisers of the lecture, which he said would impart knowledge on students. He urged continuation and sustenance of the series.

    Present at the event included Prof Umaru Pate of Department of Mass Communication of the Bayero University, Kano (BUK), the ASOMACS Staff Adviser, Dr Chinwe Uzochukwu, staff and students of the department.

  • Congress should let diplomacy on Iran nuclear program play out

    Congress should let diplomacy on Iran nuclear program play out

    NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS with Iran are proving as difficult as skeptics expected following a preliminary agreement in November. Though President Obama announced the accord in a national television address on Nov. 23, only this weekend was a plan for implementing the interim agreement finalized. In the meantime, Iranian negotiators staged one walkout, continued to stonewall a U.N. investigation of past work on nuclear weapons and polished designs for new centrifuges. Israeli warnings that the deal could cause remaining sanctions to crumble look worryingly prescient: Russia is reportedly negotiating a major oil-for-goods deal, and French business owners are booking trips to Tehran.

    Implementation of the interim agreement should stop Iran’s highest-level enrichment of uranium, reduce its stockpiles of that material by half and prevent the installation of additional centrifuges and the start up of a new reactor capable of producing plutonium. However, as Iran’s chief negotiator put it Monday in describing the terms of the deal, “No facility will be closed; enrichment will continue, and qualitative and nuclear research will be expanded.” Even if the sanctions regime remains intact, Iran will benefit from a relaxation the Obama administration says is worth about $7 billion.

    Pursuing negotiations on these terms, though risky, is preferable to unrestrained Iranian enrichment and a slide toward war. Still, it’s understandable that many in Congress are worried that Iran will escape from the economic corner that sanctions have put it in without meaningfully reducing its nuclear infrastructure or its potential to build a bomb. Those concerns have prompted 59 senators, including 16 Democrats, to back a bill sponsored by Sen. Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Republican Mark Kirk (Ill.) that would mandate sweeping new sanctions if no final accord is reached or if Tehran violates the existing deal.

    In a commentary in The Post last week, Mr. Menendez called his bill a “diplomatic insurance policy” that by “spell[ing] out precisely the consequences should agreement fail” should “motivate Iranians to negotiate honestly and seriously.” There is an obvious logic to this: After all, it was tough sanctions passed by Congress in 2010, resisted by the Obama administration, that helped bring about Iran’s recent change of government and its leaders’ willingness to negotiate.

    The White House’s strident opposition to the bill continues a distasteful practice — also seen in the debate over Syria — of accusing all who disagree with its strategy of favoring war. That’s an insult to serious legislators such as Sens. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), both of whom reasonably seek to hedge against failed negotiations.

    Nevertheless, the senators already may have accomplished the maximum good by proposing the bill, thereby raising the pressure on the administration and Iran. Passing it — which probably would require overcoming a presidential veto — would be problematic. Among other things, the bill inserts Congress into the negotiations by spelling out provisions that must be included in a final deal and linking the new sanctions to terrorism, Iran’s missile tests and a nuclear settlement.

    This diplomacy has been President Obama’s initiative, and he should be allowed to carry it through to success or failure. Congress then would have a mandate to act, either in lifting sanctions or in redoubling them.

    – Washington Post

     

  • Foreign Intervention, Diplomacy and Stability

    Foreign Intervention, Diplomacy and Stability

    The  decision by French President Francois Hollande  to send French troops to Mali to fight rebels who have seized  the northern part of that nation was predicated  on the need to save a friendly nation’s sovereignty and preserve regional stability according to French diplomatic sources.

    However, foreign intervention generally has always been condemned in diplomatic circles because it violates the territorial integrity  and sovereignty of  the victim nation  as more often than not such incursion or intervention  is  military and without the invitation or the approbation of such a nation. Indeed foreign intervention is an option of the last resort in the comity of nations nowadays  as the  Syrian   fighters trying ardently to remove the blood thirsty regime of Bashar Assad  in Syria have found to  their cost  as they have asked for the intervention of the international community  to help overthrow  the tyrant in Damascus to no avail.

    Yet  many Africans  undoubtedly breathed a sigh of relief when the news broke early this week that France the former colonial power  in Mali has sent troops to that country to drive out the rebels that have seized the northern part of the country  for some time now. While one could scoff that France,  like the proverbial dog has returned to its vomit,  which nominally is a repugnant act, there is no denying  that this intervention has boosted the prestige of France   as a decisive and humane member of the international community and the reasons are not far fetched.

    Firstly, procrastination, it  has been stressed   many times,  is  the thief of time but it has  unfortunately  also been the   unnamed Mali Policy of ECOWAS,  the sub regional group that was given approval by the UN Security Council to secure Mali and drive  out  the invaders of that nation.

    ECOWAS had announced it was raising an army of 6000 troops with Nigeria expected to contribute  600  but till the French landed in Bamako  this week  there was no ECOWAS troops on ground in Mali. Indeed it was when the internet showed pictures of French tanks said to be about 50 moving into the interior  of Mali  that Nigeria announced that it was sending 200 troops and Chad also said it would send 2000.

    The French had sent 800 men initially and expect that to be beefed up to 2,500 eventually. It is apparent that France is more concerned and committed to the salvation and sovereignty  of its former colony, Mali, than its neighbors and fellow members in ECOWAS with which it shares propinquity and contiguity. Which throws up the inevitable question as to which is more important in diplomacy  in African nations  – the umbilical cord  of colonialism  or the regional bond of diplomacy and international relations. Given the way the Malians cheered the French Army on the streets of Mali as they moved north to oust the invaders of Mali, there is no doubt that colonial ties have ousted the weak kneed, dithering  diplomacy of ECOWAS nations as the savior of Mali,s  soverengty and  integrity  in its hour of need. This is not to say that the French by merely landing have routed the invaders and  accomplished their mission in Mali. We  are just saying that France’s decisiveness has given hope not only to Malians but also other West Africans who can see the danger of not containing the invasion of Mali and the consequences of that for the ECOWAS sub region.

    The danger lies in the fact that the north of W Africa which is called the Sahel has become a danger to ECOWAS members and what happened in Mali could happen in any of them. Nigeria already has a foretaste in the menace of Boko Haram which wants to introduce Sharia law and has been bombing Churches in the  north for some time. In Mali’s case there are three types of insurgents  in the north namely the Malian Tuaregs who want to secede , a  branch   of Al Qada in the Magreb  and a body that aims to unite jihadists in West Africa. These are the groups that have invaded the northern part of Mali after driving the Malian army sent to contain them out of the north and back to Bamako, Mali’s capital .Obviously the French president has seen the danger that ECOWAS leaders are shortsighted about and France has moved to nip in the bud a contagion that it can not afford to   allow   to destroy its prized assets and connections  not only in Francophone Africa   but  in the entire W/Africa sub region.

    Again,  one can accuse the French of being led  to  act by business I and commercial interests or  scold  their president   for  using a  foreign adventure to divert attention away from growing disaffection over his economic policies at home in France especially the 75% tax  on 1m euros that is driving   young and bright entrepreneurs away from France.

    Yet  one must admit that France has always had a soft spot for  its colonial subjects for whom it formulated a policy  of Assimilation  aimed at turning them into black Frenchme. Whether that has made the subjects incapable of ruling themselves after independence and without France is another matter.

    This is because the French  have  had to intervene earlier in Ivory Coast to drive out Lawrent Gbagbo and install Alasane Ouattara, the present president of Ivory Coast and Chairman of ECOWAS after a bitterly contested presidential election result

    Indeed, in the recent past,  after the  independence of African nations  especially the Francophone ones in the  fifties and sixties,  the French always provided troops to keep the status quo and prevent coups in Francophone states. It was the advent and popularity of elective democracy  later that  made  France to withdraw into its shell and look the other way while military coups toppled its favorite allies  in some Francophone   African states.

    Now France is back with aplomb to rescue  a former colony and  you want to wander whether Mali’s independence  on June 20  1960 so many years ago was worth the celebrations and   gaiety that accompanied it; given the fact  that France in  2013  is literally   still   helping Mali to wipe its bloodied nose arising from the blatant   and   easy assault  on its territorial integrity  and sovereignty by roaming desert warriors.

    Lastly, one cannot comment on this French invasion of Mali without making some observations on the attack on the BP oil facility in Algeria and the holding of many hostages from European nations. It  has been widely reported   that the  attackers have asked  that part of the conditions for their release is that France should stop its invasion of Mali.

    It  was  however  nice to know that the Algerian authorities   have not only  vowed not to negotiate   with the terrorists but the Algerian  military  have surrounded the facility, which from its picture on internet is an isolated desert facility  whose  location  should tell a story of its own.

    This is because Northern Mali is  in a similar location   or environment  to the BP facility in Algeria. It  follows therefore that ECOWAS  should send troops prepared and trained for desert warfare  or train them for such, before sending them to Mali. We  have read that the French troops in Mali are from an elite brigade well versed in desert warfare  and are on familiar grounds in Mali as such.

    As  events unfold however   is difficult to resist the temptation to give a name to this French intervention in  Mali and its Algerian connection. Since the first  Gulf War   over the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was called Desert Storm  one needs a more imaginative and different name.

    I call the French intervention in Mali  the  ‘Sahel Assault ‘as  a mark  of respect for the foresight and precocity of the French President Francois Hollande, in showing decisively that a stitch in time saves nine in terms of regional security; and that in diplomacy, intervention can be justified pragmatically on the grounds  of regional stability  and   the protection of territorial integrity.