Tag: Donald Trump

  • Trump to severe business ties, focus on presidency

    Trump to severe business ties, focus on presidency

    U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has said that he would separate himself from his business and focus on governance when sworn-in as President.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Trump disclosed this in a series of tweet, amid rising concerns on conflicts between his business and the presidency.

    “I will be holding a major news conference in New York City with my children on Dec. 15 to discuss the fact that I will be leaving my great business in total.

    “This is in order to fully focus on running the country in order to ‘Make America Great Again!

    “While I am not mandated to do this under the law, I feel it is visually important, as President, to in no way have a conflict of interest with my various businesses.

    “Hence, legal documents are being crafted which take me completely out of business operations.

    “The Presidency is a far more important task!” the president-elect said.

    NAN reports that Trump reportedly has interests in no fewer than 500 businesses currently. (NAN)

  • Votes recount: Trump accuses Clinton of reneging on concession speech

    U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has accused former Democratic presidential rival Hillary Clinton of reneging on her concession speech certifying the results of the Nov. 28 presidential election.

    Trump, in a series of tweets on the recount, condemned Clinton’s support to the votes recount efforts by Green Party nominee Jill Stein for Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Stein has raised over six million dollars crowd-funding in hopes of securing a recount in the three key states won by Trump in the Nov. 8 presidential poll.

    “The Democrats, when they incorrectly thought they were going to win, asked that the election night tabulation be accepted. Not so anymore!

    “Hillary Clinton conceded the election when she called me just prior to the victory speech and after the results were in,” he said.

    Trump recalled Clinton’s reaction when he hinted at the third and last presidential debate that he would keep Americans guessing over whether he would accept the election outcome.

    “That is horrifying. That is not the way our democracy works; been around for 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections.

    “We’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them, and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on during a general election.

    “I, for one, am appalled that somebody that is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position,” he quoted Clinton as saying.

    Trump said Clinton also, at a campaign rally, slammed him, saying: “He said something truly horrifying … he refused to say that he would respect the results of this election.

    “That is a direct threat to our democracy”.

    The president-elect further quoted Clinton’s concession speech where she urged her supporters to accept the result of the election.

    “We have to accept the results and look to the future, Donald Trump is going to be our President.

    “We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead,” he quoted Clinton as saying.

    Trump said in the votes recount efforts in the three states, money and time would be wasted.

    “So much time and money will be spent – same result! Sad”.

    Trump, who trails Clinton with about two million popular votes, claimed that he won the popular votes, alleging that millions of people voted illegally.

    “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

    “It would have been much easier for me to win the so-called popular vote than the Electoral College in that I would only campaign in three or four states instead of the 15 states that I visited.

    “I would have won even more easily and convincingly (but smaller states are forgotten)!”

    He also alleged voter fraud in favour of Clinton in other states, which were not reported.

    “Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California – so why isn’t the media reporting on this? Serious bias – big problem!”

  • Nigerians need not panic over Donald Trump’s presidency — Ministry

    Nigerians need not panic over Donald Trump’s presidency — Ministry

    The new Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Amb. Sola Enikanolaiye, on Sunday assured Nigerians that Donald Trump’s presidency would not disrupt the U. S. and Nigeria’s long-existing relations.

    Enikanolaiye told the News Agency of Nigeria(NAN) in Lagos that there was no need for Nigerians to be agitated over Trump’s presidency.

    The permanent secretary expressed optimism that the long existing relations between Nigeria and the U. S. would be strengthened in the years ahead.

    “We do not think that Donald Trump’s presidency would lead to a disruption in the relations between Nigeria and the United States.

    “The United States and Nigeria have had excellent relations since the attainment of Nigeria’s Independence.

    “And under every government in the U. S, whether Republican or Democrat, we have always had cordial relations.

    “So, we do not think that this already existing relations between Nigeria and the U. S. would necessarily be altered under the U. S. President-Elect Donald Trump,’’ he said.

    The permanent secretary, however, said that Nigeria would not be naive to be caught unawares by any future eventualities.

    Enikanolaiye said that ahead of eventualities, his Ministry would on Monday, Nov. 28, hold a special retreat in Abuja, to deliberate on some of Trump’s rhetorics during his campaigns.

    “Given the President-elect’s rhetorics during his campaigns and election, we would not be naive not to prepare for these eventualities.

    “We have, therefore, decided to organise a special retreat on Monday, Nov. 28, in Abuja.

    “This retreat would give major foreign policy stakeholders the opportunity to deliberate on what Trump has said and advise government on how best to respond to this,’’ he said.

    Enikanolaiye recalled that Nigeria had excellent relations with the administration of the outgoing president Barack Obama in different areas, including economic ties, deepening of Nigeria’s democracy and other areas.

  • U.S to quit Pacific trade deal

    President-elect Donald Trump said the United States will quit the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal on his first day in the White House.

    He made the announcement in a video message outlining what he intends to do first when he takes office in January.

    The TPP trade deal was signed by 12 countries which together cover 40 per cent of the world’s economy, the BBC reports.

    Mr. Trump also pledged to reduce “job-killing restrictions” on coal production and stop visa abuses.

    But there was no mention of repealing Obamacare or building a wall on the southern border with Mexico, two actions he said during the campaign he would do as soon as he assumed power.

    His surprise election win two weeks ago has sparked protests across the U.S.

    The massive trade deal was agreed in 2015 by nations including the U.S, Japan, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Mexico, but is not yet ratified by the individual countries.

    Its aim was to deepen economic ties and boost growth, including by reducing tariffs.

    There were also measures to enforce labour and environmental standards, copyrights, patents and other legal protections.

  • Trump settles university fraud case

    United States President-elect, Donald Trump, has settled three Trump University lawsuits for $25m (£20m), the New York Attorney General has said.

    Mr. Trump was being sued by former students who paid $35,000 (£28,000) for real estate “secrets” from his “hand-picked” instructors, the BBC reports.

    The President-elect had repeatedly said he would not settle the class-action lawsuits.

    Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said the settlement was a “stunning reversal” by Mr. Trump and a “major victory” for victims.

    But Mr. Trump’s lawyer Daniel Petrocelli said his client was pleased with the outcome, saying “he was willing to sacrifice his personal interests, put this behind him, and move forward.”

    The businessman faced three fraud lawsuits – which alleged the school misled students and failed to deliver on its promises – in California and New York.

    A trial in one of the cases had been due to begin in San Diego on November 28, although Mr. Trump’s lawyers had attempted to delay the case.

  • From Ross Perot to Donald Trump

    It has been quite intriguing, spell binding and eerily entertaining. Before our very eyes has unfolded over the last year and a half the spectacle of an underdeveloped political culture normally associated with third world societies – adversarial, fractious and intolerant – manifesting within the context of the supposedly advanced institutional structures and processes of the world’s foremost liberal democracy. America’s 2016 presidential campaigns and elections have provided riveting theatre. Ironically, America’s leaders have often patronizingly admonished African countries to subordinate their ‘strong men’ to the constraining strictures of strong institutions. Yet, we are all witnesses to how Donald Trump, an amoral, unscrupulous and opportunistic beneficiary of the American system has easily brushed aside restraining institutional bottlenecks to achieve political ascendancy.

    Against all odds, Trump seized control of the Republican Party base, tamed and paralyzed the resistant GOP establishment, trounced 16 contenders at the primaries and emerged the party’s presidential candidate. In the general election of November 8, he triumphed over the Democratic Party’s Hillary Clinton, who apparently clinched her party’s ticket only because the Democratic Establishment skewed the structure in her favour over a Senator Bernie Sanders who connected better with the party base and a sizable number of independent voters. Hillary and the Democrats have paid dearly for this.

    Today, President-elect Trump is a sophisticated variant of the ‘strong man’ at the apex of a Republican Party that not only controls the executive but also wields majorities in both houses of Congress and is set to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court that will also tilt the third arm of the federal government philosophically and ideologically in its favour – at least for now. It is a decisive electoral sweep and it is of no moment that Hillary had an edge in the popular vote. For, had it been vice versa and the Electoral College votes had favoured the Democrats, she would not have spurned the victory.

    At play in the presidential election, was the perennial contradiction between a political system, liberal democracy, that equalizes electoral power among the citizenry irrespective of social class, and an economic system, neo-liberal capitalism, that fosters continuously increasing inequalities in economic power between a tiny minority and an ever escalating number of impoverished citizens. Capitalism has demonstrated unrivalled capacity to harness and expand society’s productive and wealth creation potentials through unceasing improvements in the means and mode of production. But also intrinsic to the system is the subordination of the needs and interests of the society to the logic of corporate profit.

    Thus, in his luminous classic ‘A People’s History of the United States’, the late leftist historian, Professor Howard Zinn, notes that the two dominant parties were incapable of dealing with the ‘fundamental economic illness’ of the country. In his words, “That illness came from a fact which was almost never talked about: that the United States was a class society in which 1 percent of the population owned 33 percent of the wealth, with an underclass of 30 to 40 million people living in poverty…While the Democrats would give more help to the poor than the Republicans, they were not capable (indeed not really desirous) of seriously tampering with an economic system in which corporate profit comes before human need”.

    The rate of inequality in the capitalist liberal democracies of the west was accelerated with the emergence of the ultra conservative Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in America and Britain, respectively, in the early eighties. Their neo-liberal revolution set about to aggressively dismantle the extensive welfare state system that, for three decades since the end of the second world war, had guaranteed unemployment benefits, old age pensions, subsidized public housing, health care and education among other social security programmes for the poor and vulnerable. They rolled back the frontiers of the state, removed regulatory controls from the market while cutting taxes both for corporate bodies and the very wealthy in an ultimately illusory bid to boost investment as well as enhance wealth production and job creation through ‘trickle down economics’.

    Exporting their reactionary economic doctrines through the gospel of globalization, the conservative western governments imposed stringent Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) on less developed countries forcing the latter to cut or remove subsidies on critical social services, devalue their currencies, privatize public enterprises across the board, downsize the public sector work force, liberalize their markets, deregulate their economies and create favourable climates for profitable foreign investment and easy repatriation of capital by foreign investors. Seizing the opportunity to enhance their profit levels, manufacturing companies in America and other western countries, shut down operations in their home countries and set up shop abroad where they could have access to cheaper labour and other conditions for higher profitability thus compounding the problem of unemployment in their own countries.

    On the other hand, the destabilizing effects of SAP created large scale economic collapse, social dislocation and political instability in poor countries that increased the pressure for migration of large segments of their populations to the west. The availability of a large influx of immigrants in the west offered employers there further opportunity to hire cheap labour and increase their profit margins at the detriment of understandably disaffected citizens. It is within the context of this kind of vicious cycle that the success of Trump’s opportunistic demagoguery can be situated.

    Is it right, then, to perceive Trump’s emergence as the 45th President of the United States a function of white racist hegemonic conspiracy? I don’t think so even if Trump preyed on the economic vulnerabilities and psychological insecurities of millions of white voters to pave his way to power. After all, white voters were a part of the ‘rainbow coalition’ that ensured Obama’s electoral victories for two terms and Obama still had high approval ratings right up to the elections. Rather, the undoing of the democrats in my view, and perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, was that in Hillary Clinton they had a candidate too closely linked with a discredited establishment thus rendering Trump, for a slightly higher majority, a  more electable ‘outsider’ despite his despicable flaws.

    Largely because of what may be perceived as the overtly doctrinaire character of its Marxist analysis, it is not likely that many Nigerians will be inclined to read the 1999 book by Jack Barnes, titled ‘Capitalism’s World Disorder’. Barnes was national secretary of America’s Socialist Workers Party for over two decades and his analysis of American politics offers interesting insights that one may not get from mainstream media and analysts. As far back as November 9, 1992, Barnes had vividly presaged the imminent rise to political eminence of a rabid demagogue in America. For instance, in analyzing the 1992 presidential elections, he argues that the most significant feature of that contest was not the victory of Bill Clinton over George Bush, but the performance of Ross Perot, who as an independent candidate won 19% of the vote thus proving virtually all opinion polls wrong. No poll had given Perot a chance of winning more than 4 to 5 percent of the vote.

    Barnes predicted that with the irreversible worsening of capitalism’s global social and economic crisis, demagogic politicians like Perot would in future become more popularly acceptable in America because they offered “explanations and proposals radically different from those of politicians whom growing numbers consider incurably corrupt, ineffective and self-serving”. As Barnes put it, “Perot’s radical, demagogic appeal gained a hearing from millions this year, as the election results show. I repeat: the vote for Perot is the important outcome of the 1992 elections, and it is a warning the workers movement ignores at its own peril”.

     In many ways, Perot was a forerunner of Trump. He projected himself as a self made businessman who knew how to cut through Washington’s red tape. He said he was personally financing his campaign with his own funds, not that of lobbyists.  While noting that the rise of demagoguery was not new in American politics, Barnes writes that what was new in the performance of Perot in 1992 was that “a candidate running outside the two bourgeois parties, with the kind of radical demagogy he spouted got close to 20 percent of the vote in the United States of America in the closing of the twentieth century. To drive home how new it is, we should just ask ourselves the question: “What would I have thought if I had turned on the television ten years ago or even five, and heard a major candidate for president saying these things?” Well, 17 years after Jack Barnes wrote these words a demagogue preaching Perot’s type of message actually became a major candidate for president and is today President-elect of the United States!

    Part of the responsibility for the ascendancy of the Trump brand rests on Bill Clinton. For, as Howard Zinn writes, “Despite his lofty rhetoric, Clinton showed, in his eight years in office, that he, like other politicians, was more interested in electoral victory than in social change. To get more votes, he decided he must move the party closer to the centre. This meant doing just enough for blacks, women, and working people to keep their support, while trying to win over white conservative voters with a programme of toughness on crime, stern measures on welfare, and a strong military”.

    For example, Zinn notes that “Under Reagan, the government had reduced the number of housing units getting subsidies from 400,000 to 40,000…in the Clinton administration, the program ended altogether”.  Obama’s no less self-immolating ideological centrism in the last eight years was only marginally better than Bill Clinton’s hence Trump’s triumph. If the Democratic Party does not quickly reinvent itself, a far more pugnacious, rambunctious and divisive character than Trump may very soon have America’s nuclear buttons at his fingertips.

  • Japan’s PM Abe meets Trump, says confident can build trust

    Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has described Donald Trump as a “trustworthy leader”.

    He said this after meeting the U.S. President-elect to get clarity on statements Trump had made while campaigning that had caused concern about the alliance.

    Abe, speaking after the hastily arranged 90-minute meeting at Trump Tower in Manhattan, told newsmen in New York that the talks made him feel sure that they could build a relationship of trust.

    However, the prime minister would not disclose specifics because the conversation was unofficial.

    Trump, in a brief entry on his Facebook page accompanied by a photo of the two men, said: “It was a pleasure to have Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stops by my home and begin a great friendship.’’

    Japan’s leadership has been nervous about the future of an alliance that is core to Tokyo’s diplomacy and security.

    Trump had fanned worries in Tokyo and beyond with comments on the possibility of Japan acquiring nuclear arms.

    He demanded that allies pay more for keeping U.S. forces on their soil or face their possible withdrawal, and his opposition to the U.S.-led 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade pact.

    Meanwhile, Abe had worked closely with President Barack Obama on the TPP trade pact, which was part of Obama’s push to counter the rising strength of China and a pillar of Abe’s economic reforms.

    “Alliances cannot function without trust. I am now confident that President-elect Trump is a trustworthy leader,’’ Abe said, describing the talks as candid and held in a warm atmosphere.

    Japanese officials said that Abe gave Trump a golf driver and received golf-wear in return.

     

  • Trump: Nigeria may get less grants, aids from US – MAN

    Trump: Nigeria may get less grants, aids from US – MAN

    The President, Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN), Dr Frank Jacobs, says the United States of America may reduce support in terms of grants and aids to Nigeria considering the conservative orientation of the Republicans.

    Jacobs told on Wednesday in Abuja that it was rather early to predict what the economic outlook of Nigeria would be in respect to the U.S. election.

    “It is likely that the country may receive less material, moral and political support.

    “Policies and programmes of the Republican government might also not be favourable to some Nigerian illegal immigrants, based on the campaign speeches of the President-elect, “Jacobs said.

    Jacobs said that such immigrants, especially non-professionals, would be a burden on the country when they return.

    According to him, Nigerians have contributed to the building of the American economy over the years, adding that Nigerian professionals had been making waves in the US.

    “If such professionals return to Nigeria, they will help to develop the country in various professions.

    “Their activities may also help to salvage the nation from the current recession and build a virile economy, ” he added.

    During his campaign, U.S. President-elect, Donald Trump, had taken a swipe at political leaders in Africa on account of the level of corruption and economic backwardness on the continent.

    Trump said African leaders were bad examples for leadership and recommended that the continent be re-colonised.

    “In my opinion, most of these African countries ought to be recolonised for another 100 years, because they know nothing about leadership and self-governance.

  • Donald Trump: The triumph and the angst

    Donald Trump: The triumph and the angst

    Benumbed.  Blitzed. Bewildered.  Confounded. Devastated.  Discomb-obulated.  Disconcerted.  Disconsolate.  Discomposed.  Dismayed.  Disoriented.  Distraught. Dumbfounded.  Outraged. Nonplussed. Poleaxed.  Shellacked. Shell-shocked.

    No, I have not been looking up the Thesaurus nor playing word games. I had asked some friends, expatriate Nigerians and Nigerians “on ground,” to indicate in just one word how they felt when it dawned on them that Donald Trump was about to be proclaimed president-elect of the United States.

    The foregoing is a selection from their responses.

    Full marks, again, to the percipient lady of the house.  She had seen it coming, right from the   debates that preceded the Iowa caucus.  As they unfolded, the primaries merely confirmed her premonition.  In vain did I point out that bluster and humbug and vulgar abuse might move a lot  of people to line up behind Trump, but would not be enough propel him to the nomination.

    By mid-May, Trump had won more than enough delegates to clinch the GOP ticket.

    Okay, winning the nomination is one thing.  Winning the presidential election is a different game altogether, whether Trump’s opponent was Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.  Trump had come to the end of the road, I assured the lady of the house.

    But the surging crowds at Trump’s rallies, the enthusiasm with which they embraced even his most outlandish pronouncements  as if they flowed from Holy Writ, the way he worked them up to denounce with greater vehemence every person, idea, programme, policy or institution he denounced, convinced her that she had it right.

    Just wait until they have their first televised debate, I told the lady of the house.  Trump will be shown up as the empty suit he is, totally unfit to be president of the United States.  And that  was precisely what happened in their first one-on-one debate. In manner, speech, comportment and deportment, he looked anything but presidential.

    After that debate, Clinton overtook Trump for the first time in virtually every poll.

    “I told you so,” I teased the lady of the house, my mojo restored.   “In a one-on-one debate, Hillary Clinton will put Trump in his place any day.”

    Still, she was not impressed.  Her instincts told her Trump would prevail, even without those treacherous emails that dogged Hillary Clinton’s every step.  At that point, I thought I should invoke the authority of my professional calling to settle the matter.

    “Political journalism is my line of business,” I told the lady of the house portentously, as if she did not know it or had forgotten.  “If Trump wins, never trust me again.”

    It was when Trump won that I realized I had made an exorbitant wager, rendered all the more reckless by its open-endedness.    “Never trust me again,” period, I had said, instead of “Never trust my political judgment again.”

    I hope I can still walk it back.

    On the eve of the election, the most credible polls had Trump trailing by several percentage points. Nate Silver, the statistics wizard who had predicted with stunning precision Barack Obama’s victories in the 2008 and 2012 elections and the attendant distribution of seats in the United States Congress, scored the odds 76/33 Clinton. 

    The New York Times revised downwards its  forecast from 91/9 Clinton to 81/17 Clinton after FBI director James Comey mischievously reopened investigations into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as  U.S. Secretary of State.

    That was the point at which Hillary Clinton’s sizeable lead, which had spiked when tapes of Trump spouting demented “locker room” talk about women surfaced and one woman after another came out to report how he had groped, fondled and grabbed them by unmentionable parts of their anatomy — it was at this point that Hillary Clinton’s lead began to shrink.

    The race tightened, but not to the point that anyone could with confidence tip Trump to win.  Hillary Clinton still held a clear but not insurmountable lead.

    A few polls, it is true, had Trump winning.  But even the director of one such poll, a professor at Emory University, rejected his own findings as wildly implausible and scored the race for Hillary Clinton.  Other polls predicting a Trump win were dismissed as unreliable.

    In the event, Hillary Clinton won the popular ballot by some 250 000 votes.  But Trump prevailed  in the Electoral College, the platform that really counts in the election of president of the United States.

    The same Donald Trump whom Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee in the 2012 had described as a “a fraud” and “a phoney” who would drive the United States to the point of collapse, will soon have his finger on the nuclear trigger.

    “He’s playing the American public for suckers.”  Romney said of Trump.

    As Romney saw it, Trump had neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. “Dishonesty,” he said, is Trump’s hallmark.

    The same Trump who elevated bigotry, xenophobia, demagoguery and misogyny to cardinal virtues.  The same Trump who had not paid federal income tax in 18 years, who ran a bogus university that issued worthless diplomas upon upfront payment of fees it would be courteous    to call unconscionable. The same Trump who waltzed unscratched through a trail of   bankruptcies even as his partners and shareholders faced certain ruin.  The same Trump who regularly stiffed his workers.

    The same Trump who built his gaudy hotel towers with cheap imports from China as the           domestic steel industry languished in terminal illness, and with even cheaper labour from         Mexico and Poland, the minimum wage be damned.  Even his signature “Make America Great Again” cap was made in China.

    The same Trump who . . .  But why belabor the point?

    The conventional wisdom was that a man with such a political baggage and a threadbare résumé of public service to boot had no business seeking the presidency of the United States and that a critical mass of Americans who believe that decency and integrity and trustworthiness and the values that undergird America’s claim to exceptionalism would see through the bluster and the bombast and mendacity and the megalomania and send him back to the world of Reality TV for which his talents are best suited.

    I allied myself with that wisdom, which must now go down as one of the most egregious political misjudgments of this or any era. That a great many among the best authorities made the same misjudgment is of course no exculpation.

    Even Trump’s camp was bracing itself for the worst. The mood there was gloomy, saturnine. The campaign was over.

     

    The frenzied crowds had returned to their domains, leaving Trump and his inner circle to contemplate not just the possibility but the imminent certainty of loss, of Trump figuring as just another loser in a long line of those he always took great delight in dismissing as losers.

    Trump will now have to do on the American landscape what he was never able to do to his rickety business empire:  Turn America from the doomed dystopia he painted in campaign stop after campaign stop and tweet after tweet into a glittering utopia.

    He is already learning that you don’t shoot first and aim later.  Having now found that the Affordable Health Care Act, the so-called Obamacare, is not the devil’s blueprint, he is saying he will retain two of its most revolutionary provisions:  the one that keeps children covered by their parent’s health insurance at no extra cost until they reach age 26, and the one prohibiting denial of coverage to persons with pre-existing conditions.

    However, expect no sobriety from the GOP.

    Basking in triumphalism, it is frantically looking for ways of eviscerating Obama’s legacy without troublesome recourse to established procedure.   It says it has found a way of getting rid of Obamacare through some chink in the Budget process

    Expect more shortcuts, and more in-your-face usurpations.

    The lady of the house had it right.  She had worked in some mean establishments and interacted with a great deal of mainstream Americans across the Midwest.  From those interactions she had gained the insights that helped her make the right call, unlike the man of the house who had been  cloistered in the Ivory Tower and had interacted for the most part with its denizens.

  • RED CARD, GREEN CARD – Notes Towards the Management of Hysteria

    RED CARD, GREEN CARD – Notes Towards the Management of Hysteria

    Nobel Laurete, Professor Wole Soynka response to the reported threat that he would tear his green card if Donald Trump wins the US presidential election.

    I shall begin on a morbid note. One of the horror stories that emerged from the Daesh (Isis) controlled parts of Iraq was the gruesome tale of the mother who had a daughter affected by wanderlust, even in that endangered zone. One day, when she looked for her to attend to some home chores, she found that she had gone missing yet again. As she searched, she shouted in frustration: ”As Allah is my witness, I’ll kill that girl when I catch up with her”. A neighbour overheard and reported her to the Hisbah. The mother was summoned by the mullahs who ordered her to put the child to death, since she had sworn by Allah. She refused, so they took the child by the legs and smashed her head against a wall. End of story. True or false? It certainly was published as true testimony. That is all I have to say to the ”literalists” who obsess over a time scheme of their own assessment. Thus, failure to have torn my Green Card ”the moment” that I learnt that Mr. Donald Trump had won the presidential elections of the USA. It did not matter what I was doing at the time – teaching, eating, swimming, praying, under the shower or whatever. Or a family member saying, ”Wait for me!” – speculatively please, no such disturbance ever took place. If it did however, I am supposed to contact the Nigerian media – to whom I have never spoken, and who never contacted me – except one – to beg permission to pursue a realistic definition of ”the moment”. Media fascism is however a subject for another day,
    For now, that moment having passed, I must be culpable of breaking a solemn promise. By the way, since we are on the terrain of literalism, has anyone attempted to ”tear” or rip apart a Green Card? Even a Credit Card? For the average hands, that would take some doing! I have actually considered garden shears for a dramatic resolution, this being closer to my real profession.
    I have been asked several times – interestingly only by the foreign media, with the exception of THE INTERVIEW – whether indeed I did make such a statement at any time, and whether I still intended to carry it out, abd the answer remains a categorical ’Yes’. Not recently, mind you, nor, in the inaccurate blazing PUNCH headline of Thursday Nov. 16 , but in the accurate wording that is contained in the actual story on page 9. So, where and when did I first notably make that declaration. Answer: Addressing a group of students at Oxford University and fielding questions. It was NOT a public lecture. I have never summoned a press conference on the issue. The organizers did not invite the (unregistered) Association of Nigerian Internet habituees. It was the accustomed student seminar format that moved from the light-hearted to the serious, the ridiculous and (hopefully) the profound and back again. I even used the encounter to compare my threat with the public antics of a former president – unnamed, I assure you – who tore up his party membership card of a moribund ruling party. Whatever my failings, I do not lack originality, and I was not about to be find myself indebted to that contumacious general!
    Nonetheless, did I mean what I said – that is, ’exiting’ the USA? Absolutely, and that is the very theme of this address. It will not attempt to deal with the notion of an exit time-table as conceived by others, as if even the incumbent US president and his replacement are not even permitted over two months to pack their bags and prepare to move in and out of the White House, but must exchange positions the very moment that a winner was proclaimed. Anyone would think that the Brexit Vote made it imperative for the Brits to plunge into the English Channel instantly, instead of negotiating two years for an orderly withdrawal. Plebians like me of course need far less time, nevertheless they do not uproot overnight. Any other proposition speaks of a permanent agenda, of frustration and hidden histories – such as opportunities to rehabilitate themselves in the public eye. There is also recession in the land, and I can understand the psychology of impotence and thus, transferred aggression. Let it be understood – before I move even one word further – that I interrupted my present commitment in the United States solely for an urgent meeting with the Ooni of Ife on an ongoing project. I am obliged to return to the US in a matter of two or three days to complete my interrupted mission. Fortunately, that mision is guaranteed to end long before the United States becomes Trumpland Real Estate.
    And now we move from absurd, frankly idiotic distractions to Substance. Why, in any case, am I pulling out of the United States? Why – as demanded of me by some of my genuinely concerned and sober interlocutors around the world – why such an extreme reaction? Why the terminal response to the elections of another land? Also, and perhaps most crucially, why am I left virtually mouth agape at the furore my stance has engendered? I simply fail to understand why this has gone beyond a flurry of public commentary and hilarious cartoons, and turned into a masturbatory for some, a vomitory for others, and an epilleptic sanatorium for a self-reproducing number? Why, in genuine bafflement, do I experience astonishment? Why do people find this commonplace, accessible-to-all act so extraordinary?
    The answers to all the forgeoing can be summed up in a familiar expression: a life of environmental sanitation, or call it – sanity. My temperament requires a certain minimum level of environmental health to function properly. I use the word ’temperament’ as a historical fact, a personality development that first manifested itself all the way back to student days, and has remained consistent all my life. Nowhere is perfect, certainly not all the time. Nonetheless, every human being has this need, however approximate, some perhaps with objective awareness, others intuitively, some more acutely and intensely than others, especially when defined by their professions, occupations, social and other involvements. The craving is common to all humanity – if I am wrong, then I must have dropped from Mars.
    Here now is a potted history of the choices made by this contributor over the years in pursuit of this need, all the way from student days. Read carefully and learn!
    As a student in Leeds University, one of whose subjects was Spanish, I steadily refused to accompany other students on long vacation job opportunities in Spain, designed to make us master the spoken part of the language. Apart from the Isle of Man, I went to France and Holland instead, whose languages were not part of my studies. And yet I had already fallen in love with flamenco music – played for us from records by our Spanish lecturer, and was dying to watch flamenco dancing in the flesh. Language study however involves, as we all know, the study of a people´s history and culture. I had encountered the history of the Spanish Civil War, the violent overthrow of a legitimate Republican government, and the ’white terror’ of the Falangist leader, General Franco. I identified with the volunteer soldiers of the International Brigade. Spain was under boycott in parts of Europe, so there was a choice to be made. I refused to step into Spain until years after I had graduated and returned home, and General Franco was certified dead and buried. A personal choice.
    Australia: It is now some twelve to fifteen years since I issued a Red Card to Australia, unannounced. That Red Card subsists till today. The occasion was a conference of PEN International, and I had made the usual visa application. When the forms arrived, I found the requirements for applicants over 70 years (I think) so obnoxious, intrusive, and degrading that I refused to fill them. Negotiations with the Australian government by Australian PEN led to an exception being made for me. When it was communicated, I wrote back: Absolutely Not. I refused to be the token geriatric. That application document was highly disrespectful of age and I wondered what kind of mentality had crafted it, wondered if the Australians themselves knew what image was being projected in their name. I said to our go-betweens: Not for a moment am I equating myself with Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela, but they are older. Does it mean that, if they decide to visit Australia, you would subject them to this form of degradation?
    Till today, I have routinely declined any invitation to Australia, a country I had visited years earlier to sumptuous hospitality. I learnt some time ago that the obnoxious requirements have been removed but have not bothered to check. The reason was this follow-up: a journalist heard about my absence from the PEN conference and made enquiries. He interviewed me and I told him the cause. After visiting the Australian embassy for their side of the story, he reported back that the diplomat in charge responded to his questions with the comment that the embassy was too busy with more important matters. did not make a fuss. My position was based on principle but, basically, it was a personal affair between me and Australia. It remains so till today.
    China: I did not, could not visit China for years after Tienanman Square. I was dying to visit that remarkable nation of culture and history, itching to go with every invitation. The Chinese ambassador in Nigeria tried to win me over after the ousting of the Gang of Four. I declined, but accepted the books he had told me did not exist while the Thought of Chairman Mao ruled the waves. Even when, years later, one of the top American travel agents organized a visit of Nobel laureates with mouth watering honoraria, I could not bring myself to join others. Constantly swimming before my eyes was the image of armoured trucks and tanks running over students encamped in Tienanmen Square, leaving behind rivulets of blood. Before I eventually accepted an invitation from the University of Beijing, I checked with some of the dissident poets – was it a decent time to visit? Had sufficient time passed for the average survivor of that carnage to obtain closure? Until they gave me the green light, I refused all invitations. Again I did not fuss. I did not call an international press conference in the interim.
    Back home to our continent – this time, post-Apartheid South Africa. How many of these hysterical purveyors of Internet obscenities – including some printed media – are aware that for nearly two years, I handed South Africa the Red Card? And why? Because of her then astonishing display of xenophobia, most notably against Nigerians. I was a personal recepient of that treatment which took place – of all occasions imaginable – on the occasion of my visit to deliver a three-part memorial lecture in honour of the late Nelson Mandela. Undoubtedly, on that very occasion, there had been a misunderstanding over visa issuance. Nonetheless, taken in the context of the rampant humiliation of Nigerians at the hands of South African authorities, and the South African civic pockets also, I went to the final lecture with my luggage. The moment I concluded the last of my lectures, I insisted on being driven to the airport, silently shaking off the South African dust off my feet for ever. It was only to my hosts that I uttered the declaration that they were seeing me in their nation for the last time. Until I withdrew the Red Card, I did not summon the Press.
    Now, how did that boycott end? It is a remarkable story which deserves its place in the narratives of sheer serendipity. It involved Dennis Brutus, the South African poet, an enlightened Head of Nigerian Immigration and, indirectly, Archishop Desmond Tutu and Albie Sachs, former chairman of the South African Constitutional Court. Also, retrospectively, the role played by Nelson Mandela’s widow, Graca Machel, during my ordeal at the airport. While the boycott lasted however, I declined between seven to nine invitations to South Africa, including a UNESCO event that was however billed to take place there. The ending of that boycott, like the beginning, was ultimately my private and personal decision.
    Shall we take Cuba, that revolutionary island where I was personally decorated by Fidel Castro with the Felix Valera medal of honour? Despite all efforts by the then Cuban ambassador to Nigeria, and very valued friends and colleagues in Cuba, I issued her my usual silent card some years ago. I found the execution of those ill-fated adventurers who tried to escape on a raft excessive, not forgetting the shooting down of a hi-jacked plane. Were their acts condemnable? Indisputably! Did the punishment fit the crime however? My answer is obvious – No. Jose Saramago, the late Portuguese Nobelist had apparently taken the same position, as I found out when we both met at a subsequent event in Cuba when our Cuban boycotts eventually ended. Were we wrong or right? That is immaterial. The point is that neither called a press conference or publicised our individual decisions. They were personal decisions, made independently.
    And so on, and on, and on….brief to prolonged, reluctant to instant boycotts of places of normally congenial roosting, for a variety of reasons, and dictated by individual temperaments. And so we come finally to Donald Trump, and the sometimes travesty of collective choice.
    I was in New York during the run-up to elections. I watched this face, its body language, listened to his uncouth, racist language, his imbecillic harangues, the insults to other peoples, other races, especially the Hispanics, Africans and Afro-Americans, even citing once – I was told – Nigeria as an instance of the burdensome occupation of global space. I watched and listened, disbelievingly, since this was America, supposedly now freed to a large extent – as we like to believe and have a right to expect – from its lamentable history of racism. But I saw, not only this would-be president but – enthusing followers on populist a populist roll at the expense of minorities! I followed the fluctuating poll statistics. I began to warn my colleagues, friends, my family: listen, this thing is happening right before our very eyes. This is how it begins, how humanity ends up with Cambodia, with Rwanda, with Da’esh. We are watching a Hitlerite phenomenon. We are witnessing history in reverse, unravelling before a complacent world. I said to them, if this man wins, I am relocating. It had gone beyond a joke. They all said, it will never happen. Even a day to elections, some Nigerians, with whom I had a meeting in New York, waved off the possibility. The entire world goofed – T.B. Joshua and other pundits, charlattans and experts alike. A colleague at Harvard mentioned the celebrations that would follow the election, but shortly after, confessed his concerns, cursing the FBI man who had chosen to intervene at an unprecedented stage in the elections.
    Again, I said to him, I shall relocate if Trump wins. He said, I’m coming with you, echoing numerous other colleagues to whom I had sounded the same alert. I promised them all political asylum! So, it was nothing new, the Oxford comment. Whatever language I used is my familiar language, not the language of Da’esh or its local impotent surrogates.
    Finally, here is something very personal, but I have to answer the question of my genuine interlocutors in matching sincerity.
    Our US base and family home in California – Abacha instigated – faces a rockhill known as Mount Baldy. It has survived the menace of fires, so close to disaster that we were placed on evacuation alert a number of times and were once actually bundled out by the police for over forty-eight hours. A fireball overflew the house on one occasion, landed some distance from ours and consumed that unlucky home. Not too far away, an escaping family took a wrong turn and lost their lives in the flames. Nothing of such menacing interludes ever brought to the fore the remotest consideration of relocating! However – and let this be stressed to all those who are strangers to the world of images – for this individual called Wole Soyinka, the superimposition of the Trumpian face on those bare mountain slabs began to take on reality, a reality that probably became even three-dimensional, like the massive faces of those former US presidents that remain gouged into the peaks of Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, visited by millions. My environment, albeit a substitute one for our authentic home in the forests of Ijegba – had become compromised. That is all I shall write on the reality of superimposition – the notion of waking up every day of habitation and seeing on that mountain slab the face of Donald Trump on my borrowed preserve, where, from upstairs, I sometimes stood in bouts of contemplation, especially whenever the house was empty.
    For me, something is gone. Again, I speak for myself, not for my family who are, in any case, also American citizens, an acquisition that I have declined I cannot recall how often. Let me repeat, even that portion of empathy that comes from intimate occupancy and usage over the years, and where the products of my ”extra mileage” were born, has become violated. It is still home, second home, but one individual named Donald Trump – and his cohorts – have ruined its hard-earned companionship and serenity, built up over the years. As I keep repeating, these issues are personal.
    And so, back from our quick excursions to Asia and the Antipodes, what is so special about America that an agenda of abandonment creates such hysteria? I am incapable of double standards in these matters. Why do individuals feel threatened? I have never invited anyone to join me in my purely personal odyssey, begun before most of these sniveling upstarts were born. Is it the Green Card that sets America apart? Then perhaps it iis time to repay the compliment with a Red card, as in soccer. I am not aware that the world’s oxygen storage tanks are located in the US of A, so that we cannot breathe away from it. I shall always compliment the American success story on many fronts, including the fact that millions of migrants derive their very living – including crucial send-home remittances – from her generosity. Many of us will always be grateful to her government at the time for sheltering both our persons and our mission during the Abacha years. However, we are also individuals, with specific needs, different sensibilities, and definitions of productive environments and thus, up to this moment, my Wolexit stands.
    It is a personal thing. Perhaps it will help even further if I remind you of what I wrote in my memoirs: YOU MUST SET FORTH AT DAWN. There I confessed that my greatest – and irrational – fear in exile was that if I died outside Nigeria, my well-meaning family, colleagues and friends, would bring my body home. I took firm steps. The thought of resting within that earth while it was trampled over by a despotic monster whom I thoroughly despised, was the absurd but all-consuming fear that I had all through that deadly struggle. Obviously that fear has been eliminated, but then, having watched this American Wonder rise to power through a contemptible denigration of my sector of humanity, through mockery and jeers of my origin, I no longer find that environment congenial either for work or leisure, and I have signalled my unambiguous intent to exit. No one else is invited.
    Well now, a remarkable development. I stated earlier that the issue is not just one individual called Donald Trump, but the human environment that he and his ilk have spawned, one that contributes to a toxic environment across the globe, with the rise of ultra-nationalism and exclusionist politics. That environment is however engendering counter aspects to that created by Trump’s lowest common demonimator in followership. Spontaneous protests have sprung up across the country. Too late, I’m afraid, and ineffectual, since Demoracy has the last word, and its rituals have been concluded. The law of the land will prevail. However, I have been considerably cheered by the spontaneous manifestation of this rejection of the shame and horror that a ”majority” has imposed on the totality. Americans will have to live with it, but there is hope. Even before the street protests, something rather strange had taken place.
    On the very morning of the conclusion of elections when I switched away from one news channel to the next, the screen went suddenly blank. Then came a scrolled message that called for a quiet, peaceful revolution. It went on and on, without voice or images, and it was non-partisan, since it rejected not only Trump but Clinton as befitting candidates but declared American democracy a sham. It went on to complicate matters by identifying an individual – Bernie Saunders – by name as an acceptable leader of a new movement. It excoriated past governance policies, dismissed even Obamacare as a failure – I disagree by the way – and urged viewers again and again to LET’S TALK ABOUT IT. LET’S MEET ON THE INTERNET. LET A PEACEFUL REVOLUTION BEGIN etc. etc. It could have been Channel 33 or 34, I am no longer sure. A serious, viable movement? Maybe not sustainable under the present system, but it goes into that multi-faceted network that leads to the eventual sanitization of any socio-political environment. And then, latest of the latest, the state of California has mounted a referendum for secession, within her constitutional rights. Quite an unpredictable prospect but, much as I am predisposed to upheavals by vox populi, I prefer to be out of the environment, being a non-citizen.
    Let me end with a Red Card to those noisome creatures, the nattering nit-wits of Internet: maybe Trumpland is not as despicable as the Naijaland you impose on our reality from your secure cesspits of anonymity. Go back to school. Your problem is ignorance, ignorance of whatever subject you so readily comment upon. Learn to study your subject before opening up on issues beyond your grasp. Sometimes you make one feel like swapping one green for another, out of embarassment for occupying the same national space as you. But don’t get nervous, or start jumping for joy too soon – the Nigerian passport is just as tough to rip, physically, as is the Green Card, so I’ll stay put in my private Green Belt – the one I have named the Autonomous Republic of Ijegba. I negotiate my relations with both peoples and nations from its internal protocols – yes, that is indeed arrogance for you, but an arrogance of several decades’ principled growth. I carry that patch of green with me, everywhere, in a secure, invisible, and inaccessible pouch! It is that warehouse of ingrained sensibilities that engendered my decision.
    WOLEXIT stands – I coined that deliberately, to signify repossesion of my space of legitimate decisions. The media can nitpick over details – that is your profession. At long last, totally oblivious of the ongoing cacophony that had sprung up in my absence, I finally did receive for the first time a brief questionaire from a Nigerian journal, The INTERVIEW, and one other. I responded. My exit time schema applies, not yours. If it even becomes convenient to bring it forward, I intend to do so, but please don’t come at me with plaints of time imprecision. ! never discussed it with you, nor invited you to a private decision whose execution was already in the making. Do not try to browbeat me. It’s a waste of time – all you have to do is immerse yourselves in my antecedents.
    Wole SOYINKA