Once upon a time, around 12:34 pm, on Wednesday, 14 September 1960, there was this motherly housefly that gave birth to five (5) cute-looking baby green bottle flies in the VIP ward of a specialist clinic, which was located in the dustbin of a conference centre in Baghdad, Iraq. As time passed, the motherly housefly adopted eight (8) other cute-looking baby flies into her happy family. Soon after, two (2) of the adopted baby houseflies requested to leave the household, and they were permitted to do so, in pursuit of their destinies.

The wise motherly housefly dutifully raised her remaining eleven (11) babies to cherish their family, and its traditions. She repeatedly advised them that they must maintain their family bonds at all times, and never, ever to go out into the world without the assuring company, and group protection of fellow houseflies.

One day, as one of the baby flies flew past her favourite hangout, she saw a strange crowd of fellow houseflies hanging out near the ceiling of the specialist clinic. She was excited. "Wow! What a beautiful crowd of fellow houseflies out there. Let me go and see for myself", she whispered to herself.

And so, she went, never to come back home again to her loving, caring, darling mummy, because she was stuck onto a heavy-duty fly catcher adhesive tape, that was hanging on the ceiling of the specialist clinic, like ten (10) other unfortunate houseflies, who happened to be her own adopted brothers and sisters, who had earlier left home as a group, shortly after their mother’s interesting sermon on the assurance of family bonds, group protection, blah, blah, blah. As she struggled to her eventual death, she saw her other two (2) adopted brothers that left the family earlier, consoling their bereaved mummy.

MORAL: There is no safety in numbers!

According to the incumbent Nigerian President of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), His Excellency Alhaji (Dr.) Rilwanu Lukman, since OPEC controls about 75% of the world’s total crude oil reserves, and about 60% of all traded crude oil, and also, given the tremendous global influence of OPEC, sustaining Nigeria’s membership within OPEC would serve the country’s interest better than pulling out of the organisation. His Excellency Alhaji (Dr.) Rilwanu Lukman, incidentally, is also the Adviser to the Federal Minister of Petroleum Resources, Chief (General) Olusegun Obasanjo (GCFR).

Alhaji Rilwanu Lukman expressed these views at a lecture that he delivered recently, against the backdrop of calls for Nigeria to pull out of OPEC. He argued that over 90% of Nigeria’s foreign exchange earnings come from crude oil and natural gas. By his projections, as time goes on, the world will become more and more dependent on crude oil supplies from OPEC. This, according to him, makes Nigeria’s role in OPEC "very important" (whatever that means). And so, by his thinking, Nigeria is better off remaining inside OPEC than outside of it.

With this "strength", Chief (General) Obasanjo’s Adviser on Petroleum and Energy Matters claimed that Nigeria, through its activities in OPEC, as the fifth largest producer of crude oil, has been able to stabilise the price of crude oil worldwide. While admitting that high crude oil prices could bring more revenue into Nigeria’s leaking treasury, Alhaji Rilwanu Lukman also observed that the high cost of crude oil could catalyse the eventual switch from petroleum to alternative sources of energy, thus bringing down the relevance of crude oil. By his projection, an open market price of about US$25 per barrel of crude oil is good for the Nigerian economy. (Hmm!)

As far back as the mid-1970s, just after the First World Energy Crisis, most OECD countries, especially the United States of America and Great Britain, had made up their minds to insulate their economies from the vagaries of the politics of the world’s petroleum supplies. Indeed the mindset of most energy experts at that time was to view petroleum as a dispensable resource. After all, they literally dispensed with coal by the early 20^th century, despite its paramount position as a source of energy, and an industrial feedstock in the post-Industrial Revolution era, with the advent of petroleum. Consequently, for the past quarter of a century, the focus of energy research in the OECD countries has been on alternative non-fossil-based fuels.

In the early 21^st century, the general thinking among energy policy makers in the OECD countries, particularly in the United States of America and Great Britain, is as follows:

The above strategies are backed by over 25 years of sustained research and technology development successes in diverse fields of study, covering viable highly efficient novel alternative energy systems.

Most people are aware that crude oil plays a major role in the possible invasion of Iraq by the United States of America, but many do not quite understand how, when, or why. The common assumption is that the US military will, somehow, "steal" Iraq’s crude oil. Unfortunately, that is simply not the bigger vision of US President George W. Bush (The Younger).

The reason that crude oil plays a crucial role in any future conflict with Iraq has to do with the amount of crude oil available in the open markets worldwide. Typically, in any open market, whenever there is an increase in the supply of any product, the price of that product generally decreases. Such are the rather simplistic expectations of US President George Bush, with regard to the price of crude oil, should the United States of America succeed in removing President Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.

Currently, because of stiff economic, diplomatic, and military sanctions, Iraq can only release some 2 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil into the global market. Before US President George W. Bush’s father, former US President George Bush (The Elder) began the Gulf War ("Operation Desert Storm"), over a decade ago, Iraq was exporting 3.5 million bpd of crude oil. Therefore, at least 1.5 million barrels of Iraqi crude oil are being withheld from the global crude oil market daily, today. If the production levels in Iraq rise once more to 3.5 million bpd, then there would be more crude oil supply in the global market, and this would cause a sharp drop in oil prices. (Wow! How very clever! How very tempting!)

The only way for Iraq to once again export 3.5 million bpd of crude oil will be for the United Nations sanctions to end. Once the sanctions end, Iraq would be able to export crude oil at its full capacity as it did before the Gulf War. Because the United States of America and Britain believe strongly that the sanctions should remain in place until Saddam Hussein is removed from power, they have looked for other solutions to this problem of high crude oil prices. The Bush administration decided the sanctions were not succeeding in removing Saddam Hussein, and it was time they just removed him themselves, putting their own friendly government into power, just like they did in Afghanistan, and thus bringing to a happy end, over 12 years of bitter sanctions. This is one of the central ideas behind the Bush administration’s wish for "regime change" in Iraq.

High crude oil prices damage the economies of countries like the United States of America and Britain that are very dependent on imported crude oil. If crude oil prices were to drop dramatically, it would be as if a tremendous burden had been lifted off the back of the US economy, possibly leading to a global economic upturn. Maybe it is because the key members of the Bush administration were, at one time or the other, involved in the petroleum industry: After all, US President George W. Bush was a senior executive in Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration Oil Company (1978~1984), and the senior executive of the Harken Oil Company (1986~1990). Vice President Cheney was the chief executive of Halliburton Oil Company (1995~2000). National Security Adviser Dr. (Ms.) Rice was a senior executive with Chevron Oil Company (1991-2000). So, the Bush administration knows the oil industry very well, and because of that, they quite erroneously think, "Why not increase Iraq’s crude oil capacity to a level higher than ever before, thus adding even more supply to the oil market?" And that is precisely what they intend to do.

Any new government that the US installs will want to increase crude oil production because that will result in more money for the Iraqi economy. But the only way to increase crude oil production is to incorporate western technology into drilling operations. US oil companies will be needed to rebuild and update Iraq’s damaged oil industry infrastructure in order to increase their crude oil output. This is why American multinationals are hoping that the invasion of Iraq will speedily materialise. As we have seen, they have well placed friends in the Bush administration, and they just might get what they want.

It is estimated that, with the help of high technology, Iraq will be able to increase crude oil production up to 5 million bpd: that is, at least 3 million bpd more than they are exporting now. This will provide more supply to the market, depress crude oil prices worldwide, and thus provide some relief to the economy of the United States of America. Certain White House energy advisers even project that, after their successful invasion of Iraq, the price of crude oil could drop from the current US$30~US$34 per barrel, to about US$15~$20 per barrel, way below the modest expectations of His Excellency Alhaji (Dr.) Rilwanu Lukman. The positive effects of such a scenario on the US economy will be as dramatic as its negative effects would be on the Nigerian economy in particular, and on OPEC member nations, indeed, the whole world generally.

Definitely, all of this will only become possible should the invasion of Iraq be a successful operation, both militarily, and diplomatically. However, there are many problems that could emerge in the course of prosecuting the war, which could cause a completely opposite effect, drastically increasing crude oil prices, due to any perturbations, or instabilities (real, perceived, or imagined) in crude oil production in the Middle East. With the current crisis in Venezuela, a major exporter of crude oil to the United States, US President George W. Bush would not have that much manoeuvre space in avoiding a global economic meltdown, should his brilliant plans ever backfire.

The 2003 Greater Eid (Holy Pilgrimage) to Mecca will end on Sunday, 16 February 2003. Yearly, about 3 million Muslims, with disparate backgrounds, worldviews, ideals, and ideas, from all over the world, converge on Mecca, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on pilgrimage. Very likely, this year, most foreign pilgrims would return safely to their countries, a few days after that date. But, most likely, a lot of Nigerian pilgrims might still be lurking around the Persian Gulf region, doing the obligatory "shopping in Dubai", buying and selling sundry items, in diverse places, under miscellaneous circumstances, post-Hajj.

Since September 2002, the government of Saudi Arabia has been fervently, but privately, imploring US President George W. Bush not to launch an attack on Iraq before the Eid-al-Adha. Indeed, the US State Department, as well as military intelligence personnel stationed across the Persian Gulf region support Saudi Arabia’s call, fearing a backlash that could trigger a global Islamic Revolution if the United States of America launches any military strikes on/before the Eid-al-Adha. Any attack during that period would present a nightmare scenario for US strategic interests in the Middle East, since Muslims worldwide, particularly those in the Middle East, are already furious about Israeli occupied Palestinian territories.

Muslims worldwide could very easily be unified, in passionate anti-Americanism, if the United States of America attacks Iraq during the period of pilgrimage. One very likely outcome could be a rebellion against the ruling al-Saud royal family of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This could quickly spread throughout the Middle East, and may even threaten the regimes in Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt, and Turkey, all of them, allies of the United States of America.

Incidentally, some intelligence sources in the Middle East assert that a massive aerial bombardment of Iraq will commence in the early hours of Saturday, 22 February 2003 (plus or minus one day). The recent State of the Union address by US President George Bush seems to confirm that the invasion of Iraq will begin in February 2003, and will not require the approval of the UN.

Short of Divine intervention in Iraq (that is to say, the mysterious assassination President Saddam Hussein), or full disclosure by the Iraqi authorities about the exact inventory, if any, of all their weapons of mass destruction (WMD), or a coup d’état in Saudi Arabia, or the simultaneous complete collapse of law and order in both the United States of America, and the United Kingdom, or some drunken flying elephants crash-landing into Aso Rock Villa, Abuja, Nigeria, please mark your calendars for Saturday, 22 February 2003 (plus or minus one (1) day), when the undisputed Commander-in-Chief of the War Against Terrorism (worldwide) would commence his final descent on the "Axis of Evil", with endless sorties of F18s, Patriot Missiles, and Apache helicopter gun ships, and (who knows?) maybe, one or two micro-mini-tiny high-precision laser-guided nuclear blasts on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s bedroom(s).

In his State of the Union Address, US President George W. Bush attempted to articulate the reasons for going to war with Iraq, and ousting the democratically selected "consensus" President, Saddam Hussein. Stripped of verbal diarrhoea, and undue machismo, these can be distilled down to three main objectives:

We need to closely examine each of the above cogent reasons in turn, if indeed they actually constitute the rationale behind the rush to war:

The reason most often given by US President George W. Bush for going to war with Iraq is to reduce the risk of thermo-nuclear, bio-chemical, geophysical, atmospheric, or any other similar attacks which could result in mass destruction in the United States of America. Of course, such an attack would be overwhelming, and so, spirited action is mandatory to prevent it. In fact, if the threat of WMD attack is US President Bush’s primary headache, then he should please pay the greatest attention to the greatest threats of WMD attacks against the United States of America, and deploy available US troops, dollars and diplomacy accordingly.

North Korea and Pakistan pose greater WMD threats to the United States of America than Iraq for several reasons. Pakistan has several dozen nuclear warheads, including guided missiles and planes capable of delivering nuclear havoc from a comfortable distance. Pakistan is also suspected of having chemical weapons. North Korea is thought to possess sufficient plutonium to produce nuclear devices. North Korea also has a large chemical weapons stockpile, and a frightening array of ballistic missiles.

Today, Iraq, by contrast, possesses no nuclear weapons, and is thought to be several years away from producing any, even under the best of circumstances. A policy aimed at protecting the United States from WMD attacks would effortlessly identify Pakistan and North Korea as the major threats, and put Iraq in a rather distant fifth position. So, why Iraq?

Of course, Pakistan and North Korea are not oil-endowed; Iraq is! The Bush administration has argued at great length that a US invasion, followed by "regime change" in Iraq, would mark the greatest success in the War Against Terrorism (worldwide). Why this is so has never been made abundantly clear. It is claimed that Iraq’s hostility toward the United States of America somehow sustains and invigorates global terrorist threats to the United States of America. Eliminating Saddam Hussein would thus greatly weaken international terrorism, and its nuisance value on the United States of America. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this is the case. If anything, the opposite is true.

From what is known about al-Qaeda and other such extremist organisations, their ultimate objective is to overthrow any government in the Islamic world, including the Baathist regime in Iraq, which does not adhere to fundamental Islam. Thus, under strict al-Qaeda doctrine, even the government of "consensus" President Saddam Hussein of Iraq must be swept away, along with the governments in Egypt, Yemen, UAE, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, all of them, considered deficient by al-Qaeda standards.

Definitely, US President George W. Bush’s effort to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and replace his regime with another secular government, sustained by US military might, like in Afghanistan, will only further aggravate the wrath of Islamic extremists. The Bush administration claims that overthrowing Saddam Hussein will allow the Iraqis to establish a truly democratic government, and serve as a shining example, and inspiration for the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East. But there is little reason to believe that the administration is motivated by a desire to spread democracy, given its rush to invade Iraq. So, why the rush to invade Iraq?

First of all, many of the top members of the Bush administration, particularly US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, and US Vice President Dick Cheney, happily embraced Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in the 1980s, when Iraq was the enemy of Iran, which was then the enemy of the United States of America. Thus the USA considered Iraq, and by extension, President Saddam Hussein, as an ally. Consequently, between 1980 and 1988, under a so-called "policy tilt" toward Iraq, the Reagan administration decided to assist Iraq in its war against Iran.

Twenty years ago, under US President Ronald Reagan, Iraq was removed from the list of countries that support terrorism, thus permitting the injection of several billions of dollars of US aid, and technical assistance to Iraq. Indeed, Donald Rumsfeld travelled to Baghdad, and met with Saddam Hussein in December 1983, as a special envoy of US President Reagan, to deliver the good news. (Oh, how time flies!)

Twenty years ago, the Department of Defence, then under Dick Cheney, provided Iraq with top secret satellite information on Iranian military positions. This information was provided to Iraq even though the US government was informed that the Iraqis were using chemical weapons against the Iranians, and could use US satellite information to pinpoint chemical weapons attacks on Iranian positions.

Twenty years ago, neither Donald Rumsfeld nor Dick Cheney spoke out against Iraqi use of those weapons, or even suggested that the United States of America should discontinue its support of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the Bush administration has any principled objection to dictatorial rule in Iraq, or indeed, anywhere else in the world, for that matter. Furthermore, the United States of America has developed close ties with some dictatorships in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. There certainly is nothing even remotely democratic about Pakistan, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, all of them, close allies of the United States of America in the Persian Gulf region.

Surely, some other motives must be at work. Control of Iraq could give the United States of America de facto control over the Persian Gulf region, and over 65% of the world’s crude oil reserves. Perhaps these juicy ulterior incentives justify an invasion of Iraq. If that is the case, then US President George W. Bush should please make this fact abundantly clear to the citizens of the United States of America, and let them choose whether they really want the rest of the world to see their country, the United States of America, as a rogue state in disguise.

In the next couple of weeks, the global economy may be stretched to its limit if US President George W. Bush decides to invade Iraq. There are many risks involved in invading Iraq, the most important being a steep increase in crude oil prices. With crude oil prices already over US$30 per barrel, the global economy is under increased pressure, over-heated, and tenuously unpredictable.

Should the United States of America attack Iraq, it is likely that shipments of crude oil from the Middle East will be disrupted. Furthermore, crude oil inventories in the United States of America are already running low, due to the nearly two-month long oil workers’ strike in Venezuela. While it takes only one (1) week for Venezuelan crude oil exports to reach the United States of America, it takes about 4~5 weeks for crude oil supplies to arrive the at the United States of America from the Middle East.

In the event of a US invasion of Iraq, a stray bomb, or missile could destroy, or interfere with petroleum industry operations, disrupting, destabilising, or even completely stopping Iraq’s 2 million bpd crude oil exports. To further compound the nightmare, the Iraqis could even opt to deliberately set their own oilfields on fire, just as they did very successfully in Kuwait in 1991. Americans call it, "Environmental terrorism".

In order to prevent a spike in oil prices, any reduction in Iraqi oil exports will need to be compensated by an increase in oil exports from OPEC member nations, and non-OPEC member nations alike. However, most OPEC nations are already producing at full capacity. Russia, the North Sea, Norway and Mexico, the biggest non-OPEC sources, cannot increase their outputs since they are already operating at full blast.

This likely scenario has worried energy analysts, since it could result in crude oil prices as high as US$50 per barrel, possibly causing extensive damage to the global economy. However, the Bush administration believes that the end result of the invasion will be economic growth rather than economic recession. The fate of the global economy will depend on how fast the United States of America can get crude oil flowing again, after the invasion of Iraq.

Once crude oil production has stabilised again, the United States of America would likely be able to increase capacity by updating Iraq’s degraded oil industry facilities. It is projected that Iraq may be able to increase crude oil production from 2 million bpd to 5 million bpd with a lot of technical and financial assistance from the United States of America. Indeed, some hawks in the White House believe this scenario would provide a global economic boom by increasing crude oil supply, and dropping crude oil prices down to US$15~US$20 per barrel. However, a successful "regime change" might not be as easy as it seems.

Iraq’s oil infrastructure is already in a very bad shape, and it could take 5~10 years for Iraqi crude oil output to reach 5 million bpd. In addition, there is no guarantee that a new Iraqi government, post-Saddam Hussein, will be willing to export such an inflated amount of crude oil. However, any new administration in Iraq will, most likely, be installed and protected by the US military, reducing that government’s meaningful independence from the Pentagon.

Another most dangerous scenario is whether an invasion by United States of America will heighten tensions in the Middle East, in such a way that extreme militant groups would attack crude oil installations, when the economies of the United States of America and the world are most vulnerable. Indeed, if groups of extremists inside Saudi Arabia attempt to sabotage major petroleum industry facilities within that country, crude oil prices would skyrocket, since other nations would not be able to supplement the amount of crude oil that Saudi Arabia exports. This would possibly shoot crude oil prices up to over US$50 per barrel, or stagnate at about US$40 per barrel for several months.

Indeed some energy experts assert that a sustained rise in crude oil prices to a level of US$45~US$50 per barrel could turn the economies of the United States of America, and Japan into a deep recession. Should the United States of America and Japan enter a recession, or even suffer further economic setbacks due to increased crude oil prices, it would greatly add to the misery of several other suffering states, and impact negatively on the emerging market economies worldwide: Nigeria inclusive. So, why invade Iraq?

During US President Bush’s State of the Union address, he boldly proclaimed that if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein does not comply with US demands, then the government of the United States of America would invade Iraq in order to secure the "peace of the world". This is despite the fact that nearly the entire planet is against an invasion of Iraq. It begs the question, "Whose world is it, by the way?"

If US President George W. Bush considers all human beings, especially non-US citizens, and governments on this planet to be part of his world, then instead of threatening unilaterally to invade Iraq, the United States of America should attempt to build a genuine global partnership through diplomacy, not through threatening verbiage, more or less, warning the whole of Planet Earth that the course of the United States of America does not depend on the decisions of others. Loyalist nations like Great Britain, and a few other incredibly tiny, or highly dependent, and/or very corrupt states such as Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, do not constitute a credible "global coalition".

It is sad that US President George W. Bush seriously believes that the world is best controlled by the United States of America. This is the same belief that fuelled the long and brutal history of European colonialism. European colonialists seriously believed that the inhabitants of Africa, Asia, and Americas could not rule themselves, and that they knew what was best for their colonies. Today, we are witnessing an attempt at a new form of colonialism, this time around, by the United States of America. The Bush administration is saying that the United States of America knows what is best for the "peace of the world", and will take whatever measures necessary to achieve that goal, even if nearly every country in the world disagrees with the United States of America.

Much like the Roman Empire, the United States of America, has already built quasi-colonial outposts all over the planet, especially after the Tuesday, 11 September 2001 attacks. The United States of America maintains military bases in locations stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. In the Middle East, due to the Gulf War, and the current threat on Iraq, military bases have sprouted up in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Bahrain, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and others. If the administration launches an attack on Iraq, then new military bases will be built in Iraq too.

The invasion of Afghanistan has led to the creation of military bases in that war-torn country and, more importantly, throughout Central Asia. The Bush administration has built, or is using bases in Pakistan, and the oil-rich Caspian Sea region. These bases reach as far as the eastern tip of Central Asia. Complementing the current bases in Japan and South Korea, US troops have moved back into the Philippines, after a 10-year absence. Therefore, the US appears to be very much like a 21^st century global colonial empire.

This is why most of the world is against any US invasion of Iraq. To the world, an invasion of Iraq is similar to the marching of the Roman imperial army. No nation wants the United States of America (or any other country, for that matter) to be able to invade any country it chooses, against the objections of the rest of the world. The idea of any government taking unilateral military action is what the rest of the world considers a "rogue state".

This is why US President George W. Bush’s statement, "The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others", sends a rather unfortunate and obnoxious signal to sovereign nations worldwide that the United States of America has now entered a new era of blatant unilateralism (for the heck of it!), which increasingly looks like a newfound American chauvinism. This new wave American chauvinism also has strong undertones of moral and cultural superiority, which further infuriates most earth beings, especially non-US citizens.

Beyond offending and marginalising both the allies, and enemies of the United States of America, actually, US President George Bush’s address sent a clear signal, most importantly, to China, that the only way to protect their country against US imperial threats is by amassing a formidable military arsenal (preferably weapons of mass destruction) that can compete with the United States of America.

If US President George W. Bush (The Younger) is not willing to consider the concerns of other nations, and openly states that his aggression is inevitable for the "peace of the world", it has then become clear to the rest of humanity that the United States of America will shape Planet Earth in any way it damn bloody desires. It is very clear that the "peace of the world" is now synonymous with "US interests", and they include the world’s petroleum and various other equally strategic natural resources that the good people of the United States of America so badly need in order to maintain their seemingly non-negotiable comforts.

It looks as if the beginning of the 21st century is going to change the course of contemporary history. The idea of globalisation, a synergy resulting from effective cooperation between free nations of the world, may have been killed. The irony of it all is that, paradoxically, this rapidly emerging fragmented world order is more than what even Mujahideen Osama bin Laden could have anticipated. Thanks to US President George W. Bush (The Younger).

And so, we hereby cordially invite the Honourable Federal Minister of Petroleum Resources of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Chief (General) Olusegun Obasanjo (GCFR), to please carefully peruse, review, digest, and consider all of the above, and then immediately direct his itinerant Adviser on Petroleum and Energy Matters, the incumbent President of OPEC, His Excellency Alhaji (Dr.) Rilwanu Lukman, to kindly speedily revise his strategies radically, for the sake of Nigeria, because the issue of Nigeria’s continued meaningful membership of OPEC would progressively assume critical significance as the debates leading to the 2003 Presidential elections unfold. Local pre-election sloganeering with political clichés, and distractions like "Onshore-Offshore dichotomy", not withstanding, the days of OPEC are definitely numbered.

May their Excellencies kindly arrange to let Nigeria urgently bail out of OPEC now, (now, now): It is not too late: Ecuador left OPEC in 1992, while Gabon did the same in 1994, and their world did not come to an end, neither did the heavens fall with their exit from OPEC. Today, Ecuador’s GDP per capita is US$3,000, while Gabon’s GDP per capita is US$5,500. Nigeria’s GDP per capita of US$840, and Nigeria is in OPEC. Halleluiah!

Definitely, their Excellencies must have realised by now that there is no safety in numbers (even in OPEC. Now let us get down to some serious survival strategising, with proactive damage control measures, before Nigeria carries another liability that could very easily be bandied as one more of those strange "dividends" of Chief (General) Obasanjo’s nascent democracy).

I welcome your comments (via e-mail: kombomasonbraide@msn.com , and encourage this article to be freely reproduced, published, photocopied, scanned, faxed, reprinted, reformatted, broadcast, digitised, uploaded or downloaded, in whatever manner or form, with or without acknowledgement or further permission.