|
'MY LAST TESTAMENT' ON THE NIGERIAN-US MILITARY PACT: by Research Fellow, African Studies Center, Boston University
IN WHOSE INTEREST ARE US TROOPS IN NIGERIA, NIGERIA OR U.S.? There is a military pact between Nigeria and the United States of America called by different names. No one should be fooled except the political leaders of Nigeria who believe that Nigerians who see the US soldiers in different parts of Nigeria are dumb. They are not; they know that this is not an area of dire need in the country where Americans should come to the aid of Nigeria. If the Nigerian people were asked to name their needs, they would not rank the armed forces as number one that should qualify for American dollar aid. They are more likely to rank the decaying social services (education and health) as number one; they are also likely to add the collapsing infrastructure, such as light, water, and telephone. Of course, the US asked to name their needs in Nigeria, would likely rank oil as number one, peacekeeping as number two and the protection of Obasanjo to guarantee these two, as number three. This is where the coincidence of needs of the US and President Obasanjo led to the US military involvement in Nigeria. It is not in the Nigerian national interest and it should be reviewed.
FROM MY SCRAPBOOK Many sources have voiced different versions of fears to the pact. Only the President, Commander in Chief and the Minister of Defense of Nigeria, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo and General TY Danjuma respectively have not said a word on the matter since May 2000 when the issue first hit the world headline. I came to this conclusion when I went through my scrapbook on the issue. Why are these distinguished political leaders/political generals keeping Nigerians in the dark? Don’t Nigerians have the right under a democracy to know why the American troops are in Nigeria? I discovered that the US through Washington and through the US Embassy in Nigeria had something to say about it. This was what prompted me, a private citizen to express my view in October 2000 warning my countrymen and women of the danger of military entanglement with a foreign power, especially with the US. This was followed by the outburst of the former Chief of Army Staff, General Victor Malu expressing his apprehension that the full implementation of the military cooperation agreement would constitute a threat to the national security of Nigeria. Two Nigerian respectable newspapers ran editorials on the subject calling on the authorities, the President and the National Assembly to tell Nigeria the truth. Finally, the former Vice President, Augustus Aikhomu independently, in a Journal article voiced his fear that the Nigerian national security would be endangered if the Nigerian ‘strategic and tactical doctrine’ was farmed out to a foreign power. He, in fact, supported the murmuring in the military against the pact. Up till now, the President, Commander in Chief and the Minister of Defense have not considered it in the national interest to allay the fears of Nigerians. They should let Nigerians know the implications for the country of the military pact or the military cooperation with the US. As I stated in the previous essay, the military pact between the US and Nigeria has a life of its own. Hence in this essay, I shall be discussing how the matter was discussed in the media between May 2000 and May 2001. This will be an opportunity for Nigeria to know that only the President and the Minister of Defense failed to say anything about the matter within one year of the life of the pact. It is also an opportunity for Nigerians to ask their leaders to tell them the truth about it. One seems to be forgetting the National Assembly. It has to be so because the National Assembly seems to have abandoned its different role since May 1999. It is still in search of a role under the dispensation and under the omnipotent power of the President still behaving as a military head of State. This search for a role to the point of irrelevance is most noticeable in foreign policy and defense matters. There is no question about what the US could do for Nigeria. Nigerians need cooperation with the US in many fields such as education, health, technological development and trade. Certainly, Nigeria does not need the support of the US in developing a sector that bears no relationship to Nigerian growth and a sector that misruled the country since 1966. The US ought to have known or should have known that the military is still a source of Nigerian underdevelopment till today. Why should the US contribute to the further underdevelopment of Nigeria? Below is the analysis of my scrapbook in the past one year on the vexed question of military pact between the US and Nigeria.
BEFORE PRESIDENT CLINTON VISITED NIGERIA
1., ‘US to Help Nigeria Revamp its Armed Forces’, The Dispatch (Accra) May 1, 2001. This was as a result of the visit of the US Defense Secretary, William S. Cohen. During that visit on April 1, 2000, he announced that the US would release $10.6 million dollars to support the Nigerian military. Nigerians were surprised that the first act of the US was to support the most discredited sector in Nigeria, the armed forces. Out of this amount US would spend $4million dollars to refurbish the aging C-130 airplanes and retrain the pilots for the transportation of troops in the peacekeeping operation in the sub-region . From this amount also the US would pay $3.5 dollars to the US Consultants, the Military Professionalization and Response Initiative (MPRI) based in Alexandra Va. to design a professionalization program for the three services. Nigeria was also to pay from her resources the sum of $3.5 million dollars to MPRI. What a reap off? The US money was not meant to leave the US as the entire amount was to be spent in the US for the US companies and personnel. This is the way that all that so-called US aid would be spent. When you revamp, you automatically change from one type of military doctrine including the use of equipment to another. Does this not make Nigeria more dependent on the US, the suppliers? What about the traditional arm suppliers in the past? Of course, the US trainers would tell Nigeria to discard the equipment from North Korea, Soviet Union (now Russia) etc. The Nigerian armed forces would soon be buying military hardware we do not know how to use, which may be obsolete a few years from now. We would soon be buying the arms, which we may not need but which we are buying because the US trainers said that those are what we need. A development worth noting was that General Norman H. Schwarzkopf, as soon as the Republican Party came to power, had to take over the pact worked out by the Democratic administration. He led the all-powerful delegation of US military men to hawk military equipment as soon as the US trainers had sufficiently brainwashed the less sophisticated Nigerian military men who were seeing new things for the first time into believing in the type of equipment they need. It is interesting to note the way General Schwarzkopf put it, that the US military officers were out to fashion out a list of ‘high technology weapons needed by the Nigerian army as part of the arrangement to re-professionalize the military’. The Nigerian political leadership should be ashamed to allow others to determine the defense needs of Nigeria and the equipment to meet the needs. The US is now determining Nigeria’s needs; the US sells Nigeria what Nigeria needs. The US teaches the Nigerian military officers what to request from the patron, the US and the US teaches the Nigerian military officers how to use the new equipment. That is the meaning of ‘re-professionalization’, which technically is a conversion process when one changes from the use of one type of equipment to another. Of course, the US would not determine Nigeria’s need and allow Nigeria to go to another suppliers.
2., ‘US to Assist Nigerian Navy over Niger-Delta: To provide 8 Fast Attack Patrol Vessels’, Vanguard August 2000. These were the boats specifically built for the US Coast Guards. Note: What is the implication of this in the context of the ‘Politics of Oil?
AFTER PRESIDENT CLINTON’S VISIT AND AFTER MY ESSAY.
3. ‘Malu Counsels the Federal Government to be cautious of US Aid Pledge to Military’, Vanguard January 22, 2001. This is a piece of information, which Nigerian patriots should read again. One might say that Malu was making a political statement, which no one would expect, from a professional head of the army in a democracy. Should he not have made it if he was being led to embark on what he patriotically felt was against the national security interest of Nigeria? I support him, as he wanted to be on record; he had to voice it to be on record when he started seeing what the US was demanding from him in furtherance of the military cooperation. He was speaking to the Nigerian people that there was danger in the cooperation. Of course, this was after my essay of October 2, 2000 hit the market and I was told that it was well discussed in strategic places at home and abroad. The number of e-mail I received from Nigerians was amazing. But the National Assembly still refused to heed the advise of General Malu to summon the Minister of Defense to tell the nation the details if not the ‘fine prints’ in the military cooperation arrangement between Nigeria and the US or between President Obasanjo and President Clinton. After Malu’s retirement, should the Senate not have formally called on the President through the Minister of Defense for the public disclosure of the details in the military cooperation? What is the Senate doing?
US FIGHTS BACK ON THE PUBLIC RELATION FRONT
4., ‘No Hidden Agenda in US-Nigerian Military Cooperation’, Vanguard, March 9, 2001. 5., ‘US Denies Hidden Agenda in Military Cooperation’ The Guardian, March 9. 2001. In a special visit paid by the US Ambassador Howard Jeter to the Nigerian Vice President, the US Ambassador wanted to respond to the fears expressed by the Chief of Army Staff. This was arrant nonsense. Why should the US Ambassador be doing this? It is significant that the Nigerian Vice President did not take the visit of the US Ambassador as an opportunity to allay the fears of Nigerians by responding to the issues raised by the Chief of Army Staff, General Malu. Instead, he used the opportunity of the visit of the US Ambassador to plead that the US should upgrade the US-Nigerian annual talk to the level of the Vice President as it is with the US-South Africa Bilateral Commission. The Nigerian Vice President failed to talk about the pact, surprisingly. One could still ask, if he knew of the pact? Maybe he did not know and did not want to commit the administration. Maybe he bought the position of the Chief of Army Staff, because that position was the patriotic thing to do. Note: The campaign by the US Ambassador and his staff to market the Pact should be taken as normal. Of course, what did we expect the US to say?
6., ‘US Votes $100million yearly Aid to Nigeria’ The Guardian 13, 2001. This was another marketing tactic about the benefit of the aspects of Nigerian life that would benefit in addition to the military. Who would benefit from the military aid? The US arms dealers! The aid had nothing to do with education or health. The US is giving aid to sector that ruined the country since 1966 and a sector that bears no relationship to the development of the country.
MEDIA CONCERN; CALL ON SENATE TO NIGERIA’S RESCUE
7., ‘The US Military Contract’, Vanguard (Editorial) March 15, 2001. This was one of the thought-provoking analysis by the Nigerian media. Again the Nigerian political class and the Senate did not address the issue raised in the editorial. There was a report of the incursion of the US military officers into the Defense Headquarters in the name of what the US Embassy official said was part of the ‘contract’ between the US and Nigeria to ‘help solidify Nigeria’s democratic transition’. The Senate ought to have taken a cue from what the paper attributed to the US Embassy official and the Senate should have taken advantage of the Editorial comment of the paper to examine Section 12(1) of the 1999 Constitution in a public hearing. Section 12(1) of the 1999 Constitution says, ‘No Treaty between the Federation and other country shall have the force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly’. The Vanguard then asked when did the President take such a matter to the National Assembly? Can we not ask him today to justify the basis of the US bases in Nigeria or the basis of the US troops in the Nigerian military establishments and the basis of the US officers in the Defense Headquarters. What we are seeing with the US takeover of the Nigerian military is like another IMF under the SAP regime where the IMF officials technically took over the economy by stationing IMF officials in the Ministry of Finance and in the Central Bank. This is what is being done under the US-Nigerian military pact. I liked the way the paper put the question when referring to the National Assembly. Why is the National Assembly watching helplessly as Nigeria drifts into murky waters?
SECOND LEVEL POLITICAL BOSS DOING DAMAGE CONTROL.
8a., ‘Nigeria won’t Compromise Security for Foreign Aid’, Vanguard, March 16, 2001. 8b., ‘Malu Again Cautions on Foreign Military Aid’, The Guardian March 16, 2001. Why should it be the second level political operative in the Ministry of Defense, Alhaji Batagarawa, the Minister of State for Army who had to respond to the Chief of Army Staff? One, he is new to the Ministry; and two, he is alien to what the President and the Minister signed with the US on behalf of Nigeria. That would have been an opportunity for him to release the text of the agreement or pact. Even the Senate, if it was doing its work as one would have expected should have used the occasion of the confirmation of the new Minister to demand to know many things from the executive including the text of the agreement or pact. I was reminded that the Senate only approves list and not names with their portfolio, another drawback in the oversight function of the National Assembly. General Malu true to his commitment to his fatherland did a marvelous job when he used the maiden official visit of the new Minister to further hammer home the position he took since January 2001. Did the new Minister know that General Malu was speaking to the country and for the record and to debunk the false claim made by the US above that the cooperation would benefit Nigeria? General Malu used the occasion of the visit of the new Minister to his Headquarters, to make a political speech in his characteristic BRUTAL frankness. General Malu publicly spoke to the country under the guise of receiving the Minister of State to explain that his views on the issue of foreign involvement in the Nigerian army might have been misunderstood and misinterpreted in ‘certain quarters’. General Malu was making a veiled reference to the President and the Minister of Defense, Chief Obasanjo and General Danjuma. Was that obvious to the new Minister of State? What did the political bosses say in response? Nothing, except to retire him prematurely! This was not all; General Malu used this occasion to educate the Minister on Civics, a subject alien to Nigeria today, which was a compulsory course in the colonial days. General Malu vowed that out of his commitments to ‘his fatherland’, he would continue to oppose the idea of a ‘master-servant-relation between the US and Nigeria in the name of the military cooperation. This must have been an embarrassment for the Minister. This is what General TY Danjuma called ‘the Malu BRUTAL frankness’, during the party he arranged to send off the retiring Service Chiefs, which he would ‘miss’. Was General Danjuma really honest in his characterization of General Malu? Maybe he was. General Danjuma missed an opportunity to lay to rest the fears about the pact, if he was sure of his facts. He would have used that occasion to respond to the controversy over the ‘pact’, which was all over the press at the time the retirement was announced. The question is why did he not? Of course, General Danjuma would not miss General Malu’s BRUTAL frankness, which every officer knew was an embarrassment to President Obasanjo. General Malu was also an irritant to the US, who might have hastened the firing of the General. Of course, the President and the Minister were too glad to see him go with his BRUTAL frankness, an attribute alien to the present regime. There is no room for such a truthful and patriotic General in the service of the military as long as Chief Obasanjo and General Danjuma remain the President, Commander in Chief and Minister of Defense respectively. What should be noted was that this was the first time a high Government official openly associated himself with the fears expressed by the Chief of Army Staff. This was the visit of the new Minister of State for Army Alhaji Batagarawa who merely assured the army chief and not the country that Nigeria's national security would not be compromised through the military cooperation. I doubt if the Chief of Army Staff believed him. Certainly he was new to the pact and he was not in a position outside the Presidency and the Minister of Defense to make a statement on the military pact.
US ARMS MERCHANTS TAKE CONTROL
9., ‘Military Chiefs Discuss US Arms Supply to Nigeria’, The Guardian March 30, 2001. This is the key to the military pact between the US and Nigeria. Nigerians should read this again; do we need the pact or cooperation? Who determined our defense needs and who is supplying our needs and from what fund? These are issues, which the Defense Committee of the National Assembly would have been asking before now. This is a case where the Democratic party in the US under President Clinton negotiated this deal, which would have been a gold mine for Democrats. With the change of administration in January this year, one would have thought that the new administration would re-negotiate the military pact and even scrap it and think of something else where the Nigerian people would benefit and be beholden to the US. What did we find? The Republican Party functionaries in quick succession including the Speaker and the only African-American Congressman led delegations to Nigeria to assure the Nigerian President that the new Republican President of the US would want to be friend of Nigerian people. One would have thought the opportunity of the visits of Republican leaders would have led to new initiatives in Nigeria. One did not read of such. What one read eventually was the high-powered visit of the Republican associated retired US military personnel led by the highly decorated US General, General Normal Schwarzkopf hawking a list of hardware for the Nigerian armed forces and the Nigerian military officers falling over one another to place order.
MEDIA STILL RAISED ALARM, BUT NO ONE LISTENED 10., ‘Malu on Military Aid’ The Guardian (Editorial) March, 29, 2001. There is no evidence that the National Assembly ever took up the issues raised in the editorial comment of this paper. The question is why?
FINALLY, MALU. THE WHISTLE BLOWER AXED 11., The Retirement of the Service Chiefs sparked an uproar in the north. There was a charge that the retirement was due to the position the officers especially General Victor Malu publicly took in opposition to the military pact duly entered into by his political boss, the President, Commander in Chief. For the reactions by the Northern Senators as regards the Military pact between the US and Nigeria should see This Day and Vanguard April 26, 2001.
DISTINGUISHED ADMIRAL JOINED THE SERVING OFFICERS.
12., ‘Aikhomu Warns on Exposing Strategic Defence’, Vanguard May 1, 2001. The former Vice President and a former Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Augustus Aikhomu independently without knowing what was to happen to the whistle blower came to their support in a magazine article, which came out the same week the Service Chiefs were retired. I am referring to the International Defence Journal and Defence Policy. In that Journal, Admiral Aikhomu unreservedly agreed with the military officers who were expressing apprehension about the military pact between the US and Nigeria. According to the distinguished Admiral who once commanded the Nigerian Navy, the Nigerian armed forces should not expose her ‘strategic and tactical doctrines to foreign powers’. But unfortunately, this is what Nigeria under the ‘US-Nigerian-Military Pact’ or better still the ‘Clinton-Obasanjo Military Pact’ is doing without the approval of the professional officers in the armed forces and without the approval of the National Assembly.
LEST WE FORGET!
We should not forget that the US-Nigerian Military Pact has a life of its own, which since the past one-year a lot has been said about it. From the above only the President, Commander in Chief and his Minister of Defense had not said a word about the US military involvement in Nigeria. It is not late for the US-Nigerian Military pact or Cooperation to be abrogated and its place a US commitment to the revitalization of the collapsed social services and infrastructure. You may not like the messenger, but the message is good. This is the way we should see the alarm raised by General Malu. He had been thrown out but the question he raised is the bitter truth. Nigerians should call on their President to not mistake the narrow self-protection which is one of the sole purpose of the pact with the national self-protection. Nigeria is over exposed through the unilateral act of the President. The questions raised by the two eminent papers, the Vanguard and the Guardian are still valid. The National Assembly that ignored them before to the peril of that institution should go back to them. They can still form the basis of a full-scale legislative hearing, if the National Assembly knows its function under the 1999 Constitution. Finally the independent opinion expressed by the former Vice President said it all that the US or any foreign power should not have been involved in the design of the Nigerian defense policy. The lesson in the foregoing is that the Nigerian political leaders should not have been pressurizing the Nigerian military to expose Nigerian ‘strategic and tactical doctrine’ to the US. No matter how friendly the US might be today, after all, ‘a friend today could be an enemy tomorrow’, so aptly put by the BRUTALLY frank General Victor Malu. In the debate about the military pact between the US and Nigeria, no civilian member of the political class except the sectional outfit called the Northern Senators Forum has said a word. The question is why? It is disturbing that the Nigerian politics is gradually becoming the sole business of those retired military officers as born-again democrats. I recall that in the past, retired military officers except General Shehu Yar’ Adua had dreaded the political role. I still recall how a group of retired officers who were forming the association of retired officers from the three services solicited my help to design for them a ‘Conversion Process for soldiers who would want to take to politics on retirement. I called the program I designed called ‘FROM KHAKI TO AGBADA: A CONVERSION PROCESS FROM MILITARY TO POLITICS. Why they no longer need the conversion process is a function of the declining political efficacy of the civilian political class. I shall address this issue later. It is deadly serious and disturbing. General Malu has no problem; he has money like others; he has something, which others may not have. He has a platform to run on in 2003, a patriotic defense of the Nigerian national security interest when others except Admiral Augustus Aikhomu were trading it away.
The Generals are coming; this BRUTALLY frank General is welcome! This is my testament on the matter; ‘A word is enough for the wise.’
|