I enjoyed reading through Prof. Omo Omoruyi’s latest article on the so-called military pact that exists between Nigeria and the United States. The learned professor was obviously incensed by the fact that neither the civilian political class nor the military establishment is capable of reversing the decision by President Obasanjo and his Minister of Defense to foist such a disadvantageous military pact on Nigeria. The deal included a package of US military aid which is being directed mostly at a program to "re-professionalize" the Nigerian armed forces. Prof. Omoruyi obviously sees any form of military assistance to Nigeria as a very low priority matter because the country urgently needs help in to rebuild and revitalize "decaying social services (education and health)" and "collapsing infrastructure, such as light, water, and telephone ". In this deal, Nigeria shall be made to contribute $3.5 million for implementing the defense pact that will ensure that all the money shall "be spent in the US for the US companies and personnel". He fears that the switchover to US weapon systems may compel "Nigeria to discard the equipment from North Korea, Soviet Union (now Russia) etc" from its arsenal. The deal, according to the article, breaches the country’s sovereignty and "would constitute a threat to the national security of Nigeria".

The professor is right in calling the attention of fellow citizens to the implications of getting into a foreign military engagement by the present administration without adequate consultations. He may, however, be seen to be over-exaggerating the true significance of the so-called military pact that was entered into between the Clinton and Obasanjo administrations. Many people know too well that there is no single US military base in Nigeria, or even anywhere on the African continent for that matter. What is the hue and cry about the impending takeover of the Nigerian military by the US? Or better still, where is the proof that the US is intent on hijacking and controlling the Nigerian military formations? Prof. Omoruyi may know more than many about the mortal dangers that abound in this much talked about military pact. If so, he has not clearly explained what his fears are. There is some visible hysteria on the side of those who argue that any assistance to the military means an endorsement of its erstwhile role in national governance. It is far-fetched to suggest that the effort to re-professionalize the Nigerian military is a mere scheme to provide a fresh market for US international arms dealers. I am particularly astonished that Prof. Omoruyi sees no virtue in restructuring and re-professionalizing the nation’s armed forces despite the compromised status of this important institution.

The top echelon of the Nigerian military did dominate political governance in the country for decades. But that does not mean that we do not need to build a strong, efficient and truly professional military institution for a 21^st Century Nigeria. The military may have been in power for decades but the military institution of Nigeria has been undergoing progressive decay just like all other aspects of the society. It is an open knowledge that our soldiers are poorly trained and equipped. How can our armed forces adequately play their professional roles, within the country and beyond, without proper training and equipment? Commitment of resources into a program for re-professionalizing the armed forces ought to be seen as a strategic investment in shoring up the new democratic dispensation. Military interventions in national governance have constituted a stumbling block to Nigeria’s progress in economic and political development. What can be of greater priority to Nigeria at this time than the return of the Nigerian military to its traditional function of national defense? If a pact with a world superpower can expedite such an objective, why should Nigeria not explore such an option?

The military establishment in Nigeria has known little else for the past decades than how to scheme for political power. With this type of preoccupation, this institution has failed the nation, not only by reneging on its traditional and constitutional function, but also for presiding over a period of unprecedented decay of the nation’s morals as well as political and socioeconomic infrastructure. General Malu, irrespective of his present disagreement with the perceived role of the US personnel in the ongoing changes in the Nigerian armed forces, has been part and parcel of the Nigerian military establishment that has held the nation hostage for the past decades. The changes that are underway will certainly attempt to re-assert the subordination of the military to the constitutional Head of State. If General Malu has seen any other extraordinary negative fallout from the re-professionalization process, he has not articulated his concerns coherently enough to justify the attention that he has received from the media. His message to the media appears to be "Beware of Americans". To cheapen the debate, some pundits have elected to suggest a similarity between an oversight of the US military personnel in Nigeria and IMF’s role in monitoring and influencing economic policies of nations worldwide.

Professor Omoruyi and those who share his views on this issue would like us to believe that their resentment about the so-called pact is based on patriotism and concerns that resources, which ought to be utilized for the improvement of the citizens’ well-being, are being expended for a purpose that militates against national interests. Strengthening and professionalizing the Nigerian armed forces, after decades of global decay, are just what the doctor prescribed for re-orienting the military that has gone astray. There is no secret that the Nigerian democracy is designed to pattern after the American model. What is wrong in seeking US help to help to rein in the excesses of the Nigerian military which has repeatedly demonstrated that it is the greatest threat to democratic governance in the country? All the goodies that the professor would like to bring to longsuffering Nigerians can only be realized if we can guarantee that civil democracy shall be given a fair chance to take a foothold in the country. If there is any genuine change of heart within the rank and file of the military to subordinate itself to constitutional control, fellow citizens should have been spared all these crocodile tears about a foreign power meddling in Nigeria’s security policies.

There is an opinion group that strongly believes that the surest way for moving the Africa’s giant forward in the new millennium is to aspire to build a strong, united and secular Nigeria. Both military and economic strength are needed for the new Nigeria that can meet the challenges of the new era. Nigeria has developed intricate relationship with the US since attainment of self-rule from Britain in 1960. There are billions of dollars of US investments in the Nigerian oil industry and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Nigerians have become American citizens or reside in the US since the past 4 decades. Both 1979 Constitution and the current version were patterned after the US model. There are compelling and legitimate bases to seek closer relationship between the US government and Nigeria. It is obvious that the US has no strategic reasons to push for a high-level military pact with Nigeria. It is thus easy to see the fallacy in the insinuation that so-called pact between the US and Nigeria is a ruse to enable the former to establish military bases on the Nigerian soil. Survival and durability of Nigerian democracy can be better guaranteed by the type of program that Nigeria has developed, in collaboration with the US, to re-professionalize the military. Those who oppose this sensible endeavor may have their reasons and motivations. They have, however, failed so far to convince their fellow citizens that their xenophobic rhetoric is to the best interest of 21^st Century Nigeria.

OKENWA R. NWOSU, M.D.

Greenbelt, MD.

U.S.A.