ON AMINU AKANDE DIFFERENCE ON NIGERIA

ON AMINU / AKANDE DIFFERENCE ON NIGERIA-US MILITARY PACT

I am reacting to the news article by Laolu Akande of the Guardian Newspapers on the difference between Chief Harry Akande, the Chairman of the APP and Ambassador Jubril Aminu of the PDP, during the recently concluded Independence Day celebrations.

I read with amazement the denial of the Nigerian Ambassador to the US Professor Jubril Aminu of the existence of a military pact between Nigeria and the US when Chief Harry Akande raised it at the occasion of the 41^st independence Anniversary.

Chief Harry Akande was right with his fact; Professor Jubril Aminu was wrong with no facts. There is a pact between the Nigeria and the US. The distinguished Ambassador should read my essay titled THE NIGERIAN-US military pact: fine prints. Recipe for danger written and circulated to many people in Nigeria immediately President Bill Clinton concluded his trip to Nigeria. Since the Ambassador has never considered me as one of those Nigerians he should be interest in contacting, I did not send him a copy.

I am glad that the essay later found its way to the Nigerian reading public when it was published unedited in the NEWS of October 2, 2000 and reproduced in many foreign journals. I was fascinated my many emails and phone calls on the matter.

When General Malu raised the issue later and followed with critical editorials by the two main Nigerian Newspapers, the Vanguard the Guardian and a warning by the former Vice President, Admiral Augustus Aikhomu, I also wrote three other essays with more facts and warning of the implication of embarking on military entanglements without a DEFENSE POLICY.

Maybe a clarification will be in order to begin with. What is a pact? In a simple language it means and ‘agreement between two countries’; it could also mean a ‘treaty’ usually entered into by two countries after diplomatic negotiations.

Every country has a procedure for reaching a binding agreement involving other countries.

Under the Nigerian Constitution, the National Assembly through the Senate has a role to play. This is the procedure in the US where the Senate plays a major role. Whereas under the UK system, it is the function of the Prime Minister and the Executive. The difference between the US and the UK is evident under the current war against the terrorists.

The question one would ask is where is the National Assembly? It is in search of a role under the system of Imperial Presidency in operation in Nigeria, which includes the Nigerian Ambassador to the US.

What we have between Nigeria and the US is more than a mere understanding between two countries governed by a mere memorandum of understanding (MOU). There are fine PRINTS, which I highlighted in my essays on the subject, which should have engaged the attention of the National Assembly.

What the Ambassador should have told the respected High Chief was that he would want to check from his home government answers to certain questions among which are the following:

1. Why are there US military personnel in the Ministry of Defense, in the Defense Headquarters, in the various formations in the country;

2. Why did the great Desert warrior General Norman H. Schwarkopf have to lead a team of US Generals with a shopping list covering military hardware;

3. Why does Nigeria not have a DEFENSE POLICY known to Nigerians, at home and abroad.

For the attention of the Ambassador, may I direct his attention to the following events:

1. First there was a formal request from the Nigerian President, President Obasanjo as soon as he assumed office to the US government to help ‘reorganize’ and ‘reprofessionalize’ the discredited military;

2. Second there a visit by the US Secretary of Defense, William S. Cohen to Nigeria on April 1, 2000 when he announced a $10.6 million US aid, the first since 1993;

3. Third was the Visit of the US President to Nigeria when the US Nigeria military agreement was heralded;

4. Four was the supply of 8 US patrol boat to the Nigerian Navy for use in the oil producing areas;

For the attention of the Nigerian Ambassador under the military pact, the US was to do three critical and highly sensitive political functions on behalf of the Nigerian government.

1. One to install civilian control over the military;

2. Two to redesign the military three branches; and

3. Three, to devise a strategy for dealing with officers, who lose their jobs as the bloated forces are trimmed.

Are these not the critical functions of the National Assembly working with the Ministry of Defense? I do not comment on the each of the three functions of the US under the pact. Nigerians past and future leaders would fall on any of these three functions.

For the interest of Nigerian readers who were misled by the Nigerian Ambassador, there is a military pact between Nigeria Code-named, MILLENIUM ACTION PLAN, which is being implemented by the Alexandria (VA) based outfit called the Military Professional Resource Initiative (MPRI).

I am intrigued by the question raised by Chief Harry Akande, which I thought should have got the Ambassador thinking for obvious reasons being a physician with a knowledge of the dilapidating health care delivery system in Nigeria. What response did the Ambassador give to the question raised by Chief Harry Akande when he asked, why did Nigeria not negotiate a Health Pact with the US? This is still pertinent for the Ambassador to answer.

Maybe, I should end this intervention with the fact that, if the Nigerian people were asked to think of an area deserving of the US assistance, certainly the military would not rank number in the first ten; it would start with those things dearest to them, which the governments at all levels are unable to deliver to our people, education, health, water, electricity and etc.

October, 2001