U.S. blocks Israeli arms deal with Nigeria

arms dealer

Citing human rights abuses and widespread corruption in nixing helicopter sale, the United States has reportedly vetoed a 2014 arms sale of US-made Cobra helicopters by Israel to Nigeria.

Though the resale of decommissioned gunships was approved by Israel’s Defence Ministry, Washington stopped the deal over concerns that the Nigerian government was not doing enough to avoid civilian casualties in its ongoing fight with Boko Haram, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported yesterday.

The canceled sale has further strained Washington’s already tense ties with Nigeria over the government’s response to the five-year-long insurgency by the Islamist group.

Beyond its concern over human rights abuses, the Obama administration has significantly limited its security assistance to Nigeria in recent months, due to widespread government corruption and a possible Boko Haram infiltration into the Nigerian military, The New York Times reported in December.

Though Asia remains Israel’s biggest arms customer, military exports to African nations virtually doubled in 2013.  A total of $224 million worth of arms and military technology was sold to African countries, compared to $107 million in 2012.

According to defence sources, a second African country could be a potential buyer for the helicopters, though the Defence Ministry declined to comment on the report.

During a visit to Nigeria on Sunday, US Secretary of State John Kerry said Washington was prepared to increase its support for the fight against Boko Haram, provided next month’s elections take place peacefully and democratically

Nigeria’s foreign policy requires new approach

This morning in Dakar, Senegal, an International Forum on Peace and Security in Africa kicks off, as a follow-up to an earlier one (December 2013) convened by the French government in Paris, which brought together African Heads of State and governments and six international organisations (the United Nations, African Union, European Union, World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the African Development Bank) to talk about security and economic issues as they affect Africa. The ongoing Dakar meeting, attended by about 300 delegates drawn from government, military, business, civil society and the media, is meant to “deepen reflection” on the pledges and resolutions from the Paris meeting. (Follow proceedings on Twitter at #DakarForum).

Africa’s security challenges have no doubt taken on new and interesting dimensions in recent years, demanding bold and urgent and innovative responses. Where once coups and civil wars were the league leaders, we now have to contend with the spectre of extremist Islam, manifesting everywhere from the East (Kenya; Al-Shabaab) to the North (Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) to the West (Boko Haram in Nigeria, Chad and Cameroon).

And then, there are the transnational criminal groups which command economic powers on a scale that would make the rebel warlords of the 1990s look like child soldiers. Cocaine has become the New Improved diamond. Writing recently in Newsweek, Journalist Alex Perry tells the disheartening story of how African countries have become, in recent years, hubs on the global cocaine trade route (from Latin America to Western Europe).

Perry writes that when the North American market for cocaine became saturated, cocaine dealers (based in Latin America) started to look towards the virgin markets of Europe. And then they realised that “half-way to Europe, within range of small planes and fishing boats, were a series of eminently corruptible African countries with little in the way of law, government, air forces or navies.” African countries therefore found starring role as conduits for cocaine making its way to Europe. Perry says unofficial estimates put the quantity of cocaine moving through Guinea Bissau at 60 tonnes, accounting for a lot more than the country’s official economic output.

All of these various manifestations of insecurity end up being linked to one another. Perry’s argument in his piece, titled, “Blood Lines: How cocaine nights fund beheadings” is that the cocaine trade (in which Africa features prominently) helps fund terrorism around the world. Extremist groups raise significant amounts of funds from criminal enterprises: cocaine, oil theft, kidnapping, etc. By fighting crime wholeheartedly, we are therefore helping check the rise of terrorists.

Unchecked, however, these challenges will definitely grow in size and strength. We thought the Al-Qaeda of yesterday was brutal; today, we have the ISIS and Boko Haram, groups so violent that even Al-Qaeda has openly condemned and dissociated itself from them.

This is where I will bring the issue home to Nigeria. Because all security, like all politics, is local. It is not possible to overemphasise the role of Nigeria as regional and continental giant, in matters relating to security and peace. Nigeria accounts for half of the population of West Africa, a sixth of the continent’s entire population, and roughly a fifth of the continent’s economic output. It is also now home to one of the most virulent expressions of instability the world is currently seeing.

Yet, for some tragic reason, we are permanently a footnote to the news in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere. When the US Senator John McCain announces that, left to him, he “wouldn’t be waiting for some kind of permission from some guy named Goodluck Jonathan” before sending in troops to rescue the Chibok girls, apart from the fact that McCain is an oft-grumpy dude with a penchant for controversial pronouncements, it is also in my view a pointer to just how the rest of the world sees Nigeria: Helpless, uninspiring.

And it is understandable, even if not justifiable. There is little or no initiative on our part as a country to take charge of the most challenging factors affecting us. I cringe every time I see that President Jonathan has gone on yet another junket to Chad in search of a solution to Boko Haram. Call me a foreign policy novice, but shouldn’t the Chadian President be the one coming to Abuja, not the other way round? My view is that Abuja should be the one leading in convening the all-important security meetings involving the region and country, instead of abdicating that responsibility to Paris or London or Washington.

The quote that follows (I have previously used it in this column – in a piece on Boko Haram, published June 10, 2013) is from the book, “Soldiers of Fortune: Nigerian Politics under Buhari and Babangida”, by Nigerian military historian, Max Siollun: “Buhari was in charge of troops sent to Nigeria’s north-eastern border region in 1983 to prevent infiltration by armed rebels from the neighbouring Republic of Chad. After his troops successfully cleared the Chadian rebels from the border area, the troops advanced several kilometres into Chadian territory. The political hierarchy ordered Buhari to withdraw his troops, but he refused, arguing that the Chadian rebels would return to the area as soon as his troops departed. Buhari’s view was that it was futile to risk the lives of soldiers by confronting the rebels, only to withdraw and allow them to return once the objective had been achieved.”

How has Nigeria gone from that country pursuing rebels deep into enemy territory, to one whose President runs off at the slightest opportunity to take pictures with the President of a country with a population and GDP smaller than that of Lagos? It doesn’t quite sound right. Recall a decade ago (late 2003), when President Olusegun Obasanjo, obsessed with catching the now-deceased Beninoise cross-border car-snatching kingpin, Hammani Tidjani, ordered the closure of Nigeria’s border with Benin.

According to news reports at that time, the closure hit the Benin economy so hard it forced the government to ferret Tidjani out of hiding and hand him over to Nigerian authorities (the saga also cost a dozen high-ranking Beninoise security chiefs their jobs; fired by an angry President Mattieu Kerekou for alleged complicity with Tidjani). As far as I know, at no time did then President Obasanjo head for Benin cap-in-hand in search of a solution to a problem that needed decisive action on Nigeria’s part.

But let me also add: The blame I am generously offloading does not exclusively belong to the government. Nigeria’s academia, think-tanks and the media are all guilty. We should be doing a better job, on all facets, of agenda-setting and thought-leadership regarding our security crisis.

But maybe when you’ve got a President whose trademark lines boil down to abdicating responsibility, maybe it is easy to see why that attitude has infected the entire national response. Again, that is something I’ve complained about in this column – how the President enjoys singing that “terrorism is a global problem” and “we are not the only ones suffering” and “this too shall pass” and “the international community should rise up to help Nigeria”.

While there is truth in that stance, it should not be the headline story. The headline story should be projection of a presidential and government attitude that takes responsibility, and that views international assistance as the icing, not the cake.

By all indices – demographics, geopolitics, economics – Nigeria deserves to occupy a more important place in global consciousness, and not simply as a victim. Not simply as that country that gives up more than 200 girls to a terrorist group without a fight, but instead a country that takes the initiative and shows no hesitation to demonstrate decisiveness in dealing with its security challenges.

The excitement that greeted Nigeria’s conquest of Ebola is evidence of just how rare good news from Nigeria is, and possibly how desperate the world is to hear uplifting news from the most important black country in the world. The Ebola narrative has clearly shown that there just might be a massive market for good news from Nigeria (hint, hint).

Recall that that was what followed Nigeria’s conquest of Ebola – all attention turned on us for lessons and insight. Now, how about seeing if we could replicate that success story with Boko Haram, the criminal gangs in the Niger Delta, the pirates in the Gulf of Guinea, and the urban kidnappers everywhere else? Even though the scenarios are very different – Ebola is not Boko Haram, obviously – the responses should all share something in common: the confidence to fight back, and to boldly seek to make a difference.

PUNCH

Cash-for-arms deal: South Africa returns $15m to Nigeria

SOUTH-AFRICA-PRESIDENT-11-300x227 ok

There are indications that  Nigeria and South Africa have resolved their differences over the cash-for-arm deal that went awry.

An online medium, Cable News, yesterday quoted   South African Ambassador to Nigeria, Lulu Louis Mnguni, as saying that the money had been returned to the Nigerian government.

South African authorities had on September 5 seized $9.3 million cash belonging to the Nigerian government and another  $5.7 million about two weeks later on the ground that the transfer process was against South African financial law.

But  Nigeria’s National Security Adviser (NSA), Sambo Dasuki, insisted that the transactions were legal.

The issue almost caused a major dispute between both countries as Nigeria moved to sanction South African companies operating in the country.

Indications however emerged that the South African government was willing to return the money after some diplomatic moves early this month.

Confirming the return of the money, Mnguni said: “South Africa’s relations with Nigeria comes a long way. So now, this actually will make us much more closer, to see how we can close some of these gaps that result in such accidents.”

While also reacting to the Synagogue building collapse and its effect on the relationship between the two countries, Mniguni said both countries  had come a long way and the collapse could only make them closer and stronger.

The South African ambassador added that the seizure of the funds by South African government was in no way related to the Synagogue collapse.

“South Africa’s relations with Nigeria is priceless, it cannot be sold for $15m,”

“These are two separate incidents, and of course, the issue of money has already been sorted out. Nigeria has been given the money.”

NATION

Sudanese Ambassador dies in Abuja

ABUJA – The Ambassador of Sudan to Nigeria, Dr Tagelsir Ali, died in Abuja yesterday.

According to the Media Advisor to the embassy, Mr Mohammed Abdulrahman, Ali, 66, died at about 1 am yesterday at the National Hospital, Abuja.

Ali, who was posted to Nigeria in February, 2012, the advisor said, was down with malaria.

He said: “He had malaria, there were some complications and he passed away around 1 am early this morning.

“There is a presidential jet coming by 5 pm (yesterday) to take the remains to Sudan for burial. He was 66 years old.

“He loved working in Nigeria and had zeal to develop the bilateral relationship between Sudan and Nigeria and was able to stretch himself very well.”

When contacted, the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Martin Uhomoibhi, said the ministry was aware of the ambassador’s death.

NATION

US Oil Policy Will Not Hurt Nigeria – IMF

  • Says Nigeria’s outlook still robust

By Festus Akanbi and Ndubuisi Francis in Washington DC, USA

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has ruled out any major shock in the Nigerian economy on the basis of the new oil policy of the United States that put an end to the importation of oil from Nigeria.

Speaking at a press conference on Saturday at the ongoing IMF/World Bank annual meetings in Washington DC, US Director, African Department and Senior Communications Officer of the fund, Antoinette Sayeh and Andrew Kanyegirire respectively,  said the recent restructuring of the Nigerian debt had insulated the country from revenue reduction brought about by the stoppage of oil importation from Nigeria.

They noted that the oil industry was, indeed, changing, adding:“In the US, of course, Shale oil reserves are going to be brought into production. It will mean less of a US demand for oil exports from Nigeria and other countries. Nigeria’s exports to the US have already ceased, in oil, and from that, we don’t see any major impact on the economy in the growth.”

Sayeh particularly noted that given the fact that Nigeria had ceased to be a big borrower in recent times as a result of its recent debt restructuring, chances that it would be under intense pressure as a  result of the US policy on oil are low.

Nigeria, he said,  had, in fact, not been a big borrower in recent times as it benefited from a considerable debt restructuring 10 years ago  and had not been borrowing any large amounts.”

The IMF chief said the seven per cent projection for Nigeria’s growth this year would not be affected by the new development, saying, “The prospects and outlook we see for Nigeria, currently, we’re still projecting some 7 per cent growth this year for Nigeria. I think the authorities have knocked that down to some 6.5 per cent based on some of their concerns about some of the security conditions also that they’re facing.

“But Nigeria’s outlook looks very robust. You may know that from the rebasing that Nigeria just recently did that the economy is, in fact, a lot more diverse than we had previously, all of us, thought. That the services sector is, indeed, a major one. Some 50 per cent of Nigerian GDP now is from the services sector. So a more diversified economy, for that reason, makes a country likely to be more resilient to shocks that may come from things like oil.

Nigeria became the first country to completely stop selling oil to the United States of America, the world’s largest oil producer and consumer, due to the impact of the shale revolution – an astounding reversal – as the country was only four years ago one of the top five oil suppliers to America.

According to the US Department of Energy, Nigeria did not export a single barrel of crude to US-based refiners in July for the first time since records started in 1973.
Preliminary data suggest the trend continued in August and September, the London-based Financial Times reported recently.

Many oil producers have seen their exports to the US drop as domestic production rises, thanks to the use of new technologies such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. But Nigeria is the first to fully stop exporting crude to that country. At its peak in February 2006, the US imported 1.3 million barrels per day (mb/d) from Nigeria – equal to roughly one super tanker the size of the Exxon Valdez every day. By 2012, Nigeria was just selling 0.5m b/d, but was still one of the top five suppliers to the US, alongside Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Earlier this year, sales dropped to a trickle of about 100,000 b/d. And in July, they completely stopped.

Nigeria, a member of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil cartel, is Africa’s largest oil producer and international companies from ExxonMobil to Royal Dutch Shell and from Total to Chevron operate some of the country’s major oil fields. But most of them are divesting of these assets in the country, as they undertake a portfolio rotation of their assets to divert more resources in shale oil production.

The shale revolution has affected US oil suppliers unevenly, hitting particularly hard those in Africa such as Nigeria, Algeria, Libya and Angola, which produce high quality crude similar to the one pumped in the new oil fields of North Dakota.

THISDAY

Envoy: US Not Undermining Nigeria’s Terrorism War, But…

United States Ambassador to Nigeria, Mr. James Entwistle,
• Admits human rights abuse by military has deterred sale of arms to FG
Daji Sani in Yola

The United States Ambassador to Nigeria, Mr. James Entwistle, has debunked the notion that his government is undermining Nigeria’s efforts to end the insurgency in the North-east, adding that the war had more political undertones than a religious underpinning.
The US Ambassador made the statement while addressing journalists at a press conference convened at the American University of Nigerian (AUN) in Yola, adding that human rights abuses by Nigerian soldiers in the past had played a role in determining the sale of arms to Nigeria.
THISDAY had exclusively reported last month that Nigeria’s efforts to procure military equipment, especially Cobra helicopters (erroneously reported as Chinook helicopters) from Israel, had been blocked by the US on the grounds of human rights abuses by the Nigerian military.
The US ambassador further observed that both major religions – Christianity and Islam – had suffered colossal losses since the Boko Haram insurgency started.
He said Boko Haram insurgents had grown from just a small group with arms to segmented groups that have full military training and equipment.
He said the US government was heavily involved in supporting the Nigerian government’s response to the Boko Haram menace.
“I disagree completely with these headlines; they are quite inadequate. Our two countries have strong military relationship.
“Over the years, we share a lot of equipment; some of the newest vessels of your navy come from United States, so the idea that US doesn’t support Nigeria is not true,” the envoy said.
He said the support to Nigeria was in many forms, including training of soldiers and information sharing.
On his perception of Boko Haram, the ambassador said he was not sure of the group’s objectives.
“There are still some open questions on who they are, what they want.
“A year ago, I would have said they were religiously motivated. But as they killed more and more Muslims, it’s hard for me to believe that they were motivated by religion.
“Who are these guys and what do they want? I don’t think we really understand them, ” Entwistle said.
He observed that Boko Haram had gone beyond being a small insurgent group, with a couple of guns, to a very effective collection of conventional force.
“An open question we have to look at carefully is where is the military expertise (for Boko Haram) coming from? How in the last one year have they become more effective?” He asked.
He said the American government would only sell or give out arms when she is sure of the purpose it is meant for, adding that Nigeria is America’s biggest interest in Africa.
Lending some insight into Nigeria’s attempt to procure arms to counter the insurgency, Entwistle explained that cases of human rights abuses by Nigerian troops in the North-east in the past years have stood out as a sore thumb whenever the US considers the Nigerian military’s request for arms.
“Before we share equipment with any country, whether it is a government-to-government grant or a commercial sale that requires government approval, we look at a couple of things,” the ambassador explained.
“Does it make sense in terms of that country’s needs? The second thing we look at is the human rights situation in that country. And as we look at equipment transfers, we look at the situation in those countries in the past few years.
“As you all know, there have been instances, I’m not saying across the board, of human rights abuses by the Nigerian military in the North-east.
“So the kind of question that we have to ask is let’s say we give certain kinds of equipment to the Nigerian military that is then used in a way that affects the human situation. If I approve that, I’m responsible for that. We take that responsibility very seriously,” he said.
Entwistle, however, expressed confidence that Nigeria can overcome the current challenges facing the nation if a genuine democratic process is allowed to thrive.
“A genuine change through democratic process is the most precious and powerful tool to bring the desired change in a nation like Nigeria,” he said.
The ambassador also said the only way to fight corruption is to establish effective institutions to fight it and when the average man in the street begins to stand up against it.
He also said through media campaigns, civil society groups and other non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the US government was going out to lunch campaigns to sensitise the people on the dangers of corruption, adding that his country also suffered corruption in the past and since the US started the fight against corruption, it was still fighting it.
He also commended the Nigeria government for rising up to fight the deadly Ebola virus, calling on other countries to emulate the actions taken by Nigeria.
The envoy, who was in Adamawa to monitor the suspended October 11 governorship by-election, held talks with the Adamawa Interfaith Committee, an NGO.
He also visited AUN where he delivered a lecture to the staff and students of the institution.

THISDAY

OPINION: ON STUPIDITY & WAR

Follow us on Twitter @Sayelbatimes

The war hasn’t ended and already the criticism over Israel’s military adventure in Gaza is mounting as the Islamist movement, Hamas, continues to surprise the “invaders”.

Leading and, presumably, respected media commentators have blamed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his hastiness, Israel’s Security Service – the Shabak – for its ignorance and the military for its poor performance.

Israel might claim technological superiority and tactical victory, but, as one expert concluded, strategically, it’s been defeated.

Needless to say, there are many ways by which one takes stock of the ongoing war. But after three military adventures in six years, Hamas remains a formidable force in Palestine. And Israel has little to show for its military prowess and technological edge aside from the terrible devastation wrought across the Gaza Strip – home to 1.8 million Palestinians living impoverished lives in the world’s longest-standing refugee camp.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has boasted of Israel’s moral standing and condemned Hamas for targeting civilians. But in the last few days, it’s the Israeli military that has suffered hundreds of casualties, including 29 soldiers killed, thus far. While on the Palestinian side, Israel’s bombings led to thousands of civilian casualties. It takes chutzpah to take pride in such a dreadful record.

At any rate, if it doesn’t cool down its aggression on the population of Gaza, Israel might increasingly face another uprising in the West Bank as the Palestinians open another front against their occupiers. And if the early indicators are anything to go by, it shows signs of turning violent and bloody.

Israel, a fast learner

It’s smart to learn from one’s own mistakes; wise to learn from others’ mistakes. What lessons has Netanyahu learnt, if any?

There is no doubt that Israel is a quick learner. It learned much from its own operational and even strategic mistakes in past wars, and no less, from the war experiences of other nations.

The last century witnessed countless wars, including civil wars, proxy wars, wars driven by nationalism, racism and greed, and two destructive world wars.

Israel has had its share of these wars – 14 in six decades – and the Middle East region that makes up some five percent of the world population, accounts for 20 percent of its conflicts; a percentage that probably skyrocketed in recent years.

Their motivations varied, but self-defence has generally been the excuse for aggression. Underlining its lack of strategic depth, Israel has long boasted of its pre-emptive doctrine to hit first when needing to defend itself.

Israel has also relied on the United States for lessons of war. And in recent times, it taught its patron a few lessons it’s learned itself in Lebanon and Palestine, for fighting in Iraq – a reason why the Israelis were stunned this week to hear former Secretary of State Madeline Albright speak of Israel’s “disproportionate” military response in Gaza, when she justified the US blockade on Iraq even when it led to the death of half a million children.

Israel is hardly the first to invoke self-defence to justify aggression – Lebanon being the best example – or protecting civilians to kill civilians. It has learnt the art of victimhood like no other. Its ultimate chutzpah goes along the lines of: “We won’t forgive you for forcing us to kill you.”

So yes, Israel has learned many lessons, and has institutionalised these lessons and is making money out of these lessons through training other nations’ military and security forces. Indeed, Israel arms sales have rocketed to $7.5bn in 2012, arms that are war-tested, as Israel so frequently vaunts.

But the more important question is: Has Israel learnt the most important lesson of all about its type of colonial asymmetrical wars?

The predictable war

Unlike conventional wars, the longest and most legitimate wars of all have been the people’s fight for independence from colonialism.

Israel is in the midst of such a fight against a people’s struggle for freedom and independence and it makes similar, if not identical claims, to those made by other colonial powers of the past.

But not one foreign power big or small was able to win a single asymmetrical war against a people resisting colonialism throughout the entire 20th century.

This definite and paradoxical conclusion – the most instructive, and yet ignored of all lessons of war is categorical: Not one great power possessing superior firepower has won against a weaker, less organised and less professional resistance against occupation.

Not the French, not the English, not the Belgians, the Dutch, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Italians, the Soviets, the Chinese, the Afrikaners, etc. Not one! In the end, they all lose. And if they don’t, then it’s not the end.

INTERACTIVE: Gaza Under Attack
In each and every case, the indigenous population was designated terrorist, or fanatic, extremist, destructive, insensitive, or all of the above when they stood up to their occupier. Similar if not identical to the stuff we hear from Israelis nowadays.

Yet, despite all their military domination, political mechanisation, and superior moral pretentions, they eventually lose the battle of wills and are compelled to leave – defeated or humiliated.

While there are exceptions, such as in the case of India, the cost is generally high in death and destruction especially for those at the receiving end of aggression. But don’t depend on those who can keep a record to do so for their victims.

During the Algerian war for independence that lasted a decade, almost 30,000 Frenchmen, and we are told half a million to a million Algerians, were killed – give or take a couple of hundred thousand deaths.

Like today’s Israel, those colonial powers also justified their wars as last resort, and explained the high casualties as “War sucks”, “We’ve got to do whatever we need to protect ourselves”, or “The terrorists are hiding among the population”, and “using them as human shields” etc.

And so the fog of war and propaganda continues to blur the lines between right and wrong, occupied from occupier, defence and aggression. But when the dust settles, Israel will find itself where it was before its latest and past adventures, but with weaker deterrence, less credibility and hardened enemies.

Yes, it could continue to justify its military adventures under the pretext of combating terrorists, destroying rocket-launchers and tunnels. But whatever its justifications, these are the by-products of its own colonialism and war.

In the final analysis, if Israel doesn’t start packing and leaving the occupied territories sooner, many Israelis will start leaving it later because conditions are bound to get much worse.

Late is better than never learning the primary lesson from this conflict: It’s the occupation, stupid.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Sayelba Time’s editorial policy.

Source: Al Jazeera