OBAMA’S VISIT TO EAST AFRICA AND THE SWOT ANALYSIS

      This past week the continent of Africa was agog for the visit of an illustrious son of the soil, most especially the East African nation of Kenya. President Barrack Obama concluded what could as well be regarded as his last lap of African tour, with visits to Ethiopia and Kenya respectively. After previously visiting Ghana, Senegal, Egypt, South-Africa and Tanzania, when he was elected as the first black US president in 2008, a wave of “Obamamania” swept the continent. He visited Egypt and Ghana in 2009 to call for democratization in Africa and the Middle East, noting that Washington would support “strong institutions and not strongmen”. But by the time Obama visited South Africa, Senegal and Tanzania in 2013, the dream had worn off, and the unrealistic expectation that the US president would transform American policy towards Africa had not even come close to being fulfilled, but with this visit to East Africa the dream seems to be awaken again.

        After a globally proclaimed and acknowledged triumphant entry and exist of President Barrack Obama to Kenya and Ethiopia, it is time to examine impact assessment of this historic visit to both East-African countries. In the wake of this recent events unfolding in which most African Nations are beginning to pitch their tent with the Eastern-bloc and the communist country of China, most of which are considered as ”American’s foe”. The major strength and prospect of Obama’s historic visit was the restoration of close ties with the African continent, also on the part of Africa; the visit has helped to restore African’s dignity by re-positioning her back on the world map of the committee of nations. Needless to say that Obama is heading to Kenya – the birthplace of his father – this week, his first visit to his ancestral home during his presidency. But coming at the tail end of his second term, the trip is the ultimate show of the symbolic, rather than substantive, approach that has characterized Obama’s engagement with Africa. The visit also afforded Kenya the opportunity to sell herself as a potential business haven, considering the fact that the 6^th Global Entrepreneurship Summit that she hosted open the doors to alot of investors both within and outside Africa.

        One major weakness of the historic visit is that, Africa at large becomes open to the foreign values and cultures, prominent among these is, the culture of “same-sex marriage”. Though, little traces of this “alien” culture is already been felt in some parts of Africa, it is also refreshing to note that the president of Kenya, Uhuru Kenyatta, unapologetically rejected the offer when presented to him on a platter of gold. However, it remains quite unclear how other African leaders would deal with the introduction of this “alien culture”.

        There seems to be abundant opportunities inherent in this visit for the countries of Kenya and Ethiopia. As it is known that Africa possess a lot of untapped economic potentials, elements that Kenya and Ethiopia could exploit to her advantages includes; strengthening of bi-lateral agreements and deals, commerce and trade business between America and both countries could as be re-adjusted for the benefit of both parties and not just a single-party. Also, air-space agreement would generate into direct-flight routes most especially between Kenya and USA could also be exploited so as to ensure quicker deals. Just as it was rightly noted by President Barrack Obama at the AU headquarters in Ethiopia, ‘Africa’s natural resources. Real economic partnerships have to be a good deal for Africa-they have to create jobs and capacity for Africans. That is the kind of partnership America offers’. A lot of opportunities are embedded in this visit for Africa only if she can make some amends to her economic sector.

          Having highlighted the above opportunities, it is not out of place to examine the threats; elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the businesses and projects that this visit birth. One major inflicting threat to Africa, most especially to both East-African Nations, remains insecurity, typified in terrorism.Kenya has been one of the most affected countries by terrorist , al-shabaab has continually wrecked havoc in this country, killing lives and destroying properties. One may not be quick to forget in ahaste the terrorist attack on the Westgate Shopping Mall in September2013, where lives were lost. Ethiopia is also not exempted from the barrage of terrorist attacks from “al-shabaab”. Also, corruption which remains ‘a clog in the wheel of progress” has made Africa it abode. Just as Obama specifically noted “Nothing will unlock African’s economic potential more than ending the cancer of corruption.”

by 

Akintayo Joshua

IRANIAN NUCLEAR ACCORD: THE MAKING OF ANOTHER NORTH KOREA

America’s enemies should fear America, but America’s friends should fear America more……….. Henry Kissinger.

The above quote best describes the recently agreed nuclear accord between Iraq and the World powers. The much awaited negotiations were finally concluded after 20 months of arduous negotiations, on the 14^th day of July, 2015. The 14^th day of July, 2015 will forever linger in the hearts of the citizens of the Nation of Iran .President Barrack Obama of USA was the frontline advocate of this nuclear treaty, he majorly championed the cause together with other permanent members of the United Nations. The president stood tall despite all the stiff opposition from within and without, most significant of which was the opposition from the Congress of the United States of America. The congress disapproved of this treaty majorly because, the treaty did not address Iran’s troublesome role in the Middle Eastern terrorist rise, especially its role in the funding of Hezbollah, a terrorist group based in Jordan.

A look into Iran’s nuclear history is pertinent here. The history of Iran’s nuclear weaponry can be traced back to the 1950’s; ironically the United States was of notable help. The United States of America signed a treaty to help Iran set up a nuclear program; a significant rise in the nuclear program had a positive impact on Iran’s economy, especially with the increase in oil prices. Iran benefitted a lot from this oil price increase and she became a force to reckon with in the oil market, which also led USA to purchase oil from her.

   The US government under the leadership of Barrack Obama spearheaded a nuclear accord with Iran. Some of the agreements include;

• Iran's current stockpile of low-enriched uranium will be reduced by 98 percent, from 10,000 kg to 300 kg. This reduction will be maintained for at least fifteen years. For the same fifteen-year period, Iran will be limited to enriching uranium to 3.67%, a percentage sufficient for civilian nuclear power and research, but not for building a nuclear weapon. This is a "major decline" in Iran's previous nuclear activity; prior to watering down its stockpile pursuant to the Joint Plan of Action interim agreement, Iran had enriched uranium to near 20%.

• Iran will reduce by at least two-thirds the number of its centrifuges (tube-shaped machines used to enrich uranium), from its current stockpile of 19,000 centrifuges (of which 10,000 were operational) to no more than 6,104, with only 5,060 allowed to enrich uranium over the next ten years. All enrichment capacity (i.e., the maximum 5,060 centrifuges) will be limited to the Natanz plant. The centrifuges there must be IR-1 centrifuges, the first-generation centrifuge type which is Iran's oldest and least efficient; Iran must give up its advanced IR-2M centrifuges. The decommissioned centrifuges will be retained by Iran, but will sent to monitored storage by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

• Iran's Fordow facility will stop enriching uranium and researching uranium enrichment for at least fifteen years; the facility will be converted into a nuclear, physics and technology research center. Fordow will be permitted to keep 1,044 IR-1 centrifuges in six cascades in one wing of Fordow. "Two of those six cascades will spin without uranium and will be transitioned, including through appropriate infrastructure modification," for stable radioisotope production for medical, agricultural, industrial, and scientific use. "The other four cascades with all associated infrastructure will remain idle." Iran will not be permitted to have any fissile material. Iran will not build any new uranium-enrichment facilities for fifteen years^. Iran will also not be permitted to build any additional heavy-water reactors or accumulate heavy water for fifteen years

• Iran must make changes to several facilities. In order to reduce the proliferation threat, Iran must reduce centrifuges at the Arak complex and rebuild the complex using a design approved by the international community, to make it impossible to produce weapons-grade plutonium. As long as the Arak reactor exists, all spent fuel will be sent out of the country.

• Iran may continue research and development work on enrichment, but that work will take place only at the Natanz facility and will be limited to eight years. This is intended to keep the country to a breakout time of one year.

• A comprehensive inspections regime will be implemented; Iran will be required to allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to all of Iran's declared facilities, including the Parchin military facility, in order to monitor and confirm that Iran is complying with its obligations and is not diverting any fissile material.

The agreement was in exchange for the reduction in sanctions against Iran by the United States and the International community at large, most of which will prove positive for the economic wellbeing of Citizens life.(of course, who will see America’s “goody bag” smiling at her and not go for it). Some other parts of the sanction reduction includes;

The United States and the European Union would lift their nuclear-related sanctions against Iran (specified in Annex II of the agreement) after the IAEA verifies that several key steps have been taken

• Sanctions relating to ballistic missile technologies would remain for eight years; similar sanctions on conventional weapon sales to Iran would remain for five years.
• Eight years into the agreement, EU sanctions against a number of Iranian companies and individuals (such as Qasem Soleimani) will be lifted.
• However, all U.S. sanctions against Iran related to human rights abuses, missiles, and support for terrorism are not affected by the agreement and will remain in place. U.S. sanctions are viewed as more stringent, since many have extraterritorial effect (i.e., they apply worldwide). EU sanctions, by contrast, apply only in Europe.

However, one must not be quick to forget that this part the Obama led US government is treading as already been treaded upon previously by his predecessors. Of recent is the Nuclear weapons treaty signed between the Clinton led US administration and North Korea, far back in 1994. The treaty then had all the writings of this current treaty, with agreements concluded and plan going on smoothly. But all plans and agreement went sour when there was a change in government. George W Bush who was then the president of United States of America felt the need to change the terms of agreement in 2004, about 10 years after the initial plan was made, this led North Korea leaving the NPT agreement and the country went ahead to further develop nuclear weapons and technologies numbering up to 10, and this has made the country to be dreaded and negative feelings have developed between both Nations up till today.

   Hence, a critical issue that comes to mind is the fact that ‘what is the confidence Obama has that this deal will be sustained by the incoming administration, considering the fact that Obama’s tenure is less than 15 months from been over?’ Already, there are strong indications that the administration may not sustain this deal of nuclear accord between both countries. If this eventually happens, then it means history is about to repeat itself, another ‘North Korea is in the making’. A rogue and uncontrollable state in the International environment.

  The USA has succeeded in making herself the hegemonic power of the world, despite the existence of the International umpire, which is, the United Nations. United States of America has allowed her selfish interests to override the overall interests of the World, as it is no more a secret that the United States of America will only contribute in any issue, where large benefits accrues to Her. Ask me how I know this? Simple, the Middle East primarily views USA has the cause of all the woes that has befallen her (the region), especially considering USA’s role in the war against Iraq, her close neighbor. Hence, it is sensible to come to a conclusion that USA is actually trying to seek the good recognition and favour of the region, considering the amount of hate that the Middle Eastern region has for the west. This is apart from the numerous economic benefits that the USA stands to gain.

 A lesson here is that, the hegemonic dominance of USA should not be undermined, as the Nation can single handedly pull strings all on her own, with little or no help from the other World powers. Her importance in the world affairs should never be underestimated at all

The need for delay of the 14th February Presidential election.

In a 2005 report, “Mapping Sub-Saharan Africa's Future,” the United States National Intelligence Council predicted the “outright collapse of Nigeria” within 15 years. At the time, many Nigerians, including then-President Olusegun Obasanjo, dismissed the report.

But as Nigerians go to the polls next week, the doomsday prediction of U.S. intelligence appears to be coming five years earlier than expected.

The vast majority of Nigerians distrust the political class. This is exacerbated by the pervasive misrule, incompetence, inordinate ambition and mediocrity that plague the country’s political landscape. The stakes in next month’s elections are high. And the outcome is going to test Nigeria’s continued existence as one state. If politicians refuse to play by the rules, amid a political atmosphere charged with bitterness, acrimony and intolerance, the elections could break apart Africa’s most populous country.

Nigeria’s VUCA world

The insecurity created by the Islamist group Boko Haram poses a significant threat to the credibility of the polls. Elections are unlikely to take place in parts of northeastern Nigeria that are controlled by the group. On Jan. 22, Nigeria’s national security adviser, Sambo Dasuki called on the electoral commission to delay the vote, noting that nearly 30 million eligible voters are yet to receive voting cards. The fact that nearly half of the electorate had not received their voter cards less than three weeks before the elections means that the vote is bound to lack credibility. Nigeria’s opposition and the electoral commission haverejected the call.

Nigeria should delay the Feb. 14 presidential election but not for the reasons advanced by Dasuki. The two presidential candidates — Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan and his main rival, retired army Gen. Muhammadu Buhari — lack the necessary clout, competence and character to lead Nigeria at this critical moment in its history.

Nigeria’s sociopolitical milieu mirrors what Duke University researchers described as a VUCA world — characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. In this type of environment, the traditional skills of leadership are not enough. Instead, a major disruption in the country’s leadership dynamics is needed to force the political class to devise new ways of doing old things rather than recycle old ideas. While a relative newcomer to Nigeria’s political scene, Jonathan is a captive of the old order even more so than Buhari, who has been a major player in Nigerian politics since the 1970s.

Growing insecurity, rampant corruption and Jonathan’s tepid approach to governance have exposed his weakness. Politics is about perception, and among Nigerians he has created a perception that he is weak. This was exemplified by his administration’s failure to rescue more than 200 girls abducted by Boko Haram last April.

Nigeria is simply not ready for this election. The insecurity in the north of the country is bound to mar the election. More important, the two candidates do not offer credible options for Nigerians. 

Unlike his predecessor Obasanjo, who had been a general in the army, Jonathan does not command the respect of top military brass. The Nigerian military has a long history of involvement in politics. And the rank and file still struggles to subordinate itself to civilian authority. Jonathan, a civilian leader with no military background, had a frosty relationship with the military, to the extent that some commanders refused to respect his orders. It is no surprise, then, that Dasuki blamed the failure to rescue the Chibok girls on the military, whom he called cowards.

Unlike Jonathan, Buhari, who briefly ruled the country in the 1980s after taking power in a military coup, enjoys the admiration of the military. Running his third presidential campaign, Buhari comes off as a spent force and has not offered any fresh ideas. Yet his ascendance to power through the ballot box has the potential to quell the security crises in the country. The famous War Against Indiscipline — which sought to promote public morality, civic responsibility and Nigerian nationalism — was one of the positive legacies of his 20-month tenure.

Lack of credibility

Nigeria appears to be teetering on the edge of the abyss. The National Human Rights Commission is worried that intemperate calls to arms from the two campaigns could lead to postelection violence. The commission and two U.S.-based election observers — the National Democratic Institute and International Republican Institute — called on the two candidates to refrain from making vitriolic statements and warned that the electoral commission is unprepared to oversee a credible poll. The election monitors noted incomplete distribution of permanent voter cards to eligible voters, reliance on voter card readers that have not been sufficiently tested and lack of voter education on how to use new technology.

Combined with Boko Haram’s campaign to annihilate Nigeria, the desperation to acquire or retain power could lead to violence on the scale not seen in Nigeria’s recent history.

Political violence in the country has the potential to degenerate into an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. Regional and international leaders must work to prevent this. All indications are that Nigeria is simply not ready for these elections. The insecurity in the north of the country is bound to mar the voting. More important, the two major candidates do not offer credible options for Nigerians.

Jonathan’s re-election would guarantee the status quo: continued insecurity, uncertainty, corruption, unemployment, irregular power supply and capital flight. Buhari’s victory would not bring about any meaningful or fundamental change in the polity either. He might introduce a few policy changes to appear different. But he has yet to reconcile with his controversial past, including the $2.8 billion from oil revenue that disappeared when he was petroleum minister in 1978. Besides, many Nigerians still view him as a religious zealot. During his 20-months in power, he set the stage for the eventual enrollment of Nigeria into the Organization of Islamic Conference, desecrating the secular position of the multiethnic and multireligious country. For years, Buhari has unsuccessfully tried to erase this image. For example, he chose a prominent Lagos pastor, Tunde Bakare, as a running mate in his last presidential bid and opted to wear European-style suits to obscure his public persona. And he has accumulated so much political debt that paying it back would result in patronizing the same cabal that is hindering Nigeria’s progress.

No Nigerian presidential incumbent has lost an election. If Buhari wins, it will come as a surprise to Nigerians and may signal a major shift in the growth of Nigeria’s democracy. But even if a Buhari victory brought about a respite from the nefarious activities of Boko Haram, youths in the Niger Delta would be up in arms in solidarity with Jonathan, their defeated kinsman. Buhari’s marriage with the southwest would not last long.

Neither outcome will be good for Nigeria. Postponing the election is the only good way out of this dilemma.

By

Uchenna Ekwo