Hopes, worries of post-Trump world

(Link on Daily Trust)

As much as one tries not to bother unnecessarily about the United States politics, one simply cannot ignore it at least to the extent to which it directly or indirectly interests one and one’s primary audience.

Since the end of World War II, the US foreign policies, actions and inactions have always had positive or negative impacts on global economic conditions, peace and stability more than any other country. This is primarily thanks to its sheer military power and economic size, which remain the world’s strongest and largest respectively, and which it has always leveraged in pursuit of its legitimate and illegitimate interests. 

And until it’s outpaced and overshadowed by another country, which is inevitable since, after all, it isn’t the first world’s superpower and won’t be the last either, the US would continue to be the most influential country in international politics.

Until then, therefore, US politics including the identities and underlying philosophical inclinations of major players in, particularly, the White House, the Congress, the State Department, the Pentagon, the Federal Reserve, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), would remain of huge interest not only to the US citizens and residents but also to most, if not all, foreign governments and major multinational corporations, albeit to various degrees.

That explains why lobbying in Washington corridors of power on behalf of foreign governments, multinational corporations and international organizations remains a multibillion-dollar industry.

In addition to traditional US allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, many non-US allies like Russia and China, and even some purported US enemies like Iran maintain dedicated lobby firms in Washington who lobby for their respective interests. 

With the inauguration of the new US President Joe Biden last Wednesday, such governments and entities are already strategizing to secure US cooperation in pursuit of their respective interests. This is even though President Biden, unlike his predecessor, Trump, is already a typical Washington establishment politician, which makes him quite predictable in the light of his political antecedents over the decades. Yet, that doesn’t downplay the need to have a clear picture of his administration’s direction on various issues involving foreign interests especially after years of unprecedented unpredictability of the Trump administration.

Though the direction of any US administration is always primarily determined by the US strategic interests, the particularly inconsiderate approach of the former President Trump under his “America First” policy had made many foreign governments miss the pre-Trump America and wish that President Biden would revert to the status quo anyway.  

China, for instance, which has been particularly hit by Trump’s largely protectionist international trade policies is certainly pursuing an increased US commitment to international trade liberal policies under the Biden administration. 

Iran also, being arguably the worst-hit country by Trump would want to see the Biden administration reverting to the Obama era situation in US-Iran politics, for, after all, he was Obama’s deputy who supposedly played a key role in the formulation of Obama’s Iran-friendly policies in the Middle East.

Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy against Iran had devastated the Iranian economy after it had begun to recover following the ratification of the 2015 Nuclear Agreement between it, the US, Germany, France and Britain, China and Russia. Trump’s withdraw from the agreement rendered it effectively ineffective and signalled the beginning of America’s harsh measures against it that have significantly lessened the impetus of Iran’s geopolitical expansionist adventures in the Middle East.    

Even the United States traditional European allies would equally want to see the US back to its full commitment to their collective security under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the face of the Russian geopolitical ambition with its attendant security implications on the continent.

Former President Trump always blackmailed NATO member-countries for, according to him, not contributing enough in the organization’s budget leaving the US with the burden of protecting them.  He equally blackmailed US Far-eastern allies like Japan and South Korea and demanded that they pay the US for "protecting" them from the aggressive North Korean regime.

Other US allies elsewhere like the Arabian Gulf countries in the Middle East have equally been repeatedly blackmailed by Trump for “protecting” them from the belligerent Iranian regime on the other side of the Gulf. 

Now, notwithstanding the foregoing, President Biden is assuming office after exactly ten years from the eruption of violent protests that swept across many countries in the Middle East and North Africa purportedly to bring about democratic change.

However, the ensuing confusion degenerated into anarchy and bloody civil wars causing huge losses of lives and displacement of millions of people in addition to extensive devastation.  Some countries are still unable to even stop the wars let alone recover.

Given the roles that the Obama wing of radical democrats played in the instigation of that overwhelming chaos, there are concerns in the region that President Biden, being Obama’s deputy then hence supposedly involved in that strategy, may consider pursuing the same policy.

Already, beneficiaries who rode the wave of the protests to achieve their political ambitions e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood are particularly excited that the protests would come back now that Biden has been inaugurated. For instance, when, in the course of a chat I recently had with a staunch Muslim Brotherhood apologist Egyptian friend of mine, I referred to Biden’s appointment of some of Obama’s team members, he (my friend) couldn’t disguise his excitement that President Biden may end up adopting Obama’s Middle East policy.

Though people across the region have learned a lesson albeit the hard way, which makes the repeat of similar protests quite unlikely, it remains to be seen whether or not President Biden would follow the footsteps of his former boss, Obama, in his reckless determination to impose “liberal values” on nations regardless of their respective peculiarities. 

Politics of Ulama-bashing

(Link on DailyTrust site)

In northern Nigeria particularly, the increasingly intense philosophical struggle between “liberals” promoting outright westernization of the society, and the Ulama advocating the adoption of only what doesn’t contradict the society's value system features systematic and sustained Ulama-bashing, which has become a quite popular trend. 

For the sake of clarity, while the term “Ulama” refers to Muslim clerics in general, it’s used herein to specifically refer to those of them with a particular commitment to the promotion of the Pristine Islam as exclusively contained in the noble Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah according to the perception of the Sahaba and their successors. Because it’s such Ulama who are targeted the most with a view to discrediting and blackmailing them into a compromise on Islamic injunctions against Shirk, Bid’a and immoral worldly desires.   

Though, of course, none of them is infallible, for infallibility is an exclusive attribute of the Messenger of Allah (SAW), yet they, as a whole, remain the custodians of the Prophet Muhammad’s legacy, which underscores the sacredness their mission. They are, therefore, never beyond criticism; after all, sometimes some of them make inexcusable blunders thus expose themselves to concerted public bashing.  

Having said that, in most cases, the purportedly objective criticism against them suggests pre-existing prejudices and an underlying motive to achieve other objectives in disguise. 

The penchant of a typical Ulama-bashing northern Nigerian “intellectual” for vilifying them and exaggerating their shortcomings and faults is clearly driven by a desperate wish to undermine their credibility and frustrate their mission. 

Yet, on social media particularly, and apparently inspired by those “intellectuals", every attention-seeking northern Nigerian wannabe “wayayye” and aspiring “thinker” practices his “critical thinking" ability at the expense of the parts of the society’s value system he deems inconsistent with what he considers tolerance and modernity. Likewise, many an English language enthusiast seeking to improve his English writing ability practices on Ulama-bashing and vilification among other related things. 

Also, since the beginning of the current Buhari administration, northern Nigerian Ulama-bashing critics have excessively bashed the Ulama for their alleged hypocritical silence on the Buhari administration’s inexcusable underperformance in terms of the security situation in northern Nigeria. 

This is even though, the Ulama, both as groups and individuals, have never been silent as alleged; they have always spoken out in the course of their respective regular public lesson sessions and lectures in mosques and other places. They have always demanded that the government do all it takes to bring an end to the situation. 

Yet, a hate-filled Ulama-bashing critic who never attends such places nor follows their circulating video and audio clips would just accuse them of being hypocritically silent. In fact, many an Ulama-bashing dude would unearth or promptly shares -on social media- some maliciously unearthed previous video or audio clips of some Ulama speaking out on the security situation during the Jonathan administration in an attempt to prove the Ulama’s purported hypocrisy. 

Unfortunately, many gullible people have fallen for that hoax. Yet, it's even more unfortunate that even some otherwise respectable Muslim clerics who often get overly emotional when speaking out on the situation bash their fellow Ulama based on that unfounded allegation. Apparently, such clerics assume that speaking out on the security situation in the country should always be in an aggressive tone otherwise it’s tantamount to hypocritical silence. 

Now, while the Ulama should speak out on issues of public concern, they shouldn’t allow themselves to be distracted from their core Da’awah mission. They should ignore any public pressure on them to speak out unnecessarily on every topical issue. And even when they have to do, they should ensure the authenticity and adequacy of their information. They should also be realistic in their conclusions. Because, unfortunately, many otherwise discerning Muslim clerics often get carried away and end up making analyses, conclusions and even allegations based on unsubstantiated information they were clearly fed with by some people they trust, thereby exposing themselves to avoidable ridicule and possible prosecution. 

After all, there are people’s representatives at all levels of government who were elected or appointed and are paid from the taxpayers' money to not only speak out on behalf of their respective constituencies but to make a difference on the ground with innovative policies and appropriate implementation. So, if indeed the Ulama-bashing critics are sincere, their constant and relentless bashing should be primarily directed at those elected representatives and other public officeholders. 

Interestingly, the Ulama’s influence in the eyes of the authorities –if any- is actually extremely insignificant, contrary to what many among their respective followers and others assume. And though a typical Ulama-bashing “intellectual” realizes that, he deliberately implies and sometimes even asserts the contrary knowing that it would make it easier for him to convince the gullible that the Ulama are hypocritically silent being part of the beneficiaries of government largesse.  

Defeating terror: The imperative of pragmatism

(Link on Daily Trust site)

The Borno State Governor, Babagana Zulum’s recommendation for the federal government to engage mercenaries in the protracted war against Boko Haram has added impetus to the debate over the feasibility or otherwise of that move. 

If, however, there one thing that Governor Zulum’s recommendation implies, it’s certainly his conclusion that the Nigerian military and other security agencies cannot eliminate Boko-Haram terrorists, bandits and kidnappers, unaided. 

Obviously, as the Governor of the worst terror-affected state, Borno, who, by virtue of his position as the state’s Chief Security Officer has unhindered access to relevant confidential security reports, Governor Zulum’s conclusion must have been based on facts. His position, therefore, explains the authoritativeness of his conclusion, which must not be taken lightly, let alone dismissed.

Besides, he was backed up by his counterparts in the Northeast who had equally arrived at the same conclusion in the light of the same confidential security reports they, likewise, have access to. 

After all, in reality, it doesn’t necessarily take access to any confidential security report to arrive at that conclusion, in the first place. The incapability of the Nigerian military to end Boko Haram insurgency is too obvious to elude any discerning “bloody civilian”, as the military men condescendingly call an individual with no military background. 

Apparently, many Nigerians find it hard to come to terms with the fact that the Nigerian military is one of the world’s weakest compared to the country’s geographical size, population, economic and geopolitical potential. It’s quite clear that the Nigerian military is grossly weak in terms of advanced unconventional warfare techniques, sophisticated intelligence-gathering and processing capabilities, and appropriate technology. 

Though combat personnel of the Nigerian military are particularly undermined by low morale due to insufficient incentives, the foregoing challenges remain the main constraints behind their inability to eliminate Boko-Haram terrorists and bandit syndicates in the country. 

Arguments against the recommendation for engaging mercenaries are largely based on unrealistic expectations of the Nigerian military capabilities, exaggerated -if not unfounded- fear of its security implications, and empty pride. 

Those arguing against it cite instances of monumental collateral damage, excessive recklessness, human right abuse and even war crimes that some mercenaries were involved in, in some countries. 

Whereas, while those are quite reasonable worries, such incidents aren't that frequent. Besides, even when they occur, they occur mostly amid the confusion of urban warfare. Fortunately enough, in Nigeria, terrorists, bandits and kidnappers are hiding in the bush and remote areas away from people.  

Others arguing against the idea are only motivated by pride, or rather, empty pride. They are under the illusion of the purported intactness of Nigeria’s sovereignty, which they assume will be jeopardized by engaging mercenaries.  

Whereas, in reality, Nigeria’s sovereignty is already grossly compromised by terrorists, kidnappers, bandits and other organized criminal gangs. Apart from the extremely few who enjoy adequate state-provided personal security, and the super-rich who can afford it, almost everybody has been literally condemned to living with the endless nightmare of being either robbed, kidnapped or killed by armed robbers, marauders or terrorists.   

Even the worries expressed over the implications of engaging mercenaries on Nigeria’s strategic national security interests aren’t realistic enough to warrant ignoring the idea altogether. 

After all, the Nigerian state is already an open book particularly to the Euro-American countries and other interested foreign governments. For instance, the way individuals among Nigerian top leadership elite are falling over themselves to impress particularly western diplomats in Abuja by unsolicitedly sharing privileged information about the country with them is enough to conclude that access to any Nigeria’s sensitive secret -if any- doesn’t necessarily require an act of espionage.  

Likewise, many rightly or wrongly aggrieved individuals and groups among the elite equally and sometimes openly reach out to the US, UK or European Union diplomats in Abuja to seek their intervention on purely national matters. 

Interestingly, some WikiLeaks leaks exposed how Robin Sanders, a former US ambassador to Nigeria was regularly updating the US Department of State in Washington of her experience with individuals among Nigeria's top political elite who were privately sharing with her unsolicited information about the country and even gossip against one another. 

Now, the bottom line is that it’s high time Nigeria began tackling its security challenges pragmatically, for it’s obvious that its military and other security agencies are simply too ill-prepared to accomplish it. Recently, the Chief of Army Staff, General Burutai, literally admitted it when he hinted that the war could persist for the next 20 years. 

Nigeria is a signatory to The United Nations International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, which bans engaging mercenaries. However, almost all the world’s major military powers, e.g. the US, Russia, etc, have refused to join. Also, many countries including the US and even some signatories to the Convention engage mercenaries under various disguises. 

Nigeria can, in fact, should equally engage them under whatever disguise. Alternatively, it can reach out to any country with appropriate capabilities, for assistance with advanced intelligence-gathering technology, techniques, and even covert operations, since no country is likely to deploy regular troops.

Admittedly, though, following decades of the persistent decline of Nigeria's continental and global diplomacy, one doubts if it can secure such assistance from any country.  

Interestingly, during the Nigeria civil war in the 60s, the Nigerian Head of State, General Gowon had sought military assistance from his Egyptian counterpart, Gamal Abdel Nasser who deployed a unit of the Egyptian Air Force to assist the federal troops. 

Anyway, though it’s already long overdue, yet, still it isn’t too late for Nigeria to consider a pragmatic approach in tackling the Boko-Haram terrorists, kidnappers and bandits ravaging the country.

What US rescue mission in Nigeria exposed

 (Link on Daily Trust site)

The recent United States rescue mission, on Nigerian territories, where a team of US elite commandos rescued one Philip Walton, an American citizen, from kidnappers made headlines in many countries around the world including Nigeria, of course.

The US Defence Department announced the successful early-morning rescue operation, which took place barely 96 hours after Walton’s kidnapping in Massalata, a village in southern Niger near the border with Nigeria.  

As a typical US clandestine operation, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had tracked the kidnappers through the signals of their mobile phones while the US “Marine Special Operations elements in Africa helped locate him” as reported by ABC News.

Based on that intelligence about 30 US commandos were, according to The New York Times, “parachuted into the remote area where the kidnappers had taken Walton early Saturday morning. They hiked about three miles until they came upon the captors’ small encampment. An intense but brief gunfight followed in which one captor escaped. Walton was not harmed and whisked from the camp to a makeshift landing zone where a U.S. helicopter brought him to safety.”

The US conducts daring clandestine operations in many countries without necessarily the knowledge of their respective governments, thanks to its world’s most sophisticated espionage technology and the world’s best-trained and best-equipped undercover operatives and commandos.   

Even when it conducts such an operation in a supposedly friendly country, many a time, the US only informs the government of the country when the operation has been done already. Also, even in the event when it’s absolutely unavoidable to involve the government in some stages of the process, the US operatives would manage it in a way that the government concerned wouldn’t necessarily figure out what was going on exactly until the operation has been done. 

Sometimes, the US claims that the operation was conducted in coordination with the country where the operation has been done to save it the embarrassment of dealing with its aftermath. 

Since the beginning of the outgoing Trump administration, it has “rescued over 55 hostages and detainees in more than 24 countries” according to the outgoing President. Of course, some operations fail and sometimes the US runs out of options but to reluctantly negotiate or even pay ransom for the release of its kidnapped citizens in foreign lands.   

Regardless of the legality or otherwise of such operations, they suggest how a serious-minded government prioritizes the security, wellbeing and other interests of its citizens at any cost. They suggest the extent to which any responsible government can go to save and protect the lives of its citizens. 

Now, though the US claimed that its recent rescue operation in Nigeria was conducted with the aid of Niger and Nigerian governments, that wasn’t necessarily the case. And even if it did indeed involve Nigerian authorities in the process, the Nigerian government didn’t manage its involvement the way any responsible government with its interests in mind would have done. 

If it were elsewhere, the government would have demanded, as a precondition for its cooperation, that the rescue operation equally target other kidnappers’ campsite to simultaneously rescue many kidnapped Nigerians languishing out there.  

Yet, while the Nigerian government squandered that opportunity, it also never showed the slightest shame that it has effectively left its citizens to the mercy of kidnappers while another country rescued its kidnapped citizen on its (Nigerian) own territories. After all, Nigerians have resigned themselves to their fate in the face of government failure to protect them from bandits, terrorists and kidnappers.  

A recent incident involving a security patrol team and a group of relatives on their way to pay ransom for the release of their relatives who had been kidnapped among other Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) students while travelling to Lagos represented that miserable situation. 

One of the relatives was quoted by the Daily Trust narrating that “We met with security agents who were patrolling the area while on our way and they asked us where we were going to because it was late at night. We told them we were going on our way to pay ransom for the release of our relatives and the security agents wished us good luck” (Daily Trust, November 23, 2020). 

Even in the absence of any grounds for comparison between the US and Nigeria in terms of military, intelligence-gathering and processing capabilities, no one can rightly excuse the ineptitude of the Nigerian government in its supposed tackling of bandits and kidnappers unleashing misery across particularly the northern part of the country.

Because the criminals operate with basic communication technology and maintain a consistent hence predictable modus operandi. 

Besides, their typical manoeuvre after kidnapping people is always to hike along with the victims in the nighttime for days across the bush while hiding for the whole daytime apparently on the assumption that they cannot be detected from the sky in the nighttime. They are too clueless to realize that they are actually more exposed to aerial detection in the nighttime than the daytime. 

From whatever angle one looks at the recent US rescue mission in Nigeria, one observes the urgent need for Nigerian defence, security and intelligence strategists to prioritize intelligence-based strategies in tackling the activities of kidnappers, bandits and terrorists in the country. Such strategies are by far more effective than the current conventional personnel-intensive combat strategies.   

There was equally a display of inexcusable diplomatic naivety in Nigeria’s supposed cooperation with the US in conducting the operation without apparently anything in return.

Dynamics of Trump’s fall

(Link on Daily Trust site)

Following what was described as the tensest presidential election in the United States in more than a century, which culminated in the defeat of arguably the most controversial US president, Donald Trump, the dynamics behind his fall explained why he couldn’t evade it.

As an aspirant to the US presidency in 2016, and though an elitist and indeed wolfish capitalist to the core, Donald Trump had successfully adopted the façade of a populist politician using populist rhetoric that resonated with a significant segment of particularly the lower and middle-class conservative White Americans.    

He will go down in history as not only the first US president from outside the establishment but also the first anti-establishment populist US president. 

In other words, he would be remembered by both admirers and foes as a US president who challenged the establishment and had his own way on many occasions, earning himself the anger of a considerable section of the country’s political elite, corporate businesses, the media and even the Hollywood entertainment industry, which has produced tens of movies against him. 

After all, no sooner had his presidency begun than most of the most influential media organizations in the United States including CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post etc. adopted Trump-bashing as their obsession ending up literally campaigning against him in the recently-concluded election. While in his relentless retaliation, he dubbed them “Fakes News”, and has since then never missed a chance to dismiss them in his attempt to discredit them. 

Interestingly, Donald Trump never got along with even his Republican Party establishment. Since 2016 when he surprisingly emerged as the Republican Party’s presidential candidate, many high-profile party members who had all along tried unsuccessfully to foil his emergence have left the party. 

Many more had similarly, albeit equally unsuccessfully, opposed his nomination for the just-concluded presidential election; and even after his nomination, tens of other senior party members e.g. John Bolton, Colin Powel and many others of their calibre declared their opposition to his reelection bid. 

Likewise, many nonpartisan statesmen, former senior diplomats, retired high-ranking military, security, intelligence officers and others had all opposed him. 

Also, many otherwise Republican voters voted for Joe Biden in what’s known in Nigerian political context as “anti-party” making trump perhaps the highest-profile victim of “anti-party” in the history of US politics. 

In short, there was an unprecedented elite gang-up against Donald Trump; a gang-up that put aside partisan differences to frustrate his reelection bid. Obviously, no politician could have prevailed over a gang-up of such influence.  

Besides, as expected, African American and other non-white American communities who have been affected the most by Trump’s controversial sabotage of the Affordable Care Act otherwise known as the Obamacare, which he systematically bastardized following his failure to get the Act repealed, voted massively against him. 

Trump’s persistent criticism of the Act was widely viewed as a show of blatant insensitivity to the peculiar plight of disadvantaged Americans most of whom come from those communities. After all, his characteristic racist utterances and insinuations, and xenophobic immigration policies had already earned him stinking notoriety among them.  

On a lighter note, that explains why the euphoria that erupted in many cities and towns across the US following the announcement of the result was particularly passionate in those communities. 

Having said that, Donald Trump has performed incredibly well for the US economy as a whole, even though the economic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic and his poor handling of it did indeed further undermine his reelection chances.  

Though US foreign policy and its international engagements hardly influence the voting behaviour of the average American voter, he isn’t absolutely free from the underlying influence of foreign interests, which have always had interests in who becomes the US President, and have always discreetly pursued their respective interests in this regard.  

Also, though Trump's “America First” foreign policy and his protectionist economic policies have reduced US foreign involvement, which has saved a lot for the US economy, the Washington establishment sees it as an inadvertent undermining of the US global influence especially in the face of the growing influence of China and Russia on the world stage, and the growing ambitions of countries with geopolitical expansionist agendas like Iran and Turkey. 

The establishment is more interested in maintaining the superiority of the US global influence at any cost, as opposed to Donald Trump who only approaches issues from the perspective of a typical Wall Street elite capitalist. 

Now, as Donald Trump’s drama-laden presidency comes to end, he will leave the White House without necessarily conceding defeat voluntarily. And just as he has always been controversial, he isn’t likely to lead a quiet and controversy-free post-presidency life like other former presidents. 

In any case, observers would eagerly look forward to reading his memoirs; after all, being that recklessly blunt, overly insensitive and less pretending compared to mainstream politicians, his memoirs would almost certainly turn out to be the most revealing hence most controversial.