How world powers plotted Jonathan’s defeat

0 0
Read Time:7 Minute, 15 Second

OUTGOING President Goodluck Jonathan lost his re-election bid several weeks before the March 28 poll to a web of plots hatched at home and honed abroad, Saturday Tribune has reliably learnt.

Information also in possession of Saturday Tribune revealed a last-minute contest between forces that wanted him to bow out and those that wanted him to hold out for as long as necessary even when it was evident that the news from the field pointed at a possible defeat.

It was learnt that as of 5.00 p.m. on Tuesday, hawks around the president were still at the Aso Rock Presidential Villa, piling pressure on him not to concede defeat.

Those working on him to concede and bow out, reportedly led by a former Head of State, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, were also said to have stayed put in the same Presidential Villa, persuading him that it was the most honourable way to go since it was clear that figures from the field were not in his favour.

The drama in the Presidential Villa was also said to be closely monitored by combined international forces that had concluded on post-Jonathan presidency, reportedly led by the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

One of those around the president persuading him to stay put was said to be a General in the army from a not-too-core Northern state, reportedly assuring him that the alleged irregularities in the North, underage voters, among other issues, which were beamed live by a national television station and shown on the Cable News Network (CNN) would be enough ground for him to reject the outcome.

The president was also allegedly told that he would be making General Muhammadu Buhari and the All Progressives Congress (APC) heroes by conceding to them, because all the good works he had done which were nearing fruition would blossom during their reign and would count as their achievements.

He reportedly told them that no matter how long he stayed in office, he would still leave one day and since crisis was certain to herald his opposition to the outcome, he would be reneging on his promise that no Nigerian blood would be worth his political ambition.

Convinced that it was the way to go, the president reportedly took “his own” by surprise by making the now-famous phone call to Buhari without telling them, although they were present at the president’s abode.

He was also said to have played a fast one on the hawks by making the call before the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) announced Buhari as the winner, following his assessment of the figures available to him, while those pressurising him to hang on reportedly thought the concession would be after the announcement by the electoral body as is usually the practice.

The western world, according to available information, keyed into the Buhari presidency project months before the election and the refusal to sell arms to Nigeria to fight the Boko Haram insurgency by Washington was said to be mainly predicated on the likelihood of Jonathan’s administration using same to quell possible civil disobedience if he manipulated the results to remain in power.

With political forces in the nation led by former President Olusegun Obasanjo reportedly concluded on getting him out at all cost, the western world, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, were said to have been persuaded into the project on two main planks; corruption and insecurity.

Settled that Jonathan’s administration had been underwhelming in performance in those two critical areas and convinced that the incumbent was bent on retaining his job, the international coalition allegedly undermined his administration as much as possible, with allies elsewhere, including Africa, also allegedly brought into the Jonathan-must-go project.

A source pointed at two main happenings in the course of the election to show how deeply the international community was involved, while making the outgoing president to be at ease, despite the rug being pulled off his feet.

The US and the UK had been at the forefront of peace pacts across the nation, starting with Jonathan and Buhari in what came to be known as Abuja Peace Accord, with Jonathan’s government having to react angrily at a point at the perceived temerity with which top diplomats from the western world were handling peace pacts and activities regarding the electoral process.

“They almost became a parallel government in Nigeria. That is what you get when a leader is too pacifist,” a source in the government said.

The unprecedented joint statement by the US Secretary of State, John Kerry and British Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, overtly accusing Jonathan’s camp of moves to tamper with the incoming results of the presidential election was seen as the final move by them to show the side they were on in the contest.

The government source noted that APC was always calling on the international community to wade in when accusing Jonathan’s government of plots to manipulate the elections, because an understanding existed between them after Buhari’s appearance at Chatham House and his famous interview with the CNN.

After the field job was done and figures confirmed Jonathan’s loss, those behind the plot to ease him out and save the country from chaos were said to have moved to the last stage in the presidential contest, which was to persuade him to accept defeat, since his refusal of same could ignite the South-South and South-East and possible bloody attacks on Northerners in such states.

A predictable reprisal in the North was projected as possible fulfilment of the feared break-up. The oil interests of those western nations in the Niger-Delta also reportedly necessitated a negotiated peaceful exit for him by persuading him to accept defeat and assurance obtained from Buhari that Jonathan would face no harassment out of office.

Having fulfilled his own part, Buhari had also fulfilled his with public pronouncement that Jonathan had nothing to fear under his administration, while engaging in peace preachment to his supporters.

Apart from obtaining assurance from Buhari, the western world would also lead in global praise of Jonathan, aimed at attenuating the pains of making the wrong history of being the first defeated incumbent, while leading opposition figures were also said to be under firm instruction not to attack him in any ways until he steps down on May 29.

The US and UK were particularly said to have completely bought into the anti-Jonathan project following his decision to turn to Russia for purchase of arms, with a diplomat in foreign service saying that it would have been better for Jonathan to completely move over to Russia’s side instead of playing in the middle.

According to him, “whoever advised him to purchase arms from Russia when a real war was on with the United States misled the president. You don’t even do that during the Cold War, let alone during this “Hot War.” There was no way US intelligence circle would forgive a big nation like Nigeria making such diplomatic faux pas.

“These security experts have serious leverage over American presidents. Regardless of any friendship that could be between (American president, Barack) Obama and Jonathan, when such security goons say it is time for a leader of a nation to go, American presidents hardly say no and, obviously, Jonathan had no serious pact with (Russian president, Vladimir) Putin, beyond buying arms.”

Since the presidential election result was announced, President Obama had issued about three press statements on the outcome, Jonathan’s concession and the need for the two leaders to keep preaching peace to their supporters as well as asking that finest democratic ideals should be upheld in the conduct of the April 11 governorship election.

A government source explained that Obama’s unusual interest in the governorship election was borne out of fears that Jonathan might take his frustration of loss out on the process and tamper with it in a way to give his party, which would be in opposition from May 29, an edge in governorship spread by winning as many states as possible.

In days ahead, it was gathered that beyond the phone calls, Jonathan may be visiting the United States as a special guest of Obama which, an insider said, is aimed at retaining him as the face of peace offering to the Niger-Delta, which is feared could become the breeding ground for fifth columnists that would make the nation’s economy unmanageable for Buhari.

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

US ambassador’s diplomatic gaffe

0 0
Read Time:5 Minute, 48 Second

LAST Sunday’s visit of the United States Ambassador to Nigeria to the International Conference Centre, in Abuja, where the collation of results for the 2015 Presidential election was taking place, was a brazen breach of diplomatic protocol. It was a visit that should be condemned for what it represents: an undue interference in a sensitive and important internal affair of this country.
James Entwistle, while at the ICC, was quoted as saying that the Permanent Voter Card employed in Nigeria’s 2015 elections, by the Independent National Electoral Commission, was of higher technological value than the one in use in his home state of Virginia in the US. “I think we need to come and study it so that we can use it in my country,” he said. Although seemingly well-intentioned and commendable on its face value, that statement, to say the least, was also patronising.

While it is sometimes permissible, and indeed acceptable, to prod a reluctant country into taking actions perceived to be beneficial to the country, there should be a time to draw the line, especially on matters that have to do with the internal affairs of a sovereign state. If there are international rules and conventions governing conduct among nation states, such should be respected and applied in all circumstances. Policy options, especially on the choice of a political, economic, social and cultural system, and the formulation of foreign policy, fall into the category of matters which each state is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely. It will be unimaginable for the Nigerian ambassador in the US to behave in a similar manner during an election in his host country.

This brings to mind the ongoing spat between the White House and the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, following the latter’s recent visit to the US, on the invitation of the Congress. The visit was termed to be too close to the last Israeli election, and would be taken for an endorsement of Netanyahu by the American government, thus conferring an undue advantage on him over other candidates. For this reason, the American President, Barack Obama, had refused to accord him the courtesy of an official welcome.
Although there is no written law in America that says the president should not welcome a visiting head of government heading into a reelection battle, yet, there is a tradition to that effect, which Obama was not ready to break with – not even for the sake of an Israeli prime minister. So, if the Americans could go to such length to uphold their own tradition and convention, then they should also be able to respect the sensibilities of other people.

The use or non-use of the PVC attracted a heated debate before the election and it should not be an issue for diplomatic comments. Yet, it is obvious that the ambassador was only exploiting the weak institutions in Nigeria and the failure of governance to treat the country in such a disrespectful manner. Over the years, Nigeria has endured bad governance that has effectively retarded her growth and development. The country has been described as one with abundance of potentialities, but which have failed to translate into tangible benefits. A look at all the indices of development has seen Nigeria languishing in the lowest rungs of the ladder, contending with failed states such as Somalia, Afghanistan and Yemen.
Corruption has emerged as the bane of the country.

Regrettably, more than two years after some Nigerians made away with over N2 trillion in an oil subsidy scam, not one person has so far been jailed. These are some of the shortcomings that countries like the US exploit to dabble in the internal affairs of Nigeria. But it should not be so.
Not surprisingly, attempts by American “experts” to analyse events in Nigeria have almost always brought out a warped and stereotyped outcome that stands facts on their heads. Their inability, or deliberate refusal, to situate the Boko Haram insurgency as part of a global terrorist and jihadist movement typifies this.

For instance, John Campbell, a former US ambassador to Nigeria, has spent a great deal of efforts misinforming the world that Boko Haram is a product of marginalisation, poverty and lack of education, despite abundant evidence to the contrary. Claiming to be an expert on Nigeria, he recently said, “Boko Haram insurgency is a direct result of chronic poor governance by Nigeria’s federal and state governments, the political marginalisation of northeastern Nigeria, and the region’s accelerating impoverishment.” He is wrong.

This is not only disingenuous, but a deliberate twisting of facts. In the first place, poverty is a common feature in almost all parts of Nigeria. Second, Boko Haram, in pursuit of its nihilistic mission like every jihadist terrorist organisation, has never mentioned economic deprivation as a grouse. Besides, in the past few years, sons of prominent Nigerians, with privileged backgrounds, have come out to openly identify with global terrorist movements, which rubbishes outright, any claims of poverty as motivation. Was it marginalisation for instance, that pushed the well educated Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, son of a multimillionaire businessman, into attempting to bomb an American airliner on Christmas Day of 2009? Was it also poverty that made the son of a former Chief Justice of Nigeria to travel all the way to Syria to join forces with the Islamic State terrorists? It is also on record that Buji Foi, a commissioner in Borno State, resigned his appointment to take up leadership position in Boko Haram. That certainly does not look like an action that was driven by poverty.

The French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, was quoted as saying last month, “There are 3,000 Europeans in Iraq and Syria today. When you do a projection for the months to come, there could be 5,000 before summer and 10,000 before the end of the year.” Can Campbell in all honesty ascribe this to poverty and marginalisation? How come the actions of the three teenage schoolgirls that recently travelled from Britain to join ISIS were not attributed to poverty and marginalisation? Why should analyses of similar situations in different places produce different results?

False narratives such as Campbell’s explain why the US government does not consider Boko Haram terror as a security threat to Western countries. America’s position on this is summed up by the views expressed in January by James Marks, a retired major general and Executive Dean, College of Criminal Justice and Security at the University of Phoenix, who said, “The United States can do anything it needs to do to rid Nigeria of Boko Haram. It could be long term effort, but it can be done. The US has the capability, we have all the elements and power but it is not a priority.” This is regrettable.

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %