Before Writing Off The Us Intelligence Report

By

Madaki O. Ameh

madakiameh@hotmail.com

 

 

Since the news broke a few days ago, there has been understandable umbrage about the contents of the US National Intelligence Council report titled “Mapping Sub-Saharan Africa’s Future”.  The report attempts to look into the future of sub-Saharan Africa for the next 15 years, and in a crystal ball like manner, predict what the trends are, and what may happen in the region within the period of their projection.

 

Like all things Western in nature, the report appears to paint a gloomy picture of the situation in sub-Saharan Africa, and mentions specific countries like Nigeria, South Africa, and others a number of times.  It has also been widely reported in the press that the report stated that Nigeria would become a failed State in 15 years.  Such comments, if true should elicit feelings of anger and an outpouring of patriotism from Nigerians and indeed other well meaning Africans, both at home and in the diaspora. The President has understandably responded to the report in his letter to the Senate, where he reportedly condemned the report as a doomsday prophecy from those who do not wish Nigeria and the African continent well, in spite of all the efforts being made on all fronts to put things right, concluding that they must be living in the past.

 

Coming from a Western country like the US, with their penchant for putting the African continent down whenever they have the opportunity, such umbrage may not be altogether unjustified.  However, before an outright condemnation of the report, it is important to read it carefully, and come to an informed conclusion on whether or not, it is as damning as being widely reported.

 

Before making any comment on the issue, I took time to read every line of the said report, and my honest conclusion is that it is a balanced report.  This may appear  difficult to agree with, given the sense of hurt national pride and the possibility of misinterpreting the report as a doomsday prediction for Nigeria and other African countries, but the truth is that, nowhere in the report was there any false assumption on the prevailing situation in Nigeria and other countries in Africa.  If at all, the writers of the report have demonstrated a much more in-depth knowledge and ability at analysing African affairs than most of our self acclaimed messiahs in Africa will like to admit.

In fact, President Obasanjo's angry reaction to the report is a clear
demonstration that, he either did not read the entire report, or did not read it with an open mind, as some of the conclusions and analysis clearly challenge his views of himself and what he perceives himself as achieving or having achieved for Nigeria and Africa. 


To start with, Nigeria is not mentioned more than six times in the entire 17 page report, and whenever this happened, it was in the process of analysing an issue with larger implications for the rest of Africa.  In none of those references were the analysis faulty or the information put across wrong or patently unfair.  It would only appear so, if the conclusions are being drawn by a self conceited and egocentric reader, whose mind set is already that the West sees nothing good about Africa.  But I strongly believe that if there were positive things to analyse, they would gladly do so.  In many instances, you actually see them struggling to find something positive to analyse, and also wishing that their predictions would be wrong.


I must say that I am impressed that such quality of work and analysis about another continent can come out of a one day conference, and one cannot help drawing a parallel with our own National Political Reforms Conference, which, after being given a three months time frame to deliberate on issues which we all know about on a day by day basis, are still asking for more time to debate the issues in plenary session. 

 

To start with, nowhere in the report was it stated that that Nigeria is a failed State, or would fail in 15 years as gleefully reported in the press.  The relevant section of the report reads as follows:

"Downside scenarios included: Nigeria as a failed state, dragging down a large part of the West African region; some type of ecological downturn; and conflict over water."

These are just scenarios, and for those familiar with scenario planning, you look at the upsides and the downsides, and advance remedies for what would happen in any of the situations, the objective being to warn against the actualisation of the downside scenarios and play up the upsides. And the operative word in the above sentence is
Nigeria 'as' a failed State, not Nigeria 'is' a failed State.  And that difference in words is substantial, especially if read within the context of the entire report, rather than adopting a cut and paste approach, as appears to have been done to create sensationalism.


Those genuinely interested in the future of Nigeria and the African continent should read this report thoroughly, to enable them
transparently assess our challenges and design actions around addressing them in an enduring manner.

 

No matter the extent of President Obasanjo’s lofty 'dreams' for Nigeria, which I believe we all share in, there is a time to wake up from slumber and really carry out a realistic assessment to determine whether you are headed in the direction of your dreams or not.  Not to do so is to continue to wallow in self deceit.


What one would have expected President Obasanjo to do is to turn the report into an opportunity for a genuine soul searching exercise on what needs to be done to irreversibly set Nigeria and other African countries on the path of growth, comparable to their counterparts in Asia who started the challenge of development at the same time with the continent, but have left us far behind.  The report should have been turned over to a team of genuine think-tanks, who would develop practical action programmes out of the scenarios that have been painted, to ensure that appropriate remedial actions are put in place to pleasantly surprise Nigerian citizens, Africans and even the authors of the report.  This is because the genuine desire of everyone on the continent, and even the writers of the report, if one were to read in between the lines, is that the projections should be proved wrong through conscious action by African leaders.  Sadly however, everything on ground suggests otherwise, and 15 years is not such a long time.

The major challenge to us as a people is the intolerance of our leaders to genuine criticisms of their persons and programmes.  That egocentric approach effectively blocks their minds to any opinion that does not support their air of self aggrandisement, which personifies itself in obscene and shameful activities like the recent launch of the presidential library project.  At the risk of attracting insults from the likes of Fani-Kayode, who has become
Obasanjo's 'defender of the universe', the truth must still be told that Obasanjo has an exalted opinion of himself and his achievements which are not matched by the realities on ground, and this could set us back for many more years than the gloomy, but true picture painted by the U.S. intelligence report.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I have set out below, verbatim reproductions from relevant sections of the report, which I consider to be factual statements and conclusions, which in no way warrants an angry reaction of the sort we have seen in the last couple of days, with appropriate comments where necessary.

 

QUOTES FROM THE US INTELLIGENCE REPORT

 

  • South Africa, Africa’s oil producing states, and a handful of other African countries committed to governance reforms have the best chance of attracting international investment needed to compete and survive.

 

The above is a factual comment, which buttresses the fact that good governance and international investment go hand in hand.

 

 

  • Hydrocarbon exports will certainly boom but they are limited and distinctly focused within enclave economies in a few states. Indeed there is evidence to suggest that hydrocarbons have retarded African development, promoting patronage and misrule by African leaders rather than national development.

 

No one can realistically controvert the fact that Nigeria suffers from the ‘Resource Curse’ syndrome, as we have had little or nothing to show as a country for the several years of oil and gas production and revenues, most of which has ended in private overseas bank accounts, and still supports their grandiose lifestyles.  Even with the few recent efforts at entrenching accountability and curbing corruption, the overwhelming consensus is that the efforts are selective and don’t go deep enough, as no one has, to date, been convicted of corruption.  In spite of the brilliant and bold efforts by the EFCC in recent times, such efforts lack the institutional structures and support required to sustain them in the long run, leading many to believe that the results seen so far has been due to the fearless disposition of the Chairman of the Commission, who can be dropped at any time.  The fact that most basic amenities required to sustain life in a civilised manner are lacking in Nigeria cannot be denied by any serious minded person, except the traditional government apologists.

 

  • In addition, the hierarchy of nations in Africa in terms of their economic, political, and state performance will be unlikely to change markedly in the next 15 years. Certainly, some countries will have significant reversals of fortune (for better or worse) due to leadership changes, exogenous economic shocks, or developments in their regions that cannot be predicted in advance. However, it would be surprising if, in general, the set of countries that are the current leading performers in categories were substantially different from those in 15 years.

 

This again is a factual comment, which needs no further elaboration.

 

  • Paradoxically, other countries may be burdened by their seemingly munificent resource endowment. It is unlikely that the major oil producers (Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, Sao Tome, Sudan) would have a future significantly different than the ruinous record of petroleum producers to date.

 

Again, another factual comment.  If oil and gas revenues have not salvaged or lives in the last 40 years, it is unlikely that there will be a dramatic turn around in 15 years, without concrete actions on ground which we cannot see, unless with binoculars provided by the government.

 

  • However, states with high levels of violence will not automatically be failed states; indeed, the ability of African countries to continue to muddle along despite high levels of violence should not be underestimated. For instance, 20,000 people have been killed in Nigeria while that country has maintained its democratic façade. Thousands have also died in Congo during the period when all formal fighting was supposed to have ended.

 

This is a fair comment, and accurately reflects our penchant for burying the hatchet, even when there has been mindless mayhem over flimsy conflicts, many of which are reactions to events that happen in places far away.  The incidents in Kano, Kaduna, parts of Plateau, Odi, Zaki-Biam, and many others, where thousands of innocent Nigerians were mowed down in cold blood, without any efforts by government to bring the culprits to book, cannot be denied.  Also undeniable is the death of uncountable Nigerians in the Ikeja Cantonment disaster, and because Nigeria has no accurate data on its citizens living and dead, casualties from such disasters and many more are only estimated, with government officials stating on a number of occasions that contrary to press reports, ‘only 200 people’ died, as if the death of one Nigerian in questionable situations is not regrettable enough!

 

  • Most countries in Africa will continue to hold multiparty elections on a regular basis, although these elections will continue to vary considerably in quality. Almost all countries across the continent will continue to proclaim a public adherence to democracy and no other form of government will significantly challenge the nominal allegiance to regular elections. However, commitment to democracy in Africa will remain a “mile wide and inch thick.”  Therefore, the critical determinants of democratic success will be the social coalition that actually is actively in favor of democracy.

 

Our experience with democracy in Nigeria so far clearly vindicates this position, as undue efforts have been channelled towards preserving our so called ‘nascent’ democracy, even if that means keeping quiet in the face of fraudulent elections, misrule, high handedness and outright arrogance on the part of people in government positions. Many people who were cheated out of the last elections in 2003 are still licking their wounds and maintaining actions in Election Tribunals, and it is obvious that some of those cases may still be pending when the tenure of this administration runs out in 2007.  This does not happen in any part of the civilised world, and as long as we continue in our practice of primitive democracy, the international community cannot have anything other than contempt for our so-called democratic structures. 

 

 

  • Another set of approximately 15 to 20 countries will continue to be democratic aspirers. Most will continue to have multiparty elections, but the quality will vary and citizens will continue to believe that there is a significant possibility that their democratic system or certain basic institutions face the real danger of collapse. Finally, about twenty states—roughly the same number as today—will experience authoritarian or semi-authoritarian rule. These countries may have regularly scheduled multiparty elections but the outcome of those votes will not be in doubt. Also included in this category will be the increased number of failed states in Africa that will not have even the mechanisms for voting in place.

 

This analysis can also not be assailed in a reasonable manner, with facts on ground.  Unless something is done urgently about our fraudulent electoral systems and the intolerant nature of our politicians, Nigeria will clearly still be in the category of democratic aspirers in 15 years time.  The shameful manner in which Brigadier Gen. Buba Marwa was prevented from declaring his membership for the ruling PDP, even in his own State, which is controlled by the PDP recently, speaks volumes of the kind of democracy we are practicing in Nigeria.  One would have thought that declaration of support and membership of a party by such a prominent citizen would have been a thing of joy for the ruling party, but not in Nigeria, as the party apparently already has more than enough members!

 

Also, the continued refusal of President Obasanjo to release Local Council funds to Lagos State, apparently to further his arms wrestling contest with the Lagos State Governor, in spite of a clear and unequivocal judgment of the Supreme Court to that effect directly challenges the institution of the judiciary and renders it completely impotent to play its constitutional roles.  Considering that the Supreme Court is the last court in Nigeria, maybe President Obasanjo is waiting for the result of an appeal to God before agreeing to release the funds and save the families of the hapless workers in the Local Governments from starvation, due to non payment of their legitimate salaries.

 

  • While all are low probability, a variety of issues might cause our analysis to be incorrect in certain areas and, more generally, not optimistic enough. Certainly, if hydrocarbon management were improved across the continent, Africa’s future in 2020 would look distinctly more positive. If Angola, Nigeria, and Sudan—three of Africa’s largest and most important countries—actually began to use their revenues from oil in productive ways, these states would become stronger, tens of millions of Africans would benefit from reduced poverty, and the impact on the region might be significant. Better hydrocarbon management might come about because of international pressure to promote the transparency of resource flows, aided by domestic constituencies who have grown tired of the fraud associated with wasting assets.

 

The above analysis shows a glimmer of hope, and what needs to be done to address the pitiable state of things on the African continent.  The key question President Obasanjo and his other colleagues in Angola and Sudan should be asking themselves is what they will do to ensure better management of oil resources in their countries, to enable the positive prediction of their becoming stronger, tens of millions of Africans benefiting from reduced poverty, and a significant impact on the region, to come to pass, rather than condemning the report.

 

  • Similarly, if agriculture were to show productivity gains in a significant number of countries, there would be a general boost in growth, but also a change in the urban-rural terms of trade that we portray above as generally favoring the cities. African agriculture could become more productive if it was the beneficiary of the kind of scientific advances that helped Asian agriculture in the 1960s and 1970s. Africa currently has the lowest level of inputs and the lowest yields compared to genetic potential of any region on earth.

 

Again, another good advice on the need to position Agriculture and ensure that it achieves its full potentials.  African leaders keep paying lip service to promoting agriculture, but painfully, the efforts are not sustainable and not deep enough to make any difference.  It is shameful that with such abundant blessings in terms of weather, most African countries, including Nigeria, cannot feed themselves, and have to rely on food imports, whereas countries in Europe, Asia and America where you would think there are no farmers, actually produce so much food that no one bothers to think seriously about the cost of food in these areas.

 

  • Other potential developments might accelerate decline in Africa and reduce even our limited optimism. The most important would be the outright collapse of Nigeria. While currently Nigeria’s leaders are locked in a bad marriage that all dislike but dare not leave, there are possibilities that could disrupt the precarious equilibrium in Abuja. The most important would be a junior officer coup that could destabilize the country to the extent that open warfare breaks out in many places in a sustained manner. If Nigeria were to become a failed state, it could drag down a large part of the West African region.

 

The above comment is responsible for all the bad press about the intelligence report, but it can be seen clearly that it is a fair comment.  It is true that the marriage of Nigerian politicians is one of convenience, and the ties are actually fragile, given our penchant for degenerating into sudden feats of violence for no justifiable reason, with government watching helplessly until the warring parties choose to stop.  As mentioned earlier, this is just a scenario setting, which has no bearing with reality.  Much as we all agree that military interventions are despicable and must never happen again in Nigeria, the recent incident of ‘security breach’ for which Major Al-Mustapha and a few others are being tried at the Federal High Court in Lagos shows that, undesirable as it is, such incidents cannot be entirely ruled out, especially in the face of blatant misrule and ever increasing despair among the populace with the never arriving ‘dividends of democracy’.

 

  • Perhaps the central message of this report is that in an age of globalization, local factors will determine Africa’s fate. Geography, decisions by governments past and present, the presence of trained professionals, the strength of civil society groups promoting democracy, and the capabilities of the local police and security forces all have the potential to decisively affect the performance of individual African countries in the next 15 years.

 

This is also a factual comment that cannot be assailed by any serious minded person.  It provides suggestions of areas which need urgent attention to ensure that Nigeria and other African countries pull out of their desperate situation.

 

CONCLUSION

 

As the Nigerian Senate commences debates on the US intelligence report, one can only hope that their enlarged and informed membership will read in between the lines, and ensure that the report is turned to a window of opportunity for Nigeria and the rest of Africa.  They should avoid the temptation of joining the band wagon of criticism, which appears to have been so ably commenced by the President in his letter, but rather play their roles as legislators, and see the intelligence report for what it is, a projection of different scenarios.  They should then galvanise efforts into ensuring that the upside scenarios come to pass and the downsides do not happen.  After all, 15 years is just around the corner, and before you know it, all the indignation and outrage that has followed this report may turn out to be misplaced aggression, if nothing is done now to correct the structural imbalances prevalent in our country and the rest of Africa.

 

________________________________________________________________

Madaki O. Ameh, a Lawyer, is currently a Chevening Scholar at the Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy, University of Dundee, Scotland, U.K.