In the Grandiose Parlor…

According to news report of the new aviation measures from the United States:

“All travellers to the US will be affected and not just travellers from Nigeria and 13 other countries that were short listed by the US last January as either “sponsors of state terrorism” or “countries of interest”.

Travellers from the 14 will no longer automatically face extra security screening before they fly to the US, Reuters said yesterday.

Announcing the new measures yesterday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, said the Transportation Security Administration will begin the new enhanced security measures for all air carriers with international flights to the US.

The new terror-screening strategy is as a result of a review ordered by President Barack Obama.

Obama talks to Allafrica. Some interesting quotes from the interesting interview:

Continue reading…

They are the most important couple in the world right now. And by this time tomorrow, their lives, and that of those closely associated with them will take a new meaning.

Their lives will be changed forever!

Good luck!

It appears some damage control has stated following the statement credited to Alhaji YarA’dua on AFRICOM. The stance of the Nigerian government prior to the last week trip of the president was a clear and unambiguous “NO” to the establishment of AFRICOM – the proposed United States’ military command for Africa, on African soil:

Nigeria formally announced Monday that it won’t host the U.S. military’s new Africa-wide military command, taking Africa’s most-populous nation and a top source of American oil imports out of contention. – Associated Press, via IHT (November 19, 2007).

Then last week, YarA’dua was reported saying:

“We have discussed on security issues, security within Nigeria, the Niger Delta, the Gulf of Guinea and peace and security on the African continent. We shall partner AFRICOM to assist not only Nigeria but also the African continent to actualise its peace and security initiatives. It is an initiative to have standby forces in each of the regional economic groupings in Africa.” – Via VOA, December 13, 2007..

The manner and shape of this “partnership” remains unclear.

Days later, the foreign affairs department (and the president on VOA) swung – issuing a rebuttal and some clarification:

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ojo Maduekwe, on Sunday in Washington DC, said that Nigeria did not endorse the presence of the U.S. Africa Military Command (AFRICOM) on the continent.

“Nigeria’s position on AFRICOM remains that African governments have the sovereign responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security on the continent,” Maduekwe said.

In a statement made available to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) the minister said that the decision was “in the context of the proposed African Union (AU) Stand-by Force.”

“In this regard, the need for support and assistance by Africa’s development partners, such as the U.S. in the provision of training, funding and logistics for African militaries was duly acknowledged,” he said. Daily Independent (December 17, 2007)

In what can be considered the first major international media event for YarA’dua, not only did he present himself as a green-eared president going by his “I will never forget this moment….” ‘star-struck statement’ – not sure if YarA’dua was simply at awe of the magnificence of the White House or swept off his feet at meeting the ‘notorious’ George Bush – whatever the reasons may be, YarA’dua came across, embarrassingly, as a media relations mediocre. His statement on AFRICOM – which now deserves some white-washing – is an indication of how lax our foreign affairs department is. Shouldn’t the department have assessed the likely post-meeting scenarios and prepared accordingly – prepping the poor YarA’dua on what and what not to say, and how to say what he ought to say, even before he left Abuja for Washington?

Related articles:
AfricanLoft: What Does Partnering with AFRICOM Mean?
Crossed Crocodiles: Has Yar’Adua been bought out by Bush and AFRICOM?

My answer: all the three! The carnage was a reflection of a decaying society.
Source

Who is [tag]Craig Chirinda[/tag]?

Craig promotes trade and investment into the southern Africa region, so far he’s tucked in some US$4 billion in leads, financing deals, and joint ventures. He is from Zimbabwe and just in his early twenties!

Benin has some words with him on his blog via this post: http://beninmwangi.com/2007/05/05/on-craig-chirinda-what-would-you-do-with-4-billion-usd/.

Here is an excerpt of the interview:

Benin: Based upon your experiences are there any obstacles that a potential investor into Africa should be aware of before moving forward? If so, how have you handled these hurdles?

Craig: Things in Africa move a slower pace than they are used to, so they should be patient. They should make sure that they have lobbying machinery (in the form of chiefs, politicians, local business people and religious leaders), that they deploy to accelerate the pace of a transaction. If they don’t have the lobbying machinery, the transaction just won’t happen!

[tag]Paul Wolfowitz[/tag], president of the [tag]World Bank[/tag] is embattled over the “preferential treatment” he gave a woman rumored to be his girl-friend. Nigerian own’s [tag]Nuhu Ribadu[/tag] of the [tag]EFCC[/tag] pleads for Wolfowitz on the pages of the New York Times, an excerpt:

“And he [Wolfwitz] has matched words with deeds through initiatives to promote greater international cooperation with poor countries, especially regarding the recovery of assets from pilfered resources. Effective efforts at fighting corruption cannot stop at our borders when up to 80 percent of the “grand corruption” perpetrated in Africa is dependent on international mechanisms that facilitate money laundering. Mr. Wolfowitz has made a praiseworthy effort to halt the illicit drain of money from the coffers of poor countries. Just this simple step — denying a haven for money stolen from a poor country — addresses more than half the problem of corruption in Africa.”

Is [tag]Wolfwitz[/tag] the only one capable of performing the “feats” listed by Ribadu?

I didn’t know the world bank president could make “a praiseworthy effort to halt the illicit drain of money from the coffers of poor countries”, yes by virtue of his post Wolfwitz could have pulled some strings, but to “halt the illicit drain” is very far from reality.

So because Wolfwitz has been kind to Nigeria and Africa, his failings – if indeed he has any – should be disregarded?
Ribadu has trivialized the issue being discussed – which borders on ethics, nepotism, misuse of power, etc – and simply spun it using “Nigerian mentality”. And I’m not surprised!