Connect with us

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

The Restoration of Ties between Tehran and Riyadh: From Paper to Implementation

Published

on

Spread the love

By Amer Ababakr

The agreement between Tehran and Riyadh to normalize the relations between the two countries and “resuming diplomatic relations within two months and reopening their embassies and political representatives”, which was initiated by Chinese President Xi Jinping and was published in a surprising manner in Beijing, if implemented, it can undergo the security equations of the West Asian region and the Persian Gulf to a severe shock.

The Obvious question to start is why now?

The trend towards normalization of relations between the two countries began following the dialogue hosted by Iraq and followed by the Sultanate of Oman through the transmission of exchanged messages. This dialogue came to keep pace with the direction of the US administration, headed by Joe Biden, towards re-establishing the nuclear agreement with Iran. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies have always called for adding regional issues to the agreement and including these countries in the talks. However, this did not materialize due to Iran’s refusal to link the nuclear talk to any other issue or to include new players who might add conditions and demands that would complicate the negotiation process. However, the suspension of the Vienna nuclear negotiations after the completion of the draft agreement due to a disagreement over some complementary elements, including Iran’s demand for guarantees that America will not leave the agreement in the future and to find a mechanism to verify the lifting of the American-Western blockade on it, contributed to the stopping of the Iranian-Saudi dialogue. This is because Saudi Arabia was synchronizing the steps of normalizing relations with Iran and the negotiations in Vienna, and this is reminiscent of what happened after the nuclear agreement in 2015 when Riyadh was preparing for talks with Iran, but it returned and stopped it in light of Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidency with a promise he made to cancel the nuclear agreement, and followed is Saudi Arabia’s welcome to Trump’s termination of the agreement and his launch in 2018 of a fierce sanctions campaign against Iran.

In addition, Saudi Arabia wanted a comprehensive agreement with Iran in the renewed dialogue in the last two years, which would restrict Iran’s presence and role in the region, at a time when Iran wanted to limit it to restoring diplomatic representation and normalizing relations between the two countries and leaving the discussion of regional files to other frameworks, especially since Iran refuses to be an agent for its allies in deciding their national affairs.

Recently, things have moved again for several reasons:

The success of the Iranian government and people in thwarting the bet on destabilizing it in the broad campaign led by people  supported arguably by the US and its allies to force the leadership of the Islamic Republic to submit. The emergence of a rapprochement between China and Saudi Arabia, represented by the visit of the Chinese president to Riyadh and the signing of partnership agreements between the two sides, and then the visit of the Iranian president to Beijing and the agreement to activate the strategic partnership agreement signed by the previous government during the era of President Rouhani.

Reassuring the Saudi Arabia that the United States is seriously seeking to sign a nuclear agreement with Iran, and that the references to that are countless, under the pretext that the agreement is in the interest of American national security and ensuring that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon after the rapid progress in its program. Here, Saudi Arabia did not want to appear to be lagging behind.

There was a divergence between the democratic administration in Washington and the Saudi leadership over their supposed roles in supporting each other, and this was recently reflected in Saudi Arabia’s position not to respond to Washington’s request to condemn Russia and increase oil production to meet the demand for it in the United States.

Saudi Arabia is increasingly devoted to providing the appropriate environment for the implementation of Vision 20-30, and this requires developing the truce in Yemen into permanent stability, and then – from its point of view – involving Iran in putting pressure on “Ansar Allah”, at a time when Tehran considers that there is no way out. From recognizing the role of “Ansar Allah” in determining the future of Yemen, along with other Yemeni components.

The Second inevitable question is Why in China?

Over the past years, China has been able to develop broad relations with many countries in the region, despite the intimidation campaign led by Washington to alienate these countries from the Chinese role under security pretexts or claiming that there are motives for hegemony so that the atmosphere remains clear for the United States in the region. Chinese successes are no longer confined to anti-American countries such as Iran, but extend to traditional allies of Washington such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which forged important economic, technological and armament relations with Beijing that aroused Washington’s ire. Turning east has become an imposed reality in one way or another, despite the fact that the United States formulated plans to establish a regional system that brings together the Gulf states and “Israel” and takes over its leadership from a distance, with the aim of focusing on the increasing confrontation with Russia and China, which are plans that the Gulf states interpreted as turning their backs on the allies.

China’s emerging position allowed it to play an acceptable conciliatory role between its two important partners, and it believes that ensuring its interests in the region depends to a large extent on stability arrangements between the active countries. In my estimation, the Saudi side wanted to “sell” the paper of understanding to restore relations with Iran to the Chinese mediator and not to the Iraqis, because it is betting on developing relations with China economically and militarily in the phase of reducing the American presence in the region, and it is also sending, in one way or another, a message of protest to the United States. And Riyadh wants to show that it has other options than absolute dependence on America. This perspective does not negate the fact that Saudi Arabia is currently negotiating with America to acquire the status of a major ally outside NATO, similar to other smaller Gulf states such as Qatar and Bahrain.

With this, China was able to hold on to both sides of the relationship with its two major partners from the middle, and moved away from previous Saudi bets in giving priority to relations with the Kingdom at the expense of Iran, especially after Saudi Arabia increased its oil exports to China and provided it with very large investment inducements. China has always shown that it is a rising international power keen to gain soft influence and does not practice politics in its arrogant sense in the Western style, and that it is interested in establishing relations with all actors in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Zionist entity and Turkey, and it is also interested in not losing Iran to the interest of India, which strengthens its relations. Economic and commercial transport links with Iran, especially through the port of Chabahar in southern Iran.

The announcement of the restoration of relations between Riyadh and Tehran would not have provoked shocking responses in Washington had it not been issued by Beijing and with Chinese mediation. that is, the return, in and of itself, was not excluded, and there was no American objection to the role of Iraq and Oman to restore the broken link between Riyadh and Tehran. However, the entry of the Chinese engineer into the line and his success in achieving a Middle Eastern breakthrough seemed to come at the expense of the declining American role in the region, and aroused astonishment and anxiety in Washington, which dealt with it as an event that might represent a regional-geopolitical turning point, and perhaps a historic one. Because of this size, it immediately occupied the headlines and sparked a flood of preliminary comments and readings that intersected in its interpretation when it was considered a Chinese target in the American goal, at a moment when the Biden administration was talking about the Chinese danger and mobilizing to weaken its influence in the world and to confront it in its Asian home and beyond.

In its first response, the administration seemed as if it was surprised by this development, despite saying that “Saudi Arabia has kept it informed about its dialogue with Iran,” according to White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, who added that it “supports any efforts to reduce tension in the region.” The generality of his words and his ambiguous wording – as he ignored the mention of China – indicates that the administration was surprised by the announcement. What is worse is that it embarrassed it in several respects and aspects that observers placed in the category of net American losses. Most notably, China has broken the unity of dependence in the region on the United States, whose policies have led to “vacuum and failure there.”  That is, Beijing, has known the ways to undermine this policy, as well as the entrances that lead to enabling it to address the region in a language that takes into account its sensitivities, and thus strengthens relations with it and trust in it.

China’s other gain is that it recorded the first successful diplomatic entry into the arena of international conflicts, especially the Middle East, by building this role on an approach to international relations that is based more on interests than on calculations and security guarantees. Thus, it gave the region an encouragement to diversify relations instead of relying on a single power, leaving space for the freedom of local decision-making and the primacy of its interests.

However, all of this depends on the steadfastness of the return of relations between Riyadh and Tehran, and whether this return is the title of a “coexistence” process between the two neighbors, or is it perhaps the result of a deal to resolve a crisis, even if an important one, such as the Yemen war. The backgrounds and facts outweigh the first possibility, given that the sponsor is a weighty international party that countries need until further notice. The Kingdom has worked in recent years, after strained relations with the administration of President Joe Biden, to weave in-depth relations with China as another option, if not as a final alternative. And Iran sought, through its partnership with Beijing, to break its isolation, which was achieved, albeit in part, by restoring its relations with the Kingdom. On these accounts, all three were winners.

Besides the administration, Israel was the biggest loser. It is believed that the Prime Minister of the incumbent government, Benjamin Netanyahu, has disappointed his bets on a normalization deal that has been repeated in recent days with Saudi Arabia. Some reports stated that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs “refused” to comment on the return of Saudi-Iranian relations. A position that reflects the extent of the unease, as is the case in Washington; Although there were those who were quick to downplay the matter by considering it a development that would serve the administration in the sense that it would help “liberate it from the troubles of instability” in the region, thus allowing it to devote itself to its most important issues with China and Russia in the Ukraine war.

But it is an explanation closer to mitigating the impact of the shock, as the process seemed closer to an American failure in exchange for Chinese sophistication that achieved understanding between two opponents united by aversion, each for its own reasons and to varying degrees, from America.

China’s main goal for mediating between Tehran and Riyadh is to de-escalate the tension in a region that sees its peace and security as aligned with its strategic interests as the world’s largest energy importer and the largest exporter of goods to the West Asian region.

China is currently the largest buyer of Iran’s crude oil and also the largest foreign trade partner of Saudi Arabia, and more than 55 billion dollars out of the estimated 120 billion dollars of trade between the two countries this year is related to Saudi Arabia’s oil exports to China.

In this way, it seems that China has used its purchasing power in Tehran and Riyadh as a political lever in a situation and at a time when there was enough favorable ground between the two countries to enter into thematic negotiations.

Another factor that has left China’s hand free in advancing the discussed political initiative is the desire of the United States to gradually leave the West Asian region on the one hand, and thr Russia’s preoccupation with the Ukraine war and the reduction of Moscow’s attention to developing its presence and influence in the Persian Gulf region on the other hand.

What lies ahead 

There have been many reactions to the Iranian-Saudi agreement, most of which hope that it will lead to a broader rapprochement that would contribute to resolving several crises in the region, including Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. However, the differences that governed relations for four decades and were permeated – as Tehran sees it – Saudi bets on bullying the West to weaken Iran and contribute to the blockade measures imposed on it and destabilize it by supporting rebel groups, all of which left scars in relations that cannot be erased easily. On the other hand, the Saudi side wants Iran to commit itself not to play any competing regional role with it, and to refrain from providing support to the forces of the axis of resistance, and to let Riyadh exercise its leading role in influencing the policies of other countries. Iran considers this division unfair and unrealistic.

Therefore, the resumption of diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia is not considered a quick entry point to warm relations, or to an agreement on regional issues around which a multilateral conflict revolves. But it is a necessary step for political communication between the two sides at the official level after an era of estrangement. This means that there will be no immediate reflection on the regional issues in dispute, but a door may be opened for an exchange of views on how to contain their repercussions, control their rhythm, and perhaps contribute later to finding settlements if conducive conditions are available. Tehran always stresses that it does not replace the allies in determining their national affairs and interests.

Courtesy: Modern Diplomacy


Spread the love
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Chad’s Election Outcome Already Seems Set: 4 Things Mahamat Déby Has Done to Stay in Power

Published

on

By

Spread the love

Chad’s elections kick off today. In this recent article, Helga Dickow argues that though it will officially mark the end of the transitional government, it may not mean a break with authoritarian rule. Mahamat Déby looks set to stay in power.

Chad’s presidential election campaigns officially kicked off on Sunday 14 April 2024 in the capital city, N’Djamena. Transitional president Mahamat Idriss Déby held a large meeting on the Place de la Nation directly in front of the presidential palace. In attendance were members of the government, the military and various political parties, identifiable, in the blistering heat, by their different coloured shirts.

Prime minister Succès Masra, meanwhile, led a large convoy of cars and motorbikes through the city and was accompanied by a crowd of mainly young followers. Déby and Masra, both in their early 40s, were cheered by their respective crowds. The election will take place on 6 May 2024 and end a three-year transition period led by Mahamat Déby after the sudden death of his father, Idriss Déby Itno, in April 2021.

I am a researcher on democratisation in sub-Saharan Africa, especially Chad. I have been closely following Chadian politics, including the transition phase, for many years. I would argue that Chad’s three-year transition programme had a single objective: the long-term retention of power by Mahamat Déby.

This objective has been pursued in four ways: violent oppression and intimidation; composition of the electoral institutions; approval of presidential candidates; and campaign strategies.

Violent oppression and intimidation

During the 30-year reign of the late Idriss Déby Itno, Chadians largely got used to a rather autocratic regime. Democratic liberties and the right to freedom of expression were repeatedly suppressed. Arrests of demonstrators were common. Some opposition leaders were killed. Ibni Oumar Mahamat Saleh, for example, was killed in 2008. Since Mahamat Idriss Déby came into office, two incidents have shown that violence against opposition voices has continued – even more ruthlessly.

On 20 October 2022, a day now known as Black Thursday in Chad, hundreds of mainly young Chadians, protesting against the extension of Mahamat Idriss Deby’s transitional government tenure, were shot and killed by government forces. The second incident was the assassination of Yaya Dillo, a cousin of Mahamat Déby and one of his fiercest opponents. Dillo, leader of the party Parti Socialiste sans Frontières (Party of Socialists without Borders) was shot in his party headquarters in N’Djamena on 28 February 2024. Official statements on his death blamed him for a deadly attack on the country’s security agency.

Composition of electoral institutions

The new constitution adopted in a controversial referendum in December 2023 demanded the creation of two electoral institutions before the electoral process. The institutions are L’Agence nationale de gestion des élections (National Election Management Agency) and the Constitutional Council. The election management agency is responsible for organising the election while the constitutional council vets candidates for the elections as well as the results.

Mahamat Déby appointed members of these two bodies on 30 January 2024 for seven year terms, which means they might serve him in two elections. All of them were loyal to his father in the past and have been members of the former ruling party Mouvement Patriotique du Salut for many years. Former minister of justice and spokesperson of the former ruling party, Jean-Bernard Padaré, was appointed president of the constitutional council. Padaré was accused of corruption in 2014. Retired president of the supreme court Ahmed Bartchiret, also a member of the former ruling party, chairs the election management agency.

It is my view that, in order to ensure his continuous grip on power, Mahamat Déby appointed faithful and long serving confidants of his father into these two important agencies for the management of the 6 May election.

Approval of presidential candidates

Between 6 March and 24 March, anyone interested in vying for the presidency was expected to submit nomination forms. Candidates had to pay 10,000,000 CFA (US$16,258) to the treasury. At the close of the exercise, 20 candidates expressed interest but only 10 were approved by the constitutional council appointed by Mahamat Déby, who is also a candidate. Disqualified candidates were given official reasons including an incorrect birth certificate or a missing document or photograph. As expected, the most prominent qualified candidates were Mahamat Déby and his prime minister, Masra. It will be the first time a president and the prime minister he appointed run against each other in a Chadian election.

Other approved candidates include former prime minister Albert Pahimi Padacké of the party RNDT Le Réveil. He served as prime minister to Mahamat Déby in 2021 and 2022. He previously served Mahamat’s father between 2016 and 2018. The only female candidate is Lydie Beassemda. She contested the presidency in 2021 and finished third.

The regional origin of the approved candidates is also an indication of how Mahamat Déby’s transition is simply working to retain him in the presidency. Out of the 10 approved candidates, only Mahamat Déby and Yacine Abderamane Sakine of the minority party Parti Réformiste are from the northern region. The other eight candidates are from the southern part of the country.

As elections in the past have shown, Chadians prefer to vote for politicians from their own region. Based on this projection, Mahamat Déby seemed poised to win most of the votes from the northern region while votes of the southern region would be split between the other eight candidates. Some voters may abstain from the polls as the opposition coalition Groupe de concertation des acteurs politiques (Concertation Group of Political Actors) and civil society groups like the Wakit Tama call for a boycott. They are challenging the legitimacy of the polls.

Given this scenario, Déby could win the majority of the votes cast in the first round of voting. Should this not be the case, the constitution says there would be a second round of balloting between the first two candidates. The candidate with a simple majority wins the second round.

Campaign strategies

All candidates are confident of victory. Their campaign promises do not differ greatly. They promise better living conditions – primarily the supply of electricity and water, education, more jobs and future prospects for the youth – as well as good governance, reconciliation and cohabitation. Mahamat Déby is additionally playing the stability card, which he has used throughout the transition period to justify his takeover and continuous hold on to power.

Mahamat Déby’s candidature is backed by a broad coalition called Coalition pour un Tchad Uni (Coalition for a United Chad). It is made up of more than 200 political parties and more than 1,000 nongovernmental organisations. The coalition is led by the former ruling party Mouvement Patriotique du Salut.

Mahamat Déby agreed to be the coalition’s presidential candidate on 2 March 2024. The opposition is accusing the coalition of using state funds for their campaign. Masra, leader of the opposition party Les Transformateurs, was one of Mahamat Déby’s strongest opponents until his return to Chad in October 2023 and was later appointed as prime minister.

As a presidential candidate, he struggles to campaign as someone independent of the Mahamat Déby transitional government. In his campaign speeches, Masra often refers to the past while carefully avoiding the past few months of being prime minister, a time when the cost of living rose due to increases in fuel prices and N’Djamena experienced the worst water and electricity crises ever.

Former prime minister Padacké refers to precisely these points in his campaign and accuses Mahamat Déby and Masra of being incapable of managing the country. If elected, Padacké promises to run for only one term. He avoids mentioning the fact that he was part of the late Idriss Déby Itno’s government.

In the final analysis…

Mahamat Déby is very likely to win the elections. Chad will see another Déby government. Meanwhile, focus on the presidential elections distracts attention from the fact that neither parliamentary nor local elections are planned in the near future. It is likely that Mahamat Déby will follow his father’s example here too: legitimisation through presidential elections. Under the late Déby, the last parliamentary elections were held in 2011; local elections were only held once.

Helga Dickow is a Senior Researcher at the Arnold Bergstraesser Institut, Freiburg Germany, University of Freiburg

Courtesy: The Conversation


Spread the love
Continue Reading

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Sudan’s Civil War is Rooted in its Historical Favouritism of Arab and Islamic identity

Published

on

By

Spread the love

The current civil war in Sudan goes beyond a simple power struggle between two generals. It reflects a deep-rooted crisis within the country’s governing structure that’s been present since it gained independence from the British in 1956.

Since independence, the Sudanese have experienced 35 coups and attempted coups, more than any other African country. In the country’s southern region a 56-year rebellion eventually led to the creation of South Sudan in 2011. A Darfurian uprising in 2003 was sparked by accusations that the central government was discriminating against the region’s non-Arab population. It led to ethnic killings and continues to simmer.

Delving into the history of Sudan, which I have done for more than three decades, reveals that the country suffers from a long-standing identity crisis that has fuelled the numerous rebellions. The inability, or perhaps unwillingness, of successive governments to manage the country’s diversity and articulate a shared vision has resulted in unfair distribution of wealth and resources. Sudan has a population of 49 million. It comprises 19 major ethnic groups and about 597 ethnic sub-groups speaking hundreds of languages and dialects. Sudanese Arabs make up the largest single ethnic group at about 70% of the population.

Achieving peace in Sudan requires a focus on the concerns of marginalised populations in conflict zones and deprived regions. These include Darfur, South Kordofan and the Nuba Mountains. It also requires addressing the root causes of armed violence. Among them are issues of marginalisation, the relationship between religion and state, governance, resource sharing, land, social justice and equality at the national level.

The early years of independence

The Sudanese government that came to power in 1956 insisted on an Arab and Islamic identity. The state was based on the principles of Mahdism, an Islamic Sufi order established in the 1880s. It wasn’t representative of diverse communities and sought to subject them to the will of the Mahdist state. It demanded a degree of compliance that many were unwilling to provide. Resistance against Mahdism was widespread.

In 1989, a new government seized control of the state under the rule of the National Islamic Front. This was an alliance between army officers and the Muslim Brotherhood, a fringe outfit that grew into a powerful political organisation. This coup brought to power Omar al-Bashir, who was supported by Islamist leader Hassan al-Turabi. Their government also endeavoured to establish an Islamic state. The government set up an internal security apparatus, which arrested and tortured dissenters. In 1991, the regime introduced a new penal code to impose an Islamisation agenda, and created the “People’s Police”.

Two further developments would create the conditions for the war that continues to rage today. The first was the al-Bashir regime’s decision in 2003 to enlist Janjaweed militias to quell an insurgency in Darfur. Second, the Islamist regime used this new militia to keep the elite in the Sudanese army away from conflict zones in the periphery. In 2013, al-Bashir formally designated these tribal militias as the Rapid Support Forces through a presidential decree. This affiliated them with the national security and intelligence services.

In 2017, Sudan’s parliament ratified the Rapid Support Forces Law. This formally incorporated the militias into the government’s military apparatus under the direct command of the president. The minister of defence was tasked with overseeing the Sudanese Armed Forces. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, alias Hemedti, was appointed by al-Bashir to lead the Rapid Support Forces. This enabled his power and influence to grow. It was to inform the dramatic and tragic events in Sudan in the coming decade.

After protests in 2018 swept through Sudan’s major cities – driven by grievances around poverty, corruption and unemployment – the military intervened in April 2019. They removed al-Bashir from power and declared a state of emergency. Despite establishing a transitional military government, demonstrations persisted demanding civilian leadership.

With mediation from the African Union, an agreement on power-sharing was reached in August 2019. It resulted in a military-civilian transitional administration. Still, challenges persisted, including a failed coup attempt in September 2021. A month later, Sudan’s top general, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, led another coup, derailing the country’s democratic transition.

The months leading up to the war in April 2023 were marked by civilian protests that were violently repressed, and tensions between army and Rapid Support Forces leaders.

Forging a militia-dominated state

The Rapid Support Forces emerged as a counterbalance to the armed forces. It strategically deployed thousands of battle-hardened fighters to the country’s biggest cities, volatile border regions and economic hubs like gold mines. Concurrently, Russia forged ties with the Rapid Support Forces through the Wagner Group to secure access to Sudanese gold. Three conditions coalesced to foster the emergence of a militia-dominated state, with the Rapid Support Forces at its helm.

  1. Civil strife in Darfur in 2003 presented an opportune moment. While the army focused on quelling rebellion in south Sudan, the suppression of the Darfurian uprising in the west was left to paramilitary forces.
  2. Support from the Sudanese government enabled the self-styled militia to access financial resources and weaponry. It could then develop commercial ventures to attain and sustain autonomy from the state.

  3. Ideologically, Hemedti portrayed the Rapid Support Forces as a militia representing marginalised Arabs from Sudan’s rural and border regions.

The unravelling

In Sudan’s evolving democratic transition, Hemedti’s rise to the vice presidency of the Sovereignty Council in 2021 was crucial, overseeing the path to elections. Disbanding the Rapid Support Forces or sidelining Hemedti risked sparking unrest, given the outfit’s size and business interests. Militia dominance over the state can prompt belated responses from the military, potentially making conflict worse. Initially, Hemedti refrained from seizing power by force. He aligned his troops as allies of the army, which also had substantial economic ventures.

But the October 2021 military coup halted Sudan’s democratic progress. Amid repression and economic decline, the Rapid Support Forces expanded its influence through business ventures and engagements. The army’s attempt to integrate these forces backfired, leading to armed confrontations and the Rapid Support Forces’ seizure of critical areas.

What next

Sudan requires a collaborative effort from the international community to aid reconstruction. It needs to establish a transparent, civilian-led government that represents the Sudanese populace and hears their voices in decision-making processes. Urgent action is needed to reconstruct Sudan’s post-colonial state as one that includes and safeguards the rights of all.


Spread the love
Continue Reading

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Tinubu’s Dying Presidency

Published

on

By

Spread the love

By Steve Osuji

CRISIS DEEPENS: President Bola Tinubu has announced a no-confidence vote on himself, unknown to him. He inadvertently admitted that he is unable to do the job and that his administration is in crisis when he inaugurated two hurriedly cobbled up, new-fangled economic committees to run things and revive economy. The first one is a 31-member Presidential Economic Coordination Council (PECC), while the other is a 14-man Economic Management Team Emergency Task Force, code-named (EET).

If Nigerians noticed the move by Tinubu, they didn’t seem to give a damn. Many had long given up on the Tinubu presidency anyway and they have switched off its activities. They have come to the eerie realization that Tinubu is not the man to get Nigeria out of the morass of poverty and underdevelopment, so many have long moved on with their lives, leaving the man to continue with his extended blundering and shadow-boxing.

The teams are made up of the usual culprits: the jaded Dangote-Otedola-Elumelu circle; the Bismarck Rewane-Doyin Salami-Soludo celebrity-economists and the same raucous crowd of  governors and ministers. The same motley crowd of people who brought Nigeria to her current tragic destination has been gathered again!

Apparently, Bola Tinubu forgot he had just last February, assembled the Dangote-Elumelu hawks as his Economic Advisory Council members. Scratch! That was just another presidential blunder out of so many. Now PECC and EET are Tinubu’s NEW DEAL. Call it “peck and eat” if you like but that’s the new buzz in Aso Rock. But for discerning minds, this is a clear sign that crisis has deepen in Tinubu’s administration.

SELF-INDICTMENT: But which serious president sets up a new economic management task force after 10 months in office? What about its cabinet? Has it been rid of the failed ministers and aides whose apparent failure warranted a side team like this? What has the new government been doing in office all this while? What about the election manifesto and the president’s economic vision Could it be that all these have been forgotten in 10 months to the point that outsiders are needed to give direction and “revive” the economy?

Now some ministers and state governors have been co-opted into this  new TASK FORCE. They are mandated to meet twice a week in Abuja for the next six months. So what happens to the governors’ duties back home? What about the ministers’ core assignments? All of this seems quite weird right now. The simple message here is that the president has lost focus and direction.  Vision, if any, has failed him. The presidency is weak and puny nobody is holding forth in case the president falters.

BLANK SCORECARD: Now almost one year in office, no scorecard, nothing to report. All the positive indictors the president met upon inauguration have all crashed to near zero. Even the deposits in the blame banks have been exhausted  – there’s nobody to blame anymore!

LOW CAPACITY, LOW ENERGY: This column has warned right before election that Tinubu hasn’t the requisite mental and physical capacities to lead Nigeria. As can be seen by all, President Tinubu has not managed to tackle any of the fundamentals of the economy and the polity; the very basic expectations in governance are not being attended to. For instance, the corruption monster rages on afield, with Tinubu seemingly not interested in caging it. Official graft has therefore worsened under his watch. About N21 billion budgeted for his Chief of Staff as against N500m for the last occupant of that office has become the compass  for graft in Tinubu’s Nigeria. Today,  the police is on a manhunt for the investigative journalist exposing  filthy  Customs men while the rogues in grey uniform are overlooked. The president personally ballooned the cost  of governance by forming a large, lumbering cabinet and showering them with exquisite SUVs, among other pecks.

Insecurity is at its worst with no fresh ideas to tackle it. The country is in semi-darkness as power generation and distribution is at near-zero levels. Importation goes on at a massive scale, productive capacity has dwindled further and living standard of Nigerians is at the lowest ebb now. There’s hardly anything to commend the Tinubu administration so far.

WHO WILL RESCUE THE SITUATION: As Nigeria’s socioeconomic crises deepen, and the president’s handicaps can no longer be concealed, who will rescue the polity? All the stress signs are there; the fault lines are all too visible to be ignored anymore. Recently,  we have seen civilians brazenly butchering officers and men of the Army and the army brutishly exacting reprisals almost uncontrolled. We see the escape from Nigeria, of the Binance executive who had been invited to Nigeria and then slammed into detention. That a foreigner could slither out of the hands of security personnel and slip out through Nigeria’s borders, suggests unspeakable ills about the country. The other day, so-called MINING GUARDS in their thousands,  were suddenly ‘manufactured’ –  uniforms, boots, arms and all. They are conjured into existence ostensibly to guard the mines. Which mines? Whose mines? How much do the mines contribute to the federation account? Are we using taxpayer’s money to fund an army to protect largely private and illicit mines? Why are we committing harakiri by throwing more armed men into our unmanned spaces? Even the Nigerian Navy has been unable to protect Nigeria’s oil wells! The Mining Guard is yet another  symptom of an insipient loss of control by the President.

Finally, for the first time in a long while, an editor, Segun Olatunji, was abducted from his home in Lagos. For two weeks,  no one knew his whereabouts and no arm of the military cum security agencies owned up to picking him in such bandits-style operation. It took the intervention of foreign media and human rights bodies for the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) to own up they abducted him,  and eventually release him. Not one charge was brought against him.

Not even under the military junta were editors kidnapped by security agencies in this manner. The point is that the so-called democrat-president is losing patient with the media. There shall be many more abductions and media mugging in the coming days. When a government fails,  it kicks the media’s ass for reporting the failure; that’s the historical pattern!

Things will go from bad to worse and government would respond in more undemocratic and authoritarian ways. Lastly,  it’s unlikely that Dangote and Co can rescue the dying Tinubu presidency? These are fortune-hunters craving the next billion dollars to shore up their egos. To mitigate the looming crisis, Tinubu must quickly reshuffle his cabinet that is currently filled with dead woods and rogues. Many of them are too big for their shoes and they are not given to the rigors of work.

In fact, Tinubu must as a matter of urgency, fortify the presidency by changing his chief of staff to a Raji Fashola kind. As it is,  the hub of the presidency is its weakest link.

Steve Osuji writes from Lagos. He can be reached via: steve.osuji@gmail.com

#voiceofreason

Feedback: steve.osuji@gmail.com


Spread the love
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2023 Focus on Halal Economy | Powered by Africa Islamic Economic Foundation