Two Clintons And One Sermon On The Good Samaritan.

No Comments » February 4th, 2010 posted by // Categories: General Articles



Two Clintons And One Sermon On The Good Samaritan.

The United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been reported to have blamed failings by Nigerian leaders for terrorism among young Nigerians. She reportedly pointed to poor living standards and “unbelievable” corruption as the causes of what she called ‘increasing radicalisation’ of the Nigerian youth.

Mrs Clinton was also quoted recently at a “town hall” meeting with State Department officials as saying that: ‘ The information we have on the Christmas Day bomber so far seems to suggest that he was disturbed by his father’s wealth and the kind of living conditions that he viewed as being not Islamic enough.” She then alluded to the possibility of unleashing the American military on Nigeria with the statement that Nigeria faces a threat from increasing radicalisation that needs to be addressed, and not just by military means.

Mrs. Clinton has suddenly become notorious for making all the most reckless, bogus and wild statements about Nigeria and one fact that gives her the boldness in her newfound pastime is the assurance that she can get away with it all the time.

To start with, Mrs. Clinton has no basis (statistically or historically) to suggest that there is ‘increasing radicalisation’ of the Nigerian youth. If at all the bomb attempt by a Nigerian on a US bound plane must be described as ‘radicalisation among young Nigerians’, it must necessarily be regarded as the ‘beginning’ and not ‘aggravation’ of the menace, since this is the very first time a Nigerian, young or old, is involved in such an (mis)adventure. It is therefore not just wrong but way too disingenuous-cum- preposterous for a woman of her standing to state otherwise.

One characteristic of the statements emanating from Clinton is her proclivity to mix facts and lies together. When facts are superimposed on lies, the lies tend to assume a semblance of authenticity due to what I call ‘proximity effect’. The presence of known facts about Nigeria in these statements is a calculated devise to win approval among Nigerians who could easily identify with those facts and eventually believe the encapsulated lies. In this way, she can ‘piss’ on our heads and still expect a ‘Thank-you-ma’ from Nigerians!

Take this statement for instance: “There has to be recognition that, in the last 10 years, a lot of the indicators about quality of life in Nigeria have gone the wrong direction. “ Every Nigerian can identify with this statement because, even though poverty has been prevalent among Nigerians since colonial times, the last 10-years (coinciding with the re-advent of democracy in Nigeria) witnessed the most monumental scale of looting of the Nigerian treasury by politicians. Clinton is in a position to know this because her country happens to be the prime destination for stolen wealth from Nigeria. What becomes a problem is how this fact substantiates the claim that increasing poverty in the land fuelled Abdulmutallabs resort to terrorism.

The problem with Clinton’s theory is that it has not solved to the puzzle that despite her assertion that poverty has made the Nigerian society so venerable or fertile to terrorist tendencies, Nigeria has no known terrorist training havens to the effect that the younger Mutallab needed to be recruited not from Nigerian soil but from her (Clinton’s) country’s major ally in the war against terror (Britain), and trained in Yemen by America’s most formidable villain Al’Queda. Interestingly Clinton does not see Britain as a weak link in the anti-terrorism chain. With her claim to be knowledgeable in matters of cause and effect in terrorism, I am wont to see her ignorance of Britain’s role in the current threat as more of a deliberate omission than a mere error of judgement.

Still on the poverty theory, the emergence of Osama Bin Laden who is unarguably the father of modern hi-tech terrorism, from a wealthy family in a wealthy nation of Saudi Arabia, underscores the illogicality of Clinton’s hypocritical postulations about poverty and terrorism in Nigeria. And that Britain from where Abdulmutalab was recruited is nowhere near the USA’s terrorist watch list make her two-facedness more glaring. In the wake of the 9-11 attacks for which Bin-laden personally claimed responsibility, his family was accorded all the human rights of freedom available to free men on US soil. Yet Clinton seeks to justify America’s knee-jerk reactions with the prospects for undue humiliation of law-abiding Nigerians on US bound flights in the name terror war despite the fact that information on the events leading up to the unfortunate episode suggests a failure in her country’s intelligence network.

Nigeria is definitely not the poorest nation in Africa. If Clinton’s theory is to stand, then countries like Burundi, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Malawi, Guinea-Bissau, Eritrea, Niger, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and even Mugabe’s Zimbabwe should have produced their versions of Abdulmutallab long before Nigeria.

Interestingly even some Nigerian analysts have been pointing to politically engineered and ethnicity motivated communal uprisings in the Northern part of Nigeria as good grounds to classify Nigeria as a terrorist Nation. Listening to these analyst one comes away with the impression that they believe once the blame on the terrorist attempt is placed on Northern Nigeria -where the bad people stay -it would cease to be a National problem!

But if we use civil unrest as criteria for identifying nations prone to terrorist breeding, war-torn Sudan, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Bosnia, would have been far above Yemen in the art of terrorists breeding. Everyone knows that internal ethnic conflicts are usually localised and the driving force quite distinct from organised terrorist’s movements which are more ideological and transcends international boundaries. It is therefore stupid to say that because an Itsekiri man has conflict with an Urhobo, in Delta State in Nigeria, he would now choose to make himself a tool in the hands of Al-Queda to attack America.

Even on corruption, the correlation with terrorist activities is faulty. Yes there is corruption in Nigeria but Nigeria is not the most corrupt nation in Africa, yet the more corrupt nations than Nigeria are yet to breed terrorist havens. In fact the corruption perception index on Nigeria has been falling gradually over the last 10 years quoted by Mrs. Clinton. Those ten years happen to be the period within which the nation took the bull by the horn by setting up an anti-corruption body that has achieved modest success as indicated by the prosecution of several high-ranking government officials-a fact which Mrs. Clinton chose to conveniently ignore.

If indeed Clinton wishes to be taken seriously, she would not have made the statement to the effect that the Younger Mutallab’s action was a revolt against Nigeria’s or his father’s wealth and non-Islamic lifestyle. Unless Clinton tells us that the boy was mentally unstable, one would ask: why he would choose to attack America for the sins of his dad who is resident in Nigeria? And ironically his journey to Detroit took him through Nigeria. Which better place was there to detonate his bomb than in Nigeria where the culprits are?

 

So on these two factors namely, corruption and Poverty, Clinton has failed to show how peculiar they are to Nigeria to have exclusively turned her into a terrorist nation in the mist of several corrupt and poor nations.

If Nigeria has not moved out of the woods after 10 years of democracy, it could be that America failed to keep its promise that was delivered by Mrs. Clinton’s Husband 10 years ago. The male Clinton had told Nigeria in year 2000 while on the tour of the small village of Ushafa near Abuja that: ‘We want to help you build your economy, educate your children and build a better life in all the villages of this country.’

Just how much can the female Clinton tell us her husband’s promise has been fulfilled? Rather Mrs. Clinton’s subtle message is that since her husband left office, America now prefers to be the ‘Robber’! So, whatever is yours is mine if I can take it away from you. Any attempt to stop the ‘robber’ is regarded as an act of terrorism. In their diplomatic lexicon, economic threat is synonymous to terror.

Thus Clinton is playing a very familiar card in their foreign policy game. It has worked severally for her country in the past. Saddam Hussein is resting in the grave most certainly prematurely because Clinton’s country used this card on his country. Saddam’s sin was the attempt to jeopardise American interest in the oil resources in the Gulf. They falsely accused him of amassing weapons of mass destruction. Several years after their troops have taken control of the security apparatus in the ravaged country, no trace of the weapons have been found.

Whoever looks beyond oil for a reason for America’s aggression towards Nigeria in recent times is probably unschooled in the art of psychological warfare. China’s interest in Nigerian Oil and Nigeria’s willingness to open up her oil fields to Chinese investors is undoubtedly the biggest threat to America’s stakes in the energy market in the West African sub-region. The placement of Nigeria on the terror watch list and subsequent negative publicity mounted by no less a personality like Secretary Clinton could only be a strategy to weaken the bargaining power of Nigeria in this game.

 When the USA predicted the collapse of Nigeria in 15 years, what was not apparent then was that they will be the very agent for the destabilisation of Nigeria.

In the end, even Abdulmutallab may just be a casualty of a high- wired conspiracy to rope Nigeria into their web of victims of the fanatical warmonger that is the USA whose usual targets are oil-rich countries they can subdue and exploit their oil while hiding under the pretext of anti terror war.

Opt In Image
Send Me Free Email Updates

(enter your email address below)

Leave a Reply

*

Home | About | Contact | Login