Nigeria orders N157bn warplanes from the US… but there is a little problem

A former US state department top expert on Nigeria has asked the American government not to sell 12 warplanes worth $500 million to the Muhammadu Buhari administration.

TheCable understands that the order for 12 A-29 Super Tucano light attack aircraft was to enable the Nigerian military to “finish off” Boko Haram insurgents who are still operating in Borno state.

But Matthew Page, writing in War on The Rocks, an online policy discussion platform, accused the Buhari government of violating human rights and misplacing his priorities.

He also alleged that the Nigeria air force officer who went to the US to negotiate the contract in July 2015 “has since been charged with corruption”.

Page wrote: “The Department of Defense will soon notify Congress it plans to sell 12 A-29 Super Tucano light attack aircraft to Nigeria. Both countries hope that the propeller-driven warplanes — tailored for counterinsurgency operations — will bolster Nigerian efforts to combat Boko Haram, one of the world’s deadliest terrorist groups. U.S. policymakers also want the sale to be a visible symbol of their strong desire to do more to help Nigeria combat terrorism.

“Unfortunately, the sale will be a Pyrrhic victory for five reasons: It is way too expensive, it undermines U.S. corruption policy, it overlooks recent human rights abuses, it won’t help Nigeria fight the Boko Haram of tomorrow, and it won’t foster closer defense cooperation.”

According to Page, who co-authored a forthcoming book, ‘Nigeria: What Everyone Needs to Know’, the country should be encouraged to buy a squadron of Brazilian-American turbo-props which are “way cheaper”.

“[$500 million] could, for example, buy twice as many MI-35M (Hind E) Russian-made attack helicopters,” he further suggested.

Here are his five reasons.

1. NIGERIA CAN’T AFFORD IT

For Nigeria, the cost of the planes is staggering, given that its economy is in deep recession and its currency, the naira,lost 50 percent of its value against the dollar over the last year. Based on similar deal with Lebanon, the sale — which probably includes munitions, spare parts, and a maintenance package — may total over $500 million: roughly half of Nigeria’s2016 defense budget and over twice as much as the Nigerian Army’s entire annual salary bill.

U.S. policymakers should recognize that the government of President Muhammadu Buhari —even if it wants to buy the planes — has many other more pressing humanitarian and socioeconomic needs. In northeast Nigeria, for example, over two million internally displaced people are threatened by famine and disease. Acknowledging the country’s fiscal constraints, Nigeria’s Senate President, in August 2016, called for more international financial and logistical help to address crisis and to reconstruct the region so it is no longer the “perfect breeding ground for Boko Haram.” In lieu of costly warplanes, Nigeria would be wise to invest half of a billion dollars in its marginalized northeast to address long-term drivers of conflict like chronic underdevelopment, poverty, and food insecurity.

Beyond the northeast, Nigeria could use $500 million to help remedy a litany of other problems. It could begin resuscitating its failing universities, fixing its dilapidated public hospitals, or constructing solar-powered mini-grids in thousands of rural communities. Nigeria — a country of over 170 million people that generates as much power as the city of Edinburgh — desperately needs dozens of new power plants.

2. IT SENDS MIXED MESSAGES ON CORRUPTION

Sticker shock aside, the sale undermines statements by President Barack Obama,Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew that helping Nigeria fight corruption is a top U.S. policy priority. The U.S. effort to sell weapons to the Nigerian Air Force — whose last three chiefs, along with several other of its top officers, are currently on trial for embezzlement and procurement fraud — is incongruous with U.S. rhetoric. Nigerian Air Force corruption is not ancient history: The senior air force officer who the U.S. Defense Attaché brought to Washington in July 2015 to discuss the Super Tucano sale has since been charged with corruption. Furthermore, it is not clear that the Nigerian Air Force become any more transparent about its finances, procurement, or contracting processes over the last year.

Washington’s other partner in the deal — Brazilian aircraft manufacturer Embraer — just last month agreed to pay $205 million in fines to resolve criminal violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Embraer admitted that it bribed officials to sell Super Tucanos to the Dominican Republic and other aircraft to Saudi Arabia, Mozambique, and India. Brazilian authorities, meanwhile, have charged several former top executives at Embraer with corruption and money laundering in connection with the sale of Super Tucanos to the Dominican Republic.

3. IT OVERLOOKS NIGERIAN MILITARY HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

U.S. policymakers have repeatedly voiced their concerns about the Nigerian military’s human rights record. In September 2013, a State Department spokesperson said:  “We continue to emphasize…that abuses by the [Nigerian] security forces undermine our security goals,” noting that President Obama had discussed the issue with then-President Goodluck Jonathan.

In May 2014, Undersecretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human RightsSarah Sewall told Congressthat “some fifty percent of the Nigerian military, at this point in time, are not eligible” for training and materiel support because of the Leahy Amendment. In 2015, the United States declared Nigeria in violation of the Child Soldiers Prevention Act, citing the use of underage boys by a government-sponsored militia.

Even though the Nigerian air force has a better human rights record than the army, policymakers have long debated whether the Nigerian Air Force is doing enough to minimize civilian deaths. As recently as May 2016, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield specifically mentioned U.S. concerns over Nigeria’s use of airpower in her testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

Last year you will know that we turned them [the Nigerian government] down for Cobras [attack helicopters] because we were concerned about their ability to use those and not have them have an impact on their communities…

The decision to block the sale angered Nigerians and some U.S. officials, but it took place only a few months after Nigerian warplanes bombed and strafed residential areas during a joint operation that killed several hundred military detainees that escaped in a March 2014 jailbreak.

Yet, the Super Tucano sale suggests that Washington’s concerns about Nigerian military abuses have waned over the last year, despite the Buhari government’s own mixed record. In December 2015, soldiers reportedly perpetrated gross human rights violations during in two separate military crackdowns in Zaria and Onitsha. The Buhari government also has not prosecuted anyone involved in the grisly deaths, between 2011 and 2014, of thousands of detainees from starvation, torture, and disease at the Giwa Barracks military prison. Such deaths continue to occur at there, albeit at a slower pace, according to human rights groups. Just last month, the United Nations Children’s Fund revealed that the military was detaining hundreds of children at Giwa Barracks.

4. BOKO HARAM ISN’T ESPECIALLY VULNERABLE TO AIRPOWER

The Super Tucano, seen here conducting live fire exercises, is devastatingly effective in the right operational context. In Brazil, the government used it to destroy drug smugglers’ hideouts deep in the jungle. The Colombian Air Force used the Super Tucano over the last decade to strike targets across large parts of the country controlled by the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) insurgent group. Afghanistan’s fledgling air force isusing its 20 new Super Tucanos to provide close air support to its troops and to strike concentrations of Taliban in the country’s restive south.

Boko Haram, however, is a more slippery target than the Taliban, FARC, or narcotraffickers’ Amazonian airstrips. The Super Tucano’s unique capabilities might have been handy two years ago, when Boko Haram controlled large parts of three northeastern states. Even then, however, terrorist-held towns and villages housed many civilians. Experts agreethat new warplanes will be less effective now that the group has dispersed and is once again operating clandestinely and conducting asymmetric attacks. Boko Haram fighters no longer operate en masse and many have taken refuge in remote communities in the Mandara Mountains or on the islands of Lake Chad. Even the Sambisa Forest — the group’s traditional stronghold — is not well suited to aerial bombardment. As this footage from a Nigerian air strike shows, hundreds of camp followers — mostly women and children — live among the terrorists sheltering there.

5. PAST ARMS TRANSFERS TO NIGERIA HAVEN’T FOSTERED CLOSER BILATERAL DEFENSE COOPERATION

The United States and Nigeria have a long but rocky history of bilateral military engagement, which increased markedly after Nigeria’s 1999 return to civilian rule. There is little evidence to suggest that U.S. arms transfers have been valued by the Nigerian military and some have become albatrosses in the relationship.

Washington’s sale of C-130 military transport planes to Nigeria in the 1970s is a prime example, having been more a source of irritation than goodwill over the years. Despite being relied upon to ferry troops around Nigeria and to regional peacekeeping deployments, the Nigerian air force neglected to properly maintain the aircraft for years. One C-130 crashed in 1992, killing 163 and others were cannibalized for parts. Washington has repeatedly provided fundsand technical assistance to ensure Nigeria’s C-130s have the spare parts and routine maintenance they need to stay airborne.

Likewise, Washington’s 2015 gift of 24 hand-me-down Mine Resistant Armored-Protected (MRAP) vehicles did not seem well received. The Nigerian press quoted anonymous military sources who called the MRAPs “carcasses” and “Greek gifts”. U.S. officials admitted the vehicles needed some work, reportedly saying:  “The repairs of the vehicles are up to the Nigerian government…We have not done the estimate of what it will cost the Nigerian government to fix the vehicles.”

If not the Super Tucano, then what?

If Nigeria has its heart set on spending $500 million on counterterrorism gear, it could get a lot more for its money than a squadron of Brazilian-American turbo-props. It could, for example, buy twice as many MI-35M (Hind E) Russian-made attack helicopters. Nigeria already operates the MI-35M, a versatile tool that weapon that is rugged, well-armored, and now available with state-of-the-art avionics. Or it could train and equip a scout sniper company to gather intelligence and conduct surgical strikes inside Boko Haram’s Sambisa Forest, Lake Chad, and Mandara Mountain safe havens. It might even consider investing in a vast array of “spy rocks”, unattended ground sensorscapable of covertly monitoring human and vehicle movement in remote areas.

Washington, for its part, needs to rethink its military engagement strategy with Nigeria. It needs to make battalion-level training and major equipment transfers contingent on tangible efforts by the Nigerian military to address its human rights deficiencies and make its security spending more transparent and accountable. At the same time, the United States should expand the scope and scale of its lower-level engagement by doing things like tripling Nigerian participation in the International Military Education and Training program or sending U.S. military doctors to spend a year teaching their Nigerian counterparts about treating battlefield casualties. Doing so would demonstrate Washington’s lasting commitment to help make Nigeria more secure without compromising core U.S. principles.

For full article, go to War on the Rock

Read More »

What will happen to Donald Trump’s billions?

As the controversial Republican prepares to enter
the White House following his shock US election
win, questions are now being asked about how
the he will juggle his dual roles as head of a
multibillion-dollar international business empire
and president of the United States.
With sprawling investments in hotels, office
towers, apartment buildings, residential real
estate, resorts, golf courses and entertainment,
observers are describing the scale of Mr Trump’s
potential conflicts of interest as “unprecedented”.
While congressmen, senators and other high level
public servants are required to disclose financial
interests and recuse themselves from government
business that could generate a conflict, no such
restriction exists for presidents and vice-
presidents.
As author David Sirota explains, legal exemptions
introduced in 1989 mean all Mr Trump is required
to do is file a standard financial disclosure from
the Office of Government Ethics to the Federal
Election Commission. Mr Trump’s form, which he
filed in 2015, was the longest in the history of the
FEC at 104 pages.
“The scope of Trump’s potential conflicts is vast,”
Sirota writes in the International Business Times .
“He owns stock in defence contractors; on the
campaign trail, he vowed to increase the size of
the US Navy. Trump Palace Condominiums, one of
his subsidiary companies, leases to the federal
government, meaning President Trump is poised
to become his own company’s landlord.
“Trump also owes millions of dollars to Deutsche
Bank — which is currently negotiating a fraud
settlement with the Department of Justice, an
agency which President Trump will oversee.”
Sirota also raises another interesting question:
will Mr Trump have to take his name off his
buildings? “Trump-branded properties could
provide a way for regulators to pierce the
presidential immunity from conflicts laws,” he
writes.
“The 1989 Ethics Reform Act ... prohibits any
senior ‘non-career’ government ‘officer’ from
having their name ‘used’ by any firm involved in
fiduciary arrangements.”
The catch is a rule exempting presidents and
vice-presidents from the category of “officer”, but
a simple rule tweak could cause all sorts of
problems.
It’s not just domestic issues, either. Mr Trump’s
real estate empire is primarily located in the
United States, but also extends to countries such
as South Korea and Turkey. Managing political
relations with such US allies while president risks
creating a curious mix of competing goals.
US media have reported the Trump Organisation
has financial ties with people close to Russian
President Vladimir Putin, who the real estate
mogul praised leadership during his campaign.
“For the record, I have ZERO investments in
Russia,” Mr Trump tweeted in July. The potential
for conflicts of interest from Mr Trump’s business
activities are not limited to countries like Russia.
“The number of problems is actually sort of mind-
boggling,” Trevor Potter, former head of the
Federal Election Commission, told NPR .
The Trump Organisation is not publicly traded, so
many of its activities are closed to scrutiny. The
problem takes on another dimension with Trump,
whose name is inextricably tied to his business
empire.
“It’s unprecedented in the history of the US in part
because we don’t know the scope or the nature of
his many financial ties in particular,” Kathleen
Clark, a law professor at Washington University in
St. Louis, told AFP.
She said one ethical point of particular concern is
that Trump financed his company’s expansion
through debt. “We don’t know to whom he owes
money. In some ways owing money is a much
more significant financial contact than an
investment,” she said.
Mr Potter also pointed out that Mr Trump’s new
hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, just
down the road from the White House, had been
built in the old federal post office building, which
required him to negotiate a lease with the US
government’s General Services Administration.
“You’re going to have a situation where the
president appoints the head of GSA, and then the
president’s most visible asset in Washington is
potentially subject to negotiation with that person
over the terms of the lease and any changes in
the lease,” Potter told NPR.
Mr Trump had pledged during the campaign to
entrust his business to a blind trust which would
wall him off from any say in the company’s
activities, and said he would hand over control of
his business empire to his children if he won.
“If I become president, I couldn’t care less about
my company,” he said during a debate in
January . “It’s peanuts. I want to make America
rich again and to make America great again. I
have Ivanka and Eric. Run the company, kids.
Have a good time. I’m gonna do it for America!”
Mr Trump’s three children, Donald Jr, Eric and
Ivanka, are already executive vice presidents of
the Trump Organisation. “We’re not going to
discuss those things,” Donald Jr said in
September, referring to the company’s business
dealings. “Trust me. As you know, it’s a very
fulltime job. He doesn’t need to worry about the
business.”
But Robert Weissman, president of the liberal
advocacy group Public Citizen, said the idea that
there would be independence was “laughable”.
“There’s zero reason to expect they wouldn’t talk
about those issues, given everything we know
about how they relate and how those businesses
are run,” he told NPR.

Read More »

What the body language of Barack Obama and Donald Trump says about their meeting

Awkward. Forced. Uneasy. The Victor and the
Vanquished.
That’s what the body language of President
Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump
shouted at their meeting in the White House
today.
If ever there was a set of images that parallels
Russell Crowe as the gladiator standing over the
loser, this was it.
It’s hard when two people who clearly don’t like
each other have to meet publicly while displaying
civility and a sense of unity towards each other.
When you listen to the words of this meeting you
can be left feeling that these are two friends who
are trying to encourage a happy outcome. But
watch them on TV with the sound turned off and
you’ll get a very different perspective.
Body language reveals how people really feel
about things and it accounts for 60 per cent to 80
per cent of all face-to-face interaction between
people.

During this brief encounter, both men sat with
their legs spread just as alpha-male apes do to
display their masculinity and to prevent the other
guy from getting into a one-up position. They
both minimised mutual eye-contact, opting to
look at the reporters instead.
Trump sat forward the entire time in order to
show dominance and displayed his classic
trademark gesture of superiority — the Hand
Steeple. People who feel confident, superior or
authoritative often use this gesture.
Trump traditionally holds the Hand-Steeple higher
at chest level in order to give him an air of
confidence and even arrogance, but in today’s
encounter he kept it subtly low.
He also used his typical tight-lipped-smile,
revealing he was withholding some strong words
and emotions about his meeting with Obama.

Under pressure — such as in this staged meeting
— our real feelings and emotions are often
revealed through our gestures and expressions.
Obama — like Hillary Clinton — is a seasoned,
polished career politician who is excellent at
giving persuasive, convincing speeches to his
audience.
It’s really not much different to professional
acting and can make it difficult to pick whether or
not that person is being genuine. While Obama
generally put on an upbeat ‘brave face’ for the
audience, his body language leaked a story of
defeat.
Not so with the comparatively inexperienced
Trump however — while he has a limited range of
repetitive gestures and expressions, what you see
is what you get. He says what he feels and his
body language is congruent with what he is
saying — whether you like it or not.
In other words, everything matches.
Trump is a businessman, cut and dry, black and
white.
In today’s White House meeting, Obama, despite
his best efforts, revealed a rare display of
emotional defeat while Donald Trump was a well-
contained version of his usual, dominant self.

Read More »

Celebrity backing failed to lift Clinton

One lesson from the 2016 campaign: Celebrities
guarantee attention, but they don't ensure votes.
Few presidential candidates attracted as much A-
list support as did former first lady and Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton.
But rallies in Ohio with LeBron James, Beyonce
and Jay Z did not prevent Republican rival and
President-elect Donald Trump from prevailing in a
state President Barack Obama had won twice.
A joyous election eve gathering in Philadelphia,
featuring a performance by Bruce Springsteen, did
not prevent Clinton from losing Pennsylvania,
where no Republican had won since 1988.
Meanwhile, Trump's notable guests in the days
leading up to his stunning victory included rocker
Ted Nugent, whose last top 20 album came out in
1980.
The Democratic National Convention featured
appearances by Meryl Streep, Katy Perry, Lena
Dunham and many others.
One of Trump's few celebrity endorsers at the
Republican gathering was Scott Baio of "Happy
Days" fame.
And it didn't seem to matter.
"The overwhelming majority of voters know who
they're going to vote for long before the election
and don't decide based on celebrity
endorsements," says Jon Wiener, a history
professor at the University of California, Irvine
whose books include "How We Forgot The Cold
War" and "Gimme Some Truth: The John Lennon
FBI Files."
"I know it's hard to believe but there were more
powerful political forces at work in Pennsylvania
than Bruce Springsteen."
On Thursday, celebrities themselves were still
absorbing the election's results.
Actress Kyra Sedgwick, a self-described "lefty,
liberal, living in New York and California," said she
yearned to visit "Trump country" and find "what
binds us together." Singer and stage actress
Deborah Cox said she was living through "a real
sobering moment."
"It's a tough time. It's a real sobering moment, I
think, for the country," she said.
Trump, the former Apprentice star and the
candidate with the longest background in
entertainment since Ronald Reagan, apparently
only needed his own endorsement.
During the campaign he seemed to spend more
time fighting celebrities than being praised by
them. He continued his feud with Rosie O'Donnell,
had harsh words for Jay Z and defied the wishes
of the Rolling Stones, Adele and other artists by
playing their music at his campaign appearances.
But the entertainment industry's distaste for
Trump may also have contributed to his image as
an outsider shunned by the country's elite.
"I'm here all by myself," he said during a rally in
Hershey, Pennsylvania. "Just me, no guitar, no
piano, no nothing."
Wiener says that getting support from a celebrity
like Beyonce can "help create excitement - and
headlines" but is less important than inspiring
people to vote. In Cleveland's Cuyahoga County,
for instance, turnout appeared to be down
significantly from 2012, with preliminary results
showing Clinton receiving some 60,000 fewer
votes than Obama did four years earlier.
But A-listers can do little for candidates the
public isn't in the mood for electing.

Read More »