(On Oluwole Oke’s error on Channels TV)
Speaking earlier today on the (imbalance of) the Nigeria-US relations, Chairman, House of Reps committee on foreign affairs, Oluwole Oke, suggested in his comment that America’s level of development is dependent on the number of years the country has existed.
I want to believe in Osun, the home state of the congressman, there is no case of a responsible, successful man in his 30s, and another wayward one in his 60s or even older.
Oke is actually not the first Nigerian (especially in the leadership cadre) to make this clumsy excuse using the age gap between Nigeria and the US as cover for the failing state of the so-called Africa’s giant, and it disappoints me each time I happen on them in this pathetic display of false ignorance.
Is Oke also suggesting that at 64+, America was in a state as despondent and pathetic as where Nigeria presently is?
America had no 10% of the prospects Nigeria had at independence. America forced independence out of Britain through the famous American revolution where George Washington led an untrained militia group to defeat a very dreaded British army. So in comparison, America, just as Nigeria, was once a colony of the Britain. But Nigeria at 64, why is the country so backward and underdeveloped, compared to America at same age?
The intentionality America invested in her post-independence journey has only remained a wish in the Nigerian case. Firstly, rather than chasing Europe for assistance, America adopted what they termed isolationism. That looked like a longer route compared to the option of tagging along with the Europeans with hopes of benefitting from their establishment.
For instance, at the Paris conference after WW1, it was President Woodrow Wilson of America who initiated the idea of the League of Nations (that became UN after WW2). While the European powers were forming alliance against Germany for aggressing WW1 (Italy seeking territorial reclaims and expansion as compensation; France seeking compensation for loss of military and civilians, etc), Woodrow’s line of thought was about the prevention of another world war. So his idea for League of Nations was to have an international organisation with a universal character where nations, by virtue of membership, will surrender (voluntarily though) their loyalty.
However, America ended up not being part of the same League. For them, membership in the League was going to keep them romancing with the Europeans, which appeared to be antithetical to their isolationism. So aside the fact that Woodrow’s party lost control of the senate, that very Senate acted the interest of America by not ratifying the charter of the league to authenticate America’s membership.
So why did America choose isolationism?
As much as President George Washington in his farewell address, had advocated non-involvement in European wars and politics, America’s choice was not just to honour Washington, that is, if it was even a contributing factor.
Fact is, the combination of the Great Depression in the 1930s and the memory of tragic losses in WW1, contributed to pushing public opinion and policy in America towards the route of isolationism. Isolationists advocated non-involvement in European and Asian conflicts and non-entanglement in international politics. The country’s main focus was to keep expanding economically and protect its interests in Latin America. The leaders of the isolationist movement drew upon history to bolster their position. Good enough, the expanse of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans happened to boost a kind of “free security” for the country to enjoy and remain largely detached from post war conflicts.
The reality of a worldwide economic depression and the need for increased attention to domestic problems only served to invigorate the idea that the United States should isolate itself from troubling events in Europe. During the interwar era, the U.S. Government repeatedly chose non-entanglement over participation or intervention as the appropriate response to international questions. Like I earlier noted, immediately following the WW1, the US parliament had rejected membership in the League of Nations. Some members of congress opposed membership in the League out of concern that it would draw the US into European conflicts, although ultimately the collective security clause sank the possibility of US’ participation.
That is just a bit of the intentional steps America took to concentrate their efforts on America and the development of same.
So for a foreign affairs official to claim Nigeria is a proud country among the comity of states, when her citizens are queuing in embassies of foreign nations begging for entry access, is the greatest self deceit and unimaginable delusions of grandeur. Recently, the American embassy in Nigeria had announced the launch of a new website, informing Nigerians that migration to the new site will take time. Presently, many Nigerians who had applied for visa and paid fees for same are complaining that the one year expiration period for visa fees was closing up on them while they’re yet to access the new site. Assuming that happens and the affected citizens get to lose their monies, that will be part of their fate for originating from a failed and continually failing state.
So, while admitting that Oke is likely just a politician who happened on the foreign affairs beat by virtue of winning elections into the Nigerian lower parliament, there can be no excuse for displaying such misapprehension and suggesting that Nigeria is operating on a route entirely contrary to that of genuine development because it is not as old as the US. Is he trying to suggest that while Nigeria continues to lazy off in her sofa of complacency, with her leaders incessantly looting proceeds of her rich natural and mineral resources and seeking unrealistic, remedial, unsustainable shortcuts to development, the country will, by magic (call it miracle if you may), wake up some day in 200 years to come, and become an America?
Wole Oke should join me in being ashamed for Nigeria– ashamed that China was, few decades ago, just a third world country like Nigeria. But did they acquire America’s age to achieve the kind of technological and consequent economic development that is presently threatening America’s world power status? How about India which was part of the third world nations that gathered in the 1970s proposing a New International Economic Order through the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development? How did India find her way into the developed or at least, genuinely developing world today? While then counterparts had long left the league of third world states, Nigeria, In 2025, is still begging for transfer of technology and for multinationals to reinvest their profits in host nations (which were first two of the demands in the NIEO proposal). The Osun-born congressman should wake up to the reality that Nigeria has no business with pride in the comity of states.
Ubong Sampson (07038987697) writes from the long visa queue at American Embassy
