President Obama To Send More US Special Forces To Syria. And It's Been Long in Coming. On a Personal Note, the Challenges, the Grace and Honor of Writing What Visionary Leaders Read are Ennobling and Inspirational! It is about a Purposeful Life. A life not defined by Wealth, Power or Position. It Is living The Dream - Bringing Deeper Meaning, Satisfaction and Fulfillment into the Lives of Others and the Leadership That Cares. Thank God, I'm living it!

Of ISIS and the Wisdom of American Combat Boots on the Ground in Syria.

 Preamble

On September 05, 2014, President Barack Obama declared in no uncertain terms that “we are going to degrade and ultimately defeat the ISIL, the same way that we have gone after Al Qaeda.” And on September 18, 2014, the US Senate reaches a bi-partisan deal to allow President Barack Obama to fund and arm Syrian Moderate Rebel Forces in its quest to conquer and eliminate ISIS. That was about twenty months ago. Today, ISIS is still standing, unruffled; exporting mayhem and terrorism with relish around the world. In spite of President Putin’s massive air bombardments of its held territories; ISIS remains undaunted, wreaking more havoc and shedding more blood with devastating precision outside of it held enclaves, surpassing its records prior to September 05, 2014. That is a global challenge and a question mark on the approach or the lack of it adopted by President Barack Obama and the International Coalition Forces in arresting the situation in Syria. 

It is a truism in the international diplomatic circle that there are no permanent friends or allies, but permanent interests. Given that as true, there is no period, no history, and no situation more urgent than now for that principle to be on display in Damascus at the instance of Washington, with a view to enabling unhindered channels for integrated military and logistics support for the dismantling of ISIS and everything that it represents.

When President Obama made the declaration a few years ago that there won't be American combat boots on the ground in Syria, there was no ISIS, there was no beheading of American freelance journalists, or an American Aid Worker facing imminent death. There was no suicidal match for experimentation with the idea of an Islamic Caliphate in the Iraqi desert and there was no bloodbath in Paris and Brussels. 

There was no Jordanian prisoner of war, caged by ISIS, laced with gasoline, set ablaze and dragged along on a chariot of fire and filmed - filmed dying slowly in excruciating pain - decapitating piece by piece for the whole world to see. In other words, the lives of innocent citizens, the interests of America, and those of its allies were not at stake or threatened at that point in time. Today, it is a different story. ISIS is on the loose.

In every respect imaginable, a war against ISIS is a just war, Godly, and morally defensible. Therefore, we cannot, and we must not downplay the urgency or the efficacy of American combat boots on the ground in Syria.

When Muath al-Kaseasbeh, the Jordanian POW was set on fire inside of that cage, it was not only ISIS that was on trial for his gruesome death, but the entire human race, especially the leadership of the free world and of the Muslim world and everyone who was in a position to act, but failed to act to curb the excesses of a sect on a perverted mission. 

And as the Nigerian Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka rightly stated years ago, it is worth repeating here: “the man dies in all who keep silent in the face of tyranny.” That ISIS is tyrannical is an understatement. What is more tyrannical is the timidity of heads of state and government of the western world in the face of the clear and present danger posed by ISIS.

Without mincing words, I want to maintain that arming the Free Syrian Army, without the direct involvement of the coalition forces in real combat, will not vanquish ISIS from the occupied territories. In addition, the underlying grievances, mostly political, and allegations of human rights violations must be addressed simultaneously with the quest to annihilate ISIS; otherwise, Syria will remain a vast land of unequal rights and justice, and a testing ground for every form of Islamic fundamentalism.

Given the futility of the recent Russian air assault and bombardments - massive and debilitating as they were - and the not-so-surprising disappearing act of the Moderate Rebel Forces and the Free Syrian Army in defeating ISIS or vanquishing Assad, the need for direct involvement of the American Forces and the International Coalition forces on the ground in Syria cannot be overemphasized. 

The world cannot afford to grieve over another Brussels. At the moment, the situation in Syria is no longer about President Assad and his alleged human rights shortcomings; it is about checkmating ISIS and stemming the tide of global terrorism.

Benchmarking ISIS, its Invincibility, and Ego

The much-orchestrated financial muscles of the Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are not insurmountable. Militarily, it is not invincible, either. It has no standing army with the capacity to withstand sustained and concerted air and ground bombardments from the US Armed Forces and forces of the international coalition. In spite of the alleged vastness of its occupied territories and the enormity of its volunteered fighters, the truth is, a greater majority of the volunteered fighters are not your regular trained or seasoned army. Besides, ISIS cannot acquire more than what it has at the present in terms of finances and combat weapons. So, a massively enforced military blockade from Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Jordan would make it practically impossible for ISIS to execute reinforcements in terms of weapons and volunteer fighters.

The world defeated Hitler and decimated Nazism. President Barack Obama brought down Osama bin Laden, vanquished al Awlaki and his networks of rebels, and rescued the Horn of Africa from the stranglehold of rampaging pirates.

The more world leaders and heads of governments vacillate on how to annihilate ISIS and checkmate religious-related extremism around us the more vicious they become in their barbaric exploits. And the more glamorous and inciting picture of ISIS they paint in the heart and soul of gullible adherents of their brand of faith.

As the world watches, ISIS wasted no time perfecting the craft of invincibility, projecting unhindered a Caliphate in the image and form of an El Dorado. Sadly, the global community has not been able to deflate that grandeur and has never given a thought to demystifying the bogus, but very successful marketing scheme and the subliminal messages most often embedded in all the video clips ISIS has been uploading on the World Wide Web.

So, the first approach to undoing those subliminal messages and claims of invincibility requires checkmating the over-hyped grandeur surrounding the ISIS brand. Because it is that audacity, the dramatized invincibility, and the daring attitude inherent in all the attacks, whether in Paris, Syria, Nairobi, Baghdad, Chibok, or Brussels that creates the allure in the minds of natural haters of everything west, which in turn, facilitates recruitment drive.

Therefore, the US Armed Forces and the International Coalition Forces must turn the table on ISIS by any means necessary and put a lie to that magnified strength, and of a Caliphate flowing ceaselessly with milk and honey.

And until ISIS and the extremists become the victims - the conquered and the endangered species - thus, creating a chilling effect on the soul of potential recruits, ISIS will continue to enjoy a steady membership boom and mushrooming global networks. That surge must be checkmated for obvious reasons. It is doom-laden. With it, the world will continue to experience escalations in bombing and destruction of lives. Because, with a membership surge, comes a willing suicide bomber.

The ISIS brand, to the Islamic fundamentalist and innate jihadist, is like a Chemistry Lab in High School where science enthusiasts readily gravitate to experiment with known and imaginary noble concepts for intellectual enrichment. That is the fame that ISIS enjoys the most about its Caliphate in the making. It has created a platform, an El Dorado kind of for harboring enemies of civilizations, Therein they find comfort, in experimenting, unlike High School Chemistry buds, with dangerous concepts and perfection of IED. Therefore, the earlier that El Dorado, imaginary or real, is stymied, the better it is for the human race. 

There is no other way to debunk that bogus claim of invincibility, than massive and consistent attacks and reinforcement, overwhelming the enemies from all fronts possible – Colin Powell’s principle.

The inability of ISIS to defeat the Syrian Armed Forces and compel Assad to relinquish his throne or kingship, tells on the weakness of ISIS in terms of a military command structure, skills, and organization.

That it captured some Iraqi territories in the past is understandable. It is not a show of military strength as most Security Experts and pundits have alluded to on numerous US television stations. Then, Iraqi Armed Forces were in a formative stage, compounded by a weak President who did not enjoy the support of the overwhelming majority of his people or the law enforcement agencies.

Beheading unarmed journalists, killing innocent civilians, and executing captured enemy combatants in a most gruesome manner for propaganda do not meet the definition of military strength or invincibility. Simply put, they don’t have it. Assad is still standing, in spite of the much-orchestrated invincibility of ISIS.

Indeed, ISIS has succeeded in appropriating a sizable volume of captured weapons belonging to Syrian and Iraqi forces as well as a vast oil field. The truth is they cannot acquire more than what they have at the moment. It is not enough to acquire an oil field in the absence of a ready market for the final products. Blockading existing markets or trading routes, Turkey, for instance, is a good start. In addition, they don't have the technological or military wherewithal to keep the seized weapons for sustainable deployment.  

Lastly, we must de-emphasize the spontaneous raids and arrests associated with every suicide attack, because they are half-measures. Historically, they have not been known to compel any sense of deterrent on a mind already made up, bent on inflicting serious damage on perceived enemies.  In other words, raids and arrests, standing alone, cannot eliminate the scourge of terrorism. Because raids and arrests are perceived by the perpetrators of the act as the natural consequences of their actions – the suicide bombing. Fruitful or not, they are wasted efforts, because the damage has been done - many innocent lives have already been wasted, and in most cases, public properties and infrastructural facilities worth millions of dollars ruined.

So, losing their lives, whether in the process of suicide attacks or afterward, makes no difference. To the adherents of the faith, it makes the bombing more appealing and the death that follows more fulfilling. It is about martyrdom and the infliction of maximum casualties on perceived enemies. I know that this is a new theory, and I don't want to be misunderstood here. There is nothing wrong with making arresting or raiding the homes of terrorists, but it must not always be after the act. The world must always be on the alert and ahead of the curve with a preemptive strike and attack on the enemies of peace. 

The Futility of Assad’s Exit: An Analysis

In light of the inability of the government in Libya and Iraq to exercise reasonable control over the civil society as well as ensuring territorial sovereignty, calls into question the feasibility of democratic dispensation indiscriminately pursued all over the Middle East by the West.

Indeed the impulse to overthrow President Assad for all his past records of human rights abuse is high and compelling, but we should be mindful of the fact that a greater majority of his adversaries are unrepentant Islamic militants who, given the chance, will never and can never be salvaged, or expected to embrace the Western secular culture and democratic values.

President Assad, to a certain degree, is seemingly vindicated in much of his arguments over the years about the civil war in his country, to wit, the majority of the insurgents fighting to oust him from power are not the sort of “freedom fighters” America and the West would be willing to align with. The truth is they are remnants of radical elements and Islamic fundamentalists from all over the world, with one goal in common: kill Assad and turn Syria and part of the Iraq desert into an Islamic Caliphate. And these are the Islamic militants who, under the camouflage of a protest in Benghazi on September 12, 2012, invaded the US Consulate, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other US diplomats. Therefore, it is a hard choice for America and the West to make: work with Syria to dismantle ISIS, or stay aside and watch ISIS turn the Iraqi desert into a haven for the export of global terrorism.

More troubling is the question of managing the liberation process. Who will exercise jurisdiction over the ISIS-occupied territory, if eventually ISIS is defeated and evacuated? That is, assuming President Assad is still an enemy, hunted.

Will the coalition forces and the moderate rebels, after the expected defeat of ISIS, turn their weapons on Assad and his forces, with a view to forcing Assad out of power in Syria? That scenario is unlikely to play out now that Assad and his forces are getting the upper hand, overwhelming and degrading ISIS.

Or will Syria degenerate into two mini-sovereign nations - one under the control and leadership of Assad, and the other under the control of the international coalition and the moderate Free Syrian Army? Again, that scenario is unlikely to evolve in light of the fact that Assad and his forces are gradually recovering much of the lost territories from ISIS.

Given the facts on the ground, it is not enough to defeat and vanquish ISIS, without first or simultaneously addressing the civil war in Syria that gave life to ISIS in the first case. Attention, therefore, should be extended to how to manage the intended defeat of ISIS.

From all indications, the so-called moderate forces are not formidable, militarily. They couldn't withstand the military strength of Assad Forces and they have been similarly humbled by the more aggressive and brutal ISIS forces.

In other words, these are not the forces or a formidable group that, under the prevailing circumstances, you would expect to form a viable government in Syria after the defeat of ISIS or the unlikely capitulation of Assad. 

Therefore, the international coalition must strive to integrate the political solution with the military approach, without forcing President Assad out of power. The political turmoil and ethnic intolerance in Iraq in the past three years are crucial enough for a road map.

The Ethnic Card and Stories from other Land

Syria is not Egypt. Egyptians rebelled against the Mubarak Administration collectively as a people. There was no tribal War Lord taking advantage of the pro-democracy protest to inflict maximum damage on President Mubarak and members of his administration. And there was no visible tribal or ethnic group fighting on the side of President Mubarak to frustrate the agenda of the pro-democracy movement.

With regards to the Muslim Brotherhood, it was a different story – they were neutral all through the nights and days that the protest lasted in Cairo, waiting patiently to occupy the vacuum expected to be created in the lead following the demise of the Mubarak Administration.

As expected, being the most viable and well-organized group existing then, the Muslim Brotherhood was able to mobilize its followers within a record time, cashing in on the anti-Mubarak sentiments to win the Presidential election that was called by the interim Military Government. 

But the newly elected President, Mohamed Morsi, got it all wrong. He did not let go of the Islamists in him, and he was vanquished by the people. And a new government came into being within a record time. That did not happen in Libya or Iraq. And it will not happen in Syria.

With respect to the Algerians, they simply had enough of corrupt political leaders – leadership of the Nigerian style that hadn’t any clue on how to manage its vast oil wealth or respond to the concerns of the vast and ever-restless proletarians.

In sum, the anger, the joblessness, or the feeling of anti-establishment in Tunisia, Algeria, and Egypt that led to the evolution of the “Arab Spring” was not motivated by tribal or ethnic, or religious factors as we saw in Syria and Libya.

Therefore, President Obama and the international coalition must tread softly in arming the so-called moderate rebels inside of Syria. Because when it is all over, you would still have a substantial member, if not a majority, of the Syrian people backing President Assad as one of their own.

To put it succinctly, a minority regime in Syria is not sustainable. President Obama or his successor cannot afford to 'babysit' another adolescent government - Islamic or secular - in another hostile territory.

  

It is now left to President Obama, his security team, and his Western allies to separate the wheat from the chaff, with a view to avoiding creating other mujahidin.

Undermining the political angle of the civil war in Syria is not a smart move. The ISIS phenomenon, though overwhelming, is a collateral issue in the Syria saga. Ending it does not automatically eliminate the underlying grievances that compelled the civil war in Syria.  

In addition, Syria is not Gadhafi’s Libya where the pro-government forces collapsed under intense pressure from the international community.

President Assad has real and highly motivated followers who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their President. The facts on the ground speak volumes about that. If President Assad is vulnerable he would have been ousted by now, given the multidimensional attacks his forces and administration have received from ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, and the international community in the past three years.

In other words, the liberation of ISIS-held territories will not completely eliminate the political crisis in Syria. In the same way, the defeat of Assad forces, if ever it happens, will not enshrine the elusive peace in the polity. The situation requires concerted and well-coordinated military and political solutions – an inclusive government, with democratic values and respect for the rule of law and protection of human rights of the citizenry, without regard to race or religion.

  

A Global Challenge.  

A few years ago, a British soldier, Lee Rigby, was viciously stabbed to death, almost beheaded in broad daylight by two members of this group in Woolwich, South East London. To be so brutish and unrepentantly heartless to the extent of taking your hatred, your intolerance your disillusionment, and your resentment of governmental institutions straight into the streets of London, and in broad daylight, stabbing a uniformed officer to death, explains the extreme nature of the indoctrination and brainwashing they imbibed inside places of worship in Great Britain of all places. It further explains the level of detachment between them (all the underwear and shoe bombers) and the civil society on the one hand, and the hatred they harbor against government and law enforcement agencies on the other. That is a Global Challenge.

The comatose state of the political system the world is witnessing in Iraq, Libya, and Syria today is the offshoot of that extremism, of a polluted mindset and belief system incubated and nurtured to full bloom inside of Great Britain and France, with followers now spanning the length and breadth of the globe. That is a Global Challenge.

This piece is not just on how to decimate ISIS and its affiliates in line with what the world did to Hitler and Nazism, but to rein in on the instructors and teachers of hatred and Armageddon as the world has come to know them all over Great Britain, Europe, and part of the Middle East and Nigeria. And to fish out preemptively and permanently all those they have already indoctrinated in the philosophy of jihadism. Because terrorism is a global challenge.

To invade a boarding school at night time, tied up the hands and legs of innocent school children behind their backs, affixed them to a stake like animals, and cut off their throats, leaving them to bleed to death as Boko Haram did at a boarding school in Benue State, Nigeria a few years ago is not an achievement that any Muslim worldwide would want to be proud of or be a part of. That is a Global Challenge. As we write, "the Chibok School Girls" are still under captivity somewhere in North Eastern Nigeria, held without their consent and for a cause or causes unfathomable to discerning minds. 

It is mind-bugling and disturbingly stupefying how a sect within defined and ascertainable geographical boundaries, without a standing army, and even if it does, that is not up to half a percent of what Hitler had in terms of weaponry and manpower, is still standing, unruffled, wreaking havoc upon havoc around the world undaunted. That is a global challenge.

A few days after that horrific death of the Jordanian POW, and as the culture is after such death and attacks, Jordanian Fighter Jets were seen over the ISIS sky, dropping bombs at specific targets on the ground. And that was it. Today, ISIS is still standing. And it has wreaked vast destruction and unleashed more gruesome and more painful death on mankind unabated. And that is an indictment on the part of the global community, with the means to act.

The World fought a brutal Second World War for the sake of humanity. If the rest of the world, specifically, if the United States of America, had intervened in the War earlier than it did, more lives would have been saved and Holocaust would have been averted to some degree. 

Slavery, the worst form of man’s inhumanity to man lasted for as long as the Union tolerated or delayed the declaration of war on the later-formed, Confederate Southern states that were unwilling to jettison slavery culture and relinquish their hold on freed Blacks. Eventually, the Emancipation Proclamation came, and the “world” of Blacks was made better.

And between 1992 and 1995, the whole world vacillated while the people of the former Yugoslavia endured a brutal and televised campaign of ethnic cleansing perpetrated on each other by tribes and clans that once paid allegiance to the same flag. In the end, thousands of lives were lost and a once beautiful multi-ethnic nation-state tumbled down into obscurity in the name of religion and ethnic superiority. 

The world and the international coalition forces must unite, show strength, and vanquish ISIS. We cannot afford to dilly-dally over another Rwanda, Slavery, or the Holocaust. 

  

Finally, like the Nigerian Boko Haram, ISIS has no attributes of statehood that would require reconstruction after its annihilation. It is not Iraq, and it is certainly not Afghanistan. Therefore, the attack must be massive and all-encompassing, with extinction as the main goal. As long as the objective is to decimate the group - riding the occupied territories of every remnant of Islamic fundamentalism, the exit strategy is expected to be less arduous to execute. Here, you do not have another new nation-state like Iraq and Afghanistan to incubate and nurture to adulthood at public expense. Now is the time for the West to show strength and take it from where President Putin left it, waging an all-out land and air bombardments of ISIS and its occupied territories. It is taking the battle to the bedrooms of the enemies, by any means necessary; harassing, destabilizing their composure, and keeping them hunted down by President Obama's principle. Sadly, President Obama is yet to deliver his anti-terrorism war manifesto in the war with ISIS. An insurgent running for cover will not have the time to gyrate with armor vehicles or the time and space to record propaganda video messages. With the exception of Russia, the world has become too timid, deep down too timid of what to make of ISIS, or defining the exit strategy from the Syrian saga. The time is now for those elusive combat boots to be on the ground in Syria, with a view to matching ISIS, its affiliates and business partners “towards the gate of hell where they rightly belong” as Vice President Joe Biden once declared a few years ago. 

Confronting the Dogmas of ISIS and Religious Fundamentalism Around us

Preamble

The much-orchestrated financial muscles of the Islamic State Militants in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are not insurmountable. Militarily, it is not invincible, either. It has no standing army with the capacity to withstand sustained and concerted air and ground bombardments from the US Armed Forces and forces of the international coalition. In spite of the alleged vastness of its occupied territories and the enormity of its volunteered fighters, the truth is, a greater majority of the volunteered fighters are not your regular trained or seasoned army. Besides, ISIS cannot acquire more than what it has at the moment in terms of finances and combat weapons. A massively enforced military blockade from Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Jordan, would make it practically impossible for ISIS to execute reinforcements in terms of weapons and volunteer fighters. Beheading unarmed journalists and shooting prisoners of war from behind is not a show of strength.

The world defeated Hitler and decimated Nazism. President Barack Obama brought down Osama bin Laden, vanquished al Awlaki and his networks of rebels, and rescued the Horn of Africa from the stranglehold of rampaging pirates. The more world leaders and Heads of State and Government vacillate on annihilating ISIS and religious-related extremism around us, the more vicious they turn and the more time they gain to perfect their barbaric exploits. And the consequence of that is obvious. The more glamorous and alluring a picture they paint of themselves and of ISIS in the heart and soul of gullible adherents of barbarism and their brand of faith.

On September 05, 2014, President Barack Obama declared in no uncertain terms that “we are going to degrade and ultimately defeat the ISIL, the same way that we have gone after Al Qaeda.” And on September 18, 2014, the US Senate reaches a bi-partisan deal to allow President Obama to fund and arm Syrian Moderate Rebel Forces in its quest to conquer and eliminate ISIS. That was twenty months ago. Today, ISIS is still standing, unruffled, and exporting mayhem and terrorism with relish around the world. In spite of the debilitating outcome of President Putin’s massive air bombardments of ISIS and the recent gain made by President Assad's forces; ISIS is still standing, undaunted and wrecking more havoc and shedding more blood with more daring and devastating take outside of it held enclaves than it has ever been.

In light of the not-so-surprising disappearing act of the Moderate Rebel Forces and the Free Syrian Army in vanquishing Assad or defeating ISIS, the need for direct involvement of American Combat Boots and the International Coalition forces on the ground in Syria cannot be overemphasized. The world cannot afford to grieve over another Brussels or watch helplessly as another Prisoner of War (Muath al-Kaseasbeh) suffered gruesome and hideous death. Now, it is no longer about President Assad and his alleged human rights abuses; it is about annihilating ISIS and vanquishing everything that it represents, and stemming the tide of global terrorism next door.

Defining and Deflating ISIS 

As the world watches, ISIS wasted no time perfecting the craft of projecting its occupied territory as an El Dorado. Sadly, up till this very moment, the global community has not been able to deflate that ego-tripping and has never given a thought about demystifying the bogus, but very successful marketing scheme and the subliminal messages most often embedded in all the video clips ISIS has been uploading on the World Wide Web.

So, the first approach to undoing those subliminal messages and claims of invincibility requires checkmating the over-hyped grandeur surrounding the ISIS brand. Because it is that audacity, the dramatized invincibility, and the daring attitude inherent in all the attacks, whether in Paris, Syria, Nairobi, Baghdad, Chibok, or Brussels that creates the allure in the minds of natural haters of everything west, which in turn, facilitates recruitment drive.

Therefore, the US Armed Forces and the International Coalition Forces must turn the table on ISIS by any means necessary and put a lie to that magnified strength, and of a Caliphate flowing ceaselessly with milk and honey. And until ISIS and the extremists become the victims - the conquered and the endangered species - thus, creating a chilling effect in the soul of potential recruits, they will continue to enjoy a steady membership boom and mushrooming global networks. That surge must be checkmated for obvious reasons. It is doom-laden. With it, the world will continue to experience escalations in bombing and destruction of lives. Because, with a membership surge, comes a willing suicide bomber.

ISIS, to the Islamic fundamentalist or innate jihadist, is like a Chemistry Lab in High School where science enthusiasts readily gravitate to experiment with known and imaginary noble concepts for intellectual enrichment. That is the fame that ISIS enjoys the most about its Caliphate. It has created a platform, an El Dorado for enemies of civilization to gravitate to an experiment, unlike Chemistry buds, with dangerous concepts and perfection of IED. Therefore, the earlier that El Dorado, imaginary or real, is stymied, the better it is for the human race.

A Timid World 

The spontaneous raids and arrests associated with every suicide attack are half-measures. Historically, they have not been known to compel any sense of deterrent on a mind already made up to inflict serious damage on perceived enemies.  In other words, raids and arrests, standing alone, cannot eliminate the scourge of terrorism. Because raids and arrests are perceived by the perpetrators of the acts as the natural consequences of their actions – the suicide bombing. Fruitful or not, they are wasted efforts, because the damage has been done - many innocent lives have already been wasted, and in most cases, public properties and infrastructural facilities worth millions of dollars ruined.

So, losing their lives, whether in the process of suicide attacks or afterward, makes no difference. To the adherents of the faith, it makes the bombing more appealing and the death that follows more fulfilling. It is about martyrdom and the infliction of maximum casualties on the target audience. From all indications, again, historically speaking, retaliatory measures, notwithstanding the number of arrests made in the process, do not have a lasting impact. Once again, the damage has been done.

Therefore, the best alternative is preemption - taking the fight into the adopted territories of ISIS and those of its affiliates and their economic/financial/business networks, unannounced. It is about strength, and placing them on perpetual retreat and on the defensive, with the intent to annihilate. There is no other way to debunk their bogus claim of invincibility than massive and consistent attacks and reinforcement, overwhelming them from all fronts possible – Colin Powell’s principle.

The Urgency of Combat Boots on the Ground in Syria.

In the international diplomatic circle, there is the well-known universally accepted maxim that there are no permanent friends or allies, but permanent interests. Given that as true, there is no period, no history, and no situation more urgent than now for that principle to be on display in Damascus at the instance of Washington, with a view to enabling unhindered channels for integrated military and logistics support for President Assad for the dismantling of ISIS and everything that it represents.

When President Obama made the declaration a few years ago that there won't be American combat boots on the ground in Syria, there was no ISIS, there was no beheading of American freelance journalists, or an American Aid Worker facing imminent death, and there was no suicidal match for experimentation with the idea of an Islamic Caliphate. And there was no bombing in Paris or Brussels and the burning to death of a POW, contrary to all the Geneva Convention respecting and protecting the rights of prisoners of war. In other words, the lives of innocent citizens, the interests of America, or those of its allies were not at stake or threatened, when President Obama made that declaration. Today, it is a different story. ISIS is on the loose.

In every respect imaginable, a war against ISIS is a just war, Godly, and morally defensible. Therefore, we cannot, and we must no longer downplay the efficacy of American combat boots on the ground in Syria.

Without mincing words, I want to maintain that arming the Free Syrian Army, without the direct involvement of the coalition forces in real combat side by side with Assad's forces, will not vanquish ISIS from the occupied territories as reasonably expected. In addition, the underlying grievances, mostly political, must be addressed simultaneously with the quest to annihilate ISIS; otherwise, Syria will remain a vast land of unequal rights and justice, and a testing ground for every form of Islamic fundamentalism.

Balancing Democratic Values with Strong Arm Tactics

In light of the unchecked suicide attacks and bombing, coupled with the inability of the governments in Syria, Libya, and Iraq to exercise real control over the civil society as well as ensuring territorial sovereignty, calls into question the feasibility of democratic dispensation indiscriminately pursued all over the Middle East by the West.

Today, Iraq and Libya are worse off than they were under the alleged dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi. Syria, like Libya and Iraq, is a geographical expression. It is not a monolithic nation-state like Egypt or Morocco. Libyan, Syrian, and Iraqi people are more sympathetic to the concerns of their respective ethnic groups or enclaves. In other words, tribal loyalty trumps national pride, if at all there is national pride. The main reason it has been enormously challenging for the US Government to build a stable government in Iraq and Libya many years after the demise of their Presidents.

Given ISIS antecedents, it is reasonable to argue for a political solution to the lingering civil war in Syria, while systematically providing some form of military support to President Assad and the newly integrated forces, with a view to overwhelming ISIS from all fronts.

Without mincing words, President Assad, to a certain degree, is vindicated in much of his arguments in the past years about the civil war in his country, to wit, the majority of the insurgents fighting to oust him from power are not the so-called “freedom fighters” or democratic activists America and the West would be willing to align with. In other words, they are remnants of radical elements and Islamic fundamentalists from all over the world, with one goal in common: kill Assad and turn Syria and part of the Iraqi desert into an Islamic Caliphate. And these are the Islamic militants who, under the camouflage of a protest in Benghazi on September 12, 2012, invaded the US Consulate, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other US Diplomats.

Therefore, it is a hard choice for America and the West to make: work with Syria to dismantle ISIS, or stay aside and watch ISIS turn the Iraqi desert into a haven for the concoction of global terrorism.

The Futility of Assad’s Exit.

Indeed the impulse to overthrow President Assad for all his past records of human rights abuse is high and compelling, but we should be mindful of the fact that a greater majority of his adversaries are unrepentant Islamic militants who, given the chance, will never and can never be salvaged, or expected to embrace the Western secular culture and democratic values.

More troubling is the question of managing the liberation process. Who will exercise jurisdiction over the ISIS-occupied territory, if eventually ISIS is defeated and evacuated? That is, assuming President Assad is still an enemy, hunted.

Will the coalition forces and the moderate rebels, after the expected defeat of ISIS, turn their weapons on Assad and his forces, with a view to forcing Assad out of power in Syria? That scenario is unlikely to play out now that Assad and his forces are getting the upper hand, overwhelming and subduing the ISIS forces.

Or will Syria degenerate into two mini-sovereign nations - one under the control and leadership of Assad, and the other under the control of the international coalition and the moderate Free Syrian Army? Again, that scenario is unlikely to evolve in light of the fact that Assad and his forces are gradually recovering much of the lost territories from ISIS.

Given the facts on the ground, it is not enough to defeat and vanquish ISIS, without first or simultaneously addressing the civil war in Syria that gave life to ISIS in the first case. Attention, therefore, should be extended to how to manage the intended defeat of ISIS.

From all indications, the so-called moderate rebels are not a formidable force, militarily. They couldn't withstand the military strength of Assad Forces and they have been similarly humbled by the more aggressive and brutal ISIS forces.

In other words, these are not the forces or a formidable group that, under the prevailing circumstances, you would expect to form a viable government in Syria after the defeat of ISIS or the unlikely capitulation of Assad. It won't work.

Therefore, the international coalition must strive to integrate the political solution with a military approach, without forcing President Assad out of power. The political turmoil and ethnic intolerance in Iraq in the past three years are crucial enough for a road map.

The Concept of Tribe

Syria is not Egypt. Egyptians rebelled against the Mubarak Administration collectively as a people. There was no tribal War Lord taking advantage of the pro-democracy protest to inflict maximum damage on President Mubarak and members of his administration. And there was no visible tribal or ethnic group fighting on the side of President Mubarak to frustrate the purpose of the pro-democracy movement.

With regards to the Muslim Brotherhood, it was a different story – they were neutral all through the nights and days that the protest lasted in Cairo, waiting patiently to occupy the vacuum expected to be created in the lead following the demise of Mubarak's Administration.

As expected, being the most viable and well-organized group existing then, the Muslim Brotherhood was able to mobilize its followers within a record time, cashing in on the anti-Mubarak sentiments to win the Presidential election that was called by the interim Military Government. But the newly elected President, Mohamed Morsi, got it all wrong. He did not let go of the Islamists in him, and he was vanquished by the people. And a new government came into being within a record time. That did not happen in Libya or Iraq. And it will not happen in Syria.

With respect to the Algerians, they simply had enough of corrupt political leaders – leadership of the Nigerian style that hadn’t any clue on how to manage its vast oil wealth and respond to the concerns of the vast and ever-restless proletarians.

In sum, the anger, the joblessness, or the feeling of anti-establishment in Tunisia, Algeria, and Egypt that led to the evolution of the “Arab Spring” was not motivated by tribal or ethnic, or religious factors as we saw in Syria and Libya.

Therefore, President Obama and the international coalition must tread softly in arming the so-called moderate rebels inside of Syria. Because when it is all over, you would still have a substantial member, if not a majority, of the Syrian people backing President Assad as one of their own.

To put it succinctly, a minority regime in Syria is not sustainable. President Obama or his successor cannot afford to 'babysit' another adolescent government - Islamic or secular - in another hostile territory.

It is now left to President Obama, his security team, and his Western allies to separate the wheat from the chaff with a view to avoiding creating another Afghanistan mujahidin funded by America in the 1980s during the Afghan war with the old Soviet Union.

Undermining the political angle of the civil war in Syria is not a smart move. The ISIS phenomenon, though overwhelming, is a collateral issue in the Syria saga. Ending it does not automatically eliminate the underlying grievances that compelled the civil war in Syria.  In addition, Syria is not Gadhafi’s Libya where the pro-government forces collapsed under intense pressure from the international community.

President Assad has real and highly motivated followers who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their President. The facts on the ground speak volumes about that. If President Assad is vulnerable he would have been ousted by now, given the multi-dimensional attacks his forces and administration have received from ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, the international community as well as other interested parties in the past three years.

In other words, the liberation of ISIS-held territories will not completely eliminate the political crisis in Syria. In the same way, the defeat of Assad forces, if ever it happens, will not enshrine the elusive peace in the polity. The situation requires concerted and well-coordinated military and political solutions – an inclusive government, imbued with democratic values and respect for the rule of law and the protection of human rights of the citizenry, without regard to race or religion.

The Concept of Strength

The inability of ISIS to defeat the Syrian Armed Forces and compel Assad to relinquish his throne or kingship, tells on the weakness of ISIS in terms of military command structure, skills, and organization.

That it captured some Iraqi territories in the past is understandable. It is not a show of military strength as most Security Experts and pundits alluded to on American TV Networks. Iraqi Armed Forces are in a formative stage, compounded by a weak President who did not enjoy the support of the overwhelming majority of his people or the law enforcement agencies.

Beheading unarmed journalists, killing innocent civilians, and executing captured enemy combatants in a most gruesome manner for propaganda objectives do not meet the definition of military strength or invincibility. Simply put, they don’t have it. Assad is still standing, in spite of the much-orchestrated invincibility of ISIS.

Yes, ISIS has succeeded in seizing and appropriating a sizable volume of captured weapons belonging to Syrian and Iraqi forces as well as a vast oil field. The truth is they cannot acquire more than what they have at the moment. It is not enough to acquire oil fields in the absence of a ready market for the final products. Blockading the existing markets or trading partners is a good start. In addition, they don't have the technological or military wherewithal to keep and maintain the seized weapons for easy deployment.

The World fought a brutal Second World War for the sake of humanity. If the rest of the world, specifically, if the United States of America, had intervened in the War earlier than it did, more lives would have been saved and Holocaust would have been averted to some degree.

Slavery, the worst form of man’s inhumanity to man lasted for as long as the Union delayed the declaration of war on the later-formed, Confederate States, which were not ready to jettison slavery culture and relinquish their hold on freed Blacks. Eventually, the Emancipation Proclamation came, and the “world” of Blacks was made better.

And between 1992 and 1995, the whole world vacillated while the people of the former Yugoslavia endured a brutal and televised campaign of ethnic cleansing perpetrated on each other by tribes and clans that once paid allegiance to the same flag. In the end, thousands of lives were lost and a once beautiful multi-ethnic nation-state tumbled down into obscurity in the name of religion or tribal superiority. The world and the international coalition forces must unite, show strength, and vanquish ISIS. We cannot afford to dilly-dally over another Rwanda or another Holocaust.

The Concept of Faith

A few years ago, a British soldier, Lee Rigby, was viciously stabbed to death, almost beheaded in broad daylight by two members of an Islamic sect in Woolwich, South East London. To be so brutish and unrepentantly heartless to the extent of taking your hatred, your intolerance, your disillusionment, and your resentment of governmental institutions straight into the streets of London, and in broad daylight, stabbing a uniformed officer to death explains the extreme nature of the indoctrination and brainwashing they suffered inside places of worship in Great Britain of all places. It further explains the level of detachment between them (all the underwear and shoe bombers) and the civil society on the one hand, and the hatred they harbor against government and law enforcement agencies on the other.

The comatose state of the political system the world is witnessing in Iraq, Libya, and Syria today is the offshoot of that extremism, of a polluted mindset and belief system, incubated and nurtured to full bloom inside of Great Britain and France, with followers now spanning the length and breadth of the globe.

This piece is not just on how to decimate ISIS and its affiliates in line with what the world did to Hitler and Nazism, but on how to rein in the instructors and teachers of hatred and Armageddon as the world has come to know them all over Great Britain, Europe, and part of the Middle East and Nigeria. It is also about the wisdom of the preemptive approach and permanently eliminated from the face of the earth all those they have already indoctrinated and imbued with jihadist philosophy. It is about preemption.

To invade a boarding school at night time, tied up the hands and legs of innocent school children behind their backs, affix them to a stake like animals and slit their throats, leaving them to bleed to death as Boko Haram did at a boarding school in Benue State, Nigeria a few years ago is not an achievement that any Muslim worldwide would want to be proud of or be part of. The world must not allow that to happen again. As we write, more than 200 Chibok School Girls are still under captivity somewhere in North Eastern Nigeria, held without their consent, and for cause or causes unfathomable to common sense. It is about preemption.

A Jordanian prisoner of war was caged by ISIS, laced with gasoline, set ablaze, dragged along on a chariot of fire, and filmed - filmed dying slowly in excruciating pain - decapitating pieces by pieces for the whole world to see. That was a horrible, powerful propaganda message - a message of we rule the world; targeting, no doubt, all the gullible adherents of Islamic fundamentalism. The world cannot and must not wait for a repeat of that heinous crime.

When Muath al-Kaseasbeh was set on fire inside the cage, it was not only ISIS that was on trial for his gruesome death but the entire human race, especially the leadership of the free world and of the Muslim world and everyone who did nothing to curb the excesses of a sect on a perverted mission.

It is mind-bugling and disturbingly stupefying how a sect within defined and ascertainable geographical boundaries, without a standing army, and even if it does have one, that is not up to half a percent of what Hitler had, is still standing, unruffled, wreaking havoc upon havoc around the world undaunted.

Yet the world vacillates in the face of clear and present danger. And Paris burn. Brussels burn. And Muath al-Kaseasbeh was caged and set on fire to burn to death.

A few days after that horrific episode, and as the culture is after such death or attack, Jordanian Fighter Jets were seen over the ISIS sky, dropping bombs on specific targets on the ground. And that was it. Today, ISIS is still standing. And it has unleashed more gruesome and more painful death on mankind ever since. That has to change.

Moving Forward

Now is the time for the West to show strength and take it from where President Putin left it, waging an all-out land and air bombardments of ISIS. President Obama’s own military doctrine has always been about “overwhelming and disorganizing your enemies, taking the fights into their bedrooms by any means necessary and placing them under sustained harassment and on the defensive.” But sad to say, President Obama has not or is yet to put his doctrine and war chests into force in Syria and the ISIS-held territories.

An insurgent running for cover will not have the time to gyrate with captured military weapons or the time and space to record propaganda messages. With the exception of Russia, the world has become too timid, deep down too timid over ISIS and its reign of terror. It is time to wake up and do what is right and match them towards the gate of hell where they rightly belong as Vice President Joe Biden once declared.

Like the Nigerian Boko Haram, ISIS has no attributes of statehood that would require reconstruction after its annihilation. It is not Iraq, and it is certainly not Afghanistan. Therefore, the attacks must be massive and all-encompassing, with extinction as the main goal. As long as the objective is to decimate the group - riding the occupied territories of every remnant of Islamic fundamentalism, the exit strategy is expected to be less arduous to execute, because you do not have another new nation-state to incubate and nurture to adulthood, with all the machinery of statehood at public expense.

Still on the PIB (Petroleum Industry Bill) and the Host Community Funds

The essay you are about to read was first published on this blog on April 4, 2014. 

The Nigerian Petroleum Industry Bill (The PIB): Overcoming the Gerrymandering at the National Assembly. Alex Aidaghese, April 04, 2014. 

Introduction:

As of today, the Nigerian Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) is languishing in obscurity somewhere inside of the National Assembly, unattended to by our honorable lawmakers at the instigation of Governor Babangida Aliyu of Niger State, the Chairman of the Northern Governors Association, and Mr. Anthony Sani, the Spokesperson for the Arewa Conservative Forum. The two gentlemen, in collaboration with some faceless powerful lobby/interest groups want the Bill dead as written, because of a certain clause within it, known as the Host Community Fund (the PHC Fund). The PHC Fund is, among other things, meant to ensure against unforeseen catastrophic occurrences associated with oil and gas exploration/exploitation in the local communities, with a view to ensuring cordial investment climate, sustainable development, as well as an uninterrupted revenue stream for stakeholders. In the beginning, it was the multi-nation oil companies, most often referred to as International Oil Companies (IOC) that posed the most stultifying heat regarding the passage of the Bill. However, after many years of negotiations, dilutions, and modifications, they reluctantly conceded; thus, paving way for the Bill to proceed to the National Assembly. And while the Minister of Petroleum and her team were busy flying across the globe from London to Houston and to New York back and forth, marketing the yet to be passed, Bill to the "big boys" in the petroleum industry, back home, Nigerian law makers, contrary to all expectations, willingly surrendered themselves as potent tools at the disposal of adversaries of the PIB. That highly respected political leader from the northern geopolitical zone should now pride themselves as "PIB Killer" at the point of breakthrough is heartbroken and very difficult to digest. My purpose in this essay is not to critic PIB or to lampoon its antagonists, but to address the convoluted arguments, the anti-federalism narrative, and the superficial talking points being bandied around to kill PIB by the two gentlemen mentioned above.

A Recap:

When the PIB was first brought before the National Assembly and the Nigerian Governors Forum, Governor Aliyu stated unequivocally that they (the Northern Governors) would have to, first, set up an advisory or expert committee to advise them with respect to the retention or exclusion of the Host Community Fund in the PIB. And until they seek and obtain the counsel of these experts or advisory committee, they will not be able to make any pronouncement on the Bill or instruct northern legislators on how to vote or proceed with respect to its passage.

From all indications, the lingering stalemate and the age-old anti-federalism talking points - collectively and individually marshaled by Governor Aliyu, Mr. Anthony Sani, and Governor Yero of Kaduna State to frustrate the passage of the Bill, as you will see later in this essay - are seemingly the handiwork of the advisory/expert committee. So far, the Northern Governors Forum, under the able leadership of the irrepressible Dr. Babangida Aliyu has succeeded in subduing their legislators and bamboozling them into believing that the entire PIB is written to “skew” more funds to Niger Delta at the expense of the northern region. But what they have succeeded in concealing from their gullible lawmakers or deliberately ignored to address is the source of the fund or its objectives.

As you read, the PIB is dying slowly, and disappointingly, no Southern Legislator or Governor - not even Governor Amaechi of River State, a close confidant of Speaker Aminu Tambuwal - could come up with a bold statement in the National Assembly or at a public forum to persuade or challenge their Northern colleagues to view the Bill in its entirety instead of dwelling on a single clause for their decision. In a similar vein, I am yet to see or read from any of the opportunists masquerading as political leaders and their glorified consultants and advisers in the southern region, audacious enough or conscientious enough to challenge Mr. Anthony Sani and put a lie to his perverted indignation and undo the gerrymandering.

Abuja, today, is abuzz with preparation for the 2015 big event – the Presidential election. So, it is not necessarily business as usual; it is a season of intrigue, scheming, and schmoozing. Those who are in a position to talk are not talking. Everyone wants to be a friend of the north or be seen as a friend of the north as if there is a monolithic north or as is if the antagonists of the PIB are true representatives of the north. And everyone is making friends and scheming on how to appropriate power come 2015. Meanwhile, the goose that laid the golden eggs is on life support.

Without crude oil, the madness and the shenanigans of the moment at Abuja would be an afterthought.

The earlier this industry is regulated, the better it is for the government, the governed, and the stakeholders. It’s all about the conducive investment climate, steady income, and sustainable peace in the region. That is the fundamental goal of a PIB.

At this juncture, I want to state categorically that a PIB, without a provision for PHC Fund, or something similar, is not sustainable - it is blatantly inconsistent with the current trends in Petroleum legislation elsewhere in the developing world. As a compromise, I would rather we eliminate the Ministry of Niger Delta and merge it with Niger Delta Development Corporation (NDDC), than to have a new Petroleum regime, without provisions for Host Community Fund. I beg to move.

The remaining part of this essay is divided into six sections. (1) The contentious or the Ph.D. Fund sections of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB), (2) The inherent right of a nation-state to legislate over natural resources, (3) Indisputable facts, (4) Factual Analysis, (5) Moving Forward and Compromises, and (6) Conclusion.

Section 116, Section 117, and section 118 of the Petroleum Industry Bill covering the Host Community Fund (the PHC Fund):

116. Establishment of the Petroleum Host Community Fund

There is established a fund to be known as the Petroleum Host Communities Fund (in this Act referred to as ‘the PHC Fund’).

117. Purpose of the PHC Fund

The PHC Fund shall be utilized for the development of the economic and social infrastructure of the communities within the petroleum-producing area.

118. Beneficial entitlements to the communities

(1) Every upstream petroleum producing company shall remit on a monthly basis ten percent of its net profit as follows -.

(a) for-profit derived from upstream petroleum operations in onshore areas and in the offshore and shallow water areas, all of such remittance shall be made directly into the PHC Fund; and

(b) For-profit derived from upstream petroleum operations in deep-water areas, all of the remittance directly in to the Fund for the benefit of the petroleum-producing littoral States.

(2) For the purpose of this section ‘net profit’ means the adjusted profit less royalty, allowable deductions and allowances, less Nigerian Hydrocarbon Tax less Companies Income Tax.

 (5) Where an act of vandalism, sabotage or other civil unrest occurs that causes damage to any petroleum facilities within a host community, the cost of repair of such facility shall be paid from PHC Fund entitlement unless it is established that no member of the community is responsible.

The Right to Legislate Over Natural Resources:

A sovereign nation is endowed with inalienable rights – rights that are inviolate and sacrosanct. With these rights, comes statehood. A fundamental component of that statehood is the inherent rights over natural resources and the ability to make laws to regulate their exploitation and use. In a nutshell, the rights over natural resources are not only inherent but are dully protected by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII) of December 14, 1962 - “Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources.” This section provides for freedom to negotiate and freedom to enter into investment agreements with local and international investors while providing a safe harbor for the expression of fundamental human rights, and the pursuit of happiness by the civil society – the host communities. Nigeria is not an exception.

God gave us the Niger Delta and its communities with all its natural resources for our use and enjoyment. And it is mandatory on the part of the Nigerian Government to explore and exploit the natural riches for the use and enjoyment of present generations, and at the same time, making reservations for the needs and use of the unborn generations who would have no other land, except the Niger Delta, to call their own. It is called the sustainable development of natural resources. That is the goal and essence of a modern Host Community Fund.

The approach these days, given the protracted relationship between host communities and host governments on the one hand, and between the host communities and IOCs on the other, is to develop a package or framework for meeting the expectations of the host communities. It is all about the local communities and social license. That is the first step to ensuring the uninterrupted flow of revenue to investors as well as the steady influx of taxes and royalties to the host nation.

The arithmetic of the PHC Fund as presently structured in the PIB is free of ambiguity. Its fundamental goal is to provide insurance against unforeseen catastrophic occurrences associated with oil and gas explorations.

In addition, it provides a remedying effect for the social and economic deprivations that the indigenes contend with daily. The PIB is a beautiful law; we should not hold the entire Petroleum Industry in hostage because of a single provision. We can do better. A new energy regime, without any provision for meeting the expectations of the local communities is unsustainable.

In the words of Professor Luke Danielson, a notable scholar in the crusade for sustainable development of human and mineral resources in mineral resources-rich regions of the world: “Truly successful projects must be successful for investors, local communities, and host national economies. Increasingly, it appears that there is little opportunity for success in one of these dimensions without success in all of them. A project that has terrible results for investors is not going to benefit anyone else very much. A project that burdens the government of a poor country with all kinds of costs of social dislocation and environmental problems while providing little or no revenue to deal with them is likely to have a long list of other problems. The idea that the company is going to be highly successful at meeting its own expectations without meeting the expectations of other key players is increasingly difficult to accept.”

In other words, success is defined in the context of the scale an investment benefits investors, local communities and the economy of the host nation – it must be all-embracing for enduring peace.

What is required, therefore, is a fundamental framework (a Host Community Fund, if you want to call it that, but I would have rather we label it “Land and Water Reclamation Fund), developed with a view to ensuring the availability of funds for future generations as well as in the event of unforeseen catastrophic occurrences in the host communities. That fundamental framework must be explicitly embedded in the emerging PIB regime. It is a deal-breaker.

As of today, the emerging trend seems to be at variance with the philosophy of the major adversaries of the PIB. So far, Governor Babangida Aliyu and Mr. Anthony Sani have succeeded in their toxic arguments concocted by their expert/advisory committee to imperil the passage of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB). These two gentlemen in concert with Governor Yero of Kaduna State and other influential interest groups operating behind the scene would rather the PIB died in its entirety, than see the retention of the Host Community Fund or any section of the Bill benefiting the oil-producing areas.

At this juncture, I want to state categorically that a PIB, without a provision for a PHC Fund, or something similar is inconsistent with the current trends in Petroleum legislation. I would rather we don’t have an energy bill than to have one, without a provision for insuring against unforeseen development in and around the oil-producing communities.

Indeed, President Goodluck Jonathan’s election as President of Nigeria is important symbolically, but Niger Delta cannot overcome 50 years of abuse of federal character and 50 years of unbridled corporate irresponsibility and 50 years of environmental degradations and 50 years of indiscriminate destruction of their aquatic resources by multi-national oil companies and the Nigerian Federal Government.

Yes, they survived 50 years of neglect and deprivations. That is a fact.

They were fishermen, they were into rubber and they were into the timber. They were industrious, self-secured and self-sufficient. They were loyal landlords, until the uninvited quests confiscated their land, took away the riches of their earth, and imperiled their means of survival.

And yes, they produced and drank ogogoro, but there was no drunkard and no insane delusional or hopeless mind rummaging the swampy landscape scavenging for a piece of the black gold simmering from crevices along the pipelines.

IOCs and the Federal Government of Nigeria took their humility for granted and left them economically pulverized.

There was no burning, and there was no looting. There was no kidnapping of white men and not so white men for ransom. And there was no lamentation of force majeure by Shell, or BP, or by Chevron.

These companies cleaned up their mess in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere in the developed and developing World; they must be made to clean up their mess in the Niger Delta. If it is the Host Company Fund that is the best we can do for now, it is a good start.

That is not too much of a demand.

The demand for the integration of human rights and human development within the framework of every investment agreements relating to natural resources is not just an intellectual exercise. It is real and achievable, if diligently pursued.

The earlier our Federal Government and foreign investors embrace and acknowledge the interests and concerns of indigenous people and inculcate those concerns into their final investment agreements, the closer we are to peace and sustainable development in the mineral producing communities in the Niger Delta. Nothing enriches shareholders value more than sustainable income and peaceful investment climate.

It is our firm belief that any State Governor who has an interest in life, liberty, freedom, and fundamental human rights of others, especially people living in and around oil rigs and gas pipelines; any State Governor with genuine concern for living things, creatures, and the environment in and around gas flaring locations; any State Governor who appreciate peaceful investment climate and cordial business relationship with local communities, should not prevaricate on those issues that matter most to the petroleum-producing communities. The late President Musa Yar’Adua set a good example worthy of replication. 

Indisputable Facts:

The talking points being bandied about to kill the PIB by Governor Babangida Aliyu of Niger State, Governor Yero of Kaduna State, and Mr. Anthony Sani of Arewa Conservative Forum are consistent with the line of arguments they contrived to kill free education proposal many years ago - it will lead to widening the existing educational gap between North and South. In the words of Mr. Anthony Sani, “I think those clamoring for such fund must be reminded that we cannot claim one country and live as if we are on different continents. The concept of nationhood presupposes bringing of people together to enable them to live up their synergy for common good. And that is why reduction of gaps in development and income is not only good politics but good economics as well.” - Sunday Punch of July 28, 2013.

Once again, in the world of Mr. Anthony Sani, it’s all about the “reduction of gaps in development and income.” Unfortunately, the large scale ecological devastation and the attendant adverse economic hardship that the people of the Niger Delta have endured for years and will continue to endure are irrelevant. Killing the PIB, as Anthony Sani is crusading, is another way of saying: unforeseen environmental catastrophes, as we have witnessed in the Niger Delta over the years, are figments of one’s imagination. In other words, the Bonga oil spillage did not happen.

With all due respect, Mr. Anthony Sani’s reduction of gaps in income and development argument, illogical as it is, is inconsistent with true federalism and it reinforces the view gaining ground in the global energy cycle that, indeed, oil is a curse to developing countries, especially the Nigerian Niger Delta.

Also, you will see similar language in this report by This Day Newspaper of August 06, 2013: “Niger State Governor, Dr. Mu’azu Babangida Aliyu, and his Kaduna State counterpart, Alhaji Ramalan Yero had opposed the provision of 10 percent host community fund in the PIB positing that it may negatively impact their fiscal position by skewing yet more resources to the oil-producing states."

I want to repeat; that was the same argument northern intellectuals put up successfully in the 70s to kill the introduction of free education by the federal government - it will skew more funds to the south, in light of the fact that northern parents are not favorably disposed to the western value system. That was the argument. In hindsight, they were wrong then, and they are wrong today. Boko Haram insurgency and the Almajiris population explosion remind everyone that it was a wrong argument and a faulty premise to defeat free education at all levels.

So far, they have succeeded in stewing up the debate to strengthen their perverted logic.

It is irrelevant that the funding (the 10 percent) of the Host Community Fund is from Oil Companies.

It is irrelevant that financing the Host Community Fund does not in any shape or form constitute a drain on the Federation Account.

It is irrelevant that financing the Host Community Fund does not by any stretch of the imagination alter one bit the mandatory monthly allocations from the Federation Account to any of the local government councils or states of the major antagonists of the PIB. As long as the funding benefits the oil-producing states, in the opinion of Governor Aliyu and Mr. Anthony Sani, it is a bad law.

While the PIB languishes unattended in the hands of our lawmakers at the prompting of the Northern Governors, gas flaring is continuing unabated in the Niger Delta, with all its associated environmental imparts and socio-economic problems.

And yes, as the Bill languishes unattended in the National Assembly, those who are in a regulatory position to take action in the energy sector are watching helplessly. Worst still is the fact that the entire Nigeria Oil and Gas industry is being held hostage because of a single clause, and at the instance of a bunch of political careerists.

Factual Analysis:

First and foremost, financing the PHC Fund is independent of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. I want to emphasize that point. Also, the Fund does not by any stretch of the imagination cut into the funds accruing to the various states and local councils from the Federation Account. I also want to emphasize the fact that funding is from the net profit made by oil companies – local and international. That is it. But Mr. Anthony Sani is not buying any of those indisputable facts. He is vehemently and unambiguously demanding “reduction of gaps in development and income …” not minding the social and economic dislocations associated with oil spillage as well as the prolonged ecological ills characteristics of gas flaring.

With respect to the Host Community Fund, what the Governors are not telling their supporters is the source or sources of the “skewed” fund. And to say that funding may negatively impact their financial position is as illogical as saying gas flaring is a common occurrence in Niger or Kaduna State - which is a known fallacy.

In addition, making more funds available to oil-producing communities is not enough to assuage the communities for years of unbridled corporate irresponsibility perpetuated by IOCs and our federal institutions.

Making fund available to oil producing communities from outside federal sources to ensure against unforeseen environmental occurrences prevalent in oil-rich regions does not constitute a cut into the revenue accruing to Niger State or Kaduna State from the Federation Account. Common guys, get the facts right.

Another argument put forward by Mr. Anthony Sani is that the oil-producing states are not spending their allocations wisely. In his words, they are using the funds “to build their state capitals and airports.” Even if that’s the case; it is legitimate. It’s all about sustainable development – developing infrastructures is a component part, and in fact, the core foundation of an expanding economy.

At this juncture, I want to remind Governor Babangida Aliyu, Governor Yero, and Mr. Anthony Sani that every state in a federal system has every right to develop at its own pace and to spend its funds as to the dictate of the realities on the ground in his or her own state.

At this juncture, I want to remind Governor Babangida Aliyu, Governor Yero, and Mr. Anthony Sani that every state in a true federal system has every right to develop at its own pace and to spend its funds as to the dictate of the realities on the ground in his or her state.

No one, I repeat, no one has questioned the resourcefulness of the Kano State Government in its yearly ritual in the name of group marriage for runaway lovers, who, history has told us are incapable of sustaining the marriage forced on them. If that is the best the State Government could do to alleviate poverty and social unrest in Kano State; it is a worthy undertaking, in light of the realities on the ground – realities unknown, for instance, to the Governors in the oil-producing states who, in the instant case, are allegedly building airports and state capitals.

On a similar note, that principle of true federalism is consistent with the funding of State Police and the implementation of Sharia Law in most part of the northern region by the State Governors. That is the true essence of true federalism – the ability of each federating state to develop at its own space – channeling its resources to areas that best suit the needs of its people.

With respect to deep-water exploration/exploitation, there should be a dividing line where the littoral states and the federal government should exercise joint ownership and where the Federal Government should exercise absolute control – that is without sharing with the Littoral States. Exercising joint control or ownership over proceeds from the defined boundary in the deep-water by the littoral states and the central government is not uncommon.

I would like to remind Mr. Sani, who, no doubt, is the major antagonist of the littoral state's funding, that in the event of spillage, as was the case in the US Gulf of Mexico a few years ago, it is the Littoral States that suffer the most hardship, ecologically and economically speaking. Tourism along the gulf coast of and the entire seafood industry of the Littoral States went under following the massive spillage.

Back at home, our Fulani brethren who are involved in Cattle rearing and animal husbandry are reputed for traversing thousands of hostile and treacherous terrain sourcing for greener pasture.  It is the same story with those involved in the seafood industry in the oil-producing communities. Traversing the deep water for bounteous harvest is the name of the game. Yes, the Littoral States should not be excluded from benefiting from proceeds of the exploratory activities going on in the deep-water around them. They are naturally placed to suffer economically in the event of oil spillage and related disasters. We should not wait for such a disaster to erupt before sourcing for funds.

Moving Forward:

For a start, most oil-producing countries do not have a Ministry of Niger Delta and Niger Delta Development Corporation (NDDC), catering to the same region. But most of them do have a fund, set up to address unexpected ‘catastrophic occurrences’, spillage, decommissioning exercises, and something for the community to fall back on when the oil companies vacate the land. That’s where Host Community fund comes in. In most jurisdictions, it is not a fund for immediate use, but for the future and for the younger and unborn generations coming into the oil-producing communities or communities that were once endowed with oil and gas.

As I said in the opening statement in this section, NDDC is best suited to represent the interests of the Federal Government in meeting the demands and the expectations of the host communities that are not adequately addressed by the state government. Adding the Ministry of Niger Delta to the field was to assuage the region for the massive deprivations they suffered under past administrations. It was a massive effort designed to overcome the endless pains, anger, and resentment of the Federal Government. It was a massive measure to remedy the massive failure of the Federal Government in the region, but in the process, it creates overlaps. The need to coordinate efforts of all the government agencies on the ground, with a view to ensuring accountability cannot be overemphasized.

On that ground, I respectfully hold that NDDC as presently structured is capable of representing the interests and the economic objectives of the Federal Government in the Niger Delta. In that case, the Ministry of Niger Delta should be eliminated, and systematically merged with NDDC. Truth is that there would not have been any need for a Ministry of Niger Delta if past administrations understood the true essence of sustainable development and accountability. We can eliminate the Ministry of the Niger Delta, but retention of the PHC Fund in the PIB is sacrosanct.

The arguments propounded by Governor Aliyu and Mr. Anthony Sani to frustrate the passage of PIB are not new to us – they are enticing but inherently superficial. They do not serve any useful benefit to anyone or any region in the long run. The war against free education at all levels in the seventies and the accompanied explosion of amajiris population in the northern region bear witness to that conclusion.

Conclusion:

The PIB is a beautiful law, and I do recommend it for everyone to read. There is more to it than just Host Community Fund. Let’s join hands to rescue it from the stranglehold of Governor Aliyu and Anthony Sani. We cannot afford to do less. President Jonathan and Governor Amaechi of River State, for the moment, should set aside their political differences and collaborate to ensure the passage of PIB as soon as possible.

At this juncture, it is worth emphasizing that the PIB war is no longer a battle for the NNPC or Ministry of Petroleum or the Department of Energy to fight. This is a deliberately contrived political impasse that is counterproductive and blatantly inconsistent with the true essence of federalism. Therefore, it requires vibrant and coordinated political muscles and multi-dimensional counter-attacks for the Bill to sail through the hearing process in the National Assembly.

Oil is our major income earner; until we effectively manage peace in that part of the country and with genuine intent, no State Governor is safe and no Local Government Chairman is safe. Let’s strive to move beyond regional considerations and demagoguery in our legislative process. Late President Yar’Adua was very much aware of the repercussions of gerrymandering, which informed his pragmatic approach and a willingness to do what no one has ever tried in the region – negotiate and consent. And it works. Let’s pass the PIB into law now and dedicate it to his memory. If that is the best we can do for him at this point in time, it is a welcome development.

 April 4, 2014