"Imagine a situation in which a good acquaintance - but not a close friend - suggests that you start a joint venture that requires you to invest all your savings. If you hesitate, he whips out a revolver and threatens to shoot your close relatives. This is how Russia's most recent suggestion for co-operation with the United States on a joint anti-ballistic missile defense system comes across. But the main point is that if the United States were to accept the Russian offer, it would have to entirely reject its present strategy of intercepting enemy warheads in space using missiles with a range of more than 2000 kilometers. In addition, the joint project would mean that the billions of dollars that the United States had already spent on its unilateral anti-system would be for naught. The other problematic aspect of Russia's proposal is that it would require an unusually high level of trust in each other to make this new relationship work. And Russia has done everything in its power to undermine this trust. A case in point: Ivanov has promised that if the United States does not cancel its plans to place a radar in the Chech Republic and elements of anti-missile batteries in Poland, Russia will deploy Iskander rockets in Kaliningrad aimed at U.S. installations  in Europe. If Russia deploys these weapons, it will violate the terms of the Treaty  on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. This in turn could lead to a new stand off with Europe. On the surface, Moscow has offered to create a joint global anti-missile system that would significantly improve U.S.-Russian relations. But Moscow has threatened a new military stand-off if Washington refuses its proposal anf if it develops its anti-missile system in Europe. Thus, Moscow has proposed an absolutely meaningless and unrealistic initiative that will only distract and irritate Washington at a time when the Kremlin is frantically looking for U.S. support for Putin's successor."

Alexander Golts. Columnist on Defense issues for Moscow's English language newpaper.
excerpt from  recently published column titled; "An Anti-Missile Proposal Doomed to Fail."


ABUJA: 419 CAPITAL.

 If you are ever asked to name the new capital of Nigeria and you mention Abuja, I am afraid to tell you that you are wrong simply because Abuja is not the capital of Nigeria. Or to be more precise, de jure, you may be right, but de facto, you are wrong.  The reason for making this assertion will be stated in this article. But first, it is worth mentioning that the issue of the relocation of Nigeria's capital from Lagos to Abuja was addressed briefly in one of my previous articles titled "A battle cry to restore the poor state of the nation. (Part 1) (nigeriansinamerica.com)" However, because of the importance of this issue and the effect of this decision on Nigerians and Nigeria's economy, I have decided to devote a whole article to this topic in order to treat it comprehensively.

 Undoubtedly, the costliest decision the North and the military have ever made was the choice of Abuja as the new capital of Nigeria. This is another case in point that the north has succeeded in manipulating the country to its own selfish interest at a great cost to the rest of the country. As could be recalled, the decision to relocate the capital was taken by Murtala Muhammed sometime in 1975. The official reasons given by the northern military government for relocating the capital from Lagos were the following:

(I)  Security reason - Lagos due to its location was vulnerable to attack from the ocean.

(II) Lagos was too congested.

(III)Because of its location at the edge of the country, it's not very convenient and expensive for other Nigerians to come to Lagos.

(IV) Lagos belongs to the Yorubas; one of the major tribes in Nigeria.

Let us examine these reasons one by one together objectively and verify whether they hold water or not.

  Those who are familiar with European history will recall that practically the whole of Europe were battle fields  until 1945 - after the end of the Second World War. Russia too had fought so many wars in the past. The former Soviet Union and the west led by the United States were engaged in the cold war for almost half a century. The former Soviet Union alone lost more than 20 million people in the Second World War! What about Japan which once colonised China and took an active part in the Second World War. And please don't forget Mussolini’s Italy. So, why didn't any of these countries relocate their respective capitals to the center for "security reasons" like Nigeria?  Why didn't Britain for example which is practically an island relocate its capital from London to the center to strengthen its security?  Why didn't the former Soviet Union after the end of the Second World War relocate its capital from Moscow to the center or to Siberia or to the Urals or to the Far-east? As big as the former Soviet Union was, why didn't they move their capital?  After all, being the biggest country in the world, they had more than enough land to do that.  Please take a look again at the location of Moscow . You will notice that apart from the fact that it is located right at the edge of Russia and very very close to the sea, it is as well very close to other European countries and their respective capitals. Why didn't Hugo Chavez who is theoretically at war with the United States relocate the capital from Caracas to the center for "security reasons" like Nigeria? Hugo Chavez has visited Russia many times to arm his army to the teeth with the latest weapons available and money could buy incase of an attack from the U.S. I also want to remind you that Venezuela is the fifth largest exporter of crude oil while Nigeria comes sixth. So why didn't Chavez who is a military officer build a new capital for his security?  After all, he has more than enough money to do it? What about Fidel Castro who has been at a logger heads with America for almost 40 years?  It's a known secret that the C.I.A. had made several failed attempts to eliminate Fidel. And do you remember the "Bay of pigs" operation? The invasion of Cuba by opposition army sponsored by the United States of America.  Why didn't Castro shift the capital from Havana to the center for "security reasons?"

  Are we to conclude then that these countries are not as "security conscious" like Nigeria? Of course they are. In fact, they are not only more security conscious than Nigeria they are equally  more "unity conscious  than Nigeria. The reason why they have taken such a stupid decision is simply because they know very well that:

(1) "Water is life." "No water, no life."

(2) There are substantial economic and commercial benefits  for the country  when a capital is located by the sea compared to locating it in the middle.

(3) A country is in no way better secured because its capital is in the middle. There are other cheaper and more effective ways of ensuring the security of a state and its capital other than building a new capital from scratch which is considered a very costly venture even for very rich countries.

 (4) Incase of an out break of war, the government, if the need arises, could easily be transferred temporarily to another city till the war ends. They don't need to build a new capital to accomplish that.

A DELIBERATE ACT

  I hope that you have not lost focus, the point I am trying to make is that when Lagos was the capital,   northern military Head of State  invested only a drop or a fraction of what was needed in infrastructure and housing. The north led federal government had not invested a single kobo in electricity generation in Lagos for the past 15 years before OBJ took over. This explains the reason why Lagos was congested and always in perpetual darkness. The only way for the federal government to rectify this congestion problem then was through heavy investments in infrastructures, power, housing e.t.c. However, they purposely didn't do it because they had made up their mind to relocate the capital to the north; consequently the money was saved for Abuja.

(III) ACCESSIBILITY TO OTHER NIGERIANS.

 Perhaps this may sound a little bit convincing, at a first glance. But taking a closer look, I am asking the following questions. Should the fact that Lagos is far from the north justify spending billions of dollars that belong to the south to build a new capital from the scratch that will be closer to Kano, Kaduna, Zaria, Maiduguri, Sokoto, e.t.c.? To avoid repetition, I want to implore everybody reading this article to please go back and read my observations again most especially those relating to the location of capitals at the edge. I want to remind you again that practically all the above mentioned countries have their capitals both by the sea/ocean and right at the edge.

  How many countries in the world choose their capitals on the basis that it must be in the center so that they may be "equally accessible" to all its citizens?  The former Soviet Union ( and the Russian Federation), the United States, China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, many African countries are made up of diversified nationalities like Nigeria. Why didn't all these countries whose capitals are all located at the edge  and close to the sea/ocean build new capitals  in the center so that they could be equally accessible to all its citizens? The reasons are simply because:

 (1) Building a new capital even for rich countries is an expensive expenditure which is not justified;

 (2) Capitals of many countries emerged historically and naturally due to many economic factors and the role these cities had played in the past and still continue to play in trade and commerce today.

 (3) You don't use mathematics or geometry  (except in Nigeria) to calculate or determine the center or equilibrium point where the capital should be located.

(IV) LAGOS BELONGS TO THE YORUBAS.

 Undoubtedly, this was the main reason why the capital was moved from Lagos, but other excuses were just used as cover up. However, mere saying that the capital was moved to Abuja because Lagos is a Yoruba territory is not enough. We need to ask more questions and carry out further analysis. The official reason given by the military was that Nigeria needed a new capital that would not be located on the territory of any of the 3 major tribes. At a first glance, this reason may sound reasonable and convincing. But, one may want to enquire further. In that case, why wasn't the new capital built in other locations that also do not belong to any of the 3 major tribes? After all, there are more than enough cities in the South that met this/these requirement(s). So, why was the new capital located in Abuja which happens to be in the north?  Why should the new capital be built in the north a region whose contribution to the economy in terms of mineral and human resources (intellectually) is practically zero? You will surely agree with me that it is not out of place to ask this/these  question(s), more so, for our objective analysis.

 So, what was the "main and hidden" motive of the north for shifting the capital to Abuja? What do you think? The main reason was because of the civil war! To be more precise, the main reason was to guarantee the security of a northern military or civilian Head of State. I will expatiate on this.

 The civil war showed and proved how really vulnerable a northern military Head of State was. If the Yorubas had maintained a "neutral position" in the civil war, it was obvious that the north was no match at all for the Biafra's military machine. If Awolowo had not drawn the Yorubas into the war, the outcome would have been a foregone conclusion. There was no way the north could had defeated the Biafrans. Gowon released Awolowo from prison after the failed Nzeogwu (R.I.P)  coup not out of sympathy but for his own personal protection. It was a pragmatic and well  calculated move. Gowon knew very well that keeping Nigeria together lied entirely in the hands of the Yorubas. He needed not only the moral support of the Yorubas but their military support especially, at any cost, in case of an outbreak of war which was already on the horizon. Therefore, based on this analysis, it would have been unwise of Gowon or should I say even impossible for Gowon to wage war against the Biafran army while the leader of the Yorubas, Pa Obafemi Awolowo, was in captivity.

  The location of Nigeria's capital in Lagos, a Yoruba territory, created a problem for the northern military officers. What Gowon and the north in general feared most was the Yorubas declaring Oduduwa Republic simultaneously with the Biafrans or sabotage from them. Unfortunately, Awolowo fell into Gowon's "psychology trap." He wrongly felt that he owed Gowon a "big favour" for releasing him from prison. He had forgotten that his imprisonment in the first place was illegal. Moreover, Gowon was only doing the right thing by releasing him. Thus, Awolowo joined the "one Nigeria" bandwagon of Gowon and the North!

  To be completely honest and objective, in my opinion, another reason why Awolowo decided to join Gowon to fight against the Biafrans could also be:

(1) His wrong interpretation of Nzeogwu's failed coup. Awolowo could had wrongfully interpreted (he might had been purposely misinformed or misled) the coup to be an Ndigbo coup to capture the whole of Nigeria. The unfortunate outcome was a strong reason for this. It would be recalled that the coup plotters assassinated all the Premiers except the  Premier of the Eastern region. This created a serious suspicion and doubt as regards to the genuine intention of the coup plotters led by Nzeogwu who  though was  born in Kaduna and spoke Hausa fluently but nevertheless was an Igbo man. The north, at least saw him this way.

 (2) Awolowo's personal political ambition. It was no secret that Papa Awo nurtured a presidential ambition and was determined to achieve his political ambition at any cost. He considered Pa Zik his main opponent for the seat then. Most likely, Papa Awo naively thought that if he supported Gowon in the so called "One Nigeria" war against the Biafrans, the north would appreciate it and thank him by voting overwhelmingly for him whenever Presidential election would be organised by the military. Afterall, the military can not be in power forever, he might have reasoned. Unfortunately, Papa Awo miscalculated. He naively thought that he knew the north very well or could  trust them. If he had known better.

 If we are to go by the second argument, then, it might be possible to assume  that Awo was playing his own game too and did not fall into any Gowon's trap. We will never know why Awo decided to join Gowon. Only history can judge him if he sacrificed the interest of the Yorubas in order to achieve his own political ambition which unfortunately did not materialise. Perhaps, Papa Awo meant good for the Yorubas.

 While reflecting on the tragic events that took place in between 1967 and 1970, I want to point out that in my opinion, the fact that Lagos was the capital and a Yoruba territory created a big dilemma for the Yorubas too. Why? Because in order for the Biafrans to win the war, they either had to capture Lagos or/and kill Gowon in  Lagos which invariably mean that they had to launch an attack on Lagos. There was no other way out.  In that case, the Yorubas would be left with  no other choice than to pick up arms and defend their territorial integrity. There was no other way out. Even, if they were neutral to the war, they could not sit down, fold their arms and watch the Biafran soldiers run over Lagos. More so, they could never read what Ojukwu really had in mind after entering Lagos. Would he retreat  back voluntarily  or capture it. What if Lagos fell to Ojukwu and he decided to match further into Yoruba territory, capture the whole of their land and annex it to Biafra Repuplic? Thus, in my opinion, irrespective of Awo's or the Yoruba's neutral position to the war, they would had still being drawn into it against their will. And this was exactly what happened when Ojukwu turned his army towards Lagos.

 As I have said before, if the Yorubas had declared Oduduwa Republic together with Ojukwu, that would had been the end of the war. There would not had been any dilemma before them. Why? Because if the north had rejected or opposed the two declarations, Gowon would definitely had been assassinated right in Lagos and they would had to fight two wars on two fronts simultaneously which was practically impossible to win. The access the Yorubas and Ndigbo have to the sea is of strategic advantage. What this means is that ammunitions and other military supplies could easyly be shipped in in very large quantities. With this advantage alone and the north being  land-locked, it was practically impossible for them  to win the war. Unfortunately, Papa Awo made a different choice for the Yorubas. His authority was so strong in Yorubaland even  till his demise that it was practically impossible to oppose him or his decision. Therefore, going by this reasoning, it may not be fair for Ndigbo to hold the Yorubas as a nation responsible for their calamities in the tragic war. Decisions were taken on our behalf by our Leader.

 The civil war opened the eyes of the north. Suddenly, they realised how vulnerable they were in the hands of the Yorubas who constituted one of the 3 major tribes in Nigeria. On one hand, they were glad that they were in control of power, on the other hand, they suddenly realised that they were very vulnerable, "security wise,"  with the capital located not in the north. They thought to themselves, what would had happened if the Yorubas had declared Oduduwa Republic together with Ojukwu, or if tomorrow, the Yorubas like the Biafrans suddenly decided to declare Oduduwa Republic? How could they (the Hausas) resist them (the Yorubas) with the capital located in Lagos? Based on this analysis, Lagos, henceforth, became "completely unacceptable" to them as a capital irrespective of other economic and commercial advantages Lagos had. Right at that moment, the decision to relocate the capital  to the north was born.

  Northern military officers  needed a new capital which would not only make them not to be vulnerable security wise to any of the two major tribes, but which would also give them a complete protection, most especially, a base to launch attacks and mobilise in case of another civil war. This is the secret behind the emergence of Abuja as Nigeria's new capital. The bitter truth is that the relocation has in any way made the President of Nigeria safer or strengthened Nigeria's security.

TO BE CONTINUED...