"...Western officials say they hope West Africa, though it has less reserves than the Middle East, may turn into a viable alternative supplier to Europe; already, the area is one of the fastest growing producers of LNG. In West Africa, Nigeria is the uncut diamond: Boasting on- and offshore oil reserves of 35 billion barrels (twice as much as Mexico's) and 176 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (as much as the United States'), it's no surprise Nigeria's energy sector has been courted by U.S. and European officials..."

excerpt of UPI Energy report published April 11, 2008.

"We get our breakfast not because of the benevolence of the baker, brewer and butcher, but because they are pursuing their self-interests."

Adam Smith. Scottish economist.

excerpt from book 'The Wealth of Nations" first published in 1776.

"We should engage Russia based on principles- principle is that everybody has the right of choice. Everybody needs and wants to be free."

Mikheil Shakashvilli. President of Georgia, formerly part of the defunct Soviet Union.

-excerpt of interview on Russian-Georgian tense relations, given in early July 2007.

"... I say again, I'm not anti-Democrat, I'm not anti-Republican. I'm not anti-anything. I am just questioning their sincerity, and some of the strategy that they have been using on our people by promising them promises that they don't intend to keep. No, I'm not an American. I'm one of the 22 million black people who are victims of Americanism. One of the 22 million black people who are victims of democracy, nothing but disguised hypocrisy. So, I'm not standing here speaking to you as an American, or a patriot, or a flag-saluter, or a flag-waver, not I. I am speaking as a victim of this American system. And I see America through the eyes of the victim . I don't see an American dream. I see an American nightmare. These 22 million victims are waking up. Their eyes are coming open. They are beginning to see what they used to only look at. They are becoming politically matured. Don't change the white man's mind. You can't change his mind, and that whole thing about appealing to the moral conscience

of America- America's conscience is bankrupt. She lost all conscience a long time ago. Uncle Sam has no conscience. They don't know what morals are. They don't try to eliminate evil because it's evil, or because it's illegal, or because it's immoral; they eliminate it only when it threatens their existence. So, you are wasting your time appealing to the moral conscience of a bankrupt man like Uncle Sam. If he had a conscience, he'd straighten this thing out with no more pressure being put upon him. So, it's not necessary to change the white man's mind . We have to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth so we can develop unity and harmony that's necessary to get this problem solved ourselves. How can we do this? How can we avoid jealousy? How can we avoid the suspicions, divisions that exist in the community? I'll tell you...?

excerpt of speech.

II. ECONOMIC FACTOR AND SELF-INTEREST.

Nigeria is not just a forced marriage between the north and the south, it is also an 'unequal' marriage in all sense of the word. It is a 'lopsided' economic and political relationships in which the south takes upon herself the 'complete' finance of the imposed union, but has very little or practically no say neither in how the country is being run nor how the oil revenues are being spent. Saying that the south has not benefited ANYTHING from being part of Nigeria is to say nothing. It'll be more appropriate to say that the unsubscribed union has robbed the south at least hundreds of billions of dollars; led to the untimely deaths of millions of southern Nigerians; and forced uncountable number of able-bodied, well educated southerners to migrate out of the country due to bad leadership of the north. Without any exaggeration, the south has indeed paid dearly, and is still paying, for the One Nigeria project, which the British have roped her into.

The Niger delta alone, which includes Ondo state, a Yoruba territory, has the largest reserve of oil in Africa, and ranks 8th in the world. By rough estimation, so far, more than $600 billions worth of oil has been lifted from the Niger delta. In addition, Ondo state has the second largest reserve of bitumen in the world. However, the most invaluable resources of the south is not even the oil, gas and other mineral resources, but her human capital. The south with a population of at least 80 million, if we take into account those who are outside the country, has the highest number of specialists in Africa, and even surpasses many western countries. Name any field in science and technology, humanities and human endeavour in general, and I am ready to bet with anything that you will definitely find southerners who rank among the best in the world. At least 90% of Nigerian professionals in Diaspora are southerners. This is our greatest and invaluable asset! The importance of knowledge in the development of any country can not be overemphasized. There are countries like Japan, Germany, France and Italy without any mineral resources, yet are among the 7 countries with the largest economies in the world. Having said this, nevertheless, mineral resources, if combined properly with our human capital, could act as a catalyst or 'combustion engine' that will power our economy and accelerate our development.

Before going deep into our analysis, it is important to explain what is meant by economic 'self-interest.' Self-interest should not be confused with 'selfish interest.' Self-interest is about defending your interests with your 'own' resources, and not other people's resources. Self-interest is about trying to get 'the best deal' for yourself with your own resources. For example, when you are negotiating a vacancy, you try to sell your labour, skills or knowledge, which in this case, is your resources, to the highest bidder. In other words, you try to negotiate the best terms or package available for yourself - salary, company car, health and car insurances, refund of travelling expenses, longer holidays, paid maternity leave, payment for professional trainings and courses, payment for mobile phones and international calls, personal secretary, e.t.c. Since labour, like all other resources, is 'scarce or limited in supply' in the sense that, you are an individual with limited number of working hours, which puts a limit on the number of companies that you can physically work for, therefore, you try as much as possible to get the maximum value from it. This is a 'normal' and 'rational' position. Likewise, if you own a company, and you are negotiating deals for your company, you try as much as possible to get the best deal. But selfish interest is when you defend your interest(s) using other people's resources, moreover without their approval. Selfish interest is defending your interests at the 'expense' of others. Selfish interest is taking over or depriving others of what belongs to them by right. Selfish interest is solving your problems to the detriments of others.

We will be applying this rational theory to the economic relationship between the south and the north. This rational theory approach is appropriate as an analytic instrument taking into consideration the fact that resources, including mineral resources, are limited in supply, therefore, we should not just be interested in trading them, but trading them or exchanging them for the maximum price possible in the free market. Acting otherwise will be irrational, against common sense and unwise. Therefore, we are going to approach the economic and political relationship 'strictly' from the position of a 'shrewd' businessman who wants to get the maximum value for his products or resources, which are limited in supply, and not from the position of a philanthropist or an altruist. The logic behind our rational theory approach is both natural and based on common sense.

INVESTMENT OR ROBBERY?

So, the 1 billion dollar question is "Why should the south, or the Niger delta in particular, give their limited resources to the north or any other ethnic group for free?" Why should the north, without any preliminary negotiations and agreement, have 'unlimited' access to the vast resources of the Niger delta and the south in general? On what basis must the south invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the construction of international airports, universities, roads, power stations, infrastructures, factories, e.t.c. in Zaria, Abuja, Kaduna, Kano, Maiduguri, Sokoto, Katsina and other northern cities, when they, i.e. the south could 'equally' spend this money building roads, airports, power stations, schools, universities, hospitals, infrastructures, e.t.c. for themselves? Why should hundreds of billions of dollars of the Niger delta oil money go into the financing of a new capital in Abuja and the north in general while the bonafide owners of these resources wallow in abject poverty? Do the Yorubas, Ndigbos, Ijaws, Ibibios, Efiks, Itsekiri and other ethnic groups in the south have any cultural or blood relationship with the Hausas and Fulanis to justify their taking of hundreds of billion of dollars of the south's money for free? To the best of my knowledge, they have 'absolutely' nothing in common! Are we to infer then that the Niger deltans, and the south in general, are obliged to finance the north free of charge with their resources just because the British said so? What does the south get in return for her investment in the north? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! And, in any case, shouldn't the respective ethnic groups in the south be given the right to decide themselves whether they want to invest in the north or not? Why are the north and British dictating to the south where and how to invest their money? Does anybody dictate to the British where and how to invest their money? Again, many people, perhaps out of ignorance, emotion or hypocrisy fail to ask these 'fundamental' questions that are of great importance in doing justice to the main topic before us. This is a very serious mistake on our part. We must not take this for granted.

RESOURCES ARE LIMITED AND NOT FREE: THEY HAVE THEIR PRICE AND OPPORTUNITY COST.

Most likely, those that fail to take into consideration this very important fact take it for granted that:

1. The vast resources in the south 'automatically' belong to Nigeria, especially the north;

2. That resources are free, do not come with a price and have no opportunity cost.

You don't need to be a banker or a professor in economics to understand that when you approach a bank for a loan, there is no guarantee that the bank will issue you the loan. And if the bank eventually decides to issue you the loan, it must get interest on the issued loan. In other words, within an agreed period of time, you are supposed to return the principal, the original amount issued as loan, and interest on the loan. The interest on the principal is the 'price' or the cost of the loan to you. Likewise, the interest that you have paid is the bank's 'profit' for issuing the loan to you. Likewise, when you buy any product, you are paying for the cost price of producing it and the profit that the company that manufactured it is asking for taking the trouble to produce it for you.

The difference between a manufacturing company and a bank is that banks 'lend out' their capital, which in this case is money for a fee or price for a period of time. But unlike a company, which makes her profit immediately 'on the spot,' when you pay for a product, when a bank sells money to you, it gets back the principal and interest (profit) in the future, (here, we are examining the classic crediting system, and not a situation when interest is deducted immediately a loan is issued) Therefore, in order to be sure that she gets back her money with interest, the bank insures herself by asking you to provide a 'collateral' which has a market value not less than the principal and the interest. In essence, what this means is that your getting the loan is not automatic. If you can't provide a collateral, the bank will turn down your loan application.

However, the most important lesson for us to learn here with this example is that since the bank has a limited amount of capital in her custody at any given time, therefore, if she lends you a certain amount, that amount automatically leaves her account, which makes it impossible to lend it to another client. Thus, the money that the bank has lent to you is the opportunity cost of the limited resources in her custody which it can no more sell or lend again to others who are also interested in buying, using or borrowing her money. In view of the fact that quiet a number of people and companies are interested in lending or using the bank's limited money (resources), she is compelled to charge or ask for the highest price, or interest her money can fetch in the free market, determined by the laws of demand and supply.

The concept of opportunity cost is of 'great' importance in economics because it influences every decision in which scarcity of means and a choice between alternatives play their part. Whatever choice we make comes at a price. It's not free. When we make a choice, especially, when we make investment decisions, since our resources are limited, we are compelled to forgo other investment opportunities in other to satisfy our want or choice. Therefore, whenever we make a choice, or make investment decisions, we strive to get the maximum value or price/profit for our limited resources.

Why has the company decided to take all the trouble to produce the goods or products that we need? Or why has the bank taken the risk to lend us money? Are they acting out of love? Are they guided by altruism? Definitely NO. They are acting in their self-interest. They have used their resources to produce products that we have a demand for, and sell them to us at the maximum price possible in the free market. The price that we have paid for the products or the loan is the compensation of the company and bank respectively.

In his famous book, "The Wealth of Nations," the famous Scottish economist, Adam Smith, made a statement which has become classics in economics: "We get our breakfast not because of the benevolence of the baker, brewer and butcher, but because they are pursuing their self-interest. The baker, brewer and butcher, just like the bank have combined different products and ingredients to produce bread, beer and meat that we have for our breakfast. We, in turn, compensate them by paying the market price for their products. It is worth noting here that the baker did not steal the flower or wheat that was used in making the bread. He paid for it. Likewise, the bank has not stolen the money that she lends to us. She also pays depositors for keeping the money in her custody to conduct business transactions. In other words, depositors sell their money to the bank, and the bank in return resells the money to borrowers, in form of loans at the highest price possible in the free market.

Now, please try to imagine that a manufacturing company sells her products at, or below the cost price, or gives them out completely for free. Try to imagine the bank lending out its money for free, without getting back neither the principal nor the interest. What do you think will become of such a company and bank? It's obvious that they will both go bankrupt, sooner or later. Undoubtedly, there is no 'economic sense' for a company to give out her products for free, just as it makes no economic sense for a bank to lend out money absolutely for free.

But has it ever occurred to you that basically that's what the south has been doing since 1914? Just like depositors put their money in the custody of their banks, the oil, gas and other mineral resources in the south are limited resources put in our custody by generations of unborn southerners; our future great great great grandchildren. The mineral resources in the south are like trillions of dollars in the bank. We have been giving them out 'absolutely for free' to the north in the name of building a 'fake and non-existing' One Nigeria! The north has taken hundreds of billions of dollars of the oil money without paying back neither the principal nor the interest on it. Do you want your ethnic group to be involved in such a 'loose making' business transaction or do you want to own a bank that gives out money without collecting back neither the principal nor the interest? I am sure you don't.

There is an English proverb that goes thus: "You can't eat your cake and have it." Suffice to say that this proverb is no more valid- at least as far as Nigeria is concerned simply because the north not only has a monopoly on power, but also has 'unlimited and free' access to the vast mineral resources in the south which are worth trillions of dollars! All in the name of building One Nigeria that we never subscribed to! Definitely, they are eating their BIG and TASTY cake, and have it at the same time. Even the British were not that lucky during colonialism.

THE ONE TRILLION DOLLAR INVESTMENT DECISION

Let us continue our analysis with another example. Supposing you have $1 trillion dollars to invest in 5 mutually exclusive projects: A,B, C, D and E, each of which costs exactly $1 trillion dollars. In other words, you can not invest in 2 or more projects simultaneously. You can only invest in one project, and no more. Thus, going by the explanation made earlier, the projects not invested in are the opportunity cost of the project that you have chosen. Supposing the 5 projects give the following return on investment (R.O.I.) A= -25%, B=0%, C=5%, D=15% and E=30% respectively? All things being equal, which project will you invest your $1 trillion in? If we assume that you are a rational business man, then, it's obvious that you will go for project E with the highest return. According to Harry Becker, the 1992 Nobel Laureate in economics, "Economics is the art of getting the maximum out of life." What Becker is telling us in essence is to always strive to maximise the value of our resources or investments. In Corporate Finance, investors are thought to choose investments that give the highest Net Present Value (N.P.V.) i.e. the maximum profit possible.

Going by this sound economic advise by a Nobel Laureate, which, in actual fact, is based on common sense, we are bound to ask the following questions. Are the Niger Deltans, and the south in general getting the maximum from their investments or resources? Are the Niger deltans and southerners maximising their profit by investing hundreds of billions of dollars in the north? But has it ever occured to you that the south, all along, has chosen that unprofitable project A, instead of project E that could have maximised our profit? Do you want your ethnic group to continue investing in that loose making project A?

Let us continue our analysis from another angle. Supposing you are planning to form a company. You have at your disposal a very big plot of land, all the necessary equipments, adequate and well trained workers to run it and $1 trillion dollars in the bank. In other words, you have 'everything' necessary to run your company. Now the $1 trillion dollars question for you to answer. If you are approached by a stranger who has practically no money, equipments, but only very badly trained workers to form a joint venture with him, will you accept his offer? Again, if we assume that you are a smart business man, who is rational in his thinking and decision making, then you will definitely turn down his offer simply because you not only already have all the resources needed to run your business, but such a joint venture will definitely make your business unprofitable. The proposal will just not add any value to your business venture! But has it ever occured to you that the south, in actual fact, has been compelled to enter exactly into this kind of loss making joint venture with the north since 1914 by the British.

ABUJA: THE OPPORTUNITY COST OF ONE NIGERIA PROJECT.

As I have already written in one of my articles titled; "Abuja: Capital of Nigeria or Northern Nigeria? there is practically no need for a new capital. For a developing country like Nigeria, it would had been rational to get on with Lagos, and invest the oil revenues on infrastructures, education, health care service, agriculture, industries, etc. For a developing country like Nigeria, moreover, that has just got her independence, investing in a white elephant project like the construction of a new capital from 'scratch' is not only irrational, but tantamount to 'economic suicide!' You don't really need to have a PhD in economics or be a professor in economics to understand these basic things. Nigeria's case as far as building a capital completely from scratch is concerned is UNPRECEDENTED in the modern world. To the best of my knowledge, Nigeria is the only country in the world, at least in the last 50 years, that has embarked on building a new capital completely from scratch while at least 90% of her citizens do not have regular access to basic amenities like water and electricity, even till the time of writing.

The north did not buy this common sense economic argument, they though differently. The fact that Lagos belongs to the Yorubas, one of the 3 major ethnic groups, made them feel vulnerable. Thus, Lagos became unacceptable and politically inappropriate as the future capital of a post independent Nigeria. As far as the north is concerned, this is more than enough argument to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of our money in building a new capital from scratch. They least concerned about the huge cost of Abuja to Nigeria, especially to the southerners. They were more concerned about their security and how to retain their monopoly on power which automatically opens the door to the enormous resources in the south.

The civil war not only confirmed the fear of the north but prompted them to accelerate the relocation of the capital to the north. With an overwhelming majority in the army, compared to southerners, moving of the capital from Lagos, in the south, to Abuja, in the north was one of the major and bold decisions or moves the north made in order to guarantee her grip on power. In any case, the north must be given credit for this smart move, which was most likely sold to them by the British. They understood that with political power firmly in their hands, and Nigeria's 419 Constitution in place to give it a strong backing, all the mineral resources in the south are theirs for grab. Unfortunately, this political decision has cost the south hundreds of billions of dollars. Abuja is one of the VERY COSTLY PRICES the south is paying for the One Nigeria project.

For a better understanding of this topic, let us assume for a moment that the north is a sovereign country - without the south. Would they have embarked on building a new capital which involves hundreds of billions of dollars from scratch? It is very unlikely. They won't even dear it. And in case, they took the decision to implement such a white elephant project, where would they have got the money? Would they have used their own money - if at all they have it? That's also very unlikely. Could they have borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars from IMF, World Bank and other international banks or lending organizations to finance Abuja? Definitely NO! No international bank or lending institution will EVER give out hundreds of billions of dollars in loan, moreover, to a developing country to finance the construction of a new capital from scratch even with a collateral, talk less of the fact that the north simply does not have a collateral to support a loan of such a huge amount. And if by any miraculous means they found an international bank that was ready to take the risk to lend them hundreds of billions of dollars without a collateral to build a new capital, they would have to pay back the loan with a very high interest since capital, as we have already learnt is not free but comes with a price. Where will they get hundreds of billions of dollars with interest to pay back the loan? Could they have got it from their groundnuts pyramids that have long disappeared? Or from their rams? I doubt it. But luckily for the north, they did not have to crack their brains about that as far as they were in power, and most importantly, the south, extremely rich in oil, gas and other mineral resources, is a member of the One Nigeria project. They just took hundreds of billions of dollars from the oil revenues of the Niger delta, which they have a free and unlimited access to, and built a 'brand new' capital for themselves. They don't need to worry themselves about paying back the money with accrued interest. After all, according to a Yoruba proverb: "Nkan ta wa lo si Sokoto, o wa lapo sokoto!" Meaning; "Why take the trouble to go as far as Sokoto when what you need is right inside the pocket of your trouser (sokoto). In other words, why borrow hundreds of billions of dollars, which needs to be paid back with a very high interest, from international banks in order to build a brand new capital, when the money could as well be taken from the Niger delta for free?

The political decision taken by the north to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of the oil revenues on building a new capital from scratch in Abuja is a very good example to illustrate what is meant by selfish interest. Abuja is a project that is profitable; politically, militarily and economically for the north, but yielded the opposite result for the Niger deltans and the south in general. The north has used the resources of different ethnic groups in the south to defend her selfish political, military and economic interests, at the expense of the south. The north was not fazed with the fact that they are using the resources of other ethnic groups at will and for free, and without their permission.

ONE NIGERIA: NOTHING BUT 'LEGALISED ROBBERY' OF THE SOUTH.

In order to get the 'full' economic implication of what the south lost building Abuja. Try to imagine that the Niger delta is a Sovereign country. Try to imagine for minute that just a 'quarter' of the hundreds of billions of dollars that went into the construction of a new capital from scratch in Abuja, was instead invested in the Niger delta. What difference would this have made on the Niger delta and its inhabitants? Now, please try to imagine again that ALL, and not a quarter nor half, of the hundreds of billions of dollars that went into building roads, universities, schools, power stations, international airport, house of assembly, expensive mosques and churches, power stations, Senate house, Aso rock; providing and maintaining expensive cars and accommodation for ministers, senators, representatives, senior civil servants; paying of salaries of all civil servants, e.t.c went instead into the construction of roads, universities, international airports, schools, hospitals, rail networks, factories, water dams, power stations, infrastructures, e.t.c. What difference would that have made in the lives of the Niger deltans? Now, please try to imagine again just for a couple of minutes, that all the financial and human resources from the south that were squandered in the development of the north, including Abuja, were instead invested 'completely' in the south. What difference would that have made on the south and the lives of the southerners? What have the Niger delta and the south as a whole got in return for the hundreds of billions of dollars of their resources that were invested in Abuja and the north in general? NOTHING! The hundreds of billions of dollars belonging to the south that were invested in Abuja and the north have in no way improved neither the lives of the Niger deltans nor southerners as a whole. The south gave out hundreds of billions of dollars to the north for free but got 'absolutely' nothing in return! Don't you think that we would have been much better off if we had invested hundreds of billions of dollars in our own territory? Don't you think that it would have been much better if we had built Abuja for ourselves, and not for the north,? In that case, we don't need to risk our lives travelling down to Abuja in order to enjoy all the facilities provided with our money because Abuja will be right in our backyard. Unfortunately, the north was smart enough to take hundreds of billions of dollars from us to build Abuja for themselves, free of charge! The north has Abuja to show for our money, but we have nothing to show for our resources. No Abuja, no better life! No regular supply of electricity, water, no infrastructures, no hospitals, no industries, no nothing. The north took from us hundreds of billions of dollars, that we could have invested on ourselves, absolutely for free. This is one of the very costly prices the south is paying for the fraudulent 'One Nigeria' project that is being sponsored by the north and the British respectively. Abuja is one of the opportunity costs of One Nigeria project that the British forced us into, and the north is desperate to keep us in it at any cost. The unavoidable question we need to ask ourselves now is: "Is the south obliged to continue squandering hundreds of billions of dollars in the north, whom we have absolutely nothing in common with, all in the name of building One Nigeria, and because the British decreed so in 1914?

The ONLY way to put a stop to this squandering of our resources is to break away from the north and concentrate all our resources exclusively on our own development. By doing so, we will be defending our economic interests with our 'own' resources, and not pursuing any selfish interest, as the north has been doing. This is not only the best option that will guarantee our rapid development, but as well 'unavoidable' for our survival as ethnic groups and nations respectively.

The south is endowed with large reserve of oil, gas and other mineral resources. However, as has already been mentioned, our most invaluable assets or resources are our highly skilled manpower. In terms of quantity and quality, the south surpasses the north by a significant ratio, except in the army where admission of southerners is purposely limited. The south is endowed with more than enough resources to build one of the strongest economies in the world. We couldn't have asked God for more.

I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubts that if we, i.e. the south can harness or concentrate all our human and mineral resources on our own development, we will experience an 'explosion' in development that will accelerate the rate of our growth at least 10 times faster than the present rate. Breaking away from the north and concentrating our resources 'exclusively' on our own development is the optimal investment project that will maximise the value of our investment or resources. We need to understand that this is the only way to achieve project E with a return of 30% which was described above. We need to understand that any other option is a 'compromise' that not only deprives us the opportunity to get the maximum value for our resources, but is against our political, military and economic interests. Since 1914, through 'hook and crook' methods, we have been compelled to invest in the loss making project A called One Nigeria by the British and the north. There is no economic sense for the south to continue her unsubscribed membership in 'One Nigeria." One Nigeria is nothing but 'legalised' robbery of the south by the north, which was made possible by the British.

TO BE CONTINUED....