It is not easy to decide if Wikileaks and its leader Julian Assange are heros or villains? I support freedom of information, but is such freedom absolute or subject to some restraints or limits? Can international diplomacy, war, intelligence operations, multilateral cooperation and management of the modern corporation, be carried out in an environment in which all internal deliberations of diplomats, military commanders, intelligence agencies, multilateral organisations such as the United Nations, UNICEF or World Bank, and multinational corporations are liable to be splashed over the internet? As families and individuals, can we countenance a situation in which our private conversations with family members are splashed over public media?
On the other hand, isn’t it good for Nigerians to confirm some of our suspicions about the activities of some of our multinational corporations such as Julius Berger, Shell, Pfizer and others? Isn’t it nice that some of the stories which would have remained in the realm of speculation and deduction now have some credence-the things we wrote in our columns about say the provincial character of the Yar’adua administration; the rumours we heard about our erstwhile Attorney-General, Michael Aondoakaa’s penchant for demanding payment for official services; the allegations of corruption right at the top of the Yar’adua regime reaching according to US embassy officials right to first lady, Turai Yar’adua, Chief Economic Adviser, Tanimu Yakubu and Agriculture Minister, Sayaddi Abba Ruma. Now at least, these people have an obligation to deny the Wikileaks allegations or perhaps take them up with the US embassy? In short hasn’t wikileaks advanced the course of good governance and anti-corruption in Nigeria by these leaks?
These are the complex questions that the whole world will have to answer in the post-Wikileaks world! Surely, there are no easy answers. I would like diplomats to continue to offer accurate (and therefore sometimes unpleasant from the point of view of the subject) descriptions and evaluations of world leaders and other international actors in order that their nations can take the right decisions. If diplomats know that their vivid descriptions could one day show up in an internet blogsite, wouldn’t they circumscribe their communications? As some have pointed out, could Wikileaks inadvertently lead to a less-open and therefore less-transparent world as companies, organisations and nations carry out more and more of their internal decision-making orally rather than through diplomatic cables or fully-minuted meetings?
Concerning Nigeria, quite frankly beyond the corroboration, there is nothing that Wikileaks has revealed that should shock any observant Nigerian! Who would be surprised that Julius Berger flew the sick Umaru Yar’adua from Germany to Saudi Arabia? Didn’t they provide logistical support even for Sani Abacha’s self-perpetuation scheme? Why would anyone be surprised that Shell and the international oil companies would be dissatisfied with the initial draft of the petroleum industry bill, and would seek to improve the draft towards their own interests? Is that not what they have been doing since oil was discovered in Nigeria? Did the Nigerian government think Shell was a global do-gooder and Father Christmas when it agreed to second at its own expense several of its senior staff to our critical ministries and departments? Are there any enlightened Nigerians who are unaware of the role the British embassy played in pre-civil war Nigeria and which the US embassy played since then? Do we not know the roles played by US officials in “resolving” the “June 12” crisis? Is it strange to anyone that the US (and perhaps the EU as well) stressed their unwillingness to provide further bilateral or multilateral assistance to INEC if the discredited Professor Maurice Iwu remained its chair? For me, the really troubling revelation was the willingness of Pfizer to engage in dirty tricks and actual blackmail in order to compel Attorney-General Aondoakaa to back-off on his intended prosecution of the company.
With respect to President Goodluck Jonathan, I actually think the revelations cast him in better light than many critics have pointed out. As one newspaper analysis acknowledged, he comes across as sincere, committed to the national interest, statesmanly and not a desperate, self-seeking, politician like many of his contemporaries. When he acknowledges that he was not the best-qualified person for the vice-presidency in 2007 that is simply a statement of fact, but shows him off as high on emotional intelligence with a tendency to realistic self-assessment and self-deprecating nature. Contrary to what many Nigerian politicians believe, humility is a virtue, not a vice! While his assertion that he was selected to placate the Niger-Delta represents geo-political reality, his desire to focus on issues transcending the region casts him as a nationalist, rather than a sectional leader.
And of course, his comments about his level of experience were probably true in 2007 when he became the Vice-President. Surely since then the President has shown political dexterity in triangulating through the tension of the Yar’adua power vacuum and coming out with Nigeria in one piece. And since then Jonathan has consolidated his hold over the federal executive council, the military and security agencies and over large parts of the political space. What is interesting is to read the US ambassador’s mind as she continues to interact with Jonathan and concludes that perhaps it would not be a bad thing if he became Nigeria’s substantive president!
No comments:
Post a Comment