Forwarded as received: Following repost is a reality to consider. Can we bear this in mind in forging ahead...
Princeton N. Lyman, the former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria and South Africa,
delivered a very poignant speech on the panel titled "The Nigerian State and
U.S. Strategic Interests" at the Achebe Colloquium at Brown University. Lyman suggests that rather than continually emphasize
Nigeria's strategic importance, it would behoove us to consider elements
that might eventually lead to Nigeria's irrelevance on the international
stage.
TRANSCRIPT OF SPEECH (TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE VIDEO SPEECH)
Thank you very much Prof. Keller and thanks to the organizers of this
conference. It is such a privilege to be here in a conference in honor of
Prof. Achebe, an inspiration and teacher to all of us.
I have a long connection to Nigeria. Not only was I Ambassador there, I
have travelled to and from Nigeria for a number of years and have a deep and
abiding vital emotional attachment to the Nigerian people, their
magnificence, their courage, artistic brilliance, their irony, sense of
humor in the face of challenges etc.
And I hope that we keep that in mind when I say some things that I think
are counter to what we normally say about Nigeria. And I say that with all
due respect to Eric Silla who is doing a magnificent work at
State Department and to our good friend from the legislature, because I
have a feeling that we both Nigerians and Americans may be doing Nigeria
and Nigerians no favor by stressing Nigeria's strategic importance.
I know all the arguments: it is a major oil producer, it is the most
populous country in Africa, it has made major contributions to Africa in
peacekeeping, and of course negatively if Nigeria were to fall apart the
ripple effects would be tremendous, etc.. But I wonder if all this emphasis
on Nigeria's importance creates a tendency of inflate Nigeria's opinion of
its own invulnerability.
Among much of the elite today, I have the feeling that there is a belief
that Nigeria is too big to fail, too important to be ignored, and that
Nigerians can go on ignoring some of the most fundamental challenges they
have many of which we have talked about: disgraceful lack of
infrastructure, the growing problems of unemployment, the failure to deal
with the underlying problems in the Niger-Delta, the failure to consolidate
democracy and somehow feel will remain important to everybody because of all
those reasons that are strategically important.
And I am not sure that that is helpful.
Let me sort of deconstruct those elements of Nigeria's importance, and ask
whether they are as relevant as they have been.
We often hear that one in five Africans is a Nigerian. What does it mean? Do
we ever say one in five Asians is a Chinese? Chinese power comes not just
for the fact that it has a lot of people but it has harnessed the
enterpreneurial talent and economic capacity and all the other talents of
China to make her a major economic force and political force.
What does it mean that one in five Africans is Nigeria? It does not mean
anything to a Namibian or a South African. It is a kind of conceit. What
makes it important is what is happening to the people of Nigerian. Are their
talents being tapped? Are they becoming an economic force? Is all that
potential being used?
And the answer is "Not really."
And oil, yes, Nigeria is a major oil producer, but Brazil is now launching
a 10-year program that is going to make it one of the major oil producers
in the world. And every other country in Africa is now beginning to
produce oil.
And Angola is rivalling Nigeria in oil production, and the United States has
just discovered a huge gas reserve which is going to replace some of our
dependence on imported energy.
So if you look ahead ten years, is Nigeria really going to be that relevant
as a major oil producer, or just another of another of the many oil
producers while the world moves on to alternative sources of energy and
other sources of supply.
And what about its influence, its contributions to the continent? As our
representative from the parliament talked about, there is a great history
of those contributions. But that is history.
Is Nigeria really playing a major role today in the crisis in Niger on its
border, or in Guinea, or in Darfur, or after many many promises making any
contributions to Somalia?
The answer is no, Nigeria is today NOT making a major impact, on its region,
or on the African Union or on the big problems of Africa that it was making
before.
What about its economic influence?
Well, as we have talked about earlier, there is a de-industrialization going
on in Nigeria a lack of infrastructure, a lack of power means that with
imported goods under globalization, Nigerian factories are closing, more
and more people are becoming unemployed. and Nigeria is becoming a kind of
society that imports and exports and lives off the oil, which does not
make it a significant economic entity.
Now, of course, on the negative side, the collapse of Nigeria would be
enormous, but is that a point to make Nigeria strategically important?
Years ago, I worked for an Assistant Secretary of State who had the longest
tenure in that job in the 1980s and I remember in one meeting a minister
from a country not very friendly to the United States came in and was
berating the Assistant Secretary on all the evils of the United States and
all its dire plots and in things in Africa and was going on and on and
finally the Assistant Secretary cut him off and said: "You know, the biggest
danger for your relationship with the United States is not our oppostion
but that we will find you irrelevant."
The point is that Nigeria can become much less relevant to the United
States. We have already seen evidence of it. When President Obama went to
Ghana and not to Nigeria, he was sending a message, that Ghana symbolized
more of the significant trends, issues and importance that one wants to put
on Africa than Nigeria.
And when I was asked by journalists why President Obama did not go to
Nigeria, I said "what would he gain from going? Would Nigeria be a good
model for democracy, would it be a model for good governance, would he
obtain new commitments on Darfur or Somalia or strengthen the African Union
or in Niger or elsewhere?"
No he would not, so he did not go.
And when Secretary Clinton did go, indeed but she also went to Angola and
who would have thought years ago that Angola would be the most stable
country in the Gulf of Guinea and establish a binational commission in
Angola.
So the handwriting may already be on the wall, and that is a sad commentary.
Because what it means is that Nigeria's most important strategic importance
in the end could be that it has failed.
And that is a sad sad conclusion. It does not have to happen, but I think
that we ought to stop talking about what a great country it is, and how
terribly important it is to us and talk about what it would take for Nigeria
to be that important and great.
And that takes an enormous amount of commitment. And you don't need saints,
you don't need leaders like Nelson Mandela in every state, because you are
not going to get them.
I served in South Korea in the middle of the 1960s and it was time when
South Korea was poor and considered hopeless, but it was becoming to turn
around, later to become to every person's amazement then the eleventh
largest economy in the world. And I remember the economist in my mission
saying, you know it did not bother him that the leading elites in the
government of South Korea were taking 15 - 20 percent off the top of every
project, as long as every project was a good one, and that was the
difference. The leadership at the time was determined to solve the
fundamental economic issues of South Korea economy and turn its economy
around.
It has not happened in Nigeria today.
You don't need saints. It needs
leaders who say "You know we could be becoming irrelevant, and we got to do
something about it."
Thank[truncated by WhatsApp]
