Admin – Page 7 – A Fairer Europe

Downsizing Nigerian Diplomacy

“The downsizing of Nigerian Missions is an inevitable pill that needs to be swallowed under the current economic realities of the country and the dire need to eliminate wastefulness and financial leakages. Along with the downsizing comes the need for retraining and skills upgrade of key Foreign Service staff in service delivery and modern leadership. The concern is whether these operations could be undertaken in such efficient manner that an already ailing system is not compromised to a point of total collapse. The current Onyeama Reform seem humane when balanced against the potential redundancy that would have ensued. The redeployment arrangements makes sense”

– Collins NWEKE, Global Affairs Analyst & Former Board Chairman Nigerians in European Diaspora commenting on the planned closure of 10 Nigeria Foreign Missions and staff rationalization

There are strong indications that Federal Government has approved the closure of nine foreign missions and their conversion to non-residency representation or concurrent accreditation. The closure is part of measures to reduce the cost of running Nigeria’s foreign representations in line with the present economic reality.

The affected missions are those whose absence portends no serious bilateral or diplomatic effect. They include the Permanent Mission to the D-8 in Istanbul, Turkey; the Africa-South America Cooperation Forum (ASACOF) in Caracas, Venezuela; embassies in Belgrade, Serbia; Colombo, Sri Lanka; Kiev, Ukraine; Prague, Czech Republic; the High Commission in Singapore as well as Consulates in Buea, Cameroon and Sao Paulo in Brazil.

Also approved for rationalization is the number of officers at foreign missions, estacode for local travels and award of honorary consuls. The government also ordered that posting staff of home ministries to foreign missions should be discontinued, while Foreign Service officers should be trained to carry out multiple tasks including administration, immigration, trade, culture and education related functions.

The rationalization exercise will affect all 119 Nigeria’s foreign missions. Apart from 35 missions, the government directed that all other missions should be run by an ambassador and not more than three home-based staff. The level of local staffing, it said, must be controlled.

A letter from the Chief of Staff to the President, Abba Kyari, addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Geoffrey Onyeama dated June 8, 2016, said the practice of violating staffing ceilings for each mission must be stopped and corrective measures be put in place. Consequently, it said, there should be a review of the staff strength necessary for each mission.

“Rules and regulations as well as entitlements (estacode) for local travels at post should be reviewed downwards and strict compliance enforced. Similarly, cost and usage of communication and utility services should be reviewed and drastically reduced, and the current entitlement of house maids for senior officers other than the heads of mission and deputy chiefs of mission, where applicable should be discontinued,” it added.

The federal government also discovered that the award of honorary consuls was open to abuse by unscrupulous businessmen. The practice, it said, should be reviewed in accordance with international best practices. “Some of these measures may have the effect of bloating the number of Foreign Service Officers at headquarters. To address this consequence, officers may be deployed to other ministries, departments and agencies to help coordinate their interface with diplomatic missions/international organizations.

“State governments should also be encouraged to receive at least two Foreign Service officers on secondment to assist in providing guidance to their increasing interface with diplomatic missions/international organizations,” the government said. It said the arrangement would engender greater coordination and coherence within the official positions diplomats receive when they visit ministers or governors who often make statements with foreign policy implications without appropriate briefs from the Foreign Affairs ministry.

“Through these Foreign Service liaison officers, not only the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but our diplomatic missions abroad, will also be sufficiently briefed on the activities and conversations of diplomats from their host countries serving in Nigeria. “While this is only one solution, the MFA should also carefully examined the consequences of overstaffing at headquarters as a result of the planned rationalization and make other recommendations to address the problem. This may include offering redundant officers redeployment to home ministries or early retirement from service without loss of benefit,” the government said.

An official at the Nigerian Consulate Office in Georgia, Atlanta, USA, according to Daily Trust said some key staff in the various missions had been directed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to either do a needs assessment or return home and evaluate various staff strength in the missions ahead of the shake-up. The official said the need for some staff at post was questionable, adding that there are administrative officers that have been on posting even when some of their services are not needed there.

He said some missions are not needed because there is hardly any serious bilateral trade or diplomatic impact of some of those countries, some in Africa and others in Asia, which the official noted may not have been reciprocating Nigeria’s diplomatic gestures.

Meanwhile, a number of former diplomats frowned on the federal government decision, saying shutting of some missions sends a signal to the world that the Nigerian economy is in really bad shape. And that it will harm country’s standing in the international community more than the little money that would be saved from such decision.

Curled from African Ripples under the title Nigeria Closes 10 Missions, Rationalizes Staff by Akin Akingbala

Reflections on Elusive Diaspora Policy for Nigeria

Nigerian Diaspora Day today gives room for somber reflections as I did about this time a year ago through an opinion piece. I stated then “Despite its commendable vision and sparse achievements, the humongous shortcomings of the Diaspora Day are threatening in 2015 to explode in the face of all stakeholders” I concluded the piece with the following “to get the Diaspora Day right, you must first get the Nigerian Diaspora Policy right” Since then, not very much has happened around the Diaspora Policy. However the American idiom “a new Sheriff in town” typically used during periods of power transition could be applied to events surrounding the 2016 Diaspora Day in Nigeria. This adage is deployed particularly when the way things are done are experiencing some changes, or when a new person takes control. In the case of the National Diaspora Day of Nigeria it is a combination of a new operating environment and new persons wrestling back hijacked control from mini cabals of a national policy instrument.

This new Sheriff in town is dogmatic about corruption and has a very low tolerance level for it or anything resembling it. I am not sure how he did it but I understand that people around him are self-conscious to the point that they feel that if he looks you in the eyes, he might just read your mind and know if you are thinking of indulging in corrupt practices. That fear alone is already creating some saints around the corridors of power. That is very good because the culture of impunity and financial recklessness in organizing the Diaspora Day until 2013, the year I led the global Nigerian Diaspora delegation to the event in Nigeria, is deafening. I worry for most of the ‘organizers’ of Diaspora Day between 2005 and 2013 because should the new Sheriff decide to order an audit of what had gone on, some may either go on exile or commit suicide before the arms of the law catch up with them. That is how bad I believe it was. I am neither an investigative journalist nor a criminal investigator, so I might not have the capacity to deliver the evidence I hear you thinking about. However I have been a principal actor in the Diaspora politics since inception. Even at that I continue to have unanswered questions. The most cardinal of the questions are: what is the budget for the Diaspora Day event on annual basis since 2005? What have they being spending on and why has the budget remained a secret till date? Who actually manages the budget? How come there has never been a cost-benefit analysis of the annual event? What is the actual reason for the mushrooming of new proxy ‘Diaspora’ organisations, even based in Nigeria?

In public financial administration these questions are very basic. They should normally fall under the freedom of information principles of any democracy. A few times I have had conversations with Nigerian legislators and administrators in the Civil Service around these basic but pertinent questions, I am laughed off as one of those intellectuals in the Diaspora that has lost touch with Nigeria because, according to them “this is Nigeria, we don’t work like that here” End of story! Signs are emerging that the end of that story appears to come with the end of an era. It was an era of financial wastefulness, of arrogance of power, of imprudence, of treachery and of national disappointments. By design or accident, just as the new Sheriff came into town, other officials who appear to understand their briefs, who care more for national development than their narrow self-interest took positions in different offices related to the Diaspora. Two calls to mind.

Permanent Secretary (Political) Key among them and I speak now as an outsider having taken the backbench after serving out my term as Board Chairman of the Nigerian Diaspora in Europe in 2013, is the Permanent Secretary (Political) at the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation. Unlike those before the current Perm Sec, the gentleman understands that it was for good reasons that President Olusegun Obasanjo facilitated the establishment and recognition of Nigerians in Diaspora Organisation (NIDO) as the official partner of Government on Diaspora matters. The gentleman understands that it is anti-government to work against the policy of the government that you are supposed to be serving.

House Committee on Diaspora Affairs & Senate Committee on Diaspora The current Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Diaspora Matters seems to understand that micro-management of the Diaspora is not cut out for a federal legislator. The focus should be on the big policy picture rather than the mundane palaver of how the Diaspora should be sidelined in an event over which they should have control. A House Committee Chair who realizes that it is not within her priority space to determine which Diaspora gets which prominent speaking slot at the Diaspora Day. She seems to realize that while it makes sense to relate with all Diaspora organisations, due recognition needs to be given to the body recognized by government as official partners on Diaspora matters. The House Committee Chairman would not act in ways that appears that she encourages the set-up of phony ‘Diaspora Groups’ to unfairly compete with the official Diaspora body, thereby neutralizing their influence and playing into apparent divisions or actually playing a role in encouraging discords amongst different Diaspora communities rather than unifying them.

The Diaspora Body A body that appears immune to change both in attitude and strategic approach is the Nigerian Diaspora themselves as embodied by the official body called NIDO. The undemocratic tendencies of some of its leaders are the starting point of its ills. If the way and manner in which you came into office is questionable, you have lost the first major goodwill and recovering credibility and integrity, both ingredients needed to get serious people to believe in you and work with you, may prove difficult if not impossible. The truth of the matter is that lack of credibility and a bit of leadership mediocrity continues to deter popular qualitative participation in the organisation. Next to that, the debate has got to get more serious if NIDO is to move from point A to point B. By way of example, I shall underline two debates that were trending in the run-up to the Diaspora Day but also make the point that on those two occasions, two individual Diaspora provided at different times, two voices of reason. So hope is not entirely lost on condition that they do not shout themselves hoax and give up or that they are singled out by those given to shouting loudest and blackmailed.

In a trending discussion, many had decried the poor planning and execution of the Diaspora Day 2016. Just to give you an idea, like many others, I had personally registered on 10 July for the event within an hour of announcement that the online registration form was active. This was for an ANNUAL event holding just two weeks away. I had also indicated, as requested, that I was keen to make a presentation on a USD63 Million infrastructure investment under a private public partnership arrangement with Delta State government involving a number of foreign investors and because Diaspora equity participation would be a desirable thing for country and the Diaspora themselves, it made all the sense in the world to make a presentation at the Diaspora Day and also arrange a site visit to Delta State with interested Diaspora. Registration was not acknowledged until 21 July, three days before the event. Even at that, there was neither an event programme nor a confirmation that the presentation is programmed to hold. I could therefore not firm up arrangements with the project engineers and representatives of Delta State Government who were positively disposed to hosting a breakaway delegation in Asaba. Meanwhile I was torn between flying to Abuja for the Diaspora Day or staying back in Belgium to receive a powerful trade delegation that included serious-minded agricultural commodity traders and other non-oil magnates. Of course given the lack of demonstrated seriousness by the Diaspora Day folks, my decision was easily made. I was staying back in Belgium!

Meanwhile one condemnation followed the other about how badly organized the Diaspora Day is and how much it would continue unabated as long as the Diaspora are not in charge of the organizing. As long as the Civil Servants drive the Diaspora Day, one of the contributors interjected, we will end up this way! Then came a pointed analysis from a Diaspora, Sam Afolayan. Sam’s analysis categorized the Diaspora in six groups. He submitted that out of these six categories, two were the most dangerous categories as follows:

“The Owanbe Group: Those who see this event (i.e., the call for Diaspora support) as a jamboree and an opportunity to freeload on government’s program while attending to personal “businesses” at the government’s expense …skipping in and out of the event locations to “let their people know that they are very important to the nation’s development” …while having their feeding & lodging expenses paid by the Nigerian tax-payers. A considerable numbers of folks in this group are wont to pontificate on the irredeemable state of affairs in Nigeria! Great showmanship!”

“everybody in-between: the fence-sitters and free-loaders; the emergency diasporas; the jobless diaspora opportunists who have been on the outside of the mainstream economy in their host countries and see the DD as way to present a false façade of having been in the diaspora; the somewhat dubious Diaspora-based ‘entrepreneurs’whose ‘businesses’ depend on government patronages and see the DD as an opportunity to feather their nests by showcasing their “services”; and the cynics who do not even believe in Nigeria or that the DD forum can lead to the configuring of any credible development architecture that can be used to re-engineer the polity or accomplish any useful purpose, etc., etc…”

Another instance of the sort of debate that tells you that the Diaspora needs to get their acts together but where in the end one single Diaspora provided a sane voice was in regards to the fight against corruption and how the Diaspora taking advantage of the Diaspora Day event, must use their combined forces to banish corruption from Nigeria. Note that the Diaspora Day is an ANNUAL event. Meanwhile in the wisdom of one of the leaders, a capital initiative like fighting corruption can be initiated, planned and executed about a week to the Diaspora Day. A curious mind will inquire where these fine brains have being since the last Diaspora Day, why is the life-changing idea coming just a little over a week to the event; where does the suggested action fit within the operational objectives of the Diaspora Day 2016 that is if there is any? As you shake your head in awe about such disjointed approach, one of the Diaspora joins the conversation and proudly reminds the audience that at the Diaspora Day, right there on the ground, he had proposed a placard-carrying action to show the Diaspora disapproval of massive corruption but that when the appointed time came, he was left standing alone with a lone placard as nobody showed up. What a strategically planned and executed anti-corruption crusade from the Diaspora. Sure we could do better was what Kenneth Gbandi was saying when, like Sam Afolayan, he came out with a level head to remind the audience that four months earlier the German Chapter had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC). The MoU reads in part, “The Facilitator (Outstanding Nigerians professionals, academicians and business people in Germany as represented by NIDO Germany) is desirous of contributing its quota to the fight against corruption both at home and in the diaspora by partnering with the Commission. The Commission shall collaborate and partner with the Facilitator in the provision of broadcast materials and assist in the enlightenment and education of the Diaspora about the work of the commission”

The expectation that a clear Diaspora Policy will emerge, in isolation or under the wings of a Diaspora Commission, is becoming more and more an elusive dream. In the interim, as the Diaspora converges in Abuja, my hope is that the fear of the new Sheriff will persist so that the financial recklessness surrounding the Diaspora Day will seize. My other prayer is that the Permanent Secretary (Political) is not moved off his course in maintaining cordial relationship with any and all Diaspora groups while making it clear that NIDO was established in the first instance to put paid to the polarization in the Diaspora community. I understand that the reason the Perm Sec was late in planning and execution is because his Diaspora Day budget was not released on time. Typical, I should say. Keep pushing for a change in that regards but be conscious of the fact that your chances of sustainably sorting that problem out is if you build a formidable coalition to bring about the effective signing into law of the Diaspora Commission. Under the wings of the Commission, the Diaspora Day budget could hang. The leadership of the House Committee on Diaspora should stick with the big picture and continue to reject every temptation to get down to petty Diaspora politics and micro-management. On its part, the Diaspora can use more Sam Afolayans and Kenneth Gbandis, who through their contribution to the debate have shown vision and strategic approach.

Brussels, Belgium 25 July 2016

The author, Collins Nweke served Nigeria’s official Diaspora body first as Executive Secretary / Chief Executive starting from 2004 and later as General Secretary of the Board of Trustees. He finally served as Board Chairman until November 2013. He holds a Doctor of Governance Award (Honoris Causa). A 2014 candidate Member of European Parliament, he writes from Brussels, Belgium where he serves as second-term Municipal Legislator at Ostend City Council.

Breaking the Burundi Peace and Crisis Circle

Over the past year Burundi and its political crisis is degenerating into a sore on the collective conscience of the world. The relative silence of the international community has drowned the loud silence of the Bujumbura protesters who trouped out of the streets of the capital in their hundreds against the announcement by the ruling CNDD-FDD party that incumbent president Pierre Nkurunziza would be their candidate for their next election. A lot have been happening since 26 April 2015 when 15 year-old Jean Nepomuscene Komezamahoro or Jean-Nepo to his friend, was tragically gunned down at point blank range by a police officer on his way back from church. The current social, economic and political abyss into which Burundi has sunk began on that faithful day, ushering in a period in Burundi history now referred to a Peace and Crisis Circle.

In the one year since the beginning of the current crisis, I have offered analyses and commentaries pointing to the measures required to install lasting peace in that beautiful but troubled nation with violent government repression pretty commonplace. It is estimated by international observers that around 1,500 people have died so far with a further estimated 700 people unaccounted for, perhaps executed. My consistent position has been that though the crisis in Burundi can only be sorted out via a genuine political dialogue, the international community has the obligation to push the Burundian government to return to the negotiations table for open, frank broad-based and credible discussions.

It is elevating to learn that an inter-Burundi Dialogue commenced in Arusha, Tanzania on 12 July 2016. The Dialogue is being attended by a broadly composed stakeholder groups including former Heads of State, the National Commission for Inter-Burundi Dialogue (CNDI), all Political Parties registered in Burundi, Civil Society Organizations, human rights and military observers of the African Union, Faith-based Groups, prominent Political Actors inside and outside Burundi, as well as Women and Youth groups. I was guest of Television Continental (TVC) at the conclusion of the first day of the Dialogue to evaluate the proceedings and to touch on the expectations out of the Dialogue. I have clustered the expectations out of the Dialogue along stakeholder lines including Civil Society Organisations & Opposition Forces, Donor Agencies and International Organisations and Government of Burundi.

GOVERNMENT OF BURUNDI

After 10 years of steady economic growth, Burundi has experienced, expectedly, a negative growth of 4 percent in 2015. Starting with Belgium, funds for police, judicial, political and infrastructure reforms were withheld or withdrawn from international partners but not cancelled. International donors are expected to use their seat on the negotiation table to spell out their benchmarks for re-engagement. In parallel to a political dialogue process, the Government of Burundi and international donors are expected to intensify their conversation on the socioeconomic impact of the crisis. It is perhaps reasonable to expect the government of Burundi to underwrite the pre-crisis conditions that will enable resumption of reforms which will in turn improve the socioeconomic situation of the population.

DONOR AGENCIES – INTERNATIONAL ORGORGANISATIONS

It is expected that the socioeconomic dimension of the current crisis would receive a robust attention. In line with the holistic approach of peacebuilding, the dialogue must serve as a platform to include the socioeconomic dimension into the international debate on Burundi. One can only expect that this dialogue will help to clarify mutual expectations. Government’s vision must be to reset cooperation with international partners. The Burundi Poverty Reduction Strategy is a crucial tool in this regards. The donor agencies and international organisations will seek to mobilize the combined forces of the Civil Society as natural allies to know precisely what they want to see in the strategy paper and use this opportunity to redefine and push through their demands.

CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS – OPPOSITION:

Preliminary findings by the National Commission seem to indicate that a key request of the population is to amend the Constitution and to revise the Arusha Agreement particularly as they relate to ethnic quotas, term limits for the President, and dual citizenship. Some national and many international observers are expressing concerns that tensions in Burundi could rise if the current process evolves into a campaign to revise the Arusha Agreement. That notwithstanding, it may not be an unfair expectation for a roadmap to national unity to be achieved whereby the president is allowed to serve out the current term in exchange for an understanding on the reversal of the Arusha Agreement.

The Collins Nweke interview on TVC News Hour on Inter-Burundi Dialogue is available here

Globalizing from the Left

As the world reels from the Brexit shock, it is dawning on economists and policymakers that they severely underestimated the political fragility of the current form of globalization. The popular revolt that appears to be underway is taking diverse, overlapping forms: reassertion of local and national identities, demand for greater democratic control and accountability, rejection of centrist political parties, and distrust of elites and experts.

This backlash was predictable. Some economists, including me, did warn about the consequences of pushing economic globalization beyond the boundaries of institutions that regulate, stabilize, and legitimize markets. Hyper-globalization in trade and finance, intended to create seamlessly integrated world markets, tore domestic societies apart.

The bigger surprise is the decidedly right-wing tilt the political reaction has taken. In Europe, it is predominantly nationalists and nativist populists that have risen to prominence, with the left advancing only in a few places such as Greece and Spain. In the United States, the right-wing demagogue Donald Trump has managed to displace the Republican establishment, while the leftist Bernie Sanders was unable to overtake the centrist Hillary Clinton.

As an emerging new establishment consensus grudgingly concedes, globalization accentuates class divisions between those who have the skills and resources to take advantage of global markets and those who don’t. Income and class cleavages, in contrast to identity cleavages based on race, ethnicity, or religion, have traditionally strengthened the political left. So why has the left been unable to mount a significant political challenge to globalization?

One answer is that immigration has overshadowed other globalization “shocks.” The perceived threat of mass inflows of migrants and refugees from poor countries with very different cultural traditions aggravates identity cleavages that far-right politicians are exceptionally well placed to exploit. So it is not a surprise that rightist politicians from Trump to Marine Le Pen lace their message of national reassertion with a rich dose of anti-Muslim symbolism.

Latin American democracies provide a telling contrast. These countries experienced globalization mostly as a trade and foreign-investment shock, rather than as an immigration shock. Globalization became synonymous with so-called Washington Consensus policies and financial opening. Immigration from the Middle East or Africa remained limited and had little political salience. So the populist backlash in Latin America – in Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, and, most disastrously, Venezuela – took a left-wing form.

The story is similar in the main two exceptions to right-wing resurgence in Europe – Greece and Spain. In Greece, the main political fault line has been austerity policies imposed by European institutions and the International Monetary Fund. In Spain, most immigrants until recently came from culturally similar Latin American countries. In both countries, the far right lacked the breeding ground it had elsewhere.

But the experience in Latin America and southern Europe reveals perhaps a greater weakness of the left: the absence of a clear program to refashion capitalism and globalization for the twenty-first century. From Greece’s Syriza to Brazil’s Workers’ Party, the left has failed to come up with ideas that are economically sound and politically popular, beyond ameliorative policies such as income transfers.

Economists and technocrats on the left bear a large part of the blame. Instead of contributing to such a program, they abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets. Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures.

The enthroning of free capital mobility – especially of the short-term kind – as a policy norm by the European Union, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the IMF was arguably the most fateful decision for the global economy in recent decades. As Harvard Business School professor Rawi Abdelal has shown, this effort was spearheaded in the late 1980s and early 1990s not by free-market ideologues, but by French technocrats such as Jacques Delors (at the European Commission) and Henri Chavranski (at the OECD), who were closely associated with the Socialist Party in France. Similarly, in the US, it was technocrats associated with the more Keynesian Democratic Party, such as Lawrence Summers, who led the charge for financial deregulation.

France’s Socialist technocrats appear to have concluded from the failed Mitterrand experiment with Keynesianism in the early 1980s that domestic economic management was no longer possible, and that there was no real alternative to financial globalization. The best that could be done was to enact Europe-wide and global rules, instead of allowing powerful countries like Germany or the US to impose their own.

The good news is that the intellectual vacuum on the left is being filled, and there is no longer any reason to believe in the tyranny of “no alternatives.” Politicians on the left have less and less reason not to draw on “respectable” academic firepower in economics.

Consider just a few examples: Anat Admati and Simon Johnson have advocated radical banking reforms; Thomas Piketty and Tony Atkinson have proposed a rich menu of policies to deal with inequality at the national level; Mariana Mazzucato and Ha-Joon Chang have written insightfully on how to deploy the public sector to foster inclusive innovation; Joseph Stiglitz and José Antonio Ocampo have proposed global reforms; Brad DeLong, Jeffrey Sachs, and Lawrence Summers (the very same!) have argued for long-term public investment in infrastructure and the green economy. There are enough elements here for building a programmatic economic response from the left.

A crucial difference between the right and the left is that the right thrives on deepening divisions in society – “us” versus “them” – while the left, when successful, overcomes these cleavages through reforms that bridge them. Hence the paradox that earlier waves of reforms from the left – Keynesianism, social democracy, the welfare state – both saved capitalism from itself and effectively rendered themselves superfluous. Absent such a response again, the field will be left wide open for populists and far-right groups, who will lead the world – as they always have – to deeper division and more frequent conflict.

This article was first published on 19 July 2016 by Dani Rodrik in Social Europe under the title ‘The Popular Revolt Against Globalization and the Abdication of the Left’

Youths in Cultural Cross-Roads

(Being text of brief Opening Statement by Councillor Collins NWEKE, Ostend City Council, at a Debate organised by CAW Intercultural Women Centre Antwerp Belgium on Saturday 4 June 2016)

Protocols

I understood from the debriefing for this debate that I am to give a summary keynote talk on the relationship between youths of African background and their parents here in Belgium. It therefore means, essentially, that the topic of the debate is also about me because before anything else – politician, global affairs analyst, management consultant, whatever – I am an African, an African parent raising two sons, born here and growing up in this society. Once I established that fact, I decided that rather than refreshing my mind on the theory and principles of parenting and strategies of teen-parent conflict resolution, I was going to rely on my personal experience. After all the most rewarding and at the same time most challenging is being a parent. I must say that the personal experience that I refer to has over the past decade being enriched by my encounter with fellow-parents and interactions with young people of African origin, some of whom are present here tonight.

Identity

I guess the first important issue in the discussion of tonight is the question of identity. The psychologist, Terri Apter it was, I believe, who once said that “”the real cause of turbulence, is the teen’s own uncertainty about who he is, alongside his eager need to establish a sense of identity” Does being African, growing up here in Europe or born in Africa and raising your kids here in Europe bring with it an extra burden of establishing your identity? Am I African or European? Should I raise my kids as Africans or as Europeans, after all as the saying goes “ when you are in Rome, behave like the Romans” Some would say that you do not need to be either of the two. They hold that what you should strive to be is the best of both cultures. By this they mean that it is up to you to identify good elements of the African culture and marry those with the good elements of the European culture. Easier said than done, I can hear some of you think. Sure, the search for your identity involves self-questioning and self-discovery and self-development across a range of issues, including gender, faith, intellect and relationship.

The early culture conflict

The self-questioning begins during the teenage period and intensifying. The teen questions everything. By coincidence or by design, they question particularly those parts of your culture as African parent that you hold dearest to your heart. Is rebuke the answer? Or should you simply conceal things? Just don’t discuss it? A culture of open communication will help you through those early conflict years. It feels good to want to see African culture as the best in the world but I am sorry to disappoint you. Though one culture may conflict with another culture, no culture is best or worse. One culture can only be different from the other. An African youth growing up in Europe has the right to consider some aspects of his or her parents culture less than pleasant and the African parent has the obligation to explain in clear terms the reasoning behind the culture. And why not, admit it when some aspects of your culture defy logic and require a review. I have had to explain to my two young sons why you can’t call a much older African person by their first names. He is either uncle or she is aunty. I am not sure my explanation was ever convincing to my sons but because I explained why it is the way it is, they simply call these ‘’strangers’ uncle or aunty. Is it ever too early to initiate these discussions? No, I don’t think so. Indeed the earlier the better. I would rather that even before my son has a girl-friend, he already knows that it is unacceptable in my culture for my daughter-in-law to call me by my first name than wait until the ‘crime’ is committed. The key question here is: are we communicating enough, openly and honestly? If we are not, we should and that is why this initiative is simply great.

The Debate

It is in the context of open and honest communication that debates are very important. Debates are positive confrontations. At debates such as the one this evening, we hear opposing views because like a coin, every issue has the other side. More than proving a point that I am right and you are wrong, a debate helps to broaden your mind, enriches your soul and finally helps you to grow. Researches upon research have demonstrated that conflicts are mainly borne out of lack of understanding. There is no doubt therefore that efforts such as this debate contribute to building a more tolerable, harmonious society.

I hope this debate will help you grow in understanding one another, in accepting that no matter the differences in opinion or ideology, we are all members of a common humanity. I wish you a fruitful and fulfilling debate and of course a fantastic After Party.

Thank you

Antwerp, Belgium 4 June 2016

Collins Nweke becomes Ambassador Integration & Diversity

Councillor Collins Nweke (Green) is to be crowned on Saturday, 4 June 2016 with the “Ambassador of Integration & Diversity” Award at an annual gala night in Hasselt, Belgium. Organized by Perspectief vzw, a Hasselt Non-Profit Organisation, the Award will be presented by Hilde Claes, Mayor of Hasselt. Wouter Van Bellingen is also one of the Award laureates. “Of course I was pleasantly surprised and flattered when I received a phone call stating that I was nominated for the Award,” said the Ostend City Councillor. “That my integration narrative was adjudged successful and my longstanding commitment to the success of a harmonious diverse society appreciated is gratifying. There is no end to integration. It is a continuous process. After more than 20 years in Belgium, I’m still working on it” Collins adds, laughing.

Perspectief vzw, organizers of the Ambassadors of Integration & Diversity, is a non-profit, multicultural organization in Hasselt borne out of the mindset of intercultural art collective. The organization campaigns for integration and acceptance of the growing diversity of our world. Jo Schreurs, secretary Perspectief vzw: “We want people who are committed professionals and / or volunteers for successful propagation of a diverse society, to be recognized and duly awarded. Through his activities Collins Nweke has demonstrated clear vision for intercultural relations and peaceful co-existence of people with diverse background. In addition to well-known names in Belgium such as Collins and Wouter (Van Bellingen) there are also lesser-known names among people who whose work in this field were adjudged highly valuable, be it in the workplace or at home and in their private contacts in promoting integration”

Twenty years ago, Collins Nweke of Nigerian origin, was co-founder and went on to become the founding President of “Jakoeboe vzw” the first Ostend Refugee Reception Group for and with its target group. The Municipal Advisory Board for ethnic minority policy (MARO) also benefited from his wealth of experience and knowledge during its formative years when he was elected its first Chairman. Within the Green Group in the Ostend City Council, Collins has the portfolio of diversity. With his appointment as Councillor for Social Welfare and his direct election as Municipal Legislator in the October 2012 elections, history was made in Ostend and West-Flanders as he became its first elected political office holder of foreign origin and born abroad.

Kristof Cornelis

Chairman Green Party Ostend

Buhari Blessing and Burden of Corruption

Sometime today, President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria will arrive in London to join 50 other world leaders at a landmark international anti-corruption summit called by Prime Minister David Cameron. While on air en route London, he would probably be reading news reports about the United States (US) government and the European Union (EU) threats to withdraw support for his anti-corruption crusade on account of reluctance or even failure to reopen the Halliburton bribery scandal. Incidentally he would be sharing Summit and perhaps dinner table with US Secretary of State John Kerry. This will probably constitute private dinner talks between both of them.

Anyone who thought this Halliburton bribery scandal will go away soon without getting to the bottom of it has a big shock waiting. Just to bring you up to speed, the affair dates back to 1994 when the Nigerian government launched an ambitious plans to build the Bonny Island Natural Liquefied Gas Project. The affair had revealed, obviously long before we heard of any Panama Papers, an alleged network of secretive banks and offshore tax havens used to funnel $182 million in bribes to Nigerian officials in exchange for $6 billion in engineering and construction work for an international consortium of companies that included a then Halliburton subsidiary.

Forward to 2016. Prime Minister David Cameron, whose Conservative Party is this week recovering from the loss of London mayoral race to Labour Party’s Sadiq Khan despite a dirty anti-Muslim campaign is calling the “Anti-Corruption Summit London 2016” for three core reasons. Firstly to bring together world leaders, business, non-state actors and civil society to agree a package of practical steps to expose corruption so there is nowhere to hide. Secondly to punish corruption perpetrators and support those affected by corruption and lastly to drive out the culture of corruption wherever it exists. He is said to be giving President Buhari some prominence at the Summit by giving him a speaking slot at the plenary session. Exactly why is not immediately clear. At least not to ordinary mortals like you and I.

We can only surmise that President Buhari’s projected prominence in the London anti-corruption summit is an indication of how highly he is held in the international crusade against corruption. This is as much a blessing as it is a burden. It is a blessing because it places at the feet of Nigeria, some international goodwill that will be priceless resource in the task ahead. It however comes with the burden of high expectation that Mr President will truly stop at nothing, spare no one, no matter how highly placed, in the investigation and prosecution of corruption.

I should come back to the Halliburton affair because I think that it is one of the true tests of the President’s genuine resolve to fight corruption in Nigeria. Our friends and allies in the EU and the US are telling us that there appear to be some foot-dragging by Nigeria, to bring to books, Nigerian individuals already fingered in the investigation carried out in the United States because they are very big wigs. I think that Mr President needs to also do more to prove to critics that his anti-corruption crusade is not selective and that it targets only members of the opposition while some elements within the ranks and file of his ruling APC are said to be equally corrupt with no investigation initiated or arrests made.

The involvement of non-state actors and civil society operatives in the London meeting is a very good idea. Hopefully, unlike government representatives who are supposed to be nice, they can ask more penetrating and why not, even uncomfortable and nasty questions about the true state of global anti-corruption crusade and perhaps compel Western governments to use legal instruments already at their disposal to try, for example former heads of State, implicated in corruption but whose countries are reluctant to put them to trial. Wouldn’t it be fun to hear President Buhari privately ask Secretary John Kerry why he is pressurizing him to take on the big wigs in Nigeria. If the US is so sure of the evidence at its disposal why do they appears unwilling to use its “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” to bring to trial by themselves, the Nigerian big wigs they perceive to be under shield by the Nigerian government?

I am not sure John Kerry or the US for that matter has ever heard this saying “Naija no dey fear threat” If they have, then there is nothing to worry about the threat to withhold assistance to nigeria because President Buhari is not expected to be shaken by it. That said, it may be fair to assume that given President Buhari’s dogmatic credentials, he is not leaving any stone unturned in fighting corruption. The man means business I would think. But the man also needs time. Should he be given all the the time in the world? No, because the world is impatient to see arrant corruption, those with recklessness and impunity committed to the annals of history. One low-hanging fruit though is for him to act in ways that show that current members of his ruling APC are also focus of corruption investigations. He needs no more time to do that if he cares whether his corruption fight should be taken seriously.

My TV Continental interview on the London anti-corruption summit is available here

Sunday Sermon on Workers’ Day

This Sunday 1 May 2016 is special. It doubles as Workers Day. Sadly workers are faced with a gloom outlook that there is not much to celebrate this Worker’s Day Sunday. What is worse is that the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has told Workers to brace up for another bad year because the outlook for 2017 may be worse than 2016.

Those who are lucky to be in employment are also facing uncertainty: job security level is low as permanent contracts are scarce. People are now having to work longer because pension ages are increased. Manual labourers are dropping dead on the workfloor because, afraid of calling in sick, workers who should be marching to their doctors’ consultations are hurrying instead to work. Informal arrangements are being made daily by the most vulnerable of workers who accept pay-cuts below minimum wage in other to remain in employment. Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises are squeezed so tight that those who manage to stay afloat of bankruptcy filling, have joined the league of the new working poor.

Underemployment has become the new norm especially for the migrant workers. Medical Doctors trained in one part of the world, usually in countries with rogue leaders, would have to retrain for up to three years in other countries, usually countries with greedy paternalistic leaders, and still end up as auxiliary nurses. Teachers trained in developing economies are finding it even harder to find jobs as ‘cleaners on contract’ in schools where they are supposed to be teaching in the developed economies.

There is nothing really to write home about Workers whose day it should have been today. I therefore decided to turn my Workers Day Sunday sermon to another ugly matter that has being trending in my native Nigeria in recent past: The Fulani Herdsmen. There is something about Nigeria and trending stories that beats imagination. There is no clean press anywhere in the world, I must admit, but Nigeria is a unique case. Except you don’t mind your fingers burnt badly, it is very important to verify every story out of the Nigerian media for reliability. Over the past weeks and worsening by the day, the media have being awash with stories of Fulani Cattle Herdsmen attacking and killing scores of people especially in the North-Eastern part of Nigeria while both State and Federal Governments appear unable or unwilling to confront the mayhem. The previous week, a think-tank of Nigerians in which I am a member, had put together a team under my prodding to verify the facts and come up with a position paper for the Presidency on activities of the Fulani Herdsmen. While that was ongoing, I had to go on air at Television Continental (TVC) to offer my periodic thoughts on the State of World Affairs, this time on Burundi one year after political crisis erupted there.

Hell was nearly let loose amongst a minority of Nigerians who berated me for speaking about Burundi and not about my native Nigeria and indeed, Igboland where Fulani herdsmen were killing my ‘people’ in their hundreds. An isolated number of those who reacted to the TVC interview did so in good conscience and certainly meant well. Others were irrational and surely unfair, hiding perhaps under the latest crisis to subtly play their Igbo secessionist card. In my rather measured reactions, I always opened with a flat condemnation of the killings but refused to divulge that I was working on a reaction but first I needed to get the facts straight. I chose rather to ask whether it was being suggested that I turn down media invitation to offer thoughts on other parts of the world because Nigeria was on fire?

In any case, while trying to get my head around what’s actually happening with the Fulani Herdsmen, more questions than recommended solutions have continued to play up in my head. For a start, some serious mayhem is confirmed to have been unleashed in parts of Igboland by a group alleged to be Fulani herdsmen. How sure can we be that these killers are indeed Fulani herdsman? Of course there are numerous terrorism theories out there but one that played up with added concern is: could it be that Boko Haram has infiltrated Igboland disguised as Fulani herdsmen? How come it took the President more than 24 hours to issue a statement on the matter? What about the State and Federal security apparatus? Why are they not being deployed to curb the menace?

The scaremongers are also having a field day just as the conspiracy theorists are strategizing on the most efficient ways to wipe up sentiments on the back of the latest confusion and despicable killings. Some correlation has been made with 1804 with the emergence of the Fulani in the geographic space now called Nigeria, gaining dominance over the Hausas who hitherto occupied the space. They came not with smiles but with terror. At the time, the Fulani invaders as they were and still are called, showed no interest in negotiation but seized the lands after fierce battles. Some 20 years later, around 1823, the same ethnic group showed up in Ilorin ostensibly to assist the Are-ona-kakanfo, ruler of Ilorin, in revolt against his sovereign, Alafin Aole, the Alafin of Oyo. The ruler’s confidence was said to be gained and a strategic position was gained to facilitate his murder. Since then, till date, Ilorin has been under Fulani rule. A couple of years later, in 1825, Yorubaland was the focus of the Fulani conquerors as history told us. They were not pretentious of their desire to islamize the Yoruba Kingdom and Empire. If the fierce battle of Ibadan did not save the day, Yorubaland as we know it today would perhaps be an annex of the Fulani Empire.

As these historical narratives dance around my head, I can’t help but wonder if these thoughts are helpful or destructive. Is it paranoia or are these handwritings on the wall for the Igbo’s to read and switch on the alert button? One thing is crystal clear in all of these: the case for a united Nigeria is not receiving any boost with these unfolding massacre of the Igbo man, woman and child in their sleep or in broad daylight. Have I given up hope in project Nigeria? Absolutely not but I am hopeless about the current crop of Nigerian leaders. They seem not to have any value for individual Nigerian life. They appear by their actions to be disconnected from the Nigerians that should have been their number one priority in the first place. They place no value on dialogue and are obviously permanently hunted by the prospect of disintegration of the country to the point that, for them, discussing national sovereignty is akin to break-up of Nigeria. The sooner it is realized that a purposeful dialogue is inevitable, the sooner Nigeria is saved from the impending disintegration with bloodshed. I hope I am wrong that the current ravage of the Fulani Herdsmen or whatever name they go by, is strongly indicative of a worsening threat to Nigeria’s unity.

An Open Letter to President Muhammadu Buhari on Anti-Poor Economic Policies of Nigeria

“I cannot find any justification for the same group of people, who have been particularly hit, to be hit again by their president through the N50 tax. I guess the rule here should be that you don’t hit a man who is already down…”

I write to you because I am concerned about the state of micro-entrepreneurs and low income earners in Nigeria. I am empowered to write you on the strength of paragraph 50 of your 2016 Budget Statement as presented on 22 December 2015 to the joint sitting of the National Assembly, which reads “We will welcome and be responsive to your feedback and criticisms”

Your Excellency Sir, to go straight to the point, the circular released on 15 January 2016 by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) directing all banks and financial institutions to commence the charging of N50 on banking instrument transactions from N1,000 and above, is unfriendly and insensitive to the growing army of Nigeria’s micro-entrepreneurs, low income earners and the unemployed otherwise referred to as the poor.

Mr President, while I support the initiative as part of recent efforts by your administration to boost non-oil revenue, there are reasons to believe that the policy could have been better thought-through in terms of its impact on the struggling poor. And that is the main thrust of this write-up.

A responsive government should not be in the business of instituting internally generated revenue mechanism that tightens its grip on micro-businesses and the poor. If this policy step was informed by the suggestion of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that the government takes steps to improve its public finances by increasing tax compliance and blocking leakages, you may also recall that the same IMF recommended for example that you prioritize better, more efficient corporate tax collection for the multinationals and high-end earners. I have wondered why your administration decided starting with economic measures that will drive the last nails into the coffin of a suffering lot.

Your party, All Progressives Congress (APC) manifesto highlights accelerated economic growth as one of its 7 cardinal programmes. This policy may be well intended however the reality and unintended consequences is that this policy is going to put structural obstacles and challenges in the way of the very people that need to be lifted out of poverty or prevent them dropping into poverty trap. For those who live from minute by minute funds, this is unaffordable tax. In addition implementation on the ground always takes on a different format because of Nigeria’s many weak institutions and poorly trained staff.

I note with limited relief that transactions on savings accounts are exempt from the N50 charges. Limited relief because while the exemption makes sense, it does not go far enough. It seems to suggest that if you are someone of a small financial means, current account should be out of your reach. Such mindset contradicts the whole cashless society campaign that the country has undertaken over recent years and with huge success too! I worry that with the N50 charges, those on the lower ebb of the earning ladder would revert to the old way of keeping physical cash under their mattresses. I do not intend to reproduce here the benefits to micro-businesses of a cashless society but suffice to highlight the added security and efficiency that it provides the consumer and how vulnerable they shall be rendered (once again!) in its absence. Pick-pocketing and highway robbery are but two examples of the old order that may make a comeback.

Your Excellency Sir, there is also the issue of the newly introduced current account maintenance charges (a directive from the CBN to all commercial banks), to deduct N1 from EVERY N1000! transaction. This policy will significantly affect the low paid who draw monies from their current account in low figures because that is all they can afford. Policies like this will make people keep more cash at home, a move that could increase armed robbery across the nation as robbers will believe more cash will be available in the homes. Government itself is at the losing end too. A time when efforts should be intensified to create a robust formal economy is the worse time in Nigeria’s developmental trajectory to discourage some segments of consumers from fully having all transactions pass through electronic payment systems or the financial institutions. Cash payments actually give a boost to the informal economy and this is exactly one of the unanticipated fall-outs of the N50 tax. And I am sure that is not what you want.

In analyzing the impact of the fallen commodity prices as preface to your 2016 budget presentation, you lamented rightfully as follows “This huge decline is having a painful effect on our economy. Consumption has declined at all levels…..The small business owners and traders have been particularly hard hit by this state of affairs” You could not have said it better, Mr President. I cannot find any justification for the same group of people, who have been particularly hit, to be hit again by their president through the N50 tax. I guess the rule here should be that you don’t hit a man who is already down or as someone here will say, you can’t naked a naked man especially when you did promise, Mr President that you will “as a matter of urgency, address the immediate problems of … the terrible living conditions of the extremely poor and vulnerable Nigerians”

Permit me the luxury of proposing a mutually beneficial banking transaction charge for micro-entrepreneurs and low income earners. Before delving into the nitty gritty of the proposal, I should submit I am not reinventing the wheel. The proposal is based on your plan to create “proper linkage of budgeting to strategic planning” by enhancing the utilization of the Government Integrated Financial Management Information Systems (GIFMIS) to improve financial management. It also attempts to take into accounts all of the draw-backs I have highlighted above, turning them from threats to opportunities, both for the consumer and for government. The fact that the recently established Efficiency Unit is working across Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to identify and eliminate wasteful spending, duplication and other inefficiencies already provides a good cushion to shore up the proposal. Here it is!

All consumers are charged the flat rate of N50 as originally proposed. Or better still the threshold for charging is raised to a higher level. Banks should also be obliged to “know your customer” and are expected to ensure abuse is mitigated. If this is done then the suggestions below will not be necessary.
The paid charges to Deposit Money Banks (DMBs) and financial institutions are held in an account which could be designated as Transactions Charges Suspense Account, similar to the NIPOST Stamp Duties Account as initially conceived.
The difference however is that rather than transfer monthly the collected duties those collected from the eligible consumers are held back at the DMBs. Eligibility criteria will obviously be established beforehand and may include individuals on minimum wage, unemployed, micro-entrepreneurs with turn-over not exceeding an amount to be determined in line with existing norms, et cetera
At the end of the financial year, an eligibility form is completed by the consumer. Once ascertained and approved, the money is refunded. At the same time, I am confident that the newly established Efficiency Unit will take on policy impact evaluation and assessment as a standard practice rather than the exception that it currently is in Nigeria.

Among other advantages, this system allows for some sort of compulsory savings which motivates the consumer to be involved in the scheme, taking away the real fear of inadvertently losing the gains so far made in the cashless campaign. This can also form part of the stage in systematically building a formal economy. The micro-entrepreneur of today may become the multinational business leader of tomorrow

By Collins NWEKE with inputs from Titi Banjoko and Jide Iyaniwura. Collins, Titi and Jide are members of the London-based think-tank, Nigerian Leadership Forum

Evaluating Africa-EU Climate Partnership Post-Paris

On the sidelines of the conference to launch the Covenant on Demographic Change in Europe at the EU Committee of the Regions, I took some time out to speak to the EU Public Affairs programme, ‘Inside the Issues’ to evaluate the COP21 climate conference that took place in Paris, France. The broad focus of the brief but punchy talk was EU-Africa climate change relations within the context of the global discussions at COP21. On one hand you have African countries who do the least to pollute but pay the highest price in climate change terms. On the other hand you have the historical dimension of the EU that has been a leading contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions.

In this context the specific topics covered include:

The credibility of an EU-Africa partnership on climate change, given their divergent views.
Who were the winners and losers at COP21
Should developed countries, like the EU, pay the highest price in contributing to a better climate?

Click here or on the picture to watch the discussion, which also includes the perspective of a researcher, thus balancing politics with academics and in my opinion, excellently well delivered.