Archive for nigeriang

Sunmonu panel set to collect memoranda

Sunmonu panel set to collect memoranda

Hassan Sunmonu, the
mediator appointed to negotiate and reconcile government and members of
the organised labour over unresolved issues concerning the full
privatisation of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN), has said
he would begin to collect memoranda and other submissions from
concerned parties after next week.

Mr Sunmonu, who is
chairman of the committee, said yesterday that memoranda and relevant
documents collected from both parties would be tendered as from May 3,
2011, to allow for effective circulation among interested parties,
ahead of the first meeting two weeks later.

“It is important
that submissions and documents are tendered and circulated in advance
in order to ensure meaningful and productive discussions from the
start. The first round of meetings to kick-start series of negotiations
between the Federal Government and the trade unions in the PHCN would
commence on May 16, 2011 in Abuja,” Mr Sunmonu said.

The former
secretary general, Organisation of African Trade Union Unity (OATUU),
made this known when he met with government representatives under the
chairmanship of the Minister of Labour and Productivity, Chukwuemeka
Wogu.

Mediating truce

Mr Sunmonu, who
accepted the Federal Government offer for him to serve as Chief
Negotiator/Conciliator in the crisis last week, said a similar meeting
was held last Tuesday with members of the organised labour in Lagos,
preparatory to the commencement of the negotiation agenda on May 16,
2011.

The appointment of
the Sunmonu Committee is to help facilitate the peaceful and speedy
resolution of all labour issues in PHCN, as well as ensure full
involvement of the labour unions in the implementation of policies
under the Power Sector Reform process.

The organised
labour, through its umbrella organisations, the National Union of
Electricity Employees (NUEE) and Senior Staff Association of
Electricity and Allied Companies (SSAEAC), recently threatened to call
its members out on a nationwide industrial action that would throw the
nation in darkness from May 1 this year if government fails to publish
the White Paper on the report of the House of Representatives Committee
on Power, which probed the $16 billion scam involving the
implementation of projects under the National Integrated Power
Programme (NIPP).

Preceding the
14-day ultimatum was a demand by the union for government to
immediately take steps to resolve pending issues bordering on the
welfare of members, particularly with regard to the privatisation of
the PHCN.

The unions were
incensed that government was determined to go ahead to with its plan to
wind down the company, despite the lingering issue of workers’
unresolved entitlements.

Click to Read more Financial Stories

Group accuses Shell of increased gas flaring

Group accuses Shell of increased gas flaring

The Anglo-Dutch oil
giant, Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), has been accused of
not being truthful in its decision to end gas flaring in Nigeria.

Friends of the
Earth International, an environmental organisation dedicated to
preserving the health and diversity of the planet for future
generations, said Shell has once again flouted its promise to cut down
on its gas flaring activities.

In a statement
yesterday, the group said, “Friends of the Earth International condemns
the increase of this unnecessary and harmful practice and calls on the
Nigerian government and the international community to force Shell to
stop flaring.”

The group’s
condemnation is coming a week after Shell announced the signing of a
$101 million contract with Saipem Contracting Nigeria Limited for a
pipeline system that it said will gather a huge percentage of its
currently flared associated gas to be used in the domestic gas market.

However, Friends of
the Earth International said despite promises made by Shell since the
1990s to stop flaring the ‘associated’ gas released in oil production
in the country, the company flared more gas in 2010 than it did in
2009. This, according to the group, came to light from the
sustainability report brought out by Shell last week.

Nnimmo Bassey,
director of Friends of the Earth Nigeria and chair of Friends of the
Earth International, said, “According to its own figures, Shell flared
over 30 per cent more gas in 2010 than in 2009. This, according to
them, was mainly due to increased production in Nigeria and new
activities in Iraq.”

He added that
“Shell has been flaring gas in Nigeria since 1958. Though gas flaring
has been illegal, to them it is a standard industry practice. They
continue to reap obscene profits from the oil fields of Nigeria at the
expense of the lives and the livelihoods of the poor people. While they
speak from both sides of their mouths, we see that they are increasing
the volumes of gas flared and are thus intensifying their poisoning of
the environment and the peoples of the region.”

According to him,
they engage in this unacceptable and illegal activity just for the
maximisation of their profits. “Gas flaring is an act of ecocide and
everyone should join us to demand that Shell stops this madness,” he
added.

He insisted that
the company knew that its antics would be open to public scrutiny when,
to coincide with the release of the Sustainability Report, it hastily
announced the signing of a $101 million contract for a pipeline system
that it claimed will gather 90 per cent of currently flared associated
gas to be used in the domestic gas market.

He noted however,
that, “We are not deceived in any way. Our position has always been
clear and articulated on this matter. Shell does not respect the people
and environment of the Niger Delta. It will rather continue making
obscene profits and foul the air with the noxious fumes than capture it
and process into natural gas to the benefit of the people.”

The Shell Report

Precious Okolobo, a
spokesperson for Shell, said the company has released a detailed
analysis on its gas flaring up to date and that he had no further
explanation to make. He refused to comment, referring the reporter
instead to the report.

The analysis,
titled ‘Shell in Nigeria; Gas flaring’ and dated April 2010, said SPDC
and its joint venture partners are committed to ending the routine
flaring of gas as soon as possible and are working towards that goal.

According to the
firm in the report, in 2000, the Shell Development Company of Nigeria
Limited (SPDC) joint venture (JV) began an ongoing multiyear programme
to install equipment to capture gas from its facilities.

However, it said
the programme has been delayed by events outside its control, such as
funding shortfalls from Nigerian National Petroleum Commission (NNPC)
(the government-owned majority shareholder of the JV); security
concerns, which meant it was not safe for staff to work in large parts
of the delta for long periods of time; and delays in NNPC contract
approval processes.

“Despite the
delays, between 2000 and 2009, SPDC installed Associated Gas Gathering
(AGG) infrastructure at 33 sites, covering over 60 per cent of its
associated gas production. Unfortunately, 18 of these facilities were
either vandalised or not commissioned because of the crisis in the
delta in recent years.

“In total, SPDC
flaring dropped by more than half between 2002 and 2010 from over 0.6
billion cubic feet a day (bcf/d) to less than 0.3 bcf/d, although
production losses contributed to this decline.”

The firm says it is
partnering with the Nigerian government and the World Bank to identify
suitable Nigerian investors that would collect associated gas from
flare sites for small scale local projects. It added that over 30
potential investors have indicated their interest in this scheme and
SPDC is supporting the screening and selection processes.

This report, however, is what ERA/FoEI are contesting.

‘Our gas flaring complies with the law’

Shell said that the
gas it continues to flare complies with the law, and it would continue
its production which entails flaring until instructed otherwise.

“Where SPDC continues to flare, it complies with the law,” the firm said.

“The minister for
petroleum has the power to permit companies to flare on agreed terms
and conditions. The only way to end flaring at flare sites without AGG
equipment would be to stop oil production. This decision cannot be made
by SPDC without direct support from other JV partners, including the
government-owned majority partner NNPC.

“In a letter dated
31 December 2008, the government directed SPDC and other oil companies
to continue with production (and, therefore, flaring) until instructed
otherwise,” it added.

Just last week,
Shell announced the signing of a $101 million contract for a pipeline
system that will allegedly gather a huge percentage of its currently
flared associated gas which it claimed will be used in the domestic gas
market.

Click to Read more Financial Stories

Pension commission to go tough on companies

Pension commission to go tough on companies

The
National Pension Commission (PenCom) has said it would no longer
hesitate to take legal actions against companies that flout its orders
on registration of employes for the scheme.

In
a memo, the management of the commission also warned that it would
sanction errant companies that deduct contributions from their staff
but fail to remit such.

Private
sector organisations and other employers where there are five or more
employees are mandated to join the contributory pension scheme by
virtue of the provisions of section 1(2) of the Pension Reform Act 2004
(PRA 2004).

Accordingly,
employees of private sector organisations including firms engaged in
legal, accounting, architecture, pharmaceutical, engineering, and other
similar professional services are required to open Retirement Savings
Account (RSA) with any Pension Fund Administrator for the payment of
their monthly pension contributions, in line with the provision of the
PRA 2004.

“By
this notice, all private sector organisations including firms of
lawyers, accountants, architects, pharmacists, engineers, and similar
professionals operating in Nigeria are required to comply with the
Pension Reform Act 2004 and in particular, the provision of section
11(5) of the Act, which obligates employers of labour to deduct from
source, both the employee and employer portions of pension
contribution, and remit same directly to the pension fund custodian
designated by the employee’s PFA,” the circular stated.

Flouting the regulations

The
commission further added that remittance of such pension contribution
is required to be made “within seven working days from the date of
payment of salary of the employees.”

However,
enquiries show that many private organisations have persistently
flouted the commission’s rules on pension funds administration. While
some companies have not even enrolled their staff on the scheme, some
owe several months and don’t have their employees’ pension fund
accounts up to date.

Seun
Akintade, a consultant in Lagos, said the regulatory body should get
its staff enlightened and trained so that they can efficiently monitor
the organisations and hence be taken seriously.

“PenCom
would have to step up in terms of efficiency and regulatory duties, if
they would be taken seriously. A lot of firms fall short of their
responsibilities in this regard and so it is up for the commission to
do more than issue warnings,” she said.

Recently,
the commission said it would reveal its guidelines on plans to increase
the amount of pension funds that can be invested in the domestic stock
market.

Presently,
pension fund managers are permitted to invest only up to 25.0 per cent
of their assets in equities, 35.0 per cent in the money market, and the
rest in government bonds. The expected increase in the amount of funds
that can be invested in equities would further deepen the capital
market.

However,
apart from improving portfolio yields on pension funds assets, the
regulators need to review existing guidelines with a view to unlocking
long term capital to address Nigeria’s huge infrastructural gaps.

Click to Read more Financial Stories

BRAND MATTERS: Brands and changing market realities

BRAND MATTERS: Brands and changing market realities

The marketplace has
become highly dynamic and vibrant and as a result, brand strategies
should focus on aligning with changing market realities.

It is evident now
that old strategies may not work again with the present scenario in the
marketplace. Competition has become stiff and consumers are more
discerning than before. Unlike before, brand strategies should focus on
raising consumer interest and reinventing the rules to meet up with the
current trends in the market.

I marvel today that
I can find Mr Biggs outlets in the heart of Oshodi as well as in Abule
Egba. Several years ago, they were restricted to choice elitist
locations. However, the aggressive market penetration strategies of
Tantalizers and others forced Mr Biggs to re-think and reposition the
business.

The positioning
strategy of Tantalizers and others encroached on the market share of Mr
Biggs. Tantalizers achieved a great feat by establishing its outlets at
strategic locations. Sweet Sensation and Tastee Fried Chicken also
faced the market realities by building consumer-centric brands to
deliver on brand promise. This forced Mr Biggs to also return to the
drawing table and align with foreign partners to penetrate the market
and retain its pedigree.

Today, the Nigerian
fast food industry brands, worth 250 billion naira according to the CEO
of Tastee Fried Chicken, have grown to become dominant brands even with
the entrance of foreign brands such as KFC, Nandos, and Barcelos. If
the fast food brands have not embraced the paradigm shift to deliver
customer-centric services and move with the pace of the market, this
would have been an unfulfilled dream.

It is imperative to
state that the stronger the brand, the more it has power to influence
the market and gain acceptance. I believe this is one edge that Mr
Biggs deployed effectively to retain its pedigree. The “Mr Nigeria”
communication campaign reinforces this assertion.

Market realities
have also shown that much emphasis should not be placed only on brand
image but a strong focus on the brand and its offerings. There should
be one unique selling point for the brand that differentiates it in the
market place. It is now a focus on “what I can offer as value” as
against “this is who I am”. The brand should be viewed from the
totality of its offerings to retain consumer loyalty.

The need to gain
consumers’ attention is one area that brands have been forced to deal
with. They need to make efforts to determine consumer ratings and
continuously touch base with them. This is evident with the fast food
industry. Consumers’ patronage was taken for granted but now, the QSR
brands engage in consumer insights to improve on their service
delivery.

To remain dominant
in today’s market, it is important to evaluate consumer response in
order to build relationships and sustain loyalty. However, there is
still a long way to go in this regard due to the service delivery of
some brands within the industry.

The market
realities are telling a different story and brands need to re-invent
the rules to remain dominant in the market and survive the onslaught of
other competing brands.

Indomie noodles has
continuously developed to remain dominant. Despite the fact that
Indomie has become the generic name for noodles, it has continuously
strived to face market realities and not take anything for granted. The
introduction of the box noodle is pointer to this fact. Brands should
not rest on their oars.

Brands also need to
build visibility. This is one challenge that is facing some insurance
companies in Nigeria. The market scenario today dictates visible image
to promote brand acceptability. This is one major reason for apathy to
insurance services as visibility efforts to instil public confidence is
not there.

For any brand to
remain in today’s market, it should make every moment count for the
consumer. This clearly its distinctiveness. The strength of the brand
and its position in the mind of the consumers describe one’s market.

Airtel and its indiscriminate deduction

During the course
of the week, I lost over N500 to Airtel as a result of indiscriminate
deduction for calls never made. Each time the text message on Airtel
Millionaire promo enters my phone, I lose N100. I conducted a random
opinion sample and some other subscribers are affected too. We demand
an explanation from Airtel on this.

Click to Read more Financial Stories

Independent marketers seek full deregulation of energy sector

Independent marketers seek full deregulation of energy sector

The Independent
Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria (IPMAN) on Thursday called
for full deregulation of the energy sector to address problems of
scarcity of diesel and kerosene.

Olumide Ogunmade,
chairman, western zone of IPMAN, told the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)
in Lagos that the failure of government to attract investors to the
sector contributed to scarcity of these products.

He said that the
high prices of crude oil in the international market also contributed
to the scarcity and the high prices of the products in Nigeria.

The IPMAN chief said that some marketers were already profiting from the scarcity by hiking prices of the products.

“When the sector is
fully deregulated, many players will come into the business and create
an open market that will be attractive and ensure efficient supply.

“If the sector is
fully deregulated, it will encourage and attract investors. Building of
local refineries will also assist in addressing the scarcity and high
prices,” Mr Ogunmade said.

Click to Read more Financial Stories

CBN restates commitment to sound financial system

CBN restates commitment to sound financial system

CBN governor,
Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, on Wednesday, restated the commitment of the apex
bank to building a virile financial system in the country. Mr Sanusi
made the statement at a public hearing on bills to establish the
Nigerian International Financial Centre (NIFC), Office of the Nigerian
Financial Obudsman, and National Alternative Dispute Resolution
Commission.

The hearing was
organised by the House of Representatives Joint Committee on Banking
and Currency, Finance, and Justice. The bills seek to establish the
centre for the purpose of creating a world-class financial zone that
would act as a catalyst for economic growth.

Mr Sanusi said that
with the financial meltdown witnessed globally, the CBN was committed
to put in place a sound financial system, adding that a comprehensive
insurance bill would soon be introduced to the National Assembly for
consideration.

Click to Read more Financial Stories

Stock Exchange lists Asset Corporation’s N1.7b bond

Stock Exchange lists Asset Corporation’s N1.7b bond

The Nigerian Stock
Exchange (NSE) yesterday listed N1.7 billion zero coupon Bond 2013
series of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON).

A statement by the NSE in Lagos on Wednesday said that the bond would be listed at N1, 000 per share.

AMCON, a fortnight
ago, issued the N1.7 trillion bonds, comprising of N1.1 trillion to
replace the initial consideration bonds issued to 21 banks on December
31, as well as another N600 billion bonds to buy up the margin related
non-performing loans of non-rescued banks.

AMCON executive
director, finance and operations, Mofoluke Dosumu, who confirmed this,
said the government has granted its entire request for waivers,
preparatory to the listing of the bonds on the Nigerian Stock Exchange.

Click to Read more Financial Stories

Presidential candidate on trial for fraud

Presidential candidate on trial for fraud

The only female
presidential candidate in last Saturday’s presidential election, Ebiti
Onoyom Ndok, was yesterday arraigned before a Magistrate Court in Abuja
for allegedly issuing dud cheques to different hotels were she lodged.

Ms Ndok, the
National Chairperson of the United National Party for Development and
the presidential candidate of the party, has been in detention in
Keffi, Nasarawa State, following a court order, and remained in
detention during the presidential polls. She was arraigned in Abuja
yesterday by the police and is standing trial under Section 322 of the
Penal Code and Section 1 (1) of the Amended Cheque Act 2004.

She faces a
three-year imprisonment if convicted of the charges. The prosecution
said she lodged in a hotel from November 30, 2010 to January 24, 2011,
for which she raised a cheque of N1, 287,500 to offset the bill, but it
was dishonoured by her banker. She was said to have equally lodged in
another hotel this year, during which she incurred another bill of
N790,619 but wrote a cheque of N595,000 for part payment. It was also
returned unpaid.

The Magistrate,
Ahmed Shuaibu, however, adjourned hearing in the matter till May 12,
2011 after the prosecutor, S.A. Bandawa, told the court that
investigation into the case is yet to be completed. The accused is
standing trial for “cheating and issuance of dud cheque contrary to
section 332 of the penal code law and section I (1) of the Amended
Cheque Act 2004.”

Police charge

A charge sheet
presented by the police read: “On the day of March 2011, one Moses Ege,
of Onyx Hotel and Apartment, Abuja, came to the C.I.D department and
reported that you, Mrs Ebiti, checked into the hotel from 30/11/2010 to
24/1/11 and incurred bill of N1,287,500 for which you issued a
post-dated cheque which, upon presentation to the bank, was returned to
the clearer dishonoured.

Similarly, on the
30/1/11, one David Simon, of Harthrow Suite, Garki, Abuja, wrote a
petition to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, C.I.D, Abuja, that
sometime in the month of January 2011, you, Mrs Ebiti, lodged in the
suite and left without paying bills; and when confronted, you issued a
cheque for N595, 000 which was returned dishonoured on presentation.
And also that the total bills incurred by you is the sum of
N790,619.52. You thereby committed the above mentioned offences”.

Click to Read More Latest News from Nigeria

SECTION 39: Jaw Jaw? Or War War?

SECTION 39: Jaw Jaw? Or War War?

While we’ve been otherwise engaged, events in Africa are being dictated by old and new colonial powers.

It is hard to know
which was more dramatic: in Côte d’Ivoire, Laurent Gbagbo was detained
by Alassane Ouattara, just as he had been when the latter was prime
minister in the 1990s. No doubt Gbagbo was an oppressor, and it is not
the intention here to try “settling the precedence between the flea and
the louse” over whether it is his supporters or Ouattara’s who have been
responsible for the most human rights abuse, rape, mutilation and
massacre in the struggle for supremacy in Côte d’Ivoire. Gbagbo should
perhaps have followed the example of his Senegalese counterpart,
Abdoulaye Wade, who – by his own reckoning – had in the past twice
swallowed the bitter pill of a stolen election rather than plunge his
country into conflict. (Yes, of course, there’s a message there for
Nigeria!)

But the
intervention of France in the events that led to Gbagbo’s arrest
(notwithstanding its disingenuous attempt to present sending a convoy of
25 tanks and armoured personnel–carriers to assault his hideout as a
‘protecting civilians’ activity, with Gbagbo’s subsequent arrest due
solely to pro–Ouattara forces who just happened to be on the spot)
cannot be dismissed as merely the result of French President, Nicolas
Sarkozy’s positioning for electoral advantage back home. Rather,
Gbagbo’s fate sends a powerful message to other African leaders who
might try stepping out of line.

It certainly trumped the efforts of the ECOWAS on the Ivorien crisis.

Meanwhile, in
Libya, British Foreign Secretary William Hague’s insistence that
“Muammar Gadaffi Must Go” at the very time when an African Union
delegation to Tripoli had secured Gadaffi’s agreement to a ceasefire
followed by talks, and was on its way to Benghazi to see whether the
opposition Libyan Transitional National Council might also agree to a
ceasefire and talks, seemed designed to trump anything the AU might come
up with too.

The LTNC gave the
AU team a civil enough reception in public, being careful not to dismiss
them out of hand; but although Libyan pro–freedom groups can find yards
more examples of democracy and resistance to oppression in Africa than
in the Arab world, they have hardly hidden their contempt for Africa and
Black Africans, and after rejecting the proposal for not accepting all
their demands, were sneeringly wondering what conflicts Africans have
ever resolved. Mind you, since South African President, Jacob Zuma, had
diplomatically withdrawn from the Benghazi leg of the trip, they might
have forgotten the liberation of the entire southern part of the
continent and Nelson Mandela’s resolution of the Lockerbie matter, to
name but two.

With Western
powers openly demanding régime change, the LTNC was emboldened to not
only reject even a negotiated cease–fire unless Gadaffi stood down, but
to demand that their Western protectors provide them with weapons:
presumably so that they can outdo Gadaffi in slaughtering their
fellow–citizens.

The excuse that
previous cease–fires have not been observed is thin. After all, those
were self–proclaimed by Gadaffi, whereas what the AU took to Benghazi
was a proposal that Africa was ready to back and seek wider
international support for. If there was justified concern that Gadaffi
would continue moving his troops into position under cover of cessation
of hostilities, what stopped guarantees on that from being part of the
negotiations?

By the end of the
week, the goal of regime change was even more baldly stated with
Sarkozy, David Cameron of Britain and Barack Obama of the U.S.A.
threatening to continue bombing Libya until Gadaffi was removed. With
no cease–fire in place, the ‘protecting civilians’ mantra was still
available to the triumvirate. But it is an increasingly discredited fig
leaf.

Britain’s World
War II Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, once famously advised that
“Jaw Jaw is better than War War.” His 21st Century heirs seem bent on
encouraging peoples who would often be better off with an imperfect
peace on which they can build, to instead continue conflicts which they
themselves are only sporadically interested in seeing through to
conclusion.

The brutality that
many Libyans suffered under the ‘Brotherly Leader’ makes it impossible
not to sympathise with their resistance to ever again coming under his
control, and while Black Africa might not expect a particularly warm
relationship should the LTNC succeed in ousting Gadaffi, his own record
on the continent is hardly such as to cause undue sorrow over his
personal fate. But a negotiated cease–fire would not have re–imposed
Gadaffi’s control over those parts of the country that had risen against
him, and could well have re–emboldened unarmed civilian protesters in
those parts of Libya that had not. So why the insistence on “War War?”

PS: I’d intended
to write something rebutting the Youth Mafia’s complaints about my
article on ‘De Yoot Vote’ this week. But I realised that I would only
be repeating my ‘The Young Do Grow’ article of May 9, 2010.
(http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/Opinion/Columns/5565422–182/story.csp)
In any case, they only attacked with words — what Churchill might have
called “Jaw Jaw.”

Click to read more Opinions

SECTION 39: Jaw Jaw? Or War War?

SECTION 39: Jaw Jaw? Or War War?

While we’ve been otherwise engaged, events in Africa are being dictated by old and new colonial powers.

It is hard to know
which was more dramatic: in Côte d’Ivoire, Laurent Gbagbo was detained
by Alassane Ouattara, just as he had been when the latter was prime
minister in the 1990s. No doubt Gbagbo was an oppressor, and it is not
the intention here to try “settling the precedence between the flea and
the louse” over whether it is his supporters or Ouattara’s who have been
responsible for the most human rights abuse, rape, mutilation and
massacre in the struggle for supremacy in Côte d’Ivoire. Gbagbo should
perhaps have followed the example of his Senegalese counterpart,
Abdoulaye Wade, who – by his own reckoning – had in the past twice
swallowed the bitter pill of a stolen election rather than plunge his
country into conflict. (Yes, of course, there’s a message there for
Nigeria!)

But the
intervention of France in the events that led to Gbagbo’s arrest
(notwithstanding its disingenuous attempt to present sending a convoy of
25 tanks and armoured personnel–carriers to assault his hideout as a
‘protecting civilians’ activity, with Gbagbo’s subsequent arrest due
solely to pro–Ouattara forces who just happened to be on the spot)
cannot be dismissed as merely the result of French President, Nicolas
Sarkozy’s positioning for electoral advantage back home. Rather,
Gbagbo’s fate sends a powerful message to other African leaders who
might try stepping out of line.

It certainly trumped the efforts of the ECOWAS on the Ivorien crisis.

Meanwhile, in
Libya, British Foreign Secretary William Hague’s insistence that
“Muammar Gadaffi Must Go” at the very time when an African Union
delegation to Tripoli had secured Gadaffi’s agreement to a ceasefire
followed by talks, and was on its way to Benghazi to see whether the
opposition Libyan Transitional National Council might also agree to a
ceasefire and talks, seemed designed to trump anything the AU might come
up with too.

The LTNC gave the
AU team a civil enough reception in public, being careful not to dismiss
them out of hand; but although Libyan pro–freedom groups can find yards
more examples of democracy and resistance to oppression in Africa than
in the Arab world, they have hardly hidden their contempt for Africa and
Black Africans, and after rejecting the proposal for not accepting all
their demands, were sneeringly wondering what conflicts Africans have
ever resolved. Mind you, since South African President, Jacob Zuma, had
diplomatically withdrawn from the Benghazi leg of the trip, they might
have forgotten the liberation of the entire southern part of the
continent and Nelson Mandela’s resolution of the Lockerbie matter, to
name but two.

With Western
powers openly demanding régime change, the LTNC was emboldened to not
only reject even a negotiated cease–fire unless Gadaffi stood down, but
to demand that their Western protectors provide them with weapons:
presumably so that they can outdo Gadaffi in slaughtering their
fellow–citizens.

The excuse that
previous cease–fires have not been observed is thin. After all, those
were self–proclaimed by Gadaffi, whereas what the AU took to Benghazi
was a proposal that Africa was ready to back and seek wider
international support for. If there was justified concern that Gadaffi
would continue moving his troops into position under cover of cessation
of hostilities, what stopped guarantees on that from being part of the
negotiations?

By the end of the
week, the goal of regime change was even more baldly stated with
Sarkozy, David Cameron of Britain and Barack Obama of the U.S.A.
threatening to continue bombing Libya until Gadaffi was removed. With
no cease–fire in place, the ‘protecting civilians’ mantra was still
available to the triumvirate. But it is an increasingly discredited fig
leaf.

Britain’s World
War II Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, once famously advised that
“Jaw Jaw is better than War War.” His 21st Century heirs seem bent on
encouraging peoples who would often be better off with an imperfect
peace on which they can build, to instead continue conflicts which they
themselves are only sporadically interested in seeing through to
conclusion.

The brutality that
many Libyans suffered under the ‘Brotherly Leader’ makes it impossible
not to sympathise with their resistance to ever again coming under his
control, and while Black Africa might not expect a particularly warm
relationship should the LTNC succeed in ousting Gadaffi, his own record
on the continent is hardly such as to cause undue sorrow over his
personal fate. But a negotiated cease–fire would not have re–imposed
Gadaffi’s control over those parts of the country that had risen against
him, and could well have re–emboldened unarmed civilian protesters in
those parts of Libya that had not. So why the insistence on “War War?”

PS: I’d intended
to write something rebutting the Youth Mafia’s complaints about my
article on ‘De Yoot Vote’ this week. But I realised that I would only
be repeating my ‘The Young Do Grow’ article of May 9, 2010.
(http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/Opinion/Columns/5565422–182/story.csp)
In any case, they only attacked with words — what Churchill might have
called “Jaw Jaw.”

Click to read more Opinions