I know it is fashionable in foreign policy circles in Western capitals to assume that "Nigeria" = "Northern Nigeria", i.e. "Northern Nigeria is the only relevant part of Nigeria".

This is nonsensical, and it is time to dispel that notion.
Southern Nigeria still have Africa's largest gas reserves, access to the sea, a relatively educated work force and the potential to be West Africa's industrial powerhouse.

We tend to focus a bit too much on "agriculture", but industry matters too.
Under "Nigeria" as presently constituted, Southern Nigeria will not attain its full potential. The first challenge is leadership (at the local level).

In the South East, there is no "leadership". Period. There are placeholders who don't know their left from their right.
In the "South South", "leadership" is mercenary and up to no good, on the same intellectual level as an illiterate militant group leader.

In the South West, the "leadership" is so assured of its "political sagacity", so it behaves like the one-eyed man in the land of the blind.
A segment of leadership in South West made a quality decision to work against the overall interests of the South. By 2023, we will see how far they go.

With parochial leaders like Buhari, critical infrastructure in the South will be by-passed for "railways to Niger Republic".

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Onye Nkuzi

Onye Nkuzi Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @cchukudebelu

18 Feb
Does anyone remember the letter written by 21 US scholars to Secretary Clinton in 2012, advising against designating Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organisation?

They argued "that responding to Boko Haram requires a "diplomatic, developmental, and demilitarized framework".
I am no scholar, but I was shocked that any reasonable person, much less "scholars", could write such a letter. By 2012, Boko Haram was on a rampage, and it was clear that "diplomacy" wasn't going to deal with the problem.
I then began to doubt the quality of US scholarship on Nigeria, if what was so clear to ordinary Nigerians was not clear to so-called "Nigeria experts".

The only other explanation was that there were other motivations behind the letter.

Neither explanation is comforting.
Read 4 tweets
18 Feb
India doesn't need to depend on the "Belt and Road Initiative" or Chinese funding for infrastructure - because the Japanese are investing heavily in India's infrastructure.

Japan is a "silent, but effective actor", they invested heavily in South East Asia's infrastructure.
Right now, China and Japan are competing on infrastructure investment in South East Asia.

(Japan also invested, heavily in China's infrastructure - shortly after China's "opening" under Deng).

US hasn't been keen on infrastructure financing, for more than 40 years.
Every serious person knows the US never going to be serious about infrastructure financing in the developing world - for the foreseeable future.

They will invest in oil and gas infrastructure like the Total project in Mozambique, but that's about it.
Read 4 tweets
18 Feb
Many people in China believe in Africa's future economic prospects. We know this not because they talk about it every day on the @FT or @TheEconomist, but because they act on it - consider Chinese private sector activity in Africa.
In contrast, the sentiment in the US is Africa will never amount to anything, so no point investing there.

I watched a leading geopolitical analyst, @nytimes best selling author, essentially saying that "whatever doesn't get built in Africa in 3-5 years, will never be built".
This guy (who has never been to Africa), used a combination of "Africa's geography" and "the retirement of baby boomers in the US over the next five years" - to "prove" that "finances for investment in capital projects around the world will dry up" - so "Africa is doomed".
Read 5 tweets
27 Jan
I remember the 1990s. I was in the South East then. During the mid 1990s, many Ogoni people fled oppression for refuge in the South East. Their anger and pain was indescribable.

"Nigeria" wants you to ignore your anger & pain - forever, for the sake of so-called "unity".
But what is the point of "unity" at the cost of my dignity as a human being? We don't answer that question. "Nigeria" tells you to "shut up" and "forget the past".

That nonsense is unsustainable, and people express their anger & pain, & Nigeria is unravelling.
If we are honest with ourselves. Nigeria unraveled in the 1960s, was held together by crude oil wealth in the 1970s, and since the 1980s has embarked on a slow process of terminal decline.

Nigeria represents the sum of our fears, not our hopes.
Read 7 tweets
27 Jan
Robert D. Kaplan describes "four Africas", he seems to be on to something.

1. The first is Africa of the Indian Ocean Basin, extending from the Horn to Mozambique. This will the first part of Africa to be integrated into the Asia economy.
In this part of Africa, there are several states vying for regional dominance - Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia and probably Sudan. Potentially the most "competitive" part of Africa.

2. The second "Africa" is Southern Africa, dominated by Pretoria.
3. The third "Africa" is Central Africa, there's a gaping Congo DRC sized hole here. The fate of this region depends on Kinshasa getting its act together. Not looking good.

4. The fourth "Africa" is West Africa, where Nigeria and France vie for influence.
Read 6 tweets
25 Jan
During the American Civil War, there were loads of European military observers - because that was the nearest thing to a "modern war" they had seen in a long while (Europeans faced vastly inferior Asian and African opponents).

Then there was the Franco-Prussian war of 1870/71.
By the time Europeans fought each other in the 1914 - 18 "Great War", the Franco-Prussian War had been over for at least 43 years (and that was before the age of automobiles and aircraft) and the American Civil had been over for around 50 years.
How does this apply to the modern age? Well, the last time the US and its allies faced a peer competitor in battle was 70 years ago. They've had a lot of experience battling vastly inferior forces, but will that experience be useful in dealing with a peer competitor?
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!