THE NIGERIAN ECONOMY: NOT YET UHURU

When the Nigerian Government announced the rebasing of her Economy in April 2014, making it  Africa’s largest, the news was greeted with  low ecstasy in the World’s most populous black Nation—Nigeria.

 Located on the West Coast of Africa, Nigeria sits atop a greater chunk of oil reserves from the Bight of Guinea making her the World’s sixth major oil exporter.

From pre-colonial and colonial times, the Nigerian economy thrived on agriculture with exception of the period of the obnoxious trans- Atlantic and trans Saharan Slave trade. As such, there is usually reference with nostalgic regrets of the glorious past when groundnut pyramids adorned the skyline in Kano, and Nigeria was ranked top exporter of oil palm, Cocoa and Rubber. On these agricultural produce from Nigeria’s constituent regions, the Nigerian economy thrived at Independence and this stirred the Country’s first National Developmental plan of 1962-1968.

The Nostalgic Groundnut Pyramids of Kano in the 1970's
Source:http://www.abiyamo.com/photo-kano-groundnut-pyramids-1975/

Aside agricultural produce, Nigeria had a burgeoning solid mineral sector. There was Tin and Columbite exploration in Jos whilst Enugu was famed for her Coal mines; even as the country looked forward to developing exploration of vast Bitumen reserves at Ondo State and Iron Ore reserves at Ovie Aladja in Delta State and Ajaokuta in Kogi State. Considering Nigeria’s vast Human resources in addition to the agricultural and mineral production, Nigeria was set for reckoning in Africa and alluded as champion of the Black race worldwide.

Fresh from Civil war in the 1970’s, the exploration of Crude Oil in commercial quantities helped stir the 2^nd National Development plan and the 3Rs (Reconciliation, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction) of the General Yakubu Gowon administration.

PortHarcourt Refinery Company Alesa Eleme
Source:http://www.post-nigeria.com/nnpcs-port-harcourt-refinery-company-nets-n11-2bn-profit/

Boosted by abundant petro-dollars, the Nigerian economy flourished; the Naira was founded, decimalized and indeed it was stronger than the dollar as exchanged for 65kobo whilst the British Pound was worth 2Naira. Foreigners sought to immigrate into Nigeria and it was said that the problem of Nigeria was not money but how to spend it.

The advent of oil export into Nigeria’s accruing finances in its abundance resulted in the neglect of other sectors of the economy It was not too long before the country had a rude awakening to this slack. The drastic crash of oil prices in the international market in 1982 forced the government to finance deficit budgets. Though the country’s government was awash with burgeoning corruption, the resultant financial crunch turned the begging bowl into the government hands as it sought international financial assistance to finance budgetary expenditure and developmental projects.

Then for the first time in the Country’s history, economic woes led to political turmoil. This ushered in two Coup d’états in the space of two year between 1983 and 1985 led by major General Muhammadu Buhari and Ibrahim Babangida. Upon the advent of the Babangida administration in 1985, in accordance with regulations from international credit organizations (IMF and World Bank), the once enviable strong Naira was devalued amongst several stringent austere economic measures under the frame work of the ‘Structural Adjustment Programme’.

Under the guise of falling oil prices in the international market, the Nigerian government began to lag in the implementation of its National Developmental plans and with infrastructural decadence setting in with a growing population, the economy cringed as power and manufacturing infrastructure defoliated under belying malignant corruption.

The advent of democratic governance in 1999 offered the Country exigent hope especially after years of democratic nostalgia since the famously ‘annulled June 12 1993 elections’.

Buoying on the hope of economic renaissance was the sudden sharp increase in oil prices on the international market. From a meagre under 20 dollars per barrel, oil prices soared to record levels in 2003. From 50 dollars per barrel in 2003, it upshot to over 140 dollars per barrel before the close of the decade. With a production of over 2million barrels per day, the Nigerian government had more money more than past regimes combined. There was talk of resuscitation of the power and rail sector, which will in turn boost foreign investment and the moribund manufacturing capacity of the country.

Additional hope of socio- economic resurrection was offered when in 2005, the Paris club of creditors wrote off a chunk of Nigeria’s foreign debt, offering the Country the finance instead, to pour into developmental project under the auspices of the ‘Millennium Development Goals’ with the caption of the Conditional Grant Scheme. Nigeria never had it this good there was much money available and it was left to the leadership to stir the direction.

“Let's hope that no government will ever again commit the future generation to such heavy burden of debt”..... Gen.Yakubu Gowon

The sudden drop of crude oil prices in the last quarter of 2014 had a tsunamic effect on the Nigerian economy. Consumer and import driven, the penchant for foreign exchange dollars forced a trade imbalance and the Naira went into free fall from N160 to over N180 to $1. Facing an impending budgetary deficit, the government was forced to reduce the bench mark for expected revenue income from petroleum from $75/barrel to $65/barrel.

Oil prices has however began to continue its recession has it is threatening go below $40/barrel. The condition is not being helped as OPEC led by Saudi Arabia has refused to cut down production hoping to force competitive shale oil producers in the US and Europe out of market with declining oil prices which in turn will create a market shortfall then soaring oil prices again.

OPEC headquartes at Vienna, Austria
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/media/115511/OPEC-headquarters-in-Vienna

As such, Nigeria’s external reserves has depleted its peak of $62 billion in September 2008 to just over $36 billion in November 2014. Whilst monies accruing to the Excess Crude account have been used for ‘subsidy’ payments.

As the oil politricking rages on the international scene, Nigeria is blighted with a devastating Boko Haram insurgency which has required over 25% budgetary allocation for the defence sector in the last 3years. With attendant infrastructural destruction and Human displacement, the Nation is running a near ‘war economy’.

It is bemusing to note that despite excess petrodollars accruing to the Nigerian government since the turn of the century, the economic fortunes of the Country as developing economy needing massive infrastructural development, portending into the future does not look bright.

·        As an import dependent consumer driven economy, there’s a continuous chase for foreign exchange which causes a balance of trade deficit causing a slump in the value of the local currency.

·        With an apparent budget deficit and depleting foreign reserves, the government will be forced to turn to international creditors for loans which in turn will bring attendant cogs in debt servicing.

·        The continuous dependence on importation of refined crude due to lack of capacity to meet local demand causing the government to continually ‘subsidize’ petroleum products has ripped tangible benefits of that which accrues as an oil producing nation.

·        The lack or inadequate investment and development of the solid mineral and agricultural sector to attain its glorious past will continue to haunt the revenue drive of the government.

·        The continual dependence by state and local government on Federal allocation/ the in-viability of most states which cannot generate sufficient internal revenue to fund budgetary expenditure will continue to wear down the country's financial strength

·        The high cost of governance especially as it pertains to the remuneration of government officials and their numerous aides will continue to be a financial burden on the Nigerian economy.

Whilst minute strides in economic development by various governments at all levels must be acknowledged, it is very important to note that the Nation is at the verge of another economic crunch which only ‘political will power to the needful’ do  will save.

THE BURKINABE REVOLUTION: EXPOSING AN INEFFECTUAL AFRICAN UNION

When thousands of Burkinabes stormed the streets of Ouagadougou in a massive protest which saw the Country’s Parliament building go up in flames and ultimately terminating the twenty seven year Presidency of Blaise Campaore in the fall October 2014, the World and indeed Sub-Saharan Africa was thrown aghast with thoughts of another impending revolution.

Burkinabes protesting in October 2014 against the quest of Blaise Campore to seek an additional term in office
Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29948773

For not too long ago, the Arab Spring which emanated from North Africa reverberated the entire Arab Middle East and ensured the downfall of three of Africa’s longest serving leaders in Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi (42yrs), Tunisia’s Zine Al-Abidine Ben Ali (24yrs) and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak (30yrs); with the downfall of another of Africa’s longest serving Ruler in Burkina Faso, there were fears that this could trigger an ‘Africa Hamarttan’ across Sub-Saharan Africa.

In an apparent bid to stabilize the Burkinabe situation, the Presidents of Nigeria, Senegal and Ghana under the aegis of ECOWAS and The African Union flew in to Ouagadougou to meet with the Military who had already filled the power vacuum, urging them to form a transitional government and hand over power to a Civilian head within two weeks or face sanctions. In a riposte to this demand, the Burkinabe Military leader Lt Col Isaac Zida blurted that;

"We are not afraid of sanctions; we care much more about stability,"

"We have waited on the African Union in moments when it should have shown its fraternity and its friendship but instead was not there,"

"It's unfortunate but it's not too late."

Burkina Faso's new Military Ruler Lt Col Isaac Zida welcoming Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan to Ouagadougou for an AU/ECOWAS initiated transition talk
Source: http://encomium.ng/president-goodluck-jonathan-arrives-ouagadougou-bukina-faso-to-help-facilitate-the-rapid-resolution-of-the-current-political-crisis-in-bukina-faso-on-wednesday/

The African Union and its constituent regional bodies have always taken an ominous stand when confronted issues of Military Coup d’états in African Countries, and seemly take a sanctimonious stand in threatening and imposing sanctions. However, it must be noted that the Africa Union was powerless during the Arab spring and could not save its founder and self proclaimed King of kings of Africa--- Muammar Gaddafi.

Originally founded from the fusion of regional blocs and Pan-Africanist ideas of founding fathers in Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, Senegal’s Leopold Senghor, Nigeria’s Nnamdi Azikwe, Kenya’s Jomo Kenyatta, Ethiopia’s Haile Sellasie, and Zambia’s Kenneth Kaunda the Organization of African Unity (OAU) sought to liberate the Africa from colonial rule. After an initial successful manifesto, the OAU lost steam and relevance as the founding fathers where all embroiled in instituting one party states and stifling opposition groups in their domains. Governance in independent Africa was served at mediocre level and not the excuse of leadership naivety could sustain the seeming tyrannical rule of the Pan- African fathers in their respective countries.

One by one, they were all butted out of power by the barrel of the gun amid ensuing economic and social chaos which subjected most African countries to Military dictatorships and internecine civil wars starting from the late 1960’s. In all these, the OAU maintained a figurative ceremonial existence even as its regional power houses had no moral right to set sanctimonious standards-- Ethiopia was under the a Military dictatorship of the ‘Derg’ and grappling with a civil war, Nigeria was under Military dictatorship and under sanctions from  Euro-American supranational Organizations, and other countries not under military rule were apparently under civilian styled tyrannical one party states; Kenya, Cote d’Ivoire, Zambia, Malawi being perfect examples.

On the advent of the new Millennium in the 21^st Century, the OAU rebranded into the African Union (AU) following after the European model of the EU (European Union); among all its quest was that of good governance and this was instituted by the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) and NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development). This assured that with the institution of multi party democracy in most Countries in Sub-Saharan  Africa, an improved development partnership with other global supranational organizations will ensue. Buoyed by the tact willingness of South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki, Nigeria’s Olusegun Obasanjo, Senegal’s Abdoulaye Wade, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Algeria’s AbdulAzeez Bouteflika, the AU set sail on these notion and promises.

However, this noble quest was called to question by unrest in Cote d’ Ivoire, Military take overs in Mali and Guniea. Whilst all these were resolved, there has still been an underlying inquest of the dedication to the sanctimonious demands of the AU in constituent Countries as some long serving African rulers seek to consolidate their grip on power as seen in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe (now serving 34yrs), Angola’s Jose Eduardo Dos Santos (now serving 35yrs), Equatorial Guniea’s Teodoro Obiang Nguema (now serving 35yrs), Cameroun’s Paul Biya (now serving 32yrs), and Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni (now serving 28yrs).

Regardless of the length of years in power, what is most important in leadership is the administration of fairness, equity, justice and good governance with concomitant development. After all, there are nations that do not have presidential/Prime Ministerial term limits like the United kingdom, Canada, Italy, Australia etc, but their citizens do have attendant freedom to decide their leaders.

Aside the question of length of stay in power, African regimes are still bothered with the question of administering development and good governance. This is the major cause for civil agitation Nigeria, Sudan, South Sudan, Eritrea etc and as such, rulers of these nations do not have a sanctimonious say on how other African countries should be governed.

From the experience of the Arab spring in Libya, revolutions do not come cheap and democratic governance might not ensure ‘unabated freedom’ as seen in Egypt aside the Tunisian exception which is a rare occurrence. As another of Africa’s long serving regime falls in Burkina Faso, it is insinuated that a political quake might be in the offing for other long serving regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa.

As usual, the AU, SADC, IGAD and ECOWAS will always come to the fray whenever such political fallouts occur, but as usual, their overtures might just be ignored until individual countries do the needful—administer leadership through justice, equity, fairness with concomitant good governance and development else it will be a proverbial kettle calling pot black.

‘And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? ⁴ Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? ⁵ Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye’.

Matt 7:3-5 (KJV)

THE SCOTTISH REFERENDUM AFTERMATH: A REFLECTION OF AN IMPERFECT BRITISH MODEL

The last is yet to be heard about the resultants of the Scottish Referendum on the question of independence from the United Kingdom. Whilst the United Kingdom survived the scare of a looming threat of an independent Scotland by a vote of 55% to 45%, the ripples generated by the simple act of balloting will continue to reverberate the island of Britain and indeed the wider World in years to come.

Head of the Scottish National Party, Alex Salmond savouring defeat of his separatist bid
Source: bbcnews.com

"If not us - then who?

If not now - then when?

Friends - we are Scotland's independence generation.

And our time is now"…. Alexander Salmond

For the first time since 1^st July 1997 when the Union Jack was lowered at its Far Eastern outpost in Hongkong, which was the United Kingdom’s last colonial outpost, the waning power and influence of the once global affluent ‘Great Britain’ was brought to bear as a ‘coup de grace’ was about to be dealt to  homeland Britain.

What started as a union of Anglo-Saxons and Normans in what is now called England, ended up enveloping the Welsh in the 13^th Century, and, in series of wars and finally in political agreements, the Gaels, Picts and Celts which make up what is now called Scotland were brought into the ‘Union’ first by the Union of Crowns in 1603 when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England following the death of heirless Queen Elizabeth I of England. Thus, the seat of the Scottish Monarchy moved from Holyrood in Edinburgh to Buckingham Palace in London and finally in 1707 after a crippling bankrupting feat Scotland attained in trying to colonize the Isthmus of Panama in the Americas, the Scots looked South of their border to the English for economic salvation; and as such, after series of parliamentary debates, the ‘ACT OF UNION’ was born 1^st May 1707 when England and Scotland came under one political government—effectively uniting the entire Island of Britain under one political and Monarchical Government

ACT OF UNION, 1707

I. That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the First day of May which will be in the year One thousand seven hundred and seven, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain; and that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint, and the Crosses of St. George and St. Andrew be conjoined in such manner as her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land.

III.  ‘That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by One and the same Parliament, to be stiled, the Parliament of Great Britain.’

With such ‘Unity’ the United Kingdom of Great Britain wittingly sought to build an Empire thus colonizing about 1/4^th of the Earth's peoples. At the Zenith of this attainment, the British Empire was in the words of George Macartney referred as

"this vast empire on which the sun never sets, and whose bounds nature has not yet ascertained."

Map of the British Colonial expanse
Source: http://imgarcade.com/1/british-colonies-world-map/

Over three quarters of North America in what is now known as Canada and the United States of America to patches of land in South America, the West Indies (Caribbean Islands), the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Singapore), Australia and patches of Chinese territory; the ‘British were famed as Colonial Masters and Master of the Seas! And not even Africa was left out of the British Colonial zest, for they effectively subjugated the choicest of territorial lands and largest number of peoples under their control in territories now known as Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Kenya (All economic and regional power houses) not to talk of the Sudans (North and South), Uganda, Ghana, Tanzania, Gambia, Zimbabwe and Zambia.

‘the wind of change is blowing through this continent; and whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact, we must all accept it as a fact’… Harold Macmillan (British Prime Minister from 1957-1963)

The 20^th Century brought a significant ‘wind of change’ to the British Empire. Actively fighting off two World Wars, the homeland British war economy faced near economic crippling terms and coupled with the signing of  ‘Atlantic Charter’ with the United States which guaranteed the right to self determination of subjugated peoples, the British Empire began to defoliate rapidly for the first time since 1776 when the United States sued for Independence off London.

Starting from the British Isles, the Catholic Irish got Ireland off Westminster’s control and then the flood gates of independence opened in British colonies in Asia and Africa culminating with the return of Hongkong to China —Britain’s last colonial outpost in the Far East in 1997.

Coincidentally, 1997 saw the British Labour Party consolidating power in Westminster and that came with the promise of devolution of powers to the constituent Non-English entities making up the United Kingdom. Ultimately, that set the tone for a series of intrigues that set the stage for this Scottish referendum question;

SHOULD SCOTLAND BECOME AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY?

Source: bbcnews.com

Whilst the ‘No’ votes helped to pass a volte-face to the ‘Yes’ separatist agitation, that simple act of ballot has posed several teasers for the British and indeed other countries of the free world in the following:

1.    In an era of ‘International Unionism’ as seen in the formation of strong Continental Organizations such as the EU, NATO, AU etc; where smaller individual countries seemingly do not have a voice; is there really a need for emergence of new Nations who will in turn have to vie to join these continental bodies who advocate loose economic and border controls?

2.    Though England has roughly 85% of the UK population and significantly projects the UK’s global influence, Scotland holds a significant portion UK’s defence capabilities in military industries and the UK’s Nuclear Weapon deterrents. What would have become of the Uk’s military capability in the wake of a Scottish independence?

3.    The Uk prides itself as a model of Parliamentary democracy and have exported this to several nation including India (the World’s largest democracy), Australia amongst others. The Scottish agitation has once again raised the once forgotten ‘West Lothian Question’. If Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (all making up 15% of the UK population) have separate parliaments and administrations independent of West Minster and yet have representatives there to vote on issues relating to England only, what about having a separate English parliament? Is the prided British governance model in any way effective? Isn’t it time for the UK to adopt the USA model of a ‘Federal system of Government’?

4.    With the ease at reaching a decision for the Scottish referendum, what will become of other separatist agitations in Spain (Catalonia), France (Basque, Corsica, Catalonia), Moldova (Transnistra), Turkey (Kurdistan) etc, and even other colonial aggregated Countries in Africa where separatist agitations are rife?

Source: bbcnews.com

Four over 400 years, the British have prided themselves in setting the pace in terms of industrial and political revolution and have given the world their language--- English Language. With the latest Scottish referendum and issues bordering on it, the British have once again aroused separatist agitation levels around the world. The British model is not perfect after all. Is it?

THE RESONANCE OF WORLD WAR 1: 1914 AND A CENTURY AFTER

Just over a hundred years ago, the armies of the World’s Great powers were arrayed against each other to do battle in what was latter called ‘the great war’ or The First World War--- The War to end all Wars!

Enticed by a rise in industrialization, the race for sophisticated armament of the day and the penchant for global influence in colonial empires amongst the great powers (Germany, Great Britain, France, Russia and Austria-Hungary);  the conflict was sparked by the assassination of Austrian Crown Prince Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28^th June 1914, thus igniting the gun powder in the Balkan Peninsula that ultimately conflagrated Europe and the wider World in a gruesome conflict otherwise called the first World War.

Arrival of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo (28th June 1914)

"Our ghosts will wander through Vienna, stroll around the palaces and scare the masters."….. anonymous Serbian writ

It indeed happened that the World Powers lined themselves in series of infectious alliances that obliged them to go to war even when their respective countries were not directly under attack. And so after the June assassination, and a diplomatic moribund July, War was contiguously declared from the first day of August as Germany declared war On Russia, and on France by 3^rd August. Great Britain declared war against Germany on August 4 as Austria-Hungary declared war against Russia on August 5; Serbia against Germany on August 6; Montenegro against Austria-Hungary on August 7 and against Germany on August 12; France and Great Britain against Austria-Hungary on August 10 and on August 12, respectively; Japan against Germany on August 23; Austria-Hungary against Japan on August 25 and against Belgium on August 28.

A live relic of an helmet on a WW1 battle feild
Source:bbcnews.com

‘The lamps are going out over all Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.’…….

Edward Grey (1862 - 1933)

British statesman.

Although almost all the belligerent nations were European and the major battle fields were in Europe, the war transcended from being a European one to a global one as the colonial powers moved to seize colonial territory from their enemies. As such, Africans had the War experience as Great Britain fought and seized German colonial territory in West Africa (Togo and Cameroun), East Africa (Tanzania) and South Africa (Namibia); whilst a combined British, French and Japanese effort annexed all German interests in the Far East and South Pacific. With the United States entering the War on the side of the Allies on 6^th April 1917 after 3 years of conflict, the War truly assumed its status as a ‘World War’— as it had effectively engaged all the continents.

‘In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place.’….

John McCrae (1872 - 1918)

Canadian poet and physician.

A reenactment of the march of Gordon Highlanders on the puppy feilds of Belgium
Source:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715756/Showered-million-poppies-Soldiers-stand-huge-red-cloud-symbolise-Great-War-dead-enact-scenes-conflict.html

From initial skirmishes at Liege to the serial battles at Mons, Marne, Ypres, Somme, Verdun, Gallipoli, Jutland, Basra, Asiago, Isonzo, Brusilov, Tannenberg and the Masurian lakes countless souls perished in astonishing industrial scale.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpCUFw-EnNw

‘They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.’…….

Laurence Binyon (1869 - 1943)

British poet and art historian.

In response to the slaughter of World War I.

Poems for the Fallen, "For the Fallen"

The War finally came to an end on the 11^th hour of 11^th November 1918 with the signing of the Armistice agreement and capitulation of the foremost Central Power belligerent in Germany not after some indelible marks have been imprinted in history by the effect of the War; Viz:

1.  Unlike other Wars before this, any conflict between global powers or their client states will automatically spiral effect in dragging nations across continents to a multi-faceting conflict whose resultant will surpass the initial conflicting terms.

2.  With the Use of Chlorine gas by the belligerents, ammunitions will now be classified as ‘conventional’ and ‘Un conventional’ (Weapons of Mass Destruction) weapons.

3.  Civilian centres such as Villages, Towns and Cities will now serve as battle grounds thus effectively negating the notion that wars are to be fought at some distant fields.

4.  The advent of the bombs, rapid firing machine guns and chemical weapons meant that thousands of Soldiers could be mowed down in minutes as seen in the battles of Marne and Ypres. Indeed a Millions of souls could perish in seconds after these weapons were improved on much later after that war.

5.   Regardless of the Military might of the belligerent, wars cannot be independently fought without considering attendant and after effects of conflicting interests and ideologies which will ultimately engage non-belligerent nations in subtle or active Warfare.

 It’s a hundred years spanning ten decades of historical epochs since the First World War was ignited; however, a century on, the world still stands a risk of being dragged to a war of contiguous effect as it was a hundred years ago viz;

1.  Like pre-1914, the World’s powers are now aligned in seeming loose alliance of East and Western bloc ideology as fronted by Russia and the United States.

2.  As seen in the Balkans in pre-1914 of a perfected disdain for occupying forces, the Nations of the Middle East have taken this stance in open disdain for Western Military presence in their lands. Like 1914, the Middle East is serving a simmering ‘Balkan effect’ in global politics.

3.  As it was in 1914 when the War was forcefully promulgated upon Africa due to colonial subjugation; though now independent, African Nations will once again be dragged into a conflict involving the Great Powers as their territories will serve as Military bases for these powers. The US already has an ‘African Command’ AFRICOM bases in Djibouti as the French Military has a ubiquitous presence in almost all its former African colonies. China has so far been only economically present in Africa but one cannot ignore the trade in Chinese and Russian arms by some African countries. They too might come calling for higher military commitment in the event of a conflict.

The resultant of the First World War did not entirely spell doom and gloom for the World as it ensured:

1.  Nationalistic consciousness in colonized territories. That in a sense brought about the emergence of all Nation States as seen on today’s maps.

2.  It brought about the awareness for international cooperation and collaboration amongst the Nations of the World. Though eventually moribund and toothless in effect, the ‘League of Nations’ formed after the First World War was a model precursor to the United Nations and its numerous under-agencies which has in  some ways helped mitigate dire consequences of pertinent global issues.

Like Pre-1914 as seen today, Nations of the World do not foresee a large scale global conflict due to:

1.  Economic and social ties and interdependence

2.  Mutually assured destruction  due to the sophistication of modern arms

Nevertheless, we might be fooled into a state of ‘false global security’ by not taking into account the simmering events of the Israeli-Arab conflict, the wider Middle East conflict from the Arab spring, the Ukrainian tensions and pockets of conflicts around Africa—all of which ironically were creations from the aftermath of the First World War as seen in:

1.  The Arab revolt against Ottoman rule in 1916

2.  The Balfour declaration of 1917 announcing Jewish rights to Palestine

3.  The emergence of a bipolar world with from the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917

4.  The awakening of Nationalism, creation of borders by colonial powers with no respect for historical ties and cultures of peoples of the dominated lands as seen in Africa and the Middle East (The Sykes and Picot agreement). As such, agitations for a redrawing of National ‘colonial borders’ could simmer into some sort of global conflict.

‘Six million young men lie in premature graves, and four old men sit in Paris partitioning the earth.’…

Anonymous

 Referral to the Paris Peace Conference following World War I, attended by the leaders of France, Britain, Italy, and the United States.

The World's big four leaders (US, Great Britain, France and Italy) at the treaty of Versailles in 1919
Source: http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/May-June-08/On-this-Day--Treaty-of-Versailles-Ends-World-War-I.html

Yes peace was proclaimed in 1918 after the War that was said to end all Wars and a treaty was signed in Versailles in 1919. But several wars involving Great powers as a resultant of their actions and deeds from the aftermath of the First World War has been fought. There was even a Second World War! And today several global conflicts threatening to drag numerous Nations to battle looms. Is 2014 not just a Hundred years back?

‘This is not peace: it is an armistice for twenty years.’……..

Ferdinand Foch (1851 - 1929)

French soldier, 1919.

Remark at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.