Opinion

The Oracle: Different People, Different Forms of Government (Pt. 10)

Published

4 years ago

August 28, 2021

Eric

By Chief Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

Last three weeks, we discussed totalitarianism, capitalism and a bit of communism, as forms of government that run against the grain of democracy. Democracy appears to be the most popular and accepted form of government across the world. Readers, globally, have been urging me to continue with this enlightening project. I will therefore continue our discourse today with Communism and Aristocracy.

WHAT IS COMMUNISM? (continues)

The concept of communism revolves around the theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their abilities and needs. Communism seeks to create a classless society in which the major means of production such as mines, mills, factories and natural resources are owned not by private individuals but the public.

Communism seeks to replace private ownership of properties, and control the means of production and the absence of social classes, money and the state. Propagated by Karl Marx, communism believes that inequality and suffering actually resulted from capitalism. According to its protagonists, communism is actually a higher advanced form of socialism. Communism is thus regarded as “revolutionary socialism” of Karl Marx.

KARL MARX AND COMMUNISM

Karl Marx, a 19^th century thinker and writer often tended to use the terms communism and socialism interchangeably. In his book, “Critique of Gotha Programme” (1875), Marx actually identified two phases of communism that would replace or overthrown capitalism. The first phase would be a transitional system where the working class would control government and economy; and yet, still find it necessary to pay citizen according to how long, head or well they worked.

The second phase would be one where communism is fully realized. This would be the phase where there is no class division, or even government. In this phase, the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle of “from each according to his ability; to each according his needs”. This distinction was later to be copied by many Marxists, including Russian Russian’s revolutionary “Vladimir Lenin”

ORIGIN OF COMMUNISM

The term “communism” came into focus in the 1840s. But Communist societies had been described as far back as the 4^th century BCE, when the great Philosopher, Plato, wrote the “Republic”. Plato had described an idea society in which the governing class serves only the interest of the entire community. This system was practised by the first set of Christians. In his book, Utopia (1516), the English Humanist, Thomas More, envisaged an imaginary society in which use of money is abolished, while all the people shall houses, meals, clothes, and other goods.

Communism was however populated by Karl Marx, who carefully outlined this system of government with Fredrich Engels in the book, “The Communist Manifesto”, written in 1848. Marx’s embrace of communism was partly ignited by the inequalities caused by the industrial revolution.

Lenin was later to argue in his “State and Revolution” book (1917) that socialism corresponded with Marx’s first phase of communism, why communism proper was that achieved in the second phase.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks reinforced this distinction in 1918 (a year after they seized power in Russia). This is why communism is always identifies with the now defunct Soviet Union. It was later adopted by the People’s Republic of China.

Thus, for much of the 20^th century, about one-third of the entire world’s population was governed by communist regimes, usually single party that brooded no dissent or plurality of voices. Party leaders institutionalized command economies, in which the state controlled properly while bureaucrats determined wages, prices and other means of production and distribution of services and goods.

These systems were grossly inefficient, leading to their eventual breakdown.

Today, only China, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam, practice communism, even with full adulteration of the original Marxist ideology. Marx, Lenin and Stalin would chuckle in their graves at this form of communism.

It is thus clear that Marxism was targeted at abolishing the bourgeoisie (who owned the means of production and earned surplus profit) and replace it with the Proletariat (who sold their labour to the bourgeoisie). Leon Trotsky opposed Stalinism, but embraced Leninism. Maoism (named after Chinese leader Mao Zedong) was crafted after Marxism-Leninism.

For years, in the Western world, many of the young and even some not so young, were attracted by the communist ideology. But, persistent bad news seeping out of many communist lands and the one-way flow of refugees has left many disillusioned.

Communism has been criticized from the angle of historical materialism. It is viewed as a kind of historical determinism, which suppresses liberal democratic rights and the distortion of price signal.

ARISTOCRACY

“Government by the nobility, a privileged minority, or an elite class thought best qualified to rule.”

The argument of proponents of this form of government is that it is logical that the best kind of government would result if it was composed only of the best people. To this school of thought, the best people are better educated, more qualified, and more competent, and therefore better able to lead others. Even at that, an aristocratic government headed by such an elite class may still be one of different genre. For example, it could be rule by the wealthy called a plutocracy. It could be rule by the clergy known as a theocracy. It may boil down to rule by government officials, called a bureaucracy.

In the past, many primitive societies, under the rulership of tribal elders or chiefs, were aristocracies. At one time or another, some countries such as Rome, England, and Japan, to name but three, all had aristocratic governments. In ancient Greece, the word “aristocracy” was used in reference to the city-states, or poleis, in which a small group governed. Often a number of prominent families shared power amongst themselves. In some cases, however, single families seized power illegally and set up a more tyrannical type of rule of other families considered less powerful.

Athens like other Greek city states, was originally an aristocracy. However, as cultural changes weakened class distinctions and disrupted its unity, the city was forced to take on democratic forms. Sparta, for example, on the other hand, was reputedly founded in the ninth century B.C. It was ruled by a military oligarchy. The city of Sparta soon rivaled the much older Athens, and both cities fought for supremacy of the Greek world of their time. It was virtually a “fight-to-finish”. Thus, rule by the many, as in Athens, came into intense conflict with rule by the few, as in Sparta. Of course, their rivalry was quite complex, because it involved more than just a disagreement about government.

WHY AND HOW A NOBLE IDEAL WAS PERVERTED

Political differences were often the subject of philosophical arguments among early Greek philosophers. Plato’s former student, Aristotle, made a distinction between aristocracies and oligarchies. He classified pure aristocracy as a good form of government, a noble ideal that enabled persons with special abilities and high morals to devote themselves to public service for the benefit of others. He argued however, that when headed by an oppressive and selfish elite, a pure aristocracy which is ordinarily good, deteriorated into an unjust oligarchy. This, he canvassed, was a perverted form of government having departed from the nobility and morality of pure and ideal aristocracy.

While advocating rule by ‘the best,’ Aristotle even admitted that combining aristocracy with democracy would probably produce the desired results, an idea that still appeals to some political thinkers till date. In fact, the ancient Romans actually did combine these two forms of government with some measure of success. “Politics [in Rome] was everyone’s affair,” says The Collins Atlas of World History. Nevertheless, at the same time, “the richest citizens and those who were fortunate enough to be high born formed an oligarchy which shared out among itself, the offices of magistrate, military commander and priest.”

Interestingly, even in late medieval and early modern history, European urban centres combined democratic and aristocratic elements in their government. Says Collier’s Encyclopedia: “The extremely conservative Venetian Republic, which Napoleon finally overthrew, provides the classic example of such an oligarchy; but the Free Cities of the Holy Roman Empire, the cities of the Hanseatic League, and the chartered towns of England and western Europe reveal the same general tendencies toward tight oligarchial control by a relatively small but proud and highly cultured patriciate [aristocracy].”

The argument has been powerfully advanced, and with some strong justification, that all governments are in every case aristocratic in nature, since all of them actually strive to have the best qualified people in charge. The concept of a ruling class, till date, has served to strengthen this view. Some reference work has therefore posited that, “Ruling class and elite are becoming synonymous terms to describe as actual what Plato and Aristotle argued for as ideal.”

SEARCHING FOR “THE BEST”

In ancient China under the royal house of Chou, centuries before these Greek philosophers made their appearance on the stage, a feudal society (based on lords and vassals) was already bringing a measure of stability and peace to ancient China. But after 722 B.C.E, during what is called the “Ch’un Ch’iu period”, the feudal system incrementally weakened. In the last part of this period, a new elite emerged, composed of people regarded as the former “gentlemen”. These people had served in feudal households, one who were descendants of the old nobility. Members of this new elite moved into key government positions. Confucius, the renowned Chinese sage, as The New Encyclopedia Britannica points out, stressed that “ability and moral excellence, rather than birth, were what fitted a man for leadership.” Confucius many words on marble litter our moral and leadership landscapes.

However, over two thousand years later in Europe, the process of picking the elite, those best qualified to rule, had little to do with “ability and moral excellence.” Harvard professor, Carl J. Friedrich, notes that “the elite in aristocratic England of the eighteenth century was an elite based primarily on blood descent and riches. The same thing was true in Venice.” He adds: “In some countries such as eighteenth-century Prussia, the elite was based on blood descent and military prowess.”

This idea that the good qualities of ‘better people’ were necessarily passed on to their offsprings, accounts for the closely-knot marriage practices of monarchs in the past. During the Middle Ages, the idea of biological superiority prevailed. To marry a commoner was abominable, as it amounted to polluting and diluting the nobleness of the clan. This was offensive to divine law. Monarchs were therefore obliged to marry only those of noble birth. This idea of strict biological superiority later gave way to a more rationalized and accepted justification, that of a superiority based on better opportunities, education, talents, or achievements. (To be continued).

FUN TIMES

There are two sides to every coin. Life itself contains not only the good, but also the bad and the ugly. Let us now explore these.

“Between the EFCC and the Nigerian Customs, I don’t know who is more corrupt. But the two are definitely among the top 2 most corrupt Government agencies I know of.

So whoever wins meets Nigerian Police in the finals”.

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. (Karl Marx).

Opinion

AKPoti-AKPabio Saga: Standing Justice on Its Head

Published

6 days ago

March 11, 2025

Eric

By Ayo Oyoze Baje

“There are several court rulings, including that of the Court of Appeal, each of which deems it illegal to suspend an elected member of the legislature. The recent suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti – Uduaghan is therefore, the height of legislative recklessness” – Femi Falana SAN

When and where might – is – right, as amply demonstrated by the recent outrageous and illegal suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District at the Red Chamber – without salary or allowances – it does not only question the authority on which the lawmakers stand to carry out their statutory functions but ridicules the manner of democracy we practise here in Nigeria. And if the wrong done is not righted within the shortest possible time, it goes further to de-brand our so called democratic structure that places overt power of the jungle mantra of might – is – right on the elected representatives of the people above the wishes of the led majority. That indeed, is both an aberration and a legislative anomaly, triggered by the senator’s suspension, hence the outrage it has so far evolved. But let us first take an objective analysis of the drama that led to the development.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan ‘s suspension took place after she submitted a petition alleging being sexually harassed by the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio. After dismissing her petition on procedural ground the Ethics Committee, as led by Neda Imasuen ( Labour Party, Edo South) recommended her suspension for six months claiming that she brought ”

public opprobrium” to the Upper Chamber of the National Assembly. Though some members wanted the suspension reduced to three months, 14 members of the Committee stood by their decision, insisting that Natasha did not attend the investigative hearing to defend herself. In fact, they went further to ask her to tender an apology to the same Senate President Akpabio she has accused of sexual harassment, for her outburst during the plenary session!

Expectedly, the steamy situation has sparked off some flaming questions with regards to the rule of law under such circumstances. For instance, is it not her inalienable right to reject the sitting arrangement, which was surreptitiously meant to relegate her to the legislative shadows? Good enough, the answer is not far -fetched. According to Natasha’s legal counsel, Victor Giwa the Nigerian constitution of 1999, (as amended) supersedes the Senate’s Standing Orders. Specifically, Section 6, Sub-Section (6) of that constitution grants every citizen the right to seek redress in court when their civil rights are violated. Incidentally, she has done so, with her knowledge of the law.

The next question has to do with the best of ways to handle a delicate matter such as this. Should the matter not have been made open by placing it before an independent panel, to investigate and make recommendations in the interest of justice? That is, instead of slamming Natasha for having the gut, the temerity and audacity to express her complaints at the Senate chamber? According to Giwa the suspension of his client is definitely a brazen attempt to silence her. But unfortunately, for those behind it all it has only emboldened her to seek for justice going through the right process. In Giwa’s words: “The Committee disobeyed a valid court order that was served on them, making a mockery of the chamber that is supposed to uphold the law”. That should serve as food-for-thought for the masterminds behind the illegal suspension of the senator.

That perhaps, aptly explains why the Nigeria Bar Association ( NBA) has slammed the Senate by not giving her, the complainant to present her sexual harassment claim against Akpabio. That reminds us of the odious ” off the mic ” scenario that has played out each time an issue of public interest is being denied an objective investigation. The lawmakers, especially those who are bent on attempting to paper over cracks, or give a person a bad name to hang him or her must be reminded that there is a court order restraining the Senate from taking an action on the matter, pending the determination of of s motion on notice. The mishandling of the matter at hand by the senators is what has emboldened Natasha’s lawyer, Giwa to declare her suspension as ” null and void”. Yet, he is not the only person to outrightly condemn the illegality that has evolved so far.

The world acclaimed Women Rights activist, Hadiza Ado described Natasha’s suspension as amounting to a “,sad day for Nigerian women”. On its part the Socio–Economic Rights and Accountability Project ( SERAP ) has described it as “patently unlawful”and a clear violation of her right to freedom of speech. The organization has therefore, called on the Senate President Akpabio to reinstate her without further delay or face their legal action against such oddity. Similarly, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP to which Natasha belongs has described as her suspension as am attempt by the Senate ” to cover up an issue”. That is according to the National Publicity Secretary, Debbo Ologunagba.So, what really could it be?

It would be recalled that on February 28, 2025 right on ARISE television, Natasha made a bold allegation of sexual harassment against the Senate President Akpabio.While some concerned Nigerians wondered why she went as far as that point of publicity, others knowing fully well about her background as an Ihima- born lady brought up with high moral standards would not kowtow to, be cowed by anyone, or acquiesce to the weird and wild emotional inclinations of a man for whatever reasons.

So, as the AKPoti -AKPabio saga rolls out, the lesson to learn is for people to always strike the delicate balance between the Motive and the Method of our utterances and actions. And of course, the brand we want to be recognized and stand for in our chequered journeys on Planet Earth. Of great significance also is the piece of admonition by Natasha’s legal counsel, Giwa, that: ” The Senate must abide by international best practices” all because the world is watching us.

Opinion

The Trump-Vance Approach to Zelensky and the Emergence of a New World Order

Published

1 week ago

March 9, 2025

Eric

By Magnus Onyibe

During his visit to the White House on Friday, February 28, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky faced a tough reception from President Donald J. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. Their handling of him demonstrated their firm approach to diplomacy, signaling a shift in global power dynamics.

As the saying goes, a beggar has no choice—their hand is always beneath that of the giver, not above it. This principle was clearly reinforced when President Trump made it explicit that Ukraine had little say in negotiations regarding the resolution of the ongoing three-year war with Russia. Initial discussions had already taken place in Saudi Arabia without Ukraine or European nations at the table. Instead, the negotiations involved Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and Russia.

In response, Zelensky expressed his frustration:

“It feels like the U.S. is now discussing the ultimatum that Putin set at the start of the full-scale war. Once again, decisions about Ukraine are being made without Ukraine. I wonder why they believe Ukraine would accept all these ultimatums now if we refused them at the most difficult moment.”

Similarly, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer voiced concerns over Trump and Vance’s strategy of excluding Europe from the discussions:

“Nobody wants the bloodshed to continue, least of all the Ukrainians. But after everything that they have suffered, after everything they have fought for, there can be no discussion about Ukraine without Ukraine, and the people of Ukraine must have a long-term, secure future.”

However, the reality is that Zelensky is in no position to dictate terms. This was emphasized when Vice President Vance rebuked him during the Oval Office meeting:

“Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media.”

Trump had long accused Zelensky of being a shrewd negotiator who, during Biden’s presidency, would visit Washington and leave with massive financial aid. Determined to change this dynamic, Trump made it clear that such a practice would not continue under his administration. Summarizing the meeting, he stated:

“We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelensky is not ready for peace if America is involved because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE.”

Trump went further, saying:

“He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for peace.”

By securing a deal that would grant the U.S. control over some of Ukraine’s rare earth resources as repayment for previous military aid, Trump demonstrated his negotiation skills. This approach mirrors historical precedents, such as Kuwait compensating the U.S. with oil after being liberated from Iraq in 1990 and Europe repaying America for the post-World War II Marshall Plan by allowing the formation of NATO under U.S. leadership.

The war itself stems from Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, which Russia perceived as a threat, prompting the invasion. Biden’s administration rallied U.S. allies to support Ukraine, possibly influenced by Biden’s personal connections—especially considering that Zelensky previously shielded Biden’s son, Hunter, from scrutiny over alleged financial misconduct in Ukraine. This decision may have played a role in Biden’s election victory in 2020, sparing him political damage from Trump’s opposition research.

However, Zelensky’s alignment with one side of U.S. politics carried risks. Hunter Biden’s business dealings eventually came under investigation, leading to his conviction, though his father pardoned him before leaving office. Some speculate that Biden’s support for Ukraine was a way of repaying Zelensky, providing him with financial and military backing against Russia.

This led Ukraine into a protracted war, with devastating consequences. Europe, drawn into the conflict through NATO, has suffered economic strain due to sanctions on Russian energy, with Germany experiencing economic downturns and the UK entering a recession. Africa has also been affected, as food shortages have worsened due to disruptions in wheat exports from Ukraine and Russia.

Had former President Barack Obama acted in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea, this war might have been avoided. However, Obama, who prioritized ending wars rather than starting them, resisted calls for military action, despite pressure from figures like then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ironically, Biden, who was Obama’s vice president at the time, later led Ukraine into a war that his former boss had deliberately avoided.

With around 400,000 Ukrainians killed or wounded and much of the country’s infrastructure in ruins, the war has proven catastrophic. As Trump attempts to broker peace, it remains uncertain whether Zelensky will adapt to the new realities of U.S. foreign policy. Unlike the previous administration, Trump and Vance do not view Ukraine as a victim but as a country that must make concessions to secure peace.

Trump has already played a key role in de-escalating the Gaza conflict, and a similar approach could be applied to Ukraine. However, for this to happen, Zelensky must recognize that the geopolitical landscape has shifted and that the U.S. will no longer provide unconditional support. If Ukraine truly seeks peace, its leadership must engage with the new administration on its own terms.

The cold reception President Trump gave to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was evident when he labeled him a dictator and accused him of starting the war—though he later jokingly retracted the statement, expressing disbelief that he had said it. This exchange took place in response to reporters’ questions on the matter.

Trump’s firm stance signaled a shift from past U.S. support, and Zelensky might have adjusted his approach accordingly, handling the new White House administration with more caution. However, he chose a more assertive approach and was met with strong pushback from Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. The two leaders discarded diplomatic formalities and sternly reprimanded Zelensky for what they perceived as arrogance regarding global security and an attempt to exploit perceived U.S. vulnerabilities—something they were unwilling to tolerate.

Through their bold policies, which are reshaping international relations, Trump and Vance are clearly dismantling the old world order and crafting a new one. This is evident in Trump’s imposition of steep tariffs on U.S. trading partners, a move that is redefining alliances worldwide. Simultaneously, he is pushing for a swift resolution to conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine—wars he insists would never have started under his leadership. Despite domestic political challenges, Trump has vowed to bring these conflicts to an end.

For the sake of a more comprehensive global peace effort, it would be worthwhile for Trump to extend his focus to ending conflicts in Africa, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan. These regions hold vast reserves of critical resources—Congo with its cobalt and Sudan with its oil—both vital for sustaining global energy production and technological advancement.

Even before formally taking office, Trump’s aggressive rhetoric influenced global events. His warning that chaos would erupt if Hamas refused to negotiate a ceasefire prompted a temporary truce between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). A pattern of strategic pressure appears to be emerging. After Trump excluded Europe from negotiations on ending the Russia-Ukraine war, French President Emmanuel Macron, a longtime acquaintance of Trump, was among the first European leaders to visit him in Washington, seeking clarity on France’s position in the shifting geopolitical landscape. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer soon followed, with Zelensky arriving thereafter.

Notably, Scholz maintained Germany’s trademark direct and pragmatic approach during his White House visit. Macron, having built a rapport with Trump during his previous presidency, engaged in lighthearted banter, reflecting the French leader’s personable style. Starmer, adhering to Britain’s tradition of diplomatic finesse, presented Trump with a letter from King Charles III, inviting him for a state visit—an overture that reportedly charmed the U.S. president. This diplomatic strategy was reminiscent of how North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had won Trump over with personal letters, following initial hostilities.

Unlike these European leaders, who carefully navigated discussions with Trump, Zelensky adopted a confrontational tone, attempting to lecture Trump on why defending Ukraine was also in America’s best interest. He argued that, despite the Atlantic Ocean separating the U.S. from Europe, Russia still posed a threat. However, Trump and Vance found this stance presumptuous and swiftly dismissed his arguments, reminding him that he was in no position to dictate U.S. security policy.

Zelensky’s misstep revealed his lack of diplomatic finesse, likely stemming from his inexperience—having transitioned directly from a comedian satirizing politicians to a wartime president. His extensive international support, largely driven by Western sympathy for Ukraine as the underdog in its struggle against Russia, may have inflated his sense of importance, leading him to expect universal backing. But Trump was not swayed by this sentiment.

The flurry of European leaders visiting Washington underscores Trump’s influence as a dominant global figure. While critics often overlook it, Trump’s approach is rooted in pragmatism and his commitment to his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda. His numerous executive orders are designed to strengthen the U.S. economy and give it an edge over competitors.

A key aspect of Trump’s legacy-building efforts is tackling the U.S. budget deficit, which currently stands at approximately $36 trillion. He is also seeking to reverse trade imbalances with major partners like China, Mexico, and Canada. One of his unconventional strategies to generate revenue is the significant increase in the EB-5 visa investment threshold—from $1 million to $5 million—offering a direct pathway to U.S. residency for high-net-worth individuals willing to invest in the country.

Similarly, his tariff hikes are aimed at shifting trade dynamics in America’s favor. These strategies are already causing ripples globally, sending shockwaves across markets and international relations. While some argue that Trump’s ambitious goal of attracting 10 million investors through the $5 million EB-5 visa is unrealistic—citing the UK’s modest intake of 1,000 applicants for its similar program—others believe the U.S. will draw significant interest, particularly from wealthy individuals in China, Korea, the Middle East, Russia, and even Britain.

For many affluent foreigners, the opportunity to secure U.S. residency through the “Golden Green Card” is worth the steep price tag. With Trump’s administration pursuing aggressive economic and geopolitical strategies, the global landscape is rapidly evolving—whether the world is ready for it or not.

A provision in the U.S. Constitution, which the new administration attempted to nullify through an executive order, was subsequently suspended by a court ruling.

Many may be surprised to learn that people worldwide already pay amounts equivalent to or even exceeding $5 million to participate in the U.S. citizenship-by-investment program. This is similar to how, in Nigeria, bureaucratic hurdles and corruption sometimes force citizens to pay up to four times the official cost to obtain an international passport. Likewise, visa application fees for certain countries are often inflated by syndicates, as seen in recent allegations against South African High Commission officials accused of visa racketeering.

The current $5 million fee is significantly higher than the original cost when the EB-5 visa program was introduced in 1990. To put this into perspective, the U.S. Congress initially established the EB-5 Program to stimulate the economy through job creation and foreign investment. In 1992, lawmakers expanded the initiative by creating the Immigrant Investor Program, or Regional Center Program, allowing investors to fund projects tied to designated regional centers that promote economic growth. While the program initially required a $1 million investment, this amount increased to $1.8 million in 1992 and has now been raised to $5 million under President Trump in 2025.

Critics who accuse Trump of being overly transactional for increasing the cost of the EB-5 visa may be unaware—or deliberately ignoring—the fact that he is not the first president to revise its pricing.

Following his tense meeting at the White House, Zelensky has shifted his tone, seemingly acknowledging the need for a more conciliatory approach. On Saturday, he issued a statement of appreciation, saying, “America’s help has been vital in helping us survive, and I want to acknowledge that.” He also emphasized the need for open dialogue, stating, “Despite the tough discussions, we remain strategic partners. But we need to be honest and direct with each other to truly understand our shared goals.”

At its core, Zelensky’s visit aimed to secure U.S. security guarantees against future Russian aggression. His skepticism toward any agreement with Moscow is understandable, given that Russia previously invaded Ukraine in 2014, annexing Crimea during President Obama’s tenure. Zelensky does not trust Putin, especially since Russia violated the 2015 peace agreement with Ukraine.

However, his confrontational approach—marked by emotional appeals rather than pragmatic diplomacy—worked against him. As a result, he left the White House empty-handed, failing to secure his key objectives, including a potential deal to trade rare earth minerals in exchange for U.S. military protection.

Zelensky has since sought solace among European leaders, but this offers little real security. Even those comforting him recognize their own vulnerabilities, as they, too, rely on U.S. military support. Despite Europe’s show of solidarity with Ukraine during a recent meeting in London on March 2—where they agreed to form a coalition—it remains clear that Europe cannot effectively defend itself without the United States. This reality, which became evident after World War II and led to NATO’s formation under U.S. leadership, remains unchanged.

Recognizing this, European leaders—including those from France, the UK, Germany, and Italy—have prioritized maintaining strong ties with the U.S., frequently traveling across the Atlantic to engage with President Trump, despite the turbulent state of their current relationship.

Trump has made it clear that he intends to end both the Israel-Hamas and Russia-Ukraine wars, possibly through unconventional means. In a phone conversation with Putin, he reportedly expressed no opposition to Europe deploying a peacekeeping force in Ukraine—a concept that closely resembles Ukraine’s original desire to join NATO, which sparked Russia’s invasion in the first place.

Strangely, this significant development has received little attention, with European leaders instead opting to continue funding Ukraine’s war efforts. The UK, for instance, approved a $2.8 billion loan to Ukraine just last Sunday, despite the reality that Ukraine is unlikely to achieve a decisive military victory, no matter how determined it remains.

Ultimately, the U.S. remains central to resolving these major conflicts in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. This reality must be acknowledged in any serious discussion about achieving lasting peace in regions where wars have left millions dead or struggling with extreme hunger.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.
To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.

Opinion

On the Suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan: A Grave Injustice and a Desperate Smear Campaign

Published

1 week ago

March 9, 2025

Eric

By Senator Ojudu Babafemi

The decision of the Nigerian Senate to suspend Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for raising allegations of sexual harassment against Senate President Godswill Akpabio is deeply troubling and unjustifiable. While I take no position on the veracity of her claim, the fundamental principle of fairness demands that Akpabio should not have presided over a case in which he was personally implicated. It was his duty to step aside and allow his deputy to handle the matter impartially. By failing to do so, he compromised the integrity of the Senate and reinforced the perception of institutional bias against women who dare to speak up.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is not one to be dismissed lightly. I had the opportunity to interact with her in an official capacity while serving in the presidency, and I can attest that she is a woman of immense strength, intelligence, and purpose. She is not frivolous, nor is she someone who can be easily intimidated. Her journey in Kogi State has been marked by monumental struggles and persecution, yet she has remained unwavering in her commitment to her people. Her grassroots connection is undeniable, and her dedication to uplifting her constituency is evident in her relentless advocacy.

Beyond the unjust suspension, what is even more disgraceful is the rash of hired protesters in both Abuja and Akwa Ibom, clearly orchestrated to malign her. These so-called protests are glaringly artificial, a poorly executed charade that insults the intelligence of Nigerians. It is evident to the world that these are not spontaneous expressions of public sentiment but paid theatrics aimed at discrediting a strong woman who refuses to be silenced. The fact that such desperate measures are being deployed only signals that someone has something to hide. This playbook is cheap, nauseating, and frankly, an embarrassment to any society that claims to uphold democratic values.

But history has shown that truth and justice always prevail. This suspension is nothing more than a temporary setback. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan will emerge from this even stronger, her resilience further cementing her place as a formidable politician and conscientious public servant. Meanwhile, those orchestrating this smear campaign will find their names recorded in the book of infamy—a stark reminder of those who stood on the wrong side of history.

Nigeria deserves a legislative chamber where justice is not only done but seen to be done. The Senate must correct this grave injustice and ensure that no lawmaker, especially a woman, faces persecution for speaking out.