Connect with us

Opinion

Opinion: From the River to the Sea!

Published

on

Leaderboard Ad

By Femi Fani-kayode

“There is no peace for the wicked”- Isaiah 48:22

There is no greater truism than that which Prophet Isaiah, one of the greatest & most reverred Prophets in the Holy Bible, has enunciated in the scripture above.

What he is saying is that callous, merciless & bloodthirsty men & oppressors, subjugators, persecutors, slavers & the occupiers of the land of others, whether they be the biblical Egyptians, the Ancient Romans or anyone else, coupled with those that trample on the rights & liberties of others with impunity & that repay good with evil can NEVER escape the wrath of God & neither will they ever know or experience lasting peace.

This is a lesson that evidently the Jews themselves & particularly the Zionists amongst them have failed to appreciate or learn.

That you were oppressed, subjugated, murdered, robbed, humiliated, enslaved, subjected to genocide & mass murder, ethnically cleansed & treated with scorn & contempt yesterday does not give you the right to do the same to others today.

That you were once occupied, enslaved, thrown into captivity, scattered all over the earth, butchered, gassed to death, subjected to the holocaust & deprived of your beloved homeland yesterday does not permit you to do the same to others today.

That you have experienced God’s love, mercy, blessings, grace & restoration does not mean that you are the chosen race or master race, it simply means that God has shown you His tender kindness & opted to restore you despite the fact that you also killed & oppressed others in the past & that you crucified His only Begotten Son, our Lord & Saviour, Jesus Christ & sought to destroy Christianity even at the advent of its coming.

Those that have suffered so much in the past surely have a greater duty to ensure that that they desist from inflicting such suffering on others today lest they lose everything.

It is in this context that I view the State of Israel & the Zionists.

No matter what they have suffered in the last two thousand years in the hands of their numerous haters, oppressors & persecutors they have no right to inflict the wickedness that they are inflicting on the Palestinian people today & as long as they continue to do so they shall know no peace.

They shall also continue to stir up hatred & opprobium for themselves & their cause from all right thinking people, including millions that once had sympathy for them, from all over the world.

This is what we see unfolding today.

Now to the title & essence of this piece.

First coined by Yasser Arafat’s Palestinan Liberation Organisation & other Arab nationalist movements in the 1960’s, the phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is the popular refrain & battle cry for the Palestinians & those that support their cause & struggle for self-determination & emancipation from Israeli occupation & oppression.

And given what is happening in Gaza & the West Bank today who can deny them the right to achieve this noble quest for freedom & the right & aspiration to exist as an independent sovereign state?

I have always loved the State of Israel & believed in the two-state solution but I hate what her leaders are doing to the Palestinians today.

I equate the actions of the Israeli Defence Force in Gaza today with the heinous & horrendous atrocities that Hamas inflicted on their civilian population on October 7th.

I have always made the point that the Jewish State must be accorded the right to exist & reserves the right of self-defence.

I concede that she is also entitled to a measure of vengeance against those that visited the deplorable violence on her civilian population that we witnessed on October 7th but the targetting of innocent civilians in their thousands, the infanticide, the ethnic cleansing, the mass murder, the genocide, the crimes against humanity, the war crimes, the unprecedented & massive amount of bloodshed, the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians, the destruction & utter annihilation of Palestinian homes & infra-structures & all the other beastly & inexplicable horrors that are being unleashed & foisted on the women, children & elderly of Gaza today, including journalists, aid workers, hospital workers, doctors, nurses & other defenceless non-combatants & innocent civilians is unacceptable & indefensible.

20,000 civilians (mainly women & children) slaughtered in Gaza & 85% of her 2.5 million people displaced in two months!

Worse still 50% of the population of Gaza is facing starvation.

Such suffering, butchery & slaughter beggars belief & as painful, traumatising & tear-jerking as it is, the world can witness it in real time thanks to Al Jazeera.

And frankly what we are seeing is unspeakable.

Israel may consider this to be her finest hour & a glorious manifestation of her military strength & prowess but in actual fact it is nothing but evidence of her irretrievable & inescapable descent into notoriety, savagery & barbarity & her relentless, degenerate, bestial & reprobate disposition.

This is not her finest hour or her best moment but rather her greatest mistake.

I say this because the Israel that millions of people from all over the world, including yours truly, once loved, cherished, defended & empathised with no longer exists.

What we have in its place is an unforgiving, unthinking, cruel, brash, barbaric, brutal, racist, evil, power- drunk and thoroughly repugnant fascist/apartheid state that is being led by a political class that comprises of deluded monsters, narcisstic savages, obsessive psychopaths and bloodlusting child-killers who have lost their minds, who are devoid of any pretence to even a semblance of humanity, who are hell bent on wiping out the Palestinian people and who do not believe that they are bound by the rules, regulations, canons & strictures of civilisation & international humanitarian law.

Given this, Israel should no longer be welcomed into the comity of civilised nations & neither is she worthy of the western world’s consistent & unconditional support.

She has not only lost her right to be regarded as a responsible & law- abiding member of the international community but, as long as she denies the Palestinians the right to exist in peace & freedom and refuses to lift the occupation, she stands the risk of forfeiting her own right to exist.

What was once the inspiration, promise, pride & joy of millions from all over the world & the darling of civilised nations is now nothing but a vacuous, vicious, vengeful, lawless, petty, pitiful, tyrannical & bloodthirsty pariah state which celebrates & prides itself on its own barbarity, hatred, madness, war-mongering & rage, which openly espouses a racist & repugnant ‘Zionist’ philosophy, which considers itself racially & religiously superior to all others, which thrives on the suffering & pain of its Arab vassals & which is hell-bent on provoking the entire world into WWIII in an attempt to satisfy its senseless & dangerous delusions about re-establishing a biblical Zionist state & wiping out the Palestinian people.

Zionism is the greatest evil that has been foisted on earth since the advent of the Nazis.

It is an irony of fate & history that the Jews that are now calling themselves Zionists are the very same race whose forefathers suffered more persecution & cruelty at the hands of the Nazis than any other.

I have no doubt that if Israeli PM Netanyahu had the power, wherewithal & horrendous gas chambers that Hitler once did he would, without any hesitation, gas to death every Arab on earth & kill every Muslim & Christian in the Middle East.

That is how evil he & those that share his insane delusions are.

They are the greatest threat to world peace & stability & the only way to free us from their insidious & sinister power & pervasive influence is by establishing a free & sovereign Palestinian state “from the river to the sea”.

Just as Nazi Germany was brought to her knees by the civilised world after WW11 because of her heinous atrocities, Zionist Israel needs to be brought to her knees today.

Does a murderous, racist rogue state that considers itself above the law & delights in slaughtering children have the right to exist?

I doubt it.

To those that say “but Israel is a democracy and indeed the ONLY democracy in the Middle East”, I say the following:

Nazi Germany was a democracy too & Hitler was a democratically-elected leader yet look where they took the world!

In the light of all this it is indeed a great shame that Israel’s greatest friend & ally, the United States of America, not only firstly vetoed a motion for a second ceasefire in Gaza at the United Nations Security Council last friday but that secondly the American Congress passed a resolution that any criticism of or opposition to Zionism would be regarded as a manifestation of anti-semitism.

The first is nothing but yet another inglorious & graphic display of American immorality, hypocrisy, double standards, insensitivity & depravity & the second of the wilfull blindness & glaring ignorance of the majority of members of the American Congress.

To equate political Zionism, a concept which only came into existence as an organized nationalist movement after it was enunciated and founded by Theodor Herzl in 1897, with Judaism which has existed for thousands of years is not only antedelluvian idiocy and intellectual bankruptcy in its most raw, primitive, vulgar, crude & glaring form but also ignores the fact that millions of both right-wing, conservative religious Jews such as the Torah Jews & secular ones residing in Israel, America & Europe vehemently oppose the concept of Zionism themselves & deplore its malevolent & sinister delusions & political aspirations.

I love the Jews & the State of Israel but I despise & deplore the Zionists & what they have turned the latter into.

I despise them not because of their religious faith or semitic racial identity but because of the evil political philosophy of subjugation, occupation, enslavement & destruction of others that they choose to espouse.

It is for this very reason that for millions all over the world & not just the Arabs of the Middle East, the battle cry & war song of ‘from the river to the sea’ resonates so loudly.

Permit me to conclude this contribution with the following observation which is particularly relevant to those of us that are from Africa.

At the end of WW11 In 1945 when the great debate began amongst the leaders of the victorious Allied powers, including America, France, Russia & the UK, about where to send the Jews after the holocaust, there was a very strong lobby to send them to Uganda where they would have established their long-awaited new Jewish homeland.

Uganda, like Palestine, was a British colony & the colonial power believed that, unlike the Palestinians, the local African population would not present much of a threat or even raise an objection to the appropriation & occupation of their land by millions of western-backed European Jews who had suffered the most horrendous form of persecution in Europe for thousands of years.

Yet this interesting proposal was initially made forty two years earlier in 1903.

Known as the ‘Uganda Scheme’, it was a proposal by British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain to create a Jewish homeland in a portion of British East Africa.

It was presented at the Sixth World Zionist Congress in Basel in 1903 by Theodor Herzl, the founder of the modern Zionist movement.

In a short piece titled ‘Expolring The Middle East Uganda Scheme For A Jewish Homeland’, the Middle East Monitor wrote the following:

“Did you know about the intriguing chapter in history where Israel was almost established in Africa? This “almost” moment was known as the Uganda Scheme & was proposed by Theodor Herzl the father of political Zionism, in 1903. Herzl presented the plan to the World Zionist Congress envisioning a Jewish homeland in East Africa, then under British colonial rule. The proposal came at a time when Jews in Eastern Europe were facing severe persecution & massacres, making the idea of a safe haven, even in distant Africa, appealing. Despite initial approval by the Congress the plan faced opposition from the White settlers in East Africa who did not want to be displaced by other settlers. They formed an anti-Zionist commitee & their disapproval led to Britain withdrawing the offer, altering the course of history”.

Isnt that amazing?

Now to the point.

Given the disposition of the Zionists I am of the view that had the Uganda Scheme been successfully resurrected, accepted & implemented by the Allied powers in 1945 & the State of lsrael established in Uganda as opposed to Palestine in 1948, the history of the Middle East & indeed the world over the last 82 years would not only have been very different but the local African indigenous population in Uganda may well have either been totally enslaved or, worse still, extinct or exterminated by today.

I say this because Zionism is a deeply racist & supremacist philosophy that takes no prisoners, that seeks to disposses, subjugate, humiliate, emasculate & enslave others & that does not believe in sharing.

If the local indegenous African population had sought to resist Zionist hegemony & occupation in the same way that the Palestinians have been doing for the last 82 years they would have been subjected to something even worse than the genocide we are witnessing in Gaza & by now there may well have been no black Africans left alive in Uganda or indeed the whole of East Africa!

Such is the danger that political Zionism presents to humanity wherever it is entrenched & wherever it goes.

And if anyone considers the elimination or extermination of entire races to be a far-fetched proposition in this day & age they should find out what happened to the black population in Argentina, the Native Indians of North America & the local indigenous tribes like the Incas & Aztecs of South America in the hands of foreign & non indegenous settlers & occupiers.

The world really is a very cruel place & the Ugandans & East Africans should count themselves lucky that Lord Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, did a deal with the immensely wealthy Jewish Rothchild family & presented what was then known as British Palestine as a gift & offering on a silver platter to them in the form of a Jewish homeland in 1948 rather than Uganda.

Meanwhile we shall continue to speak out against the evil in Gaza, agitate for a ceasefire & call for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

AKPoti-AKPabio Saga: Standing Justice on Its Head

Published

on

By

Leaderboard Ad

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.

Continue Reading

Opinion

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

Published

on

By

Leaderboard Ad

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.

Continue Reading

Opinion

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

Published

on

By

Leaderboard Ad

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.

Continue Reading

Trending