SS+Nigeria+PIC

A. Militants in Nigeria have given president Yar’Adua a window of opportunity to maintain credibility and end their conflict. Failure will cause more terrorism and oil companies to pull out. Vanguard (Nigeria) 7-24-07 (Africa News, “Nigeria; Economy Realises N536.47bn From Crude Oil in June,” Lexis [T Chenoweth]) Currently, Nigerian production capacity is put at a little over 3.0 million barrels per day. However, close to one million barrels remains shut in with Shell alone accounting for about 664,000 barrels per day. Following the emergence of President Umar Musa Yar'Adua at the polls as the country's new President, militants indicated they were willing to give him a chance to address the issues relating to resource control and environmental neglect. Two months after taking power, the President is still trying to put a cabinet in place, creating some measure of disillusionment regarding his predisposition to tackling the problems of the troubled region. In the Niger Delta region, rather than abate, the incidence of hostage taking, arson and other negative vices remains alarmingly high, prompting more companies operating in the area to scale down their operations and even pull out in some instances.

B. Aid policies destroy government credibility – they’re seen as unable to protect their own people or negotiate effectively with donors. Eveline Herfkens, executive coordinator of the Millennium Campaign of the UN, 6-22-07 (Sabina Zaccaro: staff writer/interviewer for IPS, Q&A: "Too Few African Governments Have Had the Guts to Say 'No'" Interview with Eveline Herfkens, http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/nota.asp?idnews=38277 Acc: 7-25-07 [T Chenoweth]) And then the way aid has been delivered in the past has not been very helpful for improving governments' accountability to their own people. There are too few governments in Africa which have taken responsibility for themselves, for their future. The way that donors have operated was undermining whatever accountability and responsibility there was, making African countries look more at what their donors want than what their own people want. So there is a lot that needs to be changed -- but I am positive, because you are seeing an increasing number of countries where governments are taking responsibility and there is some improvement on the side of donor behaviour. What is not going well is the trade issue. IPS: At the same time we are seeing a pattern of commitments being made but not kept. The Gleneagles Group of Eight meeting has come and gone. There seems to be a lack of political will to level the playing field between the North and the South -- we are talking about global power relations... EH: But this is about ignorance, partly. It is very difficult to expect politicians in Japan, in the U.S. or in Canada to really do something about these issues if their own electorates don't see these connections. As I don't like talking about averages in sub-Saharan Africa, I don't like to talk about averages in the G8 either. Because let's be honest, the French, the British and the Germans kept their commitments on aid volumes. In the G8 Russia is not a player in the whole development field, so we're actually talking about Italy, Japan, Canada and the U.S. But even in the U.S. there has indeed been more than a doubling of aid to Africa…Of course it came from a very low level, but things are moving. The (U.S.) president has come with pledges and offers and the U.S. congress has become more generous. Here in Italy we still see little, but there is a debt problem here. Nevertheless, there is a move on the aid agenda, things like untying aid -- things that don't really cost money but that are important too. IPS: I would like to talk about policies imposed on sub-Saharan Africa. A lot of people would say that this is really at the heart of the problem -- that policies have been imposed on governments, that national agendas have been set by foreigners, and that this is why these states are unable to achieve the MDGs. EH: There are some nuances to this story. There have been African governments that are blaming the outside world for all kinds of things that they are themselves responsible for. Secondly, I would agree that there are too few African governments that have had the guts to say "no" to their donors if things were not helpful. It was a tremendous breakthrough when Tanzania told donors five years ago, "Listen guys, you are driving us crazy with all your missions and your separate reports. We're going to have three months mission-free -- you are not welcome. We really have to focus on running our own budget and getting our own act together." Partly there has been a lack of outspokenness on the African side, saying "no" to things that are not helpful.

C. Loss of legitimacy in Nigeria would destroy standards throughout west Africa and cause massive state failure. J. Peter Pham, director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison, quoting Paden, Prof. of Int’l Studies at George Mason and dean of Social and Management Sciences, at Bayero University, Nigeria; 4-24-07 (The National Interest Online, “Nigeria: Crisis of Legitimacy,” http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=14120 Accessed: 7-26-07 [T Chenoweth]) “Without a doubt, Nigeria is central to global stability. If some form of dialogue between Nigerian groups. . . is not forthcoming, the prospect of violence and terrorism may well persist, and, in extreme cases, nations may fail. As a stark reminder of what can happen when political leadership or systems crumble, more than 2 million died in Nigeria’s civil war of 1967-1970. A failure in Nigeria today would have even more extreme consequences in view of its oil wealth and military technologies, which would be available to destabilize the whole of West Africa.” As Paden correctly noted, the impact of the crisis of legitimacy brought about by the manner in which the recent elections were conducted will not be limited to Nigeria. This year alone, elections are slated in quite a number of states in the West African subregion including Burkina Faso Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali and Togo. Undoubtedly, many in these countries will be looking to how the international community reacts to the Nigerian poll to gage the standard against which they might be measured. Furthermore, already the internal conflict within Nigeria has already affected its political and, ultimately, military capacity to serve as a regional power. Despite pledges made at a summit of African leaders, Nigeria has yet to deploy any of the troops it promised to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), the peacekeeping force authorized by the United Nations Security Council, thus leaving the operation’s small Ugandan contingent virtually helpless as fighting rages between the Ethiopian supporters of that country’s ineffective transitional "government" and insurgent Islamists and their clan supporters. Against this backdrop, will not be too long before we find out whether Nigerians will once again demonstrate their incredible national capacity to pull themselves back from the brink or whether the vast natural and political resources which the West African nation has at its disposal will be wasted in an increasing spiral of internal conflict, violence and decline.

And, African instability risks great power draw-in and global nuclear war Jeffrey Deutsch, PhD & Founder, Rabid Tiger Project, RABID TIGER NEWSLETTER v. 2 n. 9, November 18, 2002. Available from the World Wide Web at: www.rabidtigers.com/rtn/newsletterv2n9.html, accessed 5/25/05.

The Rabid Tiger Project believes that a nuclear war is most likely to start in Africa. Civil wars in the Congo (the country formerly known as Zaire), Rwanda, Somalia and Sierra Leone, and domestic instability in Zimbabwe, Sudan and other countries, as well as occasional brushfire and other wars (thanks in part to "national" borders that cut across tribal ones) turn into a really nasty stew. We've got all too many rabid tigers and potential rabid tigers, who are willing to push the button rather than risk being seen as wishy-washy in the face of a mortal threat and overthrown. Geopolitically speaking, Africa is open range. Very few countries in Africa are beholden to any particular power. South Africa is a major exception in this respect - not to mention in that she also probably already has the Bomb. Thus, outside powers can more easily find client states there than, say, in Europe where the political lines have long since been drawn, or Asia where many of the countries (China, India, Japan) are powers unto themselves and don't need any "help," thank you. Thus, an African war can attract outside involvement very quickly. Of course, a proxy war alone may not induce the Great Powers to fight each other. But an African nuclear strike can ignite a much broader conflagration, if the other powers are interested in a fight. Certainly, such a strike would in the first place have been facilitated by outside help - financial, scientific, engineering, etc. Africa is an ocean of troubled waters, and some people love to go fishing.