Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: each year we come together to reaffirm the founding vision of this institution. For most of recorded history, individual aspirations were subject to the whims of tyrants and empires. Divisions of race, religion and tribe were settled through the sword and the clash of armies. The idea that nations and peoples could come together in peace to solve their disputes and advance a common prosperity seemed unimaginable.
It took the awful carnage of two world wars to shift our thinking. The leaders who built the United Nations were not naïve; they did not think this body could eradicate all wars. But in the wake of millions dead and continents in rubble; and with the development of nuclear weapons that could annihilate a planet; they understood that humanity could not survive the course it was on. So they gave us this institution, believing that it could allow us to resolve conflicts, enforce rules of behavior, and build habits of cooperation that would grow stronger over time.
For decades, the U.N. has in fact made a real difference – from helping to eradicate disease, to educating children, to brokering peace. But like every generation of leaders, we face new and profound challenges, and this body continues to be tested. The question is whether we possess the wisdom and the courage, as nation-states and members of an international community, to squarely meet those challenges; whether the United Nations can meet the tests of our time.
For much of my time as President, some of our most urgent challenges have revolved around an increasingly integrated global economy, and our efforts to recover from the worst economic crisis of our lifetime. Now, five years after the global economy collapsed, thanks to coordinated efforts by the countries here today, jobs are being created, global financial systems have stabilized, and people are being lifted out of poverty. But this progress is fragile and unequal, and we still have work to do together to assure that our citizens can access the opportunity they need to thrive in the 21st century.
Together, we have also worked to end a decade of war. Five years ago, nearly 180,000 Americans were serving in harm’s way, and the war in Iraq was the dominant issue in our relationship with the rest of the world. Today, all of our troops have left Iraq. Next year, an international coalition will end its war in Afghanistan, having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.
For the United States, these new circumstances have also meant shifting away from a perpetual war-footing. Beyond bringing our troops home, we have limited the use of drones so they target only those who pose a continuing, imminent threat to the United States where capture is not feasible, and there is a near certainty of no civilian casualties. We are transferring detainees to other countries and trying terrorists in courts of law, while working diligently to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And just as we reviewed how we deploy our extraordinary military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals, we have begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so as to properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies, with the privacy concerns that all people share.
As a result of this work, and cooperation with allies and partners, the world is more stable than it was five years ago. But even a glance at today’s headlines indicates the dangers that remain. In Kenya, we’ve seen terrorists target innocent civilians in a crowded shopping mall. In Pakistan, nearly 100 people were recently killed by suicide bombers outside a church. In Iraq, killings and car bombs continue to be a horrific part of life. Meanwhile, al Qaeda has splintered into regional networks and militias, which has not carried out an attack like 9/11, but does pose serious threats to governments, diplomats, businesses and civilians across the globe.
Just as significantly, the convulsions in the Middle East and North Africa have laid bare deep divisions within societies, as an old order is upended, and people grapple with what comes next. Peaceful movements have been answered by violence – from those resisting change, and from extremists trying to hijack change. Sectarian conflict has reemerged. And the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction casts a shadow over the pursuit of peace.
Nowhere have we seen these trends converge more powerfully than in Syria. There, peaceful protests against an authoritarian regime were met with repression and slaughter. In the face of carnage, many retreated to their sectarian identity – Alawite and Sunni; Christian and Kurd – and the situation spiraled into civil war. The international community recognized the stakes early on, but our response has not matched the scale of the challenge. Aid cannot keep pace with the suffering of the wounded and displaced. A peace process is still-born. America and others have worked to bolster the moderate opposition, but extremist groups have still taken root to exploit the crisis. Assad’s traditional allies have propped him up, citing principles of sovereignty to shield his regime. And on August 21st, the regime used chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.
The crisis in Syria, and the destabilization of the region, goes to the heart of broader challenges that the international community must now confront. How should we respond to conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa – conflicts between countries, but also conflicts within them? How do we address the choice of standing callously by while children are subjected to nerve gas, or embroiling ourselves in someone else’s civil war? What is the role of force in resolving disputes that threaten the stability of the region and undermine all basic standards of civilized conduct? What is the role of the United Nations, and international law, in meeting cries for justice?
Today, I want to outline where the United States of America stands on these issues. With respect to Syria, we believe that as a starting point, the international community must enforce the ban on chemical weapons. When I stated my willingness to order a limited strike against the Assad regime in response to the brazen use of chemical weapons, I did not do so lightly. I did so because I believe it is in the security interest of the United States and the world to meaningfully enforce a prohibition whose origins are older than the U.N. itself. The ban against the use of chemical weapons, even in war, has been agreed to by 98 percent of humanity. It is strengthened by the searing memories of soldiers suffocated in the trenches; Jews slaughtered in gas chambers; and Iranians poisoned in the many tens of thousands.
The evidence is overwhelming that the Assad regime used such weapons on August 21st. U.N. inspectors gave a clear accounting that advanced rockets fired large quantities of sarin gas at civilians. These rockets were fired from a regime-controlled neighborhood, and landed in opposition neighborhoods. It is an insult to human reason – and to the legitimacy of this institution – to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack.
I know that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, there were those who questioned the legitimacy of even a limited strike in the absence of a clear mandate from the Security Council. But without a credible military threat, the Security Council had demonstrated no inclination to act at all. However, as I’ve discussed with President Putin for over a year, most recently in St. Petersburg, my preference has always been a diplomatic resolution to this issue, and in the past several weeks, the United States, Russia and our allies have reached an agreement to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international control, and then to destroy them.
The Syrian government took a first step by giving an accounting of its stockpiles. Now, there must be a strong Security Council Resolution to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there must be consequences if they fail to do so. If we cannot agree even on this, then it will show that the U.N. is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws. On the other hand, if we succeed, it will send a powerful message that the use of chemical weapons has no place in the 21st century, and that this body means what it says.
Agreement on chemical weapons should energize a larger diplomatic effort to reach a political settlement within Syria. I do not believe that military action – by those within Syria, or by external powers – can achieve a lasting peace. Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine who will lead Syria – that is for the Syrian people to decide. Nevertheless, a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a badly fractured country. The notion that Syria can return to a pre-war status quo is a fantasy. It’s time for Russia and Iran to realize that insisting on Assad’s rule will lead directly to the outcome they fear: an increasingly violent space for extremists to operate. In turn, those of us who continue to support the moderate opposition must persuade them that the Syrian people cannot afford a collapse of state institutions, and that a political settlement cannot be reached without addressing the legitimate fears of Alawites and other minorities.
As we pursue a settlement, let us remember that this is not a zero-sum endeavor. We are no longer in a Cold War. There’s no Great Game to be won, nor does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-being of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons, and ensuring it does not become a safe-haven for terrorists. I welcome the influence of all nations that can help bring about a peaceful resolution of Syria’s civil war. And as we move the Geneva process forward, I urge all nations here to step up to meet humanitarian needs in Syria and surrounding countries. America has committed over a billion dollars to this effort, and today, I can announce that we will be providing an additional $340 million. No aid can take the place of a political resolution that gives the Syrian people the chance to begin rebuilding their country – but it can help desperate people survive.
What broader conclusions can be drawn from America’s policy toward Syria? I know there are those who have been frustrated by our unwillingness to use our military might to depose Assad, and believe that a failure to do so indicates a weakening of America’s resolve in the region. Others have suggested that my willingness to direct even limited military strikes to deter the further use of chemical weapons shows that we have learned nothing from Iraq, and that America continues to seek control over the Middle East for our own purposes. In this way, the situation in Syria mirrors a contradiction that has persisted in the region for decades: the United States is chastised for meddling in the region, and accused of having a hand in all manner of conspiracy; at the same time, the United States is blamed for failing to do enough to solve the region’s problems, and for showing indifference toward suffering Muslim populations.
I realize some of this is inevitable, given America’s role in the world. But these attitudes have a practical impact on the American peoples’ support for our involvement in the region, and allow leaders in the region – and the international community – to avoid addressing difficult problems. So let me take this opportunity to outline what has been U.S. policy towards the Middle East and North Africa, and what will be my policy during the remainder of my presidency.
The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure these core interests in the region.
We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War.
We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends upon the region’s energy supply, and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy.
We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people. Wherever possible, we will build the capacity of our partners, respect the sovereignty of nations, and work to address the root causes of terror. But when its necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attacks, we will take direct action.
And finally, we will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction. Just as we consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a threat to our own national security, we reject the development of nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, and undermine the global non-proliferation regime.
Now, to say these are America’s core interests is not to say these are our only interests. We deeply believe it is in our interest to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous; and will continue to promote democracy, human rights, and open markets, because we believe these practices achieve peace and prosperity. But I also believe that we can rarely achieve these objectives through unilateral American action – particularly with military action. Iraq shows us that democracy cannot be imposed by force. Rather, these objectives are best achieved when we partner with the international community, and with the countries and people of the region.
What does this mean going forward? In the near term, America’s diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. While these issues are not the cause of all the region’s problems, they have been a major source of instability for far too long, and resolving them can help serve as a foundation for a broader peace.
The United States and Iran have been isolated from one another since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. This mistrust has deep roots. Iranians have long complained of a history of U.S. interference in their affairs, and America’s role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the Cold War. On the other hand, Americans see an Iranian government that has declared the United States an enemy, and directly – or through proxies – taken Americans hostage, killed U.S. troops and civilians, and threatened our ally Israel with destruction.
I don’t believe this difficult history can be overcome overnight – the suspicion runs too deep. But I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road towards a different relationship – one based on mutual interests and mutual respect.
Since I took office, I have made it clear – in letters to the Supreme Leader in Iran and more recently to President Rouhani – that America prefers to resolve our concerns over Iran’s nuclear program peacefully, but that we are determined to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon. We are not seeking regime change, and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy. Instead, we insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and UN Security Council resolutions.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the Islamic Republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.
These statements made by our respective governments should offer the basis for a meaningful agreement. We should be able to achieve a resolution that respects the rights of the Iranian people, while giving the world confidence that the Iranian program is peaceful. To succeed, conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable. After all, it is the Iranian government’s choices that have led to the comprehensive sanctions that are currently in place. This isn’t simply an issue between America and Iran – the world has seen Iran evade its responsibilities in the past, and has an abiding interest in making sure that Iran meets its obligations in the future.
We are encouraged that President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course. Given President Rouhani’s stated commitment to reach an agreement, I am directing John Kerry to pursue this effort with the Iranian government, in close coordination with the European Union, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China. The roadblocks may prove to be too great, but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested. For while the status quo will only deepen Iran’s isolation, Iran’s genuine commitment to go down a different path will be good for the region and the world, and will help the Iranian people meet their extraordinary potential – in commerce and culture; in science and education.
We are also determined to resolve a conflict that goes back even further than our differences with Iran: the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. I have made clear that the United States will never compromise our commitment to Israel’s security, nor our support for its existence as a Jewish state. Earlier this year, in Jerusalem, I was inspired by young Israelis who stood up for the belief that peace was necessary, just, and possible, and I believe there is a growing recognition within Israel that the occupation of the West Bank is tearing at the democratic fabric of the Jewish state. But the children of Israel have the right to live in a world where the nations assembled in this body fully recognize their country, and unequivocally reject those who fire rockets at their homes or incite others to hate them.
Likewise, the United States remains committed to the belief that the Palestinian people have a right to live with security and dignity in their own sovereign state. On the same trip, I had the opportunity to meet with young Palestinians in Ramallah whose ambition and potential are matched by the pain they feel in having no firm place in the community of nations. They are understandably cynical that real progress will ever be made, and frustrated by their families enduring the daily indignity of occupation. But they recognize that two states is the only real path to peace: because just as the Palestinian people must not be displaced, the state of Israel is here to stay.
The time is now ripe for the entire international community to get behind the pursuit of peace. Already, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks. President Abbas has put aside efforts to short-cut the pursuit of peace and come to the negotiating table. Prime Minister Netanyahu has released Palestinian prisoners, and reaffirmed his commitment to a Palestinian state. Current talks are focused on final status issues of borders and security, refugees and Jerusalem.
Now the rest of us must also be willing to take risks. Friends of Israel, including the United States, must recognize that Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state depends upon the realization of a Palestinian state. Arab states – and those who have supported the Palestinians – must recognize that stability will only be served through a two-state solution with a secure Israel. All of us must recognize that peace will be a powerful tool to defeat extremists, and embolden those who are prepared to build a better future. Moreover, ties of trade and commerce between Israelis and Arabs could be an engine of growth and opportunity at a time when too many young people in the region are languishing without work. So let us emerge from the familiar corners of blame and prejudice, and support Israeli and Palestinian leaders who are prepared to walk the difficult road to peace.
Real breakthroughs on these two issues – Iran’s nuclear program, and Israeli-Palestinian peace – would have a profound and positive impact on the entire Middle East and North Africa. But the current convulsions arising out of the Arab Spring remind us that a just and lasting peace cannot be measured only by agreements between nations. It must also be measured by our ability to resolve conflict and promote justice within nations. And by that measure, it is clear to all of us that there is much more work to be done.
When peaceful transitions began in Tunisia and Egypt, the entire world was filled with hope. And although the United States – like others – was struck by the speed of transition, and did not – in fact could not – dictate events, we chose to support those who called for change. We did so based on the belief that while these transitions will be hard, and take time, societies based upon democracy and openness and the dignity of the individual will ultimately be more stable, more prosperous, and more peaceful.
Over the last few years, particularly in Egypt, we’ve seen just how hard this transition will be. Mohammed Morsi was democratically elected, but proved unwilling or unable to govern in a way that was fully inclusive. The interim government that replaced him responded to the desires of millions of Egyptians who believed the revolution had taken a wrong turn, but it too has made decisions inconsistent with inclusive democracy – through an emergency law, and restrictions on the press, civil society, and opposition parties.
Of course, America has been attacked by all sides of this internal conflict, simultaneously accused of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, and engineering their removal from power. In fact, the United States has purposely avoided choosing sides. Our over-riding interest throughout these past few years has been to encourage a government that legitimately reflects the will of the Egyptian people, and recognizes true democracy as requiring a respect for minority rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, and a strong civil society.
That remains our interest today. And so, going forward, the United States will maintain a constructive relationship with the interim government that promotes core interests like the Camp David Accords and counter-terrorism. We will continue support in areas like education that benefit the Egyptian people. But we have not proceeded with the delivery of certain military systems, and our support will depend upon Egypt’s progress in pursuing a democratic path.
Our approach to Egypt reflects a larger point: the United States will at times work with governments that do not meet the highest international expectations, but who work with us on our core interests. But we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of suppressing dissent, or supporting the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We will reject the notion that these principles are simply Western exports, incompatible with Islam or the Arab World - they are the birthright of every person. And while we recognize that our influence will at times be limited; although we will be wary of efforts to impose democracy through military force, and will at times be accused of hypocrisy or inconsistency – we will be engaged in the region for the long haul. For the hard work of forging freedom and democracy is the task of a generation.
This includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue to surface in places like Iraq, Syria and Bahrain. Ultimately, such long-standing issues cannot be solved by outsiders; they must be addressed by Muslim communities themselves. But we have seen grinding conflicts come to an end before – most recently in Northern Ireland, where Catholics and Protestants finally recognized that an endless cycle of conflict was causing both communities to fall behind a fast-moving world.
In sum, the United States has a hard-earned humility when it comes to our ability to determine events inside other countries. The notion of American empire may be useful propaganda, but it isn’t borne out by America’s current policy or public opinion. Indeed, as the recent debate within the United States over Syria clearly showed, the danger for the world is not an America that is eager to immerse itself in the affairs of other countries, or take on every problem in the region as its own. The danger for the world is that the United States, after a decade of war; rightly concerned about issues back home; and aware of the hostility that our engagement in the region has engendered throughout the Muslim World, may disengage, creating a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.
I believe that would be a mistake. I believe America must remain engaged for our own security. I believe the world is better for it. Some may disagree, but I believe that America is exceptional – in part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest, but for the interests of all. I must be honest, though: we are far more likely to invest our energy in those countries that want to work with us; that invest in their people, instead of a corrupt few; that embrace a vision of society where everyone can contribute – men and women, Shia or Sunni, Muslim, Christian or Jew. Because from Europe to Asia; from Africa to the Americas, nations that persevered on a democratic path have emerged more prosperous, more peaceful, and more invested in upholding our common security and our common humanity. And I believe that the same will hold true for the Arab World.
This leads me to a final point: there will be times when the breakdown of societies is so great, and the violence against civilians so substantial, that the international community will be called upon to act. This will require new thinking and some very tough choices. While the U.N. was designed to prevent wars between states, increasingly we face the challenge of preventing slaughter within states. And these challenges will grow more pronounced as we are confronted with states that are fragile or failing – places where horrendous violence can put innocent men, women and children at risk, with no hope of protection from national institutions.
I have made it clear that even when America’s core interests are not directly threatened, we stand ready to do our part to prevent mass atrocities and protect human rights. Yet we cannot and should not bear that burden alone. In Mali, we supported both the French intervention that successfully pushed back al Qaeda, and the African forces who are keeping the peace. In Africa, we are working with partners to bring the Lord’s Resistance Army to an end. And in Libya, when the Security Council provided a mandate to protect civilians, America joined a coalition that took action. Because of what we did there, countless lives were saved, and a tyrant could not kill his way back to power.
I know that some now criticize the action in Libya as an object lesson. They point to problems that the country now confronts – a democratically-elected government struggling to provide security; armed groups, in some places extremists, ruling parts of a fractured land – and argue that any intervention to protect civilians is doomed to fail. No one is more mindful of these problems than I am, for they resulted in the death of four outstanding U.S. citizens who were committed to the Libyan people, including Ambassador Chris Stevens – a man whose courageous efforts helped save the city of Benghazi. But does anyone truly believe that the situation in Libya would be better if Qadhafi had been allowed to kill, imprison, or brutalize his people into submission? It is far more likely that without international action, Libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed.
We live in a world of imperfect choices. Different nations will not agree on the need for action in every instance, and the principle of sovereignty is at the center of our international order. But sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder, or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye to slaughter. While we need to be modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil, and we need to be mindful that the world is full of unintended consequences, should we really accept the notion that the world is powerless in the face of a Rwanda or Srebrenica? If that’s the world that people want to live in, then they should say so, and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves.
I believe we can embrace a different future. If we don’t want to choose between inaction and war, we must get better – all of us – at the policies that prevent the breakdown of basic order. Through respect for the responsibilities of nations and the rights of individuals. Through meaningful sanctions for those who break the rules. Through dogged diplomacy that resolves the root causes of conflict, and not merely its aftermath. Through development assistance that brings hope to the marginalized. And yes, sometimes, all this will not be enough – and in such moments, the international community will need to acknowledge that the multilateral use of military force may be required to prevent the very worst from occuring.
Ultimately, this is the international community that America seeks – one where nations do not covet the land or resources of other nations, but one in which we carry out the founding purpose of this institution. A world in which the rules established out of the horrors of war can help us resolve conflicts peacefully, and prevent the kind of wars that our forefathers fought. A world where human beings can live with dignity and meet their basic needs, whether they live in New York or Nairobi; in Peshawar or Damascus.
These are extraordinary times, with extraordinary opportunities. Thanks to human progress, a child born anywhere on Earth can do things today that 60 years ago would have been out of reach for the mass of humanity. I saw this in Africa, where nations moving beyond conflict are now poised to take off. America is with them: partnering to feed the hungry, care for the sick, and to bring power to places off the grid.
I see it across the Pacific, where hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty in a single generation. I see it in the faces of young people everywhere who can access the entire world with the click of a button, and who are eager to join the cause of eradicating extreme poverty, combating climate change, starting businesses, expanding freedom, and leaving behind the old ideological battles of the past. That’s what’s happening in Asia and Africa; in Europe and the Americas. That’s the future that the people of the Middle East and North Africa deserve – one where they can focus on opportunity, instead of whether they’ll be killed or repressed because of who they are or what they believe.
Time and again, nations and people have shown our capacity to change – to live up to humanity’s highest ideals, to choose our better history. Last month, I stood where fifty years ago Martin Luther King Jr. told America about his dream, at a time when many people of my race could not even vote for President. Earlier this year, I stood in the small cell where Nelson Mandela endured decades cut off from his own people and the world. Who are we to believe that today’s challenges cannot be overcome, when we have seen what changes the human spirit can bring? Who in this hall can argue that the future belongs to those who seek to repress that spirit, rather than those who seek to liberate it?
I know what side of history I want to the United States of America to be on. We are ready to meet tomorrow’s challenges with you – firm in the belief that all men and women are in fact created equal, each individual possessed with a dignity that cannot be denied. That is why we look to the future not with fear, but with hope. That’s why we remain convinced that this community of nations can deliver a more peaceful, prosperous, and just world to the next gene
 |
|
Gunmen believed to be kidnappers attacked a commercial vehicle belonging to Benue Links, the state-owned transport company.
About 17 candidates travelling to Otukpo for their examination centres in the ongoing Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) are feared to have been abducted, although the exact number of victims remains unclear.
Information available to our correspondent says that the incident took place between 7–8 p.m. on Wednesday, April 15, along the Benue Burnt Bricks in Otukpo, Otukpo Local Government Area (LGA) of Benue State.
According to sources, the assailants waylaid the bus and robbed the occupants of their belongings before whisking them away into the bush.
An eyewitness, who spoke to journalists on the condition of anonymity, said the Benue Links bus, which was conveying about 18 passengers, ran into the kidnappers at about 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday night.
“The passengers were mainly young persons heading to Otukpo to sit for the JAMB examination scheduled for Thursday.
“Two people, the driver and one passenger, managed to escape. Incidentally, the passengers were mainly young men and women who travelled to sit for the JAMB examination scheduled for today (Thursday),” he said.
When contacted, the General Manager of Benue Links, Mr Alexander Fanafa, confirmed the incident, noting that the driver of the bus is presently undergoing interrogation at the police station in Otukpo for violating the company’s safety policy not to travel beyond 6:00 p.m.
He said, “As I speak with you, the driver has been arrested and is under investigation for traveling against company directive. I have warned all drivers to stop night journeys, as they would be held as first suspects if anything unfortunate happens.”
The General Manager further stated that the driver took his vehicle and loaded the passengers who were heading to Otukpo after official hours when the park manager, Mr Amedu, had closed, and ran into trouble, so he has been arrested.
The Executive Chairman of Otukpo Local Government Council, Prince Maxwell Ogiri, confirmed the incident, saying that it occurred between 7 and 8 p.m. on Wednesday.
He added that security agents have been mobilized to rescue the victims, stating that the victims are all young people coming to Otukpo to write JAMB examinations.
“It is true, I’m just coming out from a security meeting, and security operatives have been moved into the forest to help rescue the kidnapped victims.
“The victims are mainly young boys and girls coming to Otukpo to write JAMB,” Ogiri said.
However, when contacted, the Benue State Commissioner of Police, Ifeanyi Emenari, confirmed the situation, but said 14 passengers were kidnapped, while one passenger escaped.
The commissioner disclosed that he had already arrived in Otukpo and is conducting the rescue operation.
“I am in Otukpo now with all my team and DPOs who are here in the bush, and I am heading the operation.
“What happened was that one Benue Links bus carrying passengers coming to Otukpo was stopped and attacked by hoodlums, and 14 passengers were kidnapped, but one was able to escape,” he said.
According to him, the command had commenced an investigation into the incident, particularly the circumstances surrounding the journey.
He maintained that Benue Links management has a policy against night travel, but the driver allegedly picked up passengers after official hours.
“We know that Benue Links has a policy and don’t usually drive at night. So from what I got, they have already closed, but the driver, for reasons best known to him which we are still trying to find out, picked passengers along the road, and when he came here, the story you have is what we are having.
“But as we are investigating, we are on the ground to make sure that the victims are rescued,” Emenari said.
News
There are governments that save for the rainy day, governments that prepare for the storm, and governments that, when the heavens open and money falls like tropical rain, rush outside with buckets full of holes. Nigeria, under President Bola Tinubu, has perfected a fourth category: the government that borrows during a windfall. It is a feat of fiscal acrobatics so astonishing that even the most cynical observers of Abuja’s budgetary theatre must pause in admiration. For decades, Nigeria has squandered oil booms with the reliability of a metronome. But this administration has achieved something more ambitious: it has managed to squander a boom before it even finishes arriving.
The US–Iran war has sent oil prices soaring to $115 per barA Government Addicted to Debtrel, nearly double the government’s benchmark of $64.85. Nigeria is earning an extra $92 million every single day; a torrent of unbudgeted cash that would make even the most jaded petro state accountant blush. In barely a month, Abuja has pocketed almost $3 billion in windfall revenue. If the conflict drags on, the country could rake in $30–$36 billion this year alone. And what has the Tinubu administration done with this unexpected bounty? Why, it has gone on a borrowing binge, of course.
In the past week alone, the National Assembly approved: a $5 billion loan from First Abu Dhabi Bank; a $1 billion UKEF backed loan for Lagos ports; a $6 billion external borrowing package, rubber stamped in under four hours, and a N68.323 trillion budget; the largest in Nigeria’s history. This is not fiscal policy. This is a national credit card with no spending limit. Nigeria’s public debt now hovers around $115 billion, and debt servicing will gulp N20.5 trillion in 2026; more than the budgets of health, education, and infrastructure combined. Yet the government borrows as though it were a teenager discovering online shopping for the first time. One might have expected that a historic oil windfall would inspire restraint. Instead, Abuja behaves like a gambler who wins the lottery and immediately takes out a loan to buy more lottery tickets.
The Senate: From Upper Chamber to Upper Cashier
The Senate’s role in this farce deserves special mention. Once conceived as a check on executive excess, it now functions as a conveyor belt for presidential loan requests. The $6 billion borrowing package was approved with the speed of a fast food order; no debate, no scrutiny, no hesitation. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, hardly a stranger to Nigeria’s fiscal melodramas, described the approval as “reckless urgency.” He is being polite. The Senate has not merely abdicated oversight; it has embraced its new role as a ceremonial stamp of approval, a kind of legislative rubber chicken waved over every loan document. One wonders whether senators even bother to read the fine print anymore, or whether they simply check the exchange rate, sigh, and sign.
The Oil Windfall That Will Not Be Saved
Other countries treat oil windfalls as blessings. Norway built a sovereign wealth fund so large it could buy entire countries. Saudi Arabia uses its surpluses to diversify its economy. Even Angola; long mocked for its corruption, has learned to stash away a portion of its oil riches. Nigeria, by contrast, treats windfalls as invitations to spend more, borrow more, and plan less. The Excess Crude Account, once envisioned as a rainy day fund, is now emptier than a politician’s promise after election day. The Sovereign Wealth Fund is a polite fiction. And fiscal discipline is a rumor whispered in the corridors of the Ministry of Finance. The tragedy is not that Nigeria is poor. The tragedy is that Nigeria is mismanaged.
The revised N68.323 trillion budget is a monument to fiscal optimism. It allocates N15.8 trillion to debt servicing; N15.4 trillion to recurrent expenditure, and N32.2 trillion to capital projects, many of them rolled over from previous years because the government failed to implement them. This is not a budget. It is a wish list. The government insists that the spending spree will “stimulate growth,” “unlock infrastructure,” and “stabilize the economy.” These are the same phrases Nigerian governments have used since the 1970s, usually moments before the economy collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.
Borrowing to Service Borrowing
The most farcical element of the Tinubu administration’s fiscal strategy is its reliance on borrowing to service existing borrowing. Nigeria now borrows to pay interest on previous loans, borrows to refinance old debts, borrows to fund recurrent expenditure, and borrows to cover budget gaps. This is not fiscal management. It is a Ponzi scheme with national colors. The administration insists that the debt is “sustainable.” So did Greece in 2008. So did Argentina in 2001. So did Nigeria in the 1980s; right before the IMF arrived with structural adjustment programs (SAP) that Nigerians still curse today.
Nigeria’s economy is a house built on sand: the naira remains fragile, inflation is suffocating households, foreign investors are fleeing, debt service consumes most of national revenue, oil production is unstable and non oil revenue is anemic. And yet, in the middle of this storm, the government has chosen to borrow more; at a moment when it should be saving aggressively. The oil windfall is a gift. But gifts require stewardship. And stewardship requires discipline. Neither is in abundant supply in Abuja.
Conclusion: A Nation at the Edge of a Fiscal Cliff
The expanded budget includes lavish allocations to the judiciary ahead of the 2027 elections, feasibility studies for politically convenient infrastructure, and capital projects that conveniently align with electoral maps. This is not economic planning. It is election year choreography. Nigeria is not being prepared for the future. It is being prepared for the polls.
The Tinubu administration inherited a difficult economy. But it has chosen to make it worse. Instead of using the oil windfall to rebuild reserves, strengthen the currency, reduce borrowing, and stabilize the economy, it has embarked on a reckless spending spree financed by loans that future generations will be forced to repay. Nigeria is earning billions, and saving nothing. And it is borrowing everything. History will not be kind to this moment. Nor will the bond markets. In the end, Nigeria’s tragedy is not that it lacks resources. It is that it lacks restraint. And in Abuja today, restraint is as scarce as electricity.
Business
In The Spotlight
On Friday, Nigeria’s Defence Headquarters confirmed the death of the Commander of the 29 Task Force Brigade in Benisheikh, Borno State, Brigadier General Oseni Braimah, and three other soldiers, following a ruthless attack on the military formation. Though this confirmation calmed initial reports that more than 17 soldiers were killed in the April 9, 2026 attack, it, however, ignited a deeper cause for concern among Nigerians, considering the fact that just about five months earlier, another brigadier general, Musa Uba, was murdered in cruel but avoidable circumstances near Wajiroko, in the same Borno State.
The attack on the military formation was not the only terrorist strike that week. That same Thursday, the devastating news of the soldiers who paid the supreme price had not been fully digested when another report filtered in, at night, that no fewer than eight persons had been killed by gunmen, in Mbwelle village, Bokkos Local Government Area of Plateau State. This was besides the bloodshed recorded in Shanga Local Government Area of Kebbi State on Easter Sunday, where 24 people were killed, according to the Kontagora Catholic Diocese, and in Kebbi and Kwara states, where 49 villagers were reportedly killed on Friday.
Despite the confusion, mourning and grief that followed the killing of these helpless civilians in various communities, described by authorities as some of the deadliest incidents recorded in recent months, the report of the military formation invasion and the killing of soldiers specifically caused panic attacks among citizens and gave a “hopeless situation” slant to the worsening security crisis. And this has become a trend since the beginning of the Boko Haram insurgency in 2009.
It is true that Nigeria’s security forces under the current administration have been dismantling bandit networks and killing scores of terrorists. But the relentless attacks on innocent citizens, which have led to the death of over 10,000 people in two years, and the kidnapping of more than 1,100 people in northern Nigeria, in just four months, appear to have enveloped security agencies’ efforts and boxed the current All Progressives Congress administration into a more precarious corner than previous opposition governments.
A few analysts have tried to compare the security situation under the late former President Muhammadu Buhari with the situation now. While some scored the President Bola Tinubu administration above his predecessor’s, others like Olu Fasan, in his article: “Recurring bloodbath: Nigeria is too fragile, too fractured to be safe”, said, “It has taken Tinubu less than three years in office to achieve a worse security situation than Buhari did in (his) eight years in power.”
I may not directly agree with this notion, but I know that the prevailing economic hardship or widespread poverty in the country, despite significant, growth-targeted policy reforms like exchange rate unification, subsidy removal, and fiscal coordination, can be justifiably linked to rising insecurity.
The Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research, in a 2024 study brief, titled: “Insecurity takes the lead as the key driver of poverty in Nigeria”, said, “Once a country experiences conflict and insecurity, it faces a reversal of economic development, which in turn increases the likelihood of further conflict, resulting in a cycle economists refer to as doom-loop. By undermining household livelihood activities on massive scales in Nigeria, increasing insecurity in the last five years has not only intensified poverty in the country, but has also opened up new frontiers of multidimensional poverty across Nigeria.”
Insecurity, according to NISER, drives poverty by disrupting and destroying livelihood activities and by reducing access to basic needs, thereby stifling meaningful improvement in the quality of life in Nigeria. This argument can be better appreciated if one considers how many Nigerians have abandoned leisure or commercial farming, especially in rural areas, owing to rising insecurity.
It would be unfair to pin the blame for this lingering crisis on the current administration; past governments were not also able to do much to stem the tide. But the fact that political IOUs seemed to have trumped competence during the initial formation of President Tinubu’s cabinet inadvertently gave room for unpalatable political treatment of delicate security matters across the states.
The Ministry of Defence, according to analysts, was the worst hit until recently, as analysts found it difficult to decode the consideration behind the choice of the two ministers who were initially saddled with such a priority responsibility. Perhaps, if the issue of security had been given the kind of attention it is being given now, from the beginning of the current administration, the terrorists might not have been this emboldened amid international focus.
The result is that, unlike when Nigeria was ranked the Number One Destination for Investment in Africa for two consecutive years (2012 and 2013), other African countries have, since then, continued to displace the nation, owing to a combination of factors, including accessibility and innovation, economic stability and investment climate, among others.
Of the 31 countries that were tracked in the 2024 edition of the “Where to Invest in Africa” report, published by Rand Merchant Bank and the Gordon Institute of Business Science, Nigeria was ranked as the ninth most viable destination for investment in Africa, behind South Africa, in fourth position; and Ghana, sixth. The 2025 report sadly reflected a further decline for Nigeria, by nine places, to the 18th position.
It doesn’t take an economist to understand that banditry, kidnapping, killings, among other forms of security crisis being witnessed on a large scale in Nigeria, can seriously damage the investment climate and trigger capital flight. Any government that picks the socio-economic well-being of its citizens as Number One on its priority chart must, therefore, go all out to first ensure the security of lives and property, against all odds.
That the Federal Government has published a list of 48 individuals linked to terrorism financing is a step in the right direction. That it has also secured 386 convictions, out of 508 cases in a mass terrorists’ trial, is another feat that can deter others and stem the tide, but politicians must, in the interest of the masses and the well-being of the nation, stop playing politics with this sensitive issue of insecurity.
Rather than mock or blame the APC administration for the current predicament, opposition figures and Nigerians as a whole must converge on the need to be united against this monster. However, the Tinubu administration must also avoid actions or statements that could trigger a revolt at this period. With the economic challenges from almost every angle, Nigerians seem to be constantly on edge.
In March 2014, the APC, then the main opposition party, lambasted the former President Goodluck Jonathan administration for trying to cover up its “incompetence and cluelessness” in tackling the Boko Haram insurgency.
The APC, in a statement signed by Lai Mohammed, its interim National Publicity Secretary at the time, said, “A country that has no discernible counter-terrorism strategy that will clearly identify the multiple means for preventing, responding and defeating terrorist groups, including the alignment of political, military, social and economic instruments and objectives, cannot expect to successfully battle any insurgency.”
Now that the APC is the ruling party, and Nigeria is still not out of the woods, should citizens still agree with the party’s assertion? How the authorities handle the situation will determine the answer. What goes around comes around!
In The Spotlight
Nearly 40 years ago in London, I was invited to dinner by a Nigerian woman I knew in Lagos.
She had described the place in general terms, but I arrived at an upscale home with some serious luxury. She was kind enough to show me around, and following a stylish dinner, she described how she had acquired the place, mentioning headline Nigerian names.
I had no reason to doubt her: some of them called during the evening. I declined her offer to share her conversations with them.
It was my personal introduction to the scale of Nigerian property in the English capital, as she described who owned what or lived where.
While my visits to England at the time were work-related and I had little time to socialise, I did meet several teenage Nigerian students whose parents were glad to send them abroad for education.
They patrolled the streets of London in exotic cars, and I thought it was ironic that, in isolation away from Nigeria, the young ladies were often being manipulated by their fathers’ friends.
In the decades that followed, I read stories of politically exposed Nigerians, particularly state governors, for whom the UK was the first address in money laundering.
On a few occasions, I have alluded to that phenomenon in this column. They acquired expensive homes, cars and even gold phones. One, Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, fled London disguised as a woman. Another, James Ibori, was tried and jailed.
Keep in mind that there have been about 185 governors since May 1999, and that London is nearly always their first port of call.
It is humbling to reflect on what percentage of this number has, in the past 26 years, sunk Nigerian wealth into the soil of England, with considerable swathes lost to middlemen and smooth women.
Remember: in 2006, the then-Minister of State for Finance, Nenadi Usman, criticised governors, saying that they disappeared abroad just days after receiving state allocations and after visiting Bureau De Change operators.
In 2007, a famous Human Rights Watch report, “Chop Fine,” described the case of Rivers State in grim detail.
The problem is that it is not always governors, as demonstrated by the story, “Abuja on Thames,” which appeared in the British monthly, Private Eye, in March 2019. That month, I commented on that story, which involved the astonishing wealth in that country of Paul Ogwuma, a former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria.
The full Nigerian picture of capital flight, elite consumption, and political patronage was on display when the Panama Papers in 2016 and the Pandora Papers in 2021, two massive international media investigations in which our Premium Times participated, uncovered how the world’s rich and powerful deploy offshore mechanisms to hide their possessions.
As always happens, no Nigerian lost a kobo, let alone a heartbeat, as a result of those investigations, because in Nigeria, crime and hypocrisy quite literally pay.
And then in 2024, a list appeared of 58 deceased Nigerians with unclaimed assets in the UK, as part of a daily-updated “Bona Vacantia” (BV) list, meaning that having remained unclaimed, they are now considered the property of the Crown.
Related News
Court faults weak evidence, acquits Oshodins of laundering case
Windstorm damages newly built Abuja bus terminal
US-based Nigerian faces five-year jail over $5m money laundering
The Nigerian government does not inform Nigerians about the BV list or the claims process, so those properties are probably lost forever.
Remember also, the case of Nigerian “government” property on the verge of forfeiture in the UK a few years ago. In New York and Maryland, in the US, Nigerian governors and diplomats have left behind a long trail of property issues. In 2012, Alamieyeseigha forfeited $401,931 in traceable assets to the US government when President Jonathan’s government failed to claim them.
And so, the rich continue to flourish, and in January 2026, Tax Policy Associates of the UK published the extensive investigation, ‘Who secretly owns Britain? The hidden offshore owners of £460bn of UK property.’
A report in The Londoner, based on that investigation, peeled back the layers to link the late Herbert Wigwe, the former chief executive of Access Holdings, to about 106 properties. That placed him at No. 7 on a list of “The overseas power players in London’s property market,” with each property registered under shell companies outside the country, leaving none of them directly traceable to him.
While some of these practices are legal, especially on the part of private businessmen, the problem is that Nigeria has, for decades, been burdened by an army of much smaller ants eating away at her. Most of them are pillars of society, either claiming sainthood or praying for it, while the people from whom they amassed their wealth starve to death.
But there is another side: in Nigeria, the Tax Policy Associates investigation, like the arrests of Dariye and Alamieyeseigha and the trial of Ibori, would have been impossible.
“Abuja on Thames” would never have been investigated or published. Not the Pandora Papers. Not the Panama Papers.
Because we are traders. We are either buying or selling. When the aroma of money or power is present, some would sell their very souls. It is why we are where we are.
The system, of course, is in many ways pre-rigged. On real estate matters, we operate a fragmented administrative system with multiple overlapping authorities, incomplete digitisation, and overwhelming opacity. The FCT and state capitals are stories of greed.
This is because the Land Use Act vests all land in each state in the governor (and the President for the FCT). This means that, technically, no one “owns” land outright; one only holds a Certificate of Occupancy. That creates enormous scope for discretionary allocation and corruption, since governors and the FCT minister can grant or revoke rights, and often do.
This is why an FCT minister is a king. He can allocate land to whomever he pleases:
Relatives of the First Lady were thrice removed.
His wife.
Fourth cousins.
Underage children.
Governors, again.
EFCC officials.
ICPC officials.
Code of Conduct Bureau officials.
Girlfriends and their friends.
Supreme Court judges.
Court of Appeal judges.
INEC officials.
Senators.
Top police officers.
Among others, remember the FCT land scam of 2004; the Ministerial allegations involving the current FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike; and the 57 multi-billion-naira properties linked to former Attorney-General Abubakar Malami.
Just imagine what a Tax Policy Associates-style investigation of real estate ownership in Nigeria’s big cities would reveal.
Because in Nigeria, power is deployed into service only when we pray in the mosque or the church. Outside that, power is for the self.
And if you can export that power abroad in funds that belong to the commonwealth, to deprive other Nigerians of it and make you live like a king forever, so much the better!
Sonala Olumhense