After President Obama castigated Nigerian and other African leaders in Ghana a few weeks ago, Secretary of state Hillary Clinton, speaking in Botswana has added salt to the injury by presenting a scathing criticism of the nations leadership which according to her has been unable to manage the nations oil wealth. Contrasting Nigeria's governance style with that of her hosts, she lampooned successive governments for contributing to a situation where the domestic economy is powered on imported petroleum products.

What more can one say about the nations disarticulated and disillusioned political and ruling elite?

And when she arrives Nigeria later today, I bet every one who regards him/herself as someone (within the upper echelon of state) would be falling over themselves to have a handshake from her. Pity. . .

http://allafrica.com/stories/200908100885.html

@ajadrage,

And what has she said wrong?

rubbed what in?

She said people should stop comparing her with her husband, is what I read.

Tayo-D:

@ajadrage,

And what has she said wrong?

I cannot help but agree unequivocally with Dayo-T this time. There is nothing wrong Hillary said. Is there?

make una no play with hillary the witch o
she as the babe vex when them ask am about what bill clinton thinks . . . (which was a mistranslation of what pres obama thinks?) . . . this babe get serious agro for priapic bill

if to say she dey oval office she for lock bill up, throway the key

If I were her, I would have given a speech so scathing of the Nigerian government that only a miracle will prevent the Nigerian government from telling me my planned visit has been canceled. _{I go just go relax for Accra with saner folks.}

There can be no overemphasis when it comes to outlining the failures of the Nigerian government!

RichyBlacK:
There can be no overemphasis when it comes to outlining the failures of the Nigerian government!

Thank you, my point exactly,

@Tayo D, Tpia and Naliakar, e be like say the ninglish strong for una small. I am trying to express how the status of Nigeria's leadership cadre has been rubbished by Hillary coming on the heels of Obama's spat in Accra. I am not saying anything's wrong with her statement(it is the most frontal attack on the decadent Nigerian governance structure since political independence by a super power), rather I am drawing attention to the salt that her statement rubbed on top of the injury inflicted by Obama's message.

E never reach time wey our leaders go open them eyes to good governance, transparency and accountability? If they ain't ready, then we should help them leave the stage for more capable, effective and efficient Nigerians. Yar Adua and his team led by Baba and IBB have shamed us enough. . .

The wall Street Journal's take on Hillary's Nigerian visit.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124998924043522393.html

Clinton Will Take Nigeria to Task on Corruption



By WILL CONNORS

ABUJA, Nigeria -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will arrive Tuesday evening in Nigeria, where she will hold talks with political and business leaders and address, among other issues, the shoddy electoral process, weak investment climate and rampant corruption in Africa's second-largest economy.

Entering the backstretch of her seven-nation African tour, Mrs. Clinton is expected to echo the theme of gently reproaching African countries laid out during U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to Ghana last month.



"Nigeria is probably the most important country in sub-Saharan Africa," Johnnie Carson, the State Department's top official for Africa, told reporters on the eve of Mrs. Clinton's tour. "It is also a major source of petroleum imports. , U.S. investment in Nigeria in the oil production and service industry is well in excess of $15 billion." Nigeria is the fifth-largest supplier of oil to the U.S., and its "light sweet" crude oil is prized for the ease with which it is converted into gasoline.

"We are concerned about having a good energy relationship with them," Mr. Carson said. "We'd also like them to address issues of corruption and transparency. When there is an absence of transparency and when there is a great deal of corruption, it makes the business environment extremely difficult."

Nigeria is the most populous nation in Africa and was long its biggest oil producer, until Angola recently overtook it. But Nigeria is facing numerous domestic problems.

Unrest in the oil-producing Niger Delta, where militants have shut down more than one million barrels a day of oil with pipeline attacks, has cost the government billions of dollars in revenue and dented interest from foreign investors.

Clashes last month between a homegrown Islamic fundamentalist sect and security forces in northern Nigeria left more than 800 people dead, including the group's leader, who was killed while in police custody.

The sect, known locally as Boko Haram, meaning "Western education is prohibited," has attracted an increasingly devoted following over the past several years amid poverty and disillusionment with the local political and religious leadership.

During her visit, Mrs. Clinton will meet with President Umaru Yar'Adua, whose 2007 election was widely condemned as flawed by local and international observers.

Mr. Yar'Adua, already facing significant obstacles and criticized for his slow-moving government, is scheduled to travel to Saudi Arabia on Friday for medical treatment.

Despite these issues, in the lead-up to Mrs. Clinton's visit, Nigerian politicians have focused primarily on the perceived snub by Mr. Obama in choosing Ghana instead of Nigeria for his first trip to Africa.

Earlier Tuesday, in the war-torn eastern region of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mrs. Clinton pledged $17 million to assist victims of sexual violence. After Nigeria, she will head to Liberia and the small, stable nation of Cape Verde.

pres-elect:

make una no play with hillary the witch o
she as the babe vex when them ask am about what bill clinton thinks . . . (which was a mistranslation of what pres obama thinks?) . . . this babe get serious agro for priapic bill

if to say she dey oval office she for lock bill up, throway the key

the question asker should have just held up a big sign saying

HILARY WELCOME TO AFRICA CONGO

THIS IS HOW WE DO THINGS HERE

NO 1 RULE: REAL AFRICAN MEN WE DONT NEGOTIATE WITH BRAINLESS CHICKENHEADS AKA FEMALES

CALL YOUR HUSBAND TO COME AND TALK TO US

OR DONT YOU HAVE A HUSBAND?

I agree with Mrs. Clinton on the state of the nations leadership, but as usual with any myopic critique of Nigeria's quest at development, that is only stating one side of the story. Any rational observer of international relations can tell that the leadership morass in most African states today can be remotely traced to the structure of the international political economy.

This is not trumping up that obsolete notion that colonialism is to be blamed for the continents woes. However, we must be pragmatic enough to identify the role of the international system (including the United States) in the encouragement, preservation and support of inept leadership on the continent, especially when issues of "national interest/ security" is concerned. Right through the cold war era of the latter half of the 20th century into the contemporary "terror wars" of the 21st century, double standards and support for puppet regimes that assured the stability that the United States so desired from African states had led to the present situation where African leaders could do whatever they liked within the purview of their domestic polity as long as the apple cart as constructed by the United States and her allies were not upturned.

Thus, it is little wonder that we have the crop of leadership that had underdeveloped Africa, to the detriment of the majority of her indigenous population, and to the benefit of Western Big business, multinationals and pro capitalist apologists, inspired by neo-classical liberalist ideologies as foisted on the world by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980's.

It is nice though that the rhetoric is taking this trajectory as it is high time that a stop is put to the "business as usual" attitude that has led to the corrupt and anti-development practices that African regimes have grown accustomed to. It is only hoped that this statement is not intended to be a platform for some negotiated agreement that would be to the detriment of the Nigerian citizens.

Being the most scathing criticism thus far coming directly from the mouthpiece of the (arguably) remaining super power, it behoves on the Secretary Of State to put her governments action where her mouth is. We hope that it will indeed shake the Nigerian political and ruling elite from their reverie into the onerous task of genuinely working for the Nigerian people to reduce inequality, and poverty, which currently stands at least 54.4%; infant mortality and maternal health; reliable power generation, transmission and distribution; uninterrupted and qualitative education; effective transport network; rapid environmental friendly industrialization, and all the other parameters used in the measurement of development in a 21st century world of which Nigeria is lagging extremely far behind.

But with the present crop of leadership, even this hope is far fetched. It remains to be seen the effect of Mrs. Clinton's visit. But like we say in these parts, only time will tell.

ajadrage:

Any rational observer of international relations can tell that the leadership morass in most African states today can be remotely traced to the structure of the international political economy.

It is hard to disagree with this. But only partially explains the mutation of leaders in the mold of Abacha, Bokassa, Amin, Nguesso, Bongo Omar etc. Global political economy is an ogre yes but certainly not an all consuming one. we would not be talking of such leaders as Seretse Khama and his successor Masire, the Great Mwalimu Julius Nyerere whose leadership could not be dimmmed by the sometimes maligned global economic dispensation. See the legacy they bequeathed their nations.

ajadrage:

This is not trumping up that obsolete notion that colonialism is to be blamed for the continents woes. However, we must be pragmatic enough to identify the role of the international system (including the United States) in the encouragement, preservation and support of inept leadership on the continent, especially when issues of "national interest/ security" is concerned. Right through the cold war era of the latter half of the 20th century into the contemporary "terror wars" of the 21st century, double standards and support for puppet regimes that assured the stability that the United States so desired from African states had led to the present situation where African leaders could do whatever they liked within the purview of their domestic polity as long as the apple cart as constructed by the United States and her allies were not upturned.

Again. this is another argument that is notoriously wedged in any argument where self criticism is by designed eschewed by all too knowing African eggheads. I am one of these so I a not saying this with a gratuitous. motive. I just find this argument trapped in the temporal period defined by colonialism. True colonialism and its effect account for most of the ills-for lack of a better word- we experience as African nation. But pray was Africa really autonomous economically during precolonial area? And were there bad and good governance in equal and at time disproportionate measures? And must African leadership depend on western tutelage and patronage to do the right thing?

She sure did, . . .i don't blame her, . . .not even one bit, . . .

shes always on the defensive, and i feel like she sent a message out to nosey reporters out there. . . .

they really need to stay on point, . , her husband was once the president and a very good one at that

but now she also holds a very important position as secretary of state,

they need to respect that and judge her based on her work,. . . .and not on 'the past glories of her husband'. . .

And what's so shocking is that

*She really went off on that student instead of anwering gracefully.

*It turns out the question was about Obama and not Bill and it was
mistranslated from the French.

*SHE NEVER APOLOGISED but the student did even though it was not
his fault.

You'd think she would have apologised for reacting so badly when it was

a simple misunderstanding.

She had been sidelined for weeks after she fell on her way to the White House in June and fractured her elbow, requiring surgery. Her aides acknowledged her frustrations stemming from the injury, which made her miss out on going to Russia with Obama and attending several European conferences.

But her aides and those in the White House have denied any rift or attempt to marginalize her.

After returning to action following her injury, Clinton made a round of TV appearances and a rousing speech — all in tune with Obama's priorities, but in her own voice.

She then resumed her frenetic pace, traveling to India and Thailand and then to Africa.

Hours after she left Washington for Africa a week ago, news broke that Bill Clinton had gone on a humanitarian mission to North Korea to win the release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, two television journalists who had been arrested and sentenced to 12 years at hard labor.

She arrived in Kenya to find herself peppered with questions about his secret mission.

Clinton quickly recovered her cool Monday and moved on to other subjects. Just before the question that set off her anger, another student had asked if the U.S. and the West felt a need to apologize to the people of Congo for colonialism and postcolonial interference.

That brought a pointed rebuttal as well.

"I cannot excuse the past and I will not try," she said. "We can either think about the past and be imprisoned by it or we can decide we're going to have a better future and work to make it."

yahoo

everybody is talking about hillary and her reaction, nobody is talking about the poor guy who asked the guestion in french that was misinterpreted. the guy must have been embarrassed by her reaction. not her fault?yes. his fault? no. but nobody talks about him or his feelings . . . . he doesnt matter . . . . not even in nairaland . . . after all, he is african

they said he approached Mrs Clinton afterwards and explained what he meant.

ok. i hope there was some form of apology to him

anyway he doesnt deserve any

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1r-7ZQK4m8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2009%2F08%2F12%2Fclinton-presses-nigeria-o_n_257834.html&feature=player_embedded

oh boy, hillary got maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.
Man do i feel sorry for hillary clinton, first of all, she loses in the primaries to a guy with barely any experience whatsoever and instead of being picked for the vice presidency, she had to settle for secetary of state. Now you have a guy who doesn't know how to remove his foot from his mouth as vice president, while she on the other hand is stuck touring smelly, unhygienic third world countries in Africa instead of being a policy maker in washington. Sooooooooooooooo sad.

To top it off, you now have some woman from a miserable third world country that is begging for aid disregarding her as secetary of state. Man, her job must be terrible.

naliakar:
But pray was Africa really autonomous economically during precolonial area? And were there  bad and good governance in equal and at time disproportionate measures? And must African leadership depend on western tutelage and patronage to do the right thing?

As to your first question, yes, pre-colonial African societies were involved in economic activities that were more or lss beneficial to their respective populations. Although most of these activities were purely agro based, and they were endeavours engaged in on a subsistence level, the level of organization around household/kinship consumption patterns meant a situation where enough was generated for immediate consumption and more often than not, surplus was generated for trade and commerce with other communities. This system of economics was first of all sustainance oriented ahead of profit making and accumulation. The sustainability of such a pattern of economics was obvious as the incidence of poverty was almost near non existent (if at all it was present) as at the time of Europe's engagement with African societies, even prior to the transformation of mercantilism into imperialism and then colonialism. Much as international trade is a necessity for economic development in the contemporary world, the pattern of integration of African societies into the international capitalist system as exemplified in the dynamics of a world market economy had more or less underdeveloped the many societies of the global South, and this has not been helped by the failure of governance that African leaders have been more than happy to indulge themselves in (with rare exceptions of some like you actually identified). But we must be mindful of the fact that a lack of sustained and commited policy implementation, and visionary leadership has led to some of these identified countries falling far behind in the development indices, making sub saharan Africa the least developed region in the globe today.

I am in no position to judge the level of quality in the governance structure of pre colonial African states, but I believe that we were at our own level of political development, just as our economics was evolving its own unique form. However, we know of the great Kingdoms and Empires of the forest belt of West Africa and how they had moulded their own unique and complex political systems. I would be biased if I say it was a perfect situation way back then with tribal wars, etc, but even we must agree that prior to the 19th century Berlin conference, Europe was convoluted in brutal wars that eventually led to the formation of most of their societies today. Africa might have arrived at their own stable pattern of political organization had Europe not altered the course of history via slavery, imperialism and colonialism. But all that is in the past, and we can only debate the preferred choice of political organization, and leadership. The question to ask is, what are we doing about our politics today?

As per whether African leaders should depend on Western tutelage, this question begs the reality of global politics and economics today. The mantra is democracy, liberalism or its emergent form and international free trade and sustainable development. But you find that each western society has its own unique version and interpretation of the ideal, and while most might be economic successes, other aspects of social and human development from a 21st century perspective are far from being utopian. Majority rule is non negotiable, and it gives room for plurality in society, and this has got to be practiced in principle as well as in sincerity. We do not need outsiders to do this for us, outsiders do not need to tell the guy in Niger to alter the constitution so as to be able to stay in power indefinitely; outsiders did not have to motivate a Yayya Jammeh to be in power for what, 15 years now; our own OBJ attempted such, so did Thabo too in SA; Omar Bongo had to die in power and we still have a Gaddafi who calls himself a king of kings  

But seriously, even the Western model democracies also have issues with their own modes of democracy. Each unique situation presents unique challenges, and the panacea for foreign problems cannot possibly be expected to work in Africa. African leaders have just got to wake up from their slumber, we need African solutions, and if the present crop of leadership continent wide cannot meet up with the minimal expectations of governance, African citizens have to take up the onus to effect a necessary change.

The Hillary thing is just one out of many of the political faux pas in leadership, she's only human, just like any one of the over six billion inhabitants of the Earth today. She proved it with the response provided to an understandable and unintended gap in communication; she proved it with her emotional outburst against a failing Nigerian leadership class; and she's proven it again with her support for Ellen Sirleaf despite a Liberia commission report that she refrain from contesting forthcoming elections. Now tell me where does contradictions lie. She's just out to protect United States interest, and she can justify that. But whose interests are our own leaders trying to protect?