Biafran alliance with the US can only be dwarfed by the UK alliance with the US, because of ancestral reasons (English formed the US).
Biafra however would almost certainly be the "Israel in Africa". No doubt about that.  

The US has HUGE Jewish population.
The US also has HUGE Igbo population.

Both are NATURAL allies.  

ekt_bear:

You want me to argue why a crappy tabloid is in fact a crappy tabloid?

What would be the purpose of that? How is that a good use of my time?

Classical excuse for a cop-out. You have nothing to say. Just  the usual stereo-typing. Like I said before it would not take you 2 minutes to bring out scores of their fairytales. Do not make allegations you cannot prove.

I get sick of all this unnecessary attitude over something that happened 40 years ago! Like move the hell on already, and let's try to chart a more constructive course for our 21st century existence!!!!
I'm sick and tired of all the revisionism and histrionic bellows!

Onlytruth:

Biafran alliance with the US can only be dwarfed by the UK alliance with the US, because of ancestral reasons (English formed the US).
Biafra however would almost certainly be the "Israel in Africa". No doubt about that.  

The US has HUGE Jewish population.
The US also has HUGE Igbo population.

Both are NATURAL allies.  

What they fail to understand is that there was a very strong pro-Biafra lobby in US during the Civil War that split public opinion in two. Generally there was a strong global outrage over what the world powers were doing against Biafra and for US to have remained neutral  in face of a genocide was almost as criminal as the actions of Britain Russia,etc.

English formed the US

I'd like to correct one thing, though.
Contrary to the often repeated comments I've been seeing on these boards about the English colonizing the U.S, the statement is not entirely true.
While it is true that the English did colonize certain areas, it is wrong to attribute the current geographical area known as The United States of America, to the English.
The 'states' we see in that country right now, were actually meant to be separate countries on their own, and the U.K. is only responsible for the Northern and central regions, while the Spanish and Portuguese were responsible for the core Southern states like California, Texas, Florida etc. When the Americans fought the British for independence (as a result of taxation issues), California and Texas were still in Mexico, and the states were just 13 or so separate countries.
It was only after the war against Mexico that California and Texas (initially a country of its own called "Republic of Texas" agreed to join the United States of America.

Errrr. . . I know this has very little to do with the thread, but I just had to put it out there, make una no dey give U.K. too much credit for their colonial finesse.

Ejiné:

I'd like to correct one thing, though.
Contrary to the often repeated comments I've been seeing on these boards about the English colonizing the U.S, the statement is not entirely true.
While it is true that the English did colonize certain areas, it is wrong to attribute the current geographical area known as The United States of America, to the English.
The 'states' we see in that country right now, were actually meant to be separate countries on their own, and the U.K. is only responsible for the Northern and central regions, while the Spanish and Portuguese were responsible for the core Southern states like California, Texas, Florida etc. When the Americans fought the British for independence (as a result of taxation issues), California and Texas were still in Mexico, and the states were just 13 or so separate countries.
It was only after the war against Mexico that California and Texas (initially a country of its own called "Republic of Texas" agreed to join the United States of America.

Errrr. . . I know this has very little to do with the thread, but I just had to put it out there, make una no dey give U.K. too much credit for their colonial finesse.

hehehe! my brother I know the history of my own country. Maybe others need the history lesson. Not moi.
I never said that the US was colonized by Britain. I said it was FOUNDED by the English. Am I wrong there? 

houvest:

What they fail to understand is that there was a very strong pro-Biafra lobby in US during the Civil War that split public opinion in two. Generally there was a strong global outrage over what the world powers were doing against Biafra and for US to have remained neutral  in face of a genocide was almost as criminal as the actions of Britain Russia,etc.

My brother, no country is infallible. The most important thing is to go back and make amends.
The way I see it, a horse would most likely be an ally of a donkey or a zebra, than say a cow.
These are natural things. I say this with a finality: The US is a NATURAL ally of Biafra.

Physics wrote:
Anyway, assuming that an "Arewa Republic" had been created following a Biafran victory, America would still have an ambassador to that country, and Boko haram would instead be threatening to kill that ambassador. So either way a U.S. ambassador would be threatened. So the argument of this article doesn't even make sense.
And
[b]Islamic fundamentalism and Islam are separate issues entirely from the Nigerian Civil War which was not religious, but ethnic and political, and the way the author of the article tried to connect them shows that he's possibly confused. And during the Nigerian civil war, the Hausa and the Fulani were probably outnumbered in terms of participation by their non-Muslim "Middle Belt" allies anyway.

With due respect, you seem not to have thought deeply over the ramifications of the Boko Haram issue vis-vis global terrorism and long term US interests. The issue is not friendship with Muslim Nations or Boko Haram's threat to US ambassador but how this affects African and global stability and how they will impact the US war on terror which is their main concern now since the end of the cold war. South Korea, South Vietnam and many other Nations were facilitated by the US as a check on Communism and Socialism and to form bases of operation against those ideologies. What if US has realised that the Boko Haram issue is not going away any time soon and is actually al Quedda's instrument of destabilisation of Africa and beyond and that a Biafra would have been a check to this the way the other Nations I earlier mentioned were checks to Communism?  Wont they regret not supporting  Biafra in retrospect? This has to do with strategic thinking and long term results not just a hit and miss solution as they tried in Somalia and ran away.

However you are entitled to your argument and I have no plans to change your mind but just asking you to stretch your thoughts a little bit more instead of dismissing the article as illogical.

Since all these are said to be secret, we may never know the truth as there are intrigues involved but it is wrong to dismiss an article as illogical because of looking at it from one perspective but future events will tell.

The good news is that Americans are today very supportive of succession movements and overthrow of old leaders who want to be in power for life (like CAF president)

Why do you think government has been taking kids gloves against Boko Haram, MEND, and all the violent groups (nope not you peaceful Massob lol). They dont want to be blackmailed and put on trial for crimes against humanity by the West.

So the minute folks start taking to the streets and overthrowing/demanding change, then I predict some bloodshed, but ultimately a real restructuring of the country.

The only challenge to this will be the "interest" of the U.S., which hasnt really changed much over the years. Nor has Britains.

houvest:

Good a thing that you yourself have debunked your whole argument before that US does not regret its past actions so no need for me to start debunking them. Dig further, you are going to see more.

Either you have very serious reading problems or comprehension problems. I never wrote anywhere that the "U.S. never regrets its past actions" and indeed it would be absurd to suggest that this was the case. It's funny how you had to google around for the example of the Chinese, when a much simpler example would be the Native Americans or African Americans who are much more obvious and who the U.S. government has already expressed regret over the mistreatment of these groups on multiple occasions.

Regretting the actions in Greece openly after visiting Greece is different from their actions in South America, which I doubt they will ever apologize for. Equally, they will never apologize for propping up Israel to the point where that country feels it doesn't have to abide by international law with respect to the settlement issue because they feel that they are majorly/mostly still right in propping up Israel in that way. U.S. ambassadors and even a president have visited Nigeria yet not one has ever even considered the Nigerian civil war relevant to current U.S. - Nigeria relations or commented extensively on the Nigerian civil war and yet you're engaging in self delusion over something posted on a site with propagandistic overtones.

Since you don't seem to comprehend a simple argument, I'm not going to bother trying to spell it out to you any further.

houvest:

What if US has realised that the Boko Haram issue is not going away any time soon and is actually al Quedda's instrument of destabilisation of Africa and beyond and that a Biafra would have been a check to this the way the other Nations I earlier mentioned were checks to Communism?  

In what possible way could a Biafra be of any relevance to terrorist threats being made against the U.S. ambassador to a sovereign Arewa republic?

There isn't any pretext on which Biafra could be involved in the political affairs of Arewa and vice versa unless the actions of one was affecting the other.

There is no connection whatsoever between Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and the Nigerian Civil war. It's just an incredibly silly claim.


South Korea is a check to communism spreading further among Koreans. South Vietnam was an attempt stop communism spreading further among Vietnamese. Biafra would not be relevant to the issue of Islamic terrorism in Arewa because these would be different countries and any external action - and from an enemy nation - would only exacerbate the problem.

The U.S. hasn't expressed regret for any of the actions that they actually did take in certain parts of the Middle East or South America. It's more than doubtful that the U.S. government would express regret over something  that had nothing to do with them.

PhysicsQED:


Either you have very serious reading problems or comprehension problems. I never wrote anywhere that the "U.S. never regrets its past actions" and indeed it would be absurd to suggest that this was the case. It's funny how you had to google around for the example of the Chinese, when a much simpler example would be the Native Americans or African Americans who are much more obvious and who the U.S. government has already expressed regret over the mistreatment of these groups on multiple occasions.

Regretting the actions in Greece openly after visiting Greece is different from their actions in South America, which I doubt they will ever apologize for. Equally, they will never apologize for propping up Israel to the point where that country feels it doesn't have to abide by international law with respect to the settlement issue because they feel that they are majorly/mostly still right in propping up Israel in that way. U.S. ambassadors and even a president have visited Nigeria yet not one has ever even considered the Nigerian civil war relevant to current U.S. - Nigeria relations or commented extensively on the Nigerian civil war and yet you're engaging in self delusion over something posted on a site with propagandistic overtones.

Since you don't seem to comprehend a simple argument, I'm not going to bother trying to spell it out to you any further.

All you folks that appear intellectual but resort to condescension and insults for damage control when you are shown up need to change your style.

You wrore this:The U.S. hasn't expressed regret for any of the actions that they actually did take in certain parts of the Middle East or South America. It's more than doubtful that the U.S. government would express regret over something  that had nothing to do with them.
Then you went ahead to show regret US had shown over Greece. Does that not debunk your earlier position or is Nigeria in South America or Middle East? Or was the Civil war related to the cold war? So why cite those places as planks for things that happened in Africa? It does not make sense. I have shown you that passivity does not confer non-liability and actually historians have labelled US passivity then as dubious. You go again to ask whether any US official had acknowledged their error to Nigeria when you had earlier conceeded that the article mentioned 'secret'. Why the somersaults?

I challenge you just I did your other friend produce proof that the tabloid writes fairy tales else you are the one living in denial and self-delusion.

PhysicsQED:

In what possible way could a Biafra be of any relevance to terrorist threats being made against the U.S. ambassador to a sovereign Arewa republic?

There isn't any pretext on which Biafra could be involved in the political affairs of Arewa and vice versa unless the actions of one was affecting the other.

There is no connection whatsoever between Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and the Nigerian Civil war. It's just an incredibly silly claim.


South Korea is a check to communism spreading further among Koreans. South Vietnam was an attempt stop communism spreading further among Vietnamese. Biafra would not be relevant to the issue of Islamic terrorism in Arewa because these would be different countries and any external action - and from an enemy nation - would only exacerbate the problem.

Please have a more wholistic approach. Think of US strategies to contain terrorism in West Africa, Africa, the world not just the imaginary Nation of Arewa. As it is now what stands against Boko Haram overunning the rest of Nigeria, W. Africa,etc if it succeeds in overwhelming the Nigerian Government if there is no strong Counterpoise in the region?

houvest:

Physics wrote

Actually, my point was more that they don't regret those actions, not just that they don't express regret, so I should have stated that. But whether openly or secretly regretted, the point is that if there's nothing to suggest that there was ever any "secret" regret over affairs that they actually interfered in that had to do with the cold war (in the case of South America) and which they might actually have a reason to regret, there would be no reason to feel regret over issues that had nothing to do with them (Nigerian Civil War) and which they didn't involve themselves with.

The question is this, if you have the power to stop the death of 3.5 million people and you did nothing to stop that, have you not done sometthing wrong and if you find out later that this your inaction was the wrong policy, Can you not regret it since we have established that the US can and does regret past actions? Forget all other story and answer this simple question? Does the world regret not intervening in Rwanda? Do you only regret active actions? Can't you regret passive actions? Note that historians regard US role in the Nigerian Civil war as dubious. http://www.jstor.org/pss/721864

The U.S. originally expressed full and total neutrality, refusing to sell weapons to either side.

Then they expressed a pro-federal one-Nigeria position, (but still refused to sell weapons to the federal side) so that they could increase their relief efforts toward the Biafran side without any accusation of interfering in Nigeria's affairs or aiding the rebels. Given their aid efforts towards Biafra when the starvation issue became more serious, I don't think it would be accurate to say that they were inactive in trying to prevent civilian deaths.

After the war was over, Nixon sent Gowon a congratulatory message and the U.S. felt it had made the right choice.

Regarding Rwanda, yes that was a mistake that many Western nations have expressed regret for, but no country on earth is eager to jump into another country's bloody civil war. That's not a hard thing to understand. The same countries did nothing in Burundi when the Tutusi were massacring the Hutu, even though any of them could have overrun that country in a day or two, but the fact that they didn't intervene in a conflict that had nothing to do with them doesn't make every nation on earth with a decent military "guilty" for the deaths.

Houvest, I NEVER wrote, claimed, suggested, or even insinuated that the U.S. government "never expresses or feels regrets for past actions" and it is [b]extremely [/b]dishonest to even suggest that I did. If you can't understand English, I have no intention of discussing anything further as I have no time for fools or liars.

houvest:

Please have a more wholistic approach. Think  of US strategies to contain terrorism in West Africa, Africa, the world not just the imaginary Nation of Arewa. As it is now what stands against Boko Haram overunning the rest of Nigeria, W. Africa,etc if it succeeds in overwhelming the Nigerian Government if there is no strong Counterpoise in the region?

You refuse to even see my point. Biafra would not be relevant to stopping terrorism in Arewa and as an enemy nation, its intervention would only make things much much worse.

Boko haram is not at risk of "overrunning the rest of Nigeria" or "overrunning West Africa". Boko haram is a northern Nigerian problem that Nigerians that live in the north have to deal with and in the event of an Arewa, it would be an Arewa problem which they would have to solve internally.

PhysicsQED:

Houvest, I NEVER wrote, claimed, suggested, or even insinuated that the U.S. government "never expresses or feels regrets for past actions" and it is [b]extremely [/b]dishonest to even suggest that I did. If you can't understand English, I have no intention of discussing anything further as I have no time for fools or liars.

So what was the point of mentioning Middle East and South America as if you only regret active actions and not passive actions.

houvest:

So what was the point of mentioning Middle East and South America as if you only regret active actions and not passive actions.

The point is that, if the U.S.  doesn't regret those "active actions" in South America or the Middle East, and would never, for example, have regrets for propping up Israel to the point that it continues with the settlements in what is meant to be Palestinian land, then how much sense does it make to claim that a situation (a threat to an ambassador) would make it have regrets over a "passive action" that still doesn't place them at fault for what happened, especially considering that even if they had "actively acted" during the war, it still wouldn't avoid the current situation (the threat against a U.S. ambassador)?

PhysicsQED:

You refuse to even see my point. Biafra would not be relevant to stopping terrorism in Arewa and as an enemy nation, its intervention would only make things much much worse.

Boko haram is not at risk of "overrunning the rest of Nigeria" or "overrunning West Africa". Boko haram is a northern Nigerian problem that Nigerians that live in the north have to deal with and in the event of an Arewa, it would be an Arewa problem which they would have to solve internally.

I see your point of view but do you see mine? Saying that Boko Haram is an Arewa problem is funny when there is no such Nation. And if there were. Thinking that it would not be exported is the height of denial. See this:

Our goal is to Islamise Nigeria by force, and we will – Boko Haram
January 29, 2012- from The Guardian, UK -



The Islamist group Boko Haram, which has killed almost 1,000 people in Nigeria, will continue its campaign of violence until the country is ruled by sharia law, a senior member has told the Guardian

“We will consider negotiation only when we have brought the government to their knees,” the spokesman, Abu Qaqa, said in the group’s first major interview with a western newspaper. “Once we see that things are being done according to the dictates of Allah, and our members are released [from prison], we will only put aside our arms – but we will not lay them down. You don’t put down your arms in Islam, you only put them aside.”

Qaqa, whose name is a pseudonym, said the group’s members were spiritual followers of al-Qaida, and claimed they had met senior figures in the network founded by Osama bin Laden during visits to Saudia Arabia.

The interview comes a week after Boko Haram claimed responsibility for Nigeria’s single deadliest terrorist attack, which killed 186 people in the northern city of Kano.

In an audio message posted on YouTube on Friday, the group’s current leader, Abubakar Shekau, threatened to bomb schools and kidnap family members of government officials.

“If [security forces] are going to places of worship and destroying them, like mosques and Quranic schools, you have primary schools as well, you have secondary schools and universities, and we will start bombing them.”

Shekau rejected calls for a negotiated peace from President Goodluck Jonathan, who on Thursday called for the shadowy sect to step out of the shadows and engage in dialogue.

Nigerian officials have voiced hopes for a negotiated settlement with “moderate elements” of the group. “Under the circumstances, if you look hard enough, you can find moderate elements you can communicate with,” General Andrew Azazi, the national security adviser to the president, told the Wall Street Journal on Friday.

Western diplomats say Boko Haram has splintered and the hardliners leading the factions responsible for the wave of violence that has killed some 250 people this year appear to have rejected any suggestion of dialogue.

The Guardian was able to contact Abu Qaqa through an intermediary from the group’s home state. The go-between has been in contact with the group since its inception, and met with its founder, Mohammed Yusuf, several times before he was killed in 2009. For most of the interview he used a voice modulator, but local journalists confirmed that his undisguised voice matched recordings of previous interviews.

Qaqa said Shekau and others had travelled to Saudi Arabia for training and funding. “Al-Qaida are our elder brothers. During the lesser Hajj [last August], our leader travelled to Saudi Arabia and met al-Qaida there. We enjoy financial and technical support from them. Anything we want from them we ask them.”

He said recruits from neighbouring Chad, Cameroon and Niger had joined the group. A recent UN report said weapons from Libya may have been smuggled to Boko Haram and al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb via Chad, Niger and Nigeria.

Security officials and diplomats in Abuja said they had no evidence of a link with al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia, but an official confirmed that “elements of Boko Haram have made contact with external groups”. The extent and frequency of that contact was unknown, the official said.

In the decade since it first appeared, Boko Haram has graduated from crude driveby attacks on beer parlours to bombing security buildings in the northern Muslim heartland. Its most audacious attack targeted the United Nations building in the capital, Abuja, killing 25 in August. In recent weeks, Christians institutions have increasingly come under fire. A Christmas Day bomb attack on a packed church just outside the capital claimed almost 40 lives.

But Qaqa said the rights of the country’s 70 million Christians, who represent half of Nigeria’s population, “would be protected” under the group’s envisioned Islamic state. “Even the prophet Mohammed lived with non-Muslims and he gave them their dues.” But he said everyone must abide by sharia law: “There are no exceptions. Even if you are a Muslim and you don’t abide by sharia, we will kill you. Even if you are my own father, we will kill you.”

Speaking fluent but non-native Hausa, the lingua franca across the Sahelian belt on the cusp of the Sahara desert, he said: “It’s the secular state that is responsible for the woes we are seeing today. People should understand that we are not saying we have to rule Nigeria, but we have been motivated by the stark injustice in the land. People underrate us but we have our sights set on [bringing sharia to] the whole world, not just Nigeria.”

Sharia law is already in place across 12 states in the Muslim-majority north. Few believe the group’s radical ideology has traction in Nigeria’s mainly Christian south, which is also home to millions of Muslims and has so far been out of the group’s reach.

Raising his voice for the only time during the interview, Qaqa denied reports that some governors in northern Nigeria paid the group monthly allowances in exchange for immunity from attacks. “May God punish anyone that said so,” he said, before adding that the group has popular support in the north.

“Poor people are tired of the injustice, people are crying for saviours and they know the messiahs are Boko Haram.

“People were singing songs in [northern cities] Kano and Kaduna saying: ‘We want Boko Haram’,” Qaqa said, describing how the group can blend into the communities in which it operates. “If the masses don’t like us they would have exposed us by now. When Islam comes everyone would be happy,” he said.

Diplomats say Nigeria’s security services are belatedly attempting to gain control of the situation, which was previously dismissed as an internal, northern squabble often fuelled by politicians with personal grievances.

“There is an ongoing review of all security agencies,” the presidential aide Ken Wiwa said. “This is a relatively new phenomenon in Nigeria and the administration is working hard to improve its capacity to respond. There are various other initiatives which will be implemented but this is as much a political as a security issue.”

An official said Nigeria’s central bank was involved in measures aimed at strangling the group’s external funding sources, including speeding up a cashless economy.

http://africanheraldexpress.com/blog7/2012/01/29/our-goal-is-to-islamise-nigeria-by-force-and-we-will-boko-haram/

PhysicsQED:


The point is that, if the U.S. doesn't regret those "active actions" in South America or the Middle East, and would never, for example, have regrets for propping up Israel to the point that it continues with the settlements in what is meant to be Palestinian land, then how much sense does it make to claim that a situation (a threat to an ambassador) would make it have regrets over a "passive action" that still doesn't place them at fault for what happened, especially considering that even if they had "actively acted" during the war, it still wouldn't avoid the current situation (the threat against a U.S. ambassador)?

Okay let us agree to disagree. You choose to focus only on the threat to US ambassador which the report never claims was the cause of the regrets while I choose to situate the situation in the long term US strategies in her war against terror with respect to Nigeria, West africa and the African continentv and beyond.

houvest:

I see your point of view but do you see mine? Saying that Boko Haram is an Arewa problem is funny when there is no such Nation. And if there were. Thinking that it would not be exported is the height of denial. See this:

Our goal is to Islamise Nigeria by force, and we will – Boko Haram
January 29, 2012- from The Guardian, UK -

So you actually think al-qaida inspired  terrorism would somehow be averted by leaving Arewa as a separate country? I don't see the relevance of an enemy country (Biafra) to this issue.

By the way, the fact that they think that it will be exported, doesn't mean that it actually will be.

Okay let us keep hoping it wont cross Arewa

PhysicsQED:


So you actually think al-qaida inspired terrorism would somehow be averted by leaving Arewa as a separate country? I don't see the relevance of an enemy country (Biafra) to this issue.

By the way, the fact that they think that it will be exported, doesn't mean that it actually will be.

.

Thanks for your insight.

Houvest, sorry if I came off as rude earlier, and thanks for the discussion.

Thanks so much Physics. I am also sorry for rankling you.

@Physics

I disagree with you on Japan being evil thereby American being justified to drop two atomic bombs on them, the Allies were as evil as the Japanese, they could have dropped the bombs in their oceans close by to let them know the havoc they can cause if the Japanese do not surrender, no, they had to drop not one but two on civilians, we know the victors get to write history but we should not justify what is condemnable.

hercules07:

@Physics

I disagree with you on Japan being evil thereby American being justified to drop two atomic bombs on them, the Allies were as evil as the Japanese, they could have dropped the bombs in their oceans close by to let them know the havoc they can cause if the Japanese do not surrender, no, they had to drop not one but two on civilians, we know the victors get to write history but we should not justify what is condemnable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes


^^^^

How does that compare with Allied war crimes?


The only war crime charge against the Allies that I can really think of is the claim that the bombing of Dresden was a war crime.


Nazis and a human-experimentation-practicing Japanese military force are certainly far worse than the Allies.

Onlytruth:

hehehe! my brother I know the history of my own country. Maybe others need the history lesson. Not moi. 
I never said that the US was colonized by Britain. I said it was FOUNDED by the English. Am I wrong there? 

Look at his twisted 2week-old-Akpu-eating mouth like "My country". ROFLMAO

"My Country" indeed! With all the rubbish you constantly post on here, you clearly dont know too much about the United States so get off your high horse already.

"My country" indeed. . . smh. With all the hate and tribalism youre always espousing on here, theres no doubt in my mind that youre a 'recent' immigrant to this country. Yes, you probably have been here donkey years but you clearly came here as an adult, too old to look at things different from the old ways which you know, so just shut it already. Freaking Bigot!

Ecowas Expresses Concern Over Spate Of Killings In Nigeria
« on: Today at 07:35:26 AM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking at a five-day workshop on ECOWAS budgetary procedures in Enugu, the fourth Deputy Speaker of the Parliament and a member of the Ghanaian legislature, Hon. Michael Teye Nyaunu, noted that if Nigeria could face such serious problem leading to killings of innocent people and destruction of properties, other smaller Africa countries would have to be very vigilant.

Nyaunu, who represented the speaker of the parliament and Nigeria’s Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, disclosed that the ECOWAS parliament had already discussed the issue of Boko Haram in one of its plenary, noting that other nations within the sub-region were already finding ways of assisting Nigeria but would not make their positions public because of the dicey and delicate nature of the situation.

He said: “We are concerned because the essence of ECOWAS is to integrate people of the sub-region and in this case whatever affects the eye affects the nose. We discussed the Boko Haram issue in one of our plenary sessions, we don’t really know the genesis of the problem but we are really concerned.

“Like you know, Nigeria is the big brother of most of these African countries, if Nigeria is going through such security challenges, then smaller states like us would have to be very careful.

“Some people have come up with different reasons why Boko Haram is ravaging Nigeria . Some say it is because of power tussle; that the North wants power back at all cost, while others are saying it has serious religious connotation. Whichever way one looks at it, Boko Haram activities are not in the best interest of Africa and we are concerned

“We believe that the authorities concerned are handling it becausde if nothing serious is done at this stage, it will eventually spread because we are the same people, so something must have to be done now to contain it.”

Nyaunu, who also spoke on the issue of common currency for the sub-region, said efforts are still in top gear towards getting a common currency by 2015, but expressed dismay that they are facing some challenges at the moment because there are some conditions that must have to be fulfilled before one talks about getting a common currency for a sub-region.

He said that such critical factors militating against the introduction of the common currency include the single-digit inflation bill and low budget deficiency among others, adding however that the issue was still on the front burner because there are lots of benefits inherent in such project as it would go a long way in integrating the people.

Also speaking, Governor Sullivan Chime of Enugu State, who was represented at the occasion by the Commissioner for Environment, Mr. John Egbo, commended the parliament for choosing Enugu as venue for the workshop, assuring them of a peaceful atmosphere for their deliberations.

He used the opportunity to commend the parliament for introducing the ECOWAS Passport which he said had the best modern and scientific features, urging them to also look at other ways of introducing policies and programmes that would further unite the people of the sub-region.

The ECOWAS Parliament chairman of the Committee on Administration, Finance and Budget, Hon. Farouk Lawan represented by Hon. Amadou Ali Djibo said the essence of the workshop with the theme “ECOWAS Budgetary Procedures” was aimed at building the capacity of members of the committee.