Tag: Donald Trump

Trump Administration Announces Historic Progress on America First Global Health Strategy
Today, the Trump Administration announced a series of landmark bilateral Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with nine partner nations, marking a historic milestone in the implementation of the America First Global Health Strategy.

In just three months, the Administration has moved with unprecedented speed to secure agreements that protect American interests, save millions of lives, and transition recipient nations toward permanent self-reliance. To date, these MOUs represent more than $8 billion in direct U.S. investment, matched by over $5 billion in co-investment from partner countries.

“These MOUs are proof positive that President Trump’s leadership is making America safer, stronger, and more prosperous,” the Administration stated. “By fixing inefficiencies and reducing dependency, we are ensuring that every American tax dollar delivers real results while helping our partners stand on their own two feet.”

A New Era of Strategic Partnership

The America First Global Health Strategy, launched on September 18, 2025, prioritises bilateral agreements that shift health responsibilities from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to national systems. The strategy emphasizes private sector mobilization, the inclusion of faith-based organizations, and mandatory co-investment from recipient countries.

Key Bilateral Highlights:
- Nigeria ($5.1 Billion total): A massive joint investment ($2.1B U.S. / $3B Nigeria) to reinforce national leadership of health systems and provide critical support to over 900 faith-based clinics and hospitals.
- Kenya ($2.5 Billion total): A strategic shift to national systems, reducing NGO reliance and modernizing commodity procurement for long-term self-sufficiency.
- Uganda ($2.3 Billion total): A focused investment in HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria combat, featuring a $500 million pledge from Uganda and specialized support for the Ugandan military and faith-based providers.
- Mozambique: Features a 30% increase in domestic health expenditures by Mozambique and the deployment of American-made cutting-edge solutions like lenacapavir.
- Rwanda ($228 Million total): A high-tech partnership leveraging American robotics (Zipline) and AI to modernize infrastructure, with Rwanda set to take full control of its HIV/AIDS response by year four.
- Cameroon, Lesotho, Eswatini, and Liberia: These agreements collectively drive hundreds of millions into frontline commodities, American-made medical technology, and the transition of health workers to local government payrolls.
Core Pillars of the MOUs

Unlike previous open-ended assistance programs, these MOUs have a maximum duration of five years with no future commitment of U.S. assistance beyond the agreement period. Every MOU is built on five innovative pillars:
1. Commodity Transition: Gradual transfer of procurement responsibilities to partner governments.
2. Frontline Worker Sustainability: Mapping U.S.-funded workers to national cadres and transitioning them to partner payrolls.
3. Data Integrity: Scaling interoperable digital tools to track disease outbreaks and programmatic data.
4. Domestic Co-Investment: Required increases in domestic health expenditures by partner nations.
5. Performance Incentives: U.S. financial support is strictly linked to meeting or exceeding key health metrics.
The United States expects to sign additional MOUs in the coming weeks as more nations align with the America First framework.
December 22, 2025
Trump tariffs have caused “the greatest disruption in trade in 80 years”: WTO’s Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala

This week, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala sat down with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour at the network’s first Global Perspectives event in London to discuss the big picture on global trade before zeroing in on Africa.

The Nigerian economist and World Trade Organisation (WTO) director-general called the ripple effect of Trump administration tariffs “the greatest disruption in trade in 80 years.” She also said that she agreed with some of the criticisms levelled at the organisation by the US.

“The crisis is an opportunity to reform (the WTO),” she said, calling for greater transparency and conceding that decision-making “sometimes … does result in paralysis.”

“In this modern world with AI, we need to find a way to be flexible, faster,” she added.

Okonjo-Iweala noted that the US isn’t the only nation critiquing the WTO, and developing nations also have legitimate gripes. “I think they are coming to the fore because of the crisis we’re in,” she said.

Beyond the bureaucracy, the director-general was bullish about the continent’s prospects, pointing to an IMF projection of 4% growth in Africa in 2025 and 2026.

“Most of Africa’s mineral resources are yet to be discovered,” she said, while pointing to the continent containing “67% of the world’s arable land,” and 22% of the world’s working population.

“But how do we make this work for us?” she added.

Okonjo-Iweala called for “careful thinking” on tensions in Nigeria, after US President Donald Trump suggested the United States may take military action there to protect the nation’s Christians.

Okonjo-Iweala, who previously served as Nigeria’s finance minister, said “This is an incredibly complex question. The situation is very difficult and needs careful thought.

“It has religious issues involved in it, it has resource issues involved in it, it has different complexities. So, I just think we need careful thinking through.”

November 11, 2025
Feature: Why Trump should listen to Milei on trade
by Tonderai Mapfumo

Introduction
In recent years global economic dynamics have been significantly influenced by the rise and fall of protectionist policies, particularly under the administration of US President Donald Trump. His approach to tariffs and trade has sparked considerable debate about the implications for the US economy and its trading partners. As the global landscape evolves, it is imperative to reconsider the merits of trade liberalisation – a principle championed by libertarians – especially in light of successful reforms implemented by leaders like Javier Milei in Argentina. This article argues that Trump and policymakers must prioritise liberalising trade and the economy to foster sustainable growth and enhance competitive advantage.

Understanding trade liberalisation
Trade liberalisation refers to the removal or reduction of trade barriers, such as tariffs and quotas, to encourage free trade among nations. The underlying philosophy is that free markets lead to more efficient allocation of resources, increased competition, and ultimately, greater prosperity. Libertarian economics posits that government intervention in markets distorts prices and hinders economic growth. By embracing trade liberalisation, countries can benefit from comparative advantages, leading to lower prices for consumers and improved innovation across industries.

The economic rationale for free trade
1. Comparative advantage: The theory of comparative advantage, articulated by David Ricardo, suggests that countries should specialise in producing goods in which they have a relative efficiency advantage. This specialisation increases overall productivity and economic welfare.
2. Increased competition: Liberalised trade fosters competition, which drives innovation and efficiency. When domestic firms face competition from international markets, they are incentivised to improve their products and services to maintain market share.
3. Consumer benefits: Trade liberalisation typically results in lower prices and greater variety for consumers. By removing tariffs, consumers gain access to a broader range of goods at more competitive prices, enhancing their purchasing power.
4. Economic growth: Historical evidence indicates that countries embracing free trade tend to experience higher rates of economic growth. By opening markets, nations can attract foreign investment, create jobs, and stimulate domestic industries.
The protectionist approach: Analysing Trump’s tariff wars
During his presidency, Trump adopted a protectionist stance, imposing tariffs on various goods, including steel and aluminium, as part of an “America First” policy. While the intention was to protect American jobs and industries, the actual outcomes have often been counterproductive:
1. Retaliatory tariffs: Many trading partners responded with their own tariffs, disrupting established supply chains and harming US exporters. This tit-for-tat escalation led to increased costs for American consumers and businesses.
2. Market distortion: Tariffs create artificial price increases, leading to inefficiencies in the market. Businesses reliant on imported goods faced higher costs, which often resulted in reduced competitiveness both domestically and internationally.
3. Economic uncertainty: The unpredictability of trade policies under Trump created an unstable economic environment. Businesses were hesitant to invest due to uncertainty about future tariffs and trade agreements, stalling economic growth.
Lessons from Javier Milei: A libertarian approach to economic reform
Javier Milei, Argentina’s president, has emerged as a prominent figure advocating for libertarian economic principles. His approach provides valuable insights that could benefit US trade policy:
1. Deregulation and privatisation: Milei’s reforms emphasise reducing government intervention in the economy through deregulation and privatisation of state-owned enterprises. By allowing market forces to dictate outcomes, Milei aims to stimulate growth and innovation.
2. Currency stabilisation: One of Milei’s key proposals is to dollarise the Argentine economy, a move that aims to eliminate hyperinflation and restore confidence in monetary policy. While the US dollar is not an option for the US, stabilising monetary policy and reducing national debt can enhance economic credibility.
3. Focus on free markets: Milei advocates for open markets and free trade, recognising that protectionist measures can inhibit economic recovery. By prioritising trade liberalisation, he aims to reintegrate Argentina into the global economy, attract foreign investment, and create jobs.
4. Educational reforms: Emphasising the importance of education and skills development, Milei recognises that a well-informed workforce is crucial for competitiveness in a liberalised trade environment. Investing in education can equip workers with the necessary skills to thrive in a global marketplace.
Recommendations for a liberalised trade policy
1. Reduce tariffs and barriers
  Trump should consider gradually reducing tariffs and trade barriers to foster a more competitive environment. By engaging in negotiations to lower trade barriers with key partners, the US can enhance its economic relations and benefit from cooperation.
2. Promote bilateral and multilateral agreements
  Engaging in trade agreements that emphasise liberalisation can help establish fair trade practices. Bilateral and multilateral agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership , should be revisited to promote free trade and economic integration.
3. Support domestic innovation
  Rather than shielding industries through tariffs, the government should invest in research and development to foster innovation. By supporting technology and innovation, American firms can compete effectively on a global scale.
4. Enhance workforce training
  To prepare the workforce for a liberalised trade environment, investment in education and vocational training is essential. This will ensure that US workers are equipped with the skills necessary to adapt to changing market demands.
5. Encourage entrepreneurship
  Supporting entrepreneurship can drive economic growth and job creation. Policies that facilitate access to capital and reduce bureaucratic hurdles for startups will encourage innovation and competition.
Conclusion
The protectionist policies adopted during Trump’s presidency have demonstrated the pitfalls of interfering with market mechanisms. By learning from Javier Milei’s libertarian approach, Trump has the opportunity to embrace trade liberalisation as a means to enhance economic growth and competitiveness. As the global economy continues to evolve, prioritising free markets and fair trade will be essential for ensuring sustainable prosperity for the US and its trading partners. Embracing these principles can lead to a more resilient economy, benefitting both consumers and businesses alike.

Tonderai Godknows Mapfumo is the Research and Advocacy Officer for COMALISO (Coalition for Market and Liberal Solutions) in Zimbabwe and an Associate of the Free Market Foundation.
May 7, 2025
Feature: Trump exhibits deep awareness of the burdens imposed by domestic taxes

by Richard J Grant

Given recent news coverage, young people might get the impression that US President Donald Trump invented trade tariffs. But tariffs have a long history of widespread use up to the present, which suggests that they must be useful to somebody. Their appearance also begs the question: But aren’t tariffs inherently bad? No, they are just a tool of economic and social policy.

What makes tariffs suddenly worse than any other tax? I do recall, in younger days, being told by respected elders that tariffs were a relatively inefficient tax. But deeper experience suggested that context matters, and the dose makes the poison. Above all, we need to know the purpose of the tax.

How big is the impact of a 30 percent tariff on a portion of one’s exports to a particular country compared to one’s own top domestic income-tax rate of 45 percent? How does it compare to a domestic VAT rate of 15.5 percent – soon to be 16 percent? Each of these taxes has a purpose, and responsible policymakers must ask whether the purpose is worth the burden of the tax. Economics does not tell you what to do; it merely helps you to understand the consequences if you do it. Policymakers cannot hide behind “science” to evade moral responsibility for their actions.

However he articulates it, President Trump appears to understand that free trade starts at home. He exhibits a deep awareness of the burdens imposed by domestic taxes and regulations that make American industries far less competitive than they could be. He also knows that government expenditure exceeds tax revenue and that “too much” of that expenditure is wasted, stolen, and often counterproductive. And he seems to have asked the question that more economists should ask: Why is international trade more special than domestic trade?

President Trump’s words and actions reflect an all-too-rare understanding that his duty as an elected leader is to protect the lives, property, and liberty of his people. A duty to protect and nurture one’s family is not a call to attack one’s neighbors but rather to refrain from such attacks, unless one lives in a very bad neighborhood.

No one can accuse President Trump of not understanding “gains from trade” and the benefits of scale and big markets. Those who measure the value of a society solely by its GDP will never understand, and will always underestimate, Trump’s depth of support from the American people. He is old enough to have witnessed and felt the effects on families and communities of rapid economic restructuring due to globalization and technological change over the past 50 years. Perhaps the full cost of all those cheap goods cannot be measured in dollars.

A serious leader, one who recognises the foundational importance of family and the unexamined wisdom retained by tradition, would seek to remove any governmental structures or policies that attack or threaten those foundations. The healthiest nations stand on personal responsibility, strong families, and good relations within and between communities that ensure survival when threats emerge. For the same reason that Nehemiah built a wall around his community, we might build walls – legal, if not physical – around our homes and our countries.

The leaders of a nation that strives first to put its own house in order might look outward at the neighborhood and legitimately determine that unilateral free trade is a threat to its viability. A leader who ignored such a threat would be derelict. There are events in life when over-specialization or, rather, a lack of broad capabilities can become very expensive or life-threatening.

When President Trump looks outward, he sees an array of tariffs and non-tariff barriers designed to limit American exports. He also sees systematic theft of American intellectual property and nation-state complicity in the trafficking of drugs and humans into the United States. Perhaps there is scope for negotiation with neighbors – and perhaps reciprocal tariffs might be a nice peaceful tool to facilitate such negotiations.

Trump’s imposition of tariffs at only half the rate for full reciprocity is an invitation to negotiate mutual reductions in rates and barriers. Far from starting a “trade war,” he offers a way out. How other countries respond will reveal their intent, which is an important thing to know about one’s neighbors. If they raise or maintain their trade barriers, or facilitate transshipment from other high-tariff countries, their barriers will be matched accordingly.

Nothing here rules out reciprocal free trade between nations; nor does it demand such. Not all tariffs are narrowly protectionist, favoring special interests. Prudent leaders have a duty to protect their strategic interests, which includes any industries essential to that task. An unwillingness to pay the price is a sign of weakness that will be exploited by enemies.

President Trump has repeatedly called on allies and trading partners to be prudent, not weak. His tariffs were greeted by howls of indignation, but all he did was to hold a mirror in front of the world – and the world recoiled.

May 5, 2025
Feature: Trump Effect on the Nigerian Economy
by Dr Muda Yusuf

The inception of the Trump administration in the United States of America has significantly altered the dynamics of global trade, economic outlook, and geopolitical trajectory. These shifts have also led to disruptions within the U.S. economic, trade, and political governance systems. As these changes unfold, they bring multi-dimensional implications for the Nigerian economy, affecting energy prices, trade relations, economic diplomacy, macroeconomic stability, donor funding, and capital flows. This essay explores the various ways in which the Trump presidency may shape Nigeria’s economic outlook in the near term.

Implications for Energy Prices

The United States has been the largest oil producer globally for the past six years. In 2023 alone, the country produced an average of 21.91 million barrels per day, accounting for 22% of global oil production. With this level of output, the U.S. is well-positioned to influence global oil prices.

The Trump administration is committed to increasing oil production to lower energy prices both domestically and globally. President Trump’s Executive Order creating a National Energy Dominance Council underscores this commitment. Additionally, his administration is working towards moderating geopolitical tensions, particularly the Russian-Ukraine war and possibly the Israeli-Hamas conflict. If these efforts succeed, they could lead to increased global oil output, especially given Russia’s significant contribution of 10 million barrels per day to the global market. This could also result in the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Russia, further increasing supply and potentially weakening crude oil prices.

A decline in oil prices poses risks for Nigeria, given the country’s heavy reliance on oil exports for government revenue and foreign exchange earnings. The $75 per barrel benchmark set in the 2025 budget may no longer be sustainable. However, a drop in energy prices could benefit Nigerian consumers and industries by lowering costs for diesel, PMS, jet fuel, and gas, thanks to the deregulated nature of the oil and gas sector.

Implications for Global Trade

The Trump administration has pursued policies of economic nationalism, protectionism, and deglobalization. These policies have triggered retaliatory trade actions from U.S. trade partners and may lead to disruptions in global supply chains.

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which provides preferential access to the U.S. market for African countries, could face termination under Trump’s trade policy. While Nigeria has not fully capitalized on AGOA, its cancellation would eliminate any future potential benefits.

Despite these challenges, Nigeria could find opportunities within the trade war by filling supply gaps created in the U.S. market. However, rising inflation in the U.S. due to tariff wars may lead to higher prices for American goods imported into Nigeria, resulting in inflationary pressures domestically.

Trump’s stance against BRICS countries and their efforts to challenge U.S. financial dominance could also impact Nigeria’s trade dynamics. Nigeria must strategically navigate this evolving global trade landscape by forging new trade alliances and exploring alternative markets.

Implications for Remittances

The Trump administration’s restrictive immigration policies may negatively impact diaspora remittances to Nigeria. The United States is home to an estimated 500,000 Nigerians, many of whom send money back home. Stricter documentation requirements and potential deportations could reduce remittance inflows, which play a crucial role in Nigeria’s economy.

Implications for Government Revenue

A potential drop in global oil prices would significantly impact Nigeria’s government revenue and foreign exchange earnings. This would exacerbate fiscal deficits, increase government debt, and put pressure on the exchange rate. The revenue shortfall could force the government to reassess its fiscal strategies, possibly leading to increased borrowing or expenditure cuts.

Implications for Exchange Rate

Trump’s policies are likely to strengthen the U.S. dollar, which could lead to a depreciation of the Nigerian naira. Since there is an inverse relationship between the strength of the dollar and other currencies, a stronger dollar would make imports more expensive for Nigeria, increasing inflationary pressures.

Furthermore, the U.S. Federal Reserve’s likely response to tariff-induced inflation—raising interest rates—could trigger capital flow reversals from emerging markets like Nigeria. This could further weaken the naira and add to macroeconomic instability.

Suspension of USAID Intervention

In 2023, USAID contributed approximately $1.02 billion to Nigeria, funding critical areas such as health, education, water and sanitation, maternal and child care, and governance transparency. The potential suspension or termination of this aid under Trump’s administration would create significant financing gaps, particularly in the health sector. Fortunately, Nigerian government agencies are already exploring alternative funding sources to mitigate the impact.

Policy Implications and Lessons from the Trump Disruption

Given the shifts in global economic policies under Trump, Nigeria must prioritize self-reliance and reduce its dependence on imports in critical sectors such as energy, food, pharmaceuticals, and security. Excessive reliance on foreign supplies increases vulnerability to external shocks and economic disruptions.

To achieve economic resilience, Nigeria must:
- Localize supply chains wherever possible.
- Adapt domestic economic policies to align with the global shift towards economic nationalism and deglobalization.
- Strengthen backward integration by promoting local production and export development.
- Enhance food, energy, health, and internal security using domestic resources.
- Address productivity shortcomings in the real sector to make Nigerian goods and services more competitive.
- Protect domestic industries from unfair competition by ensuring robust trade and industrial policies.
Conclusion

The Trump administration’s policies have far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s economy. From energy prices to trade relations, remittances, and exchange rates, the potential disruptions necessitate proactive policy responses. By focusing on self-reliance, economic resilience, and strategic trade alliances, Nigeria can navigate these challenges and position itself for sustained economic growth despite the uncertainties of global economic policies.

Dr Muda Yusuf is the Director/CEO of The Centre For The Promotion of Private Enterprise [CPPE]
February 18, 2025
What US’ withdrawal from WHO means for Nigeria

The withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) could have significant implications for Nigeria and global health as America plays a critical role in funding, shaping health policies and providing responses to global health crises, according to public health experts.

They noted that the withdrawal also poses significant implications for Nigeria, as the country heavily relies on the WHO support for its public health system and initiatives, disease control efforts, and access to essential health services.

Donald Trump, the newly inaugurated president of the US, announced on Monday that he is withdrawing the US from the global health body, citing the WHO’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises.

The WHO has expressed regrets over the withdrawal announcement by the United States of America and urged the country to reconsider the decision.

The BMJ, a journal, in its publication on Tuesday following the announcement, warned that the severing of ties between the world’s largest economy and its foremost public health body represents a major setback for health diplomacy, scientific collaboration, and funding. The repercussions, it noted, will ripple across borders, including Nigeria, and leave WHO weaker.

Here are some potential effects of the withdrawal on Nigeria and global health.

Reduced funding

The global health body relies heavily on US funding, which contributes about 18 percent of its budget. The agency’s two-year budget for 2024-2025 was $6.8 billion. In that period, the US financed 75 percent of WHO’s programmes for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases and over half of contributions to combat tuberculosis.

There are concerns that a withdrawal could lead to a significant financial shortfall for the organisation, potentially impacting its ability to fund health programmes, respond to outbreaks, and provide support to low- and middle-income countries like Nigeria, which might see a reduction in WHO funding for various WHO-supported health programmes, including disease control efforts, vaccination campaigns, and health system strengthening initiatives.

The WHO is one of the biggest donor agencies and health financiers in Nigeria.

For instance, the health body approved $5.84 billion for Nigeria in 2020-2021 alone. According to health experts, this potential decline in funding for a country that still commits a meagre percentage of its budget to health could exacerbate health challenges.

Adaobi Onyechi, a health expert, said decreased funding could place additional strain on an already stretched health budget and increase disease burdens in areas where WHO is intervening.

The WHO provides health interventions in Nigeria to address a range of health issues, including disease control, outbreak prevention, and mental health services. The WHO also works to improve health systems and human resources.

Onyechi, however, said the reduced funding also presents an opportunity for Nigeria to ramp up domestic financing and explore alternative sources of revenue, which she noted would not only improve health outcomes but boost the economy.

Vaccine equity and availability

The US withdrawal could disproportionately impact lower-income countries that rely on WHO support for vaccines, according to global health experts.

Nigeria is reliant on the WHO’s vaccine procurement and distribution programmes. Consequently, a reduction in the WHO’s capacity due to the US withdrawal could lead to decreased access to vaccines for Nigeria, potentially exacerbating outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases.

For instance, data from the WHO website shows that the agency played a role in ensuring COVID-19 vaccine equity for Nigeria, primarily through its involvement in the COVAX facility and other supportive initiatives.

Health Security

There are concerns that the withdrawal could affect countries that rely on the WHO support for health systems strengthening, disease surveillance, and essential health services, potentially exacerbating health inequities. The US contributes scientific expertise and innovation to the WHO-led initiatives.

The WHO plays a key role in global health security, including the surveillance of diseases and coordination during outbreaks and providing technical and scientific support.

Health experts warn that Nigeria may navigate a more fragmented global health landscape, seeking bilateral partnerships or support from alternative international organisations. A fragmented response increases the risk of uncontrolled disease outbreaks, threatening international health security.

There are growing concerns that other countries, such as China, may step in to fill the void left by the US, potentially reshaping the priorities and governance of global health initiatives.

Disease, pandemic response and preparedness

Currently, the WHO plays a central role in coordinating responses to global health emergencies. Experts believe that the reduced funding for WHO could affect the extent to which the global body provides support, which Nigeria and several other countries have relied on for decades.

Nigeria relies on the WHO for technical assistance in disease surveillance, outbreak detection, and response. The WHO recommendations also shape local response as seen in COVID-19 and ongoing Mpox outbreaks. Consequently, experts believe that a reduced WHO presence could lead to a decrease in Nigeria’s capacity to detect and respond to outbreaks, potentially putting the public’s health at greater risk.

Impact on health diplomacy

Public health experts believe that health issues often transcend borders, and global cooperation is essential for effectively managing health challenges, noting that a US withdrawal could undermine international collaboration, making it more difficult to coordinate efforts on diseases that require a unified global response.

The WHO’s leadership in global health provides a platform for Nigeria to engage with other countries, international organisations, and donors. According to experts, the withdrawal could limit Nigeria’s access to international partnerships and resources, making it more challenging to secure funding and technical support for its health programmes.

January 23, 2025
Feature: Nigeria yet to tap into the opportunities of Russia-Ukraine Conflict

by Ayo Akinfe

Unfortunately Nigeria is not tapping into the opportunities that the Russia-Ukraine conflict is presenting to her on a platter

[1] Last week, a European Union delegation visited Abuja to ask that Nigeria replace Russia as their main gas supplier. Why did we not figure out that opportunity ourselves? Nigeria should have plugged the gap in the market as soon as sanctions were introduced against Moscow?

[2] Many people may have now forgotten but last year, Nigeria and Russia signed a bilateral pact that covered a whole range of areas. These included steel production, railway construction, military training, the supply of 12 attack helicopters and power supply

[3] Russia can easily see the writing on the wall. Everything is cyclical. Western Europe is fast becoming yesterday’s man, Britain is on the verge of becoming a Third World nation with her Brexit madness, in Japan, the ageing population makes it impossible for continued accelerated growth and the US arrogance as exemplified by Donald Trump means that its days as an economic super power are numbered

[4] I am not surprised that President Vladimir Putin has turned to Africa to revive Russia’s fortunes. He needs the continent’s gold, diamonds, bauxite, cocoa, coffee, rubber, palm oil, cashews, groundnuts, cassava, yam, copper, tin, cotton, etc to develop his economy. As we speak, China has more patents than the entire European Union. While Russia was snoring, China was building the fastest, tallest, biggest and longest everything. Clearly Putin hopes that his recent deal with 40 African nations will allow him bridge that gap

[5] On paper, Nigeria got a good deal as the Russians will revive Ajaokuta and get the nation producing steel. Russia will also build a Lagos to Calabar railway line and enter into a joint venture with the NNPC to build gas fired power plants. However, I am disappointed that the deal does not include an agreement on fishing, which is a sector in which Russia is very strong

[6] There is an old saying that only a fool is thirsty amid the abundance of water. Nigeria fits this bill perfectly when it comes to fishing as we have 853km of Atlantic coastline and are one of the world’s largest fish importers. This simply defies all logic and it is unfortunate that the government did not use the Russia summit as an opportunity to tackle the problem

[7] Annually, Nigeria consumes 3.32m tonnes of fish but alas, we only produce 1.12m tonnes a year. We thus import 2.2m tonnes of fish annually. Nigeria is currently the fourth largest fish importer in the world, spending about $1.5bn a year on the product. That is an expense we simply cannot afford. Just imagine how many Almajiris $1.5bn will train to become carpenters, mechanics, tailors, cobblers, bricklayers, etc

[8] Russia in contrast produces about 5m tonnes of seafood a year, accounting for about 2.3% of world output. Not satisfied, the Russian government has launched an aggressive expansion programme. Russia’s government offers a subsidy of two-thirds of the credit needed to construct and modernise aquaculture facilities. Fish farmers and fishermen just have to apply for these loans. Also, Russia has five technical universities that train specialists in fisheries, offering programmes for fisheries biology, navigation and marine engineering, fish processing, processing machinery, the economics of fisheries and aquaculture. Four professional schools also graduate middle level professionals, while nine Russian universities graduate about 120 aquaculture specialists each year. In addition, the biological departments of several universities also graduate specialists in fish biology and fishery oceanography

[9] Russia’s fish industry is worth about $5.5bn a year and the sector generates about $3bn in export earnings. Russia exports $8.4m worth of mackerel to Nigeria annually, making it our biggest fish supplier. Our total mackerel import bill is about $33.8m a year, with countries like the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Norway, Ireland, Netherlands and Mauritania all exporting to this dumb country. Mauritania for instance has a coastline of 754km but exports fish to Nigeria that has a coastline of 853km! Hmmmm

[10] As we speak, Russia is desperate for friends. Nigeria should be involved in high level negotiations with them. As part of a fresh Nigeria-Russia Pact, we should be asking President Vladimir Putin to open three school of fisheries in maybe Badagry, Warri and Calabar, to finish Ajaokuta and Aladja steel plants within a year and to open at least one shipyard in the Niger Delta.

July 29, 2022
Trump’s Impeachment Probe To Go Public Next Week

The first open impeachment hearings into US President Donald Trump will begin next week, the congressman leading the probe said Wednesday, as it heads into a highly-anticipated public phase.

William Taylor, Washington’s top diplomat to Ukraine, and deputy assistant secretary of state George Kent will testify on Wednesday next week, House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff announced.

People will be able to see “the degree to which the president enlisted whole departments of government in the illicit aim of trying to get Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political opponent,” Schiff said.

In a closed-door deposition, Taylor bolstered the principal accusation against Trump — that the president abused his office by withholding military aid to blackmail Kiev into launching investigations that could help him politically.

Kent, who heads the European and Eurasian bureau at the State Department, expressed concerns about White House efforts to remove the then ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.

Yovanovitch herself told investigators she was ousted because Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and others wanted her out of the way as they conducted Ukraine policy outside traditional diplomatic channels. She is scheduled to appear next Friday.

Schiff has already begun releasing transcripts of private witness testimony but it is widely believed that the trio’s appearance at public hearings could have a more dramatic impact on the American public.

The Capitol Hill hearings will be broadcast live as lawmakers from both parties and trained staff question witnesses, many of whom the White House has sought to discredit.

Republican lawmakers have spent weeks accusing Democrats of holding “sham” secret hearings in the US Capitol basement and demanding a more open process.

Schiff said that moment in the fast-moving inquiry had arrived, and that Americans would be able to hear the accounts of potential abuse of power directly from witnesses who were caught up in the scandal.

The hearings “will be an opportunity for the American people to evaluate the witnesses for themselves, to make their own determinations about the credibility of the witnesses, but also learn first-hand about the facts of the president’s misconduct,” Schiff added.

November 7, 2019
California’s right to set own car emissions standards revoked by Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he is revoking California’s ability to independently set its own car emissions standards, which have been more stringent than most of the country.

California was granted a waiver to set car emission standards that were stricter than federal regulations in 2013, under the administration of president Barack Obama

Trump’s move marks the latest clash between the deeply Democratic state and his administration over climate issues. California is the largest U.S. state by population and is particularly dominant when it comes to new car sales, giving the state government tremendous influence over policy.

In a tweet, Trump said there would be very little difference in emissions between the California Standard and the new U.S. Standard, but the cars would be far safer and much less expensive. The Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, and Attorney- General Xavier Becerra, would respond to the development during a press conference on Wednesday. The move comes after the U.S. Justice Department reportedly opened an anti-trust investigation into four automakers that negotiated with California to set mileage standards.(NAN)

Culled from The Vanguard

September 18, 2019