blogs

ARE WE SAVE?

 Today, Nigeria faces her greatest security challenge ever. Apart from the menace of armed robbers, which is widespread, we also worry about the threat of Boko Ha ram and its attendant collateral damage on Nigeria and her people. With the arrival of Boko Haram, Nigeria lost her innocence and effectively joined those isolated countries that carry that revolting tag of being referred to as terrorist states. But this is misleading and unfortunate because as far as I am concerned, Nigeria is not a terrorist country. Yet our position that we are not a terrorist state does not seem to impress western powers as they had only recently issued travel alerts to their nationals whether visiting or residing here.      

Often, we all ask: how did we get here? I am afraid if we continue this way, there may be little or nothing left to bequeath to the next generation.  I still admire the robust politics of post independent Nigeria, the healthy rivalry among the regions and the excellent bearing and leadership qualities of the drivers of that era, I mean our founding fathers. 

Where then is that spirit of healthy competition today? And where is the peace and development we all sought and hoped for at the dawn of independence? These are questions we always ask ourselves anytime we unconsciously become too romantic of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Why are we no longer interested in replicating the good in our neighbor whether it is in the area of manufacturing, policy formulation and implementation, protection of human rights, provision of welfare services, good governance or in the fight against violent crimes which is on the rise?

Africa’s security challenges are characterized by a great diversity; and these range from conventional challenges such as insurgencies, border conflicts, resource and identity conflicts, post conflict stabilization crisis, violent extremism, and terrorism (See, African Center for Strategic Studies, 2005).

 In recent times, these challenges have become more complex and dynamic. As major transitions begin to reshape African economic and political development, especially after the decades of military rule and authoritarianism, the new democratic institutions, have on their own generated new types of conflicts and violent situations.                                                                                                              Also, rapid urbanization in Africa have brought with it, competing socio-political disruptions, that encourage domestic militancy, and other new violent criminal activities, which now challenge domestic and continental security.

Suddenly, militants of all shades and diverse beliefs, kidnappers – political and criminal, and terrorist groups, have added to the lexicon of security discuss in Africa. These, together with the management of State natural resources, markets, illicit goods movements, border administration, and many other subtle factors, have now become new drivers that shape Africa’s regional security challenges.

 These major drivers that determine the state of insecurity in Africa, have been properly articulated by Chris Abbot and Thomas Philips (See Chris Abbot and Philips, Beyond Dependence and Legacy: Sustainable Security in Sub-Saharan Africa), as follows:

1.   The Nature of the State

2.   Legacies of War and militarism

3.   Resource Management Issues

 African States emerged as creations of European colonial powers, which shaped the nature of the new States.

 From the period of independence, the new States bore within them the seeds of conflict, especially as many diverse Nations were fused into incompatible unions of one State. These new and weak States were further characterized by weak institutions, poor governance, and predatory leadership in the post-independence era.                                                          This is  why the initial spate of ethnic based and border conflicts dominated the African region in the first two decades of independence in the 1960s and 70s. The postcolonial interests and the ideological divide of the cold war era further fueled these conflicts.

The initial ethnic based conflicts in Africa, and the divisive power struggle that followed the politics of the new States, on their own, created legacies of wars and militarism in Africa. Since power struggle and conflicts always rewarded the strongest, African States acquired the tendency to employ counter violence to settle all issues of disagreement, even where dialogue can subsist. This favored the ruling and despotic elites

The implication was felt in the militarization of Africa, increased arms trading, and obtrusive resort to force, even in the midst of decay and underdevelopment. The emergence of military regimes in Africa merely compounded the problems of regional violence and the promotion of conflicts, especially in the development of war economies.                                                                                                                                                                             The struggle for control of the resources of the State, which had been heightened by militarization, further stressed the African conflict environment to the neglect of its increasingly decaying economy. Many analysts, that this period when African States were enmeshed in violent conflicts constitutes a major factor in its low economic, have observed it political and social development.

It is also a known fact that Africa is richly endowed in many natural resources, which include large deposits of oil, gold, diamond, and many other rich minerals and exploitable resources. Ordinarily, these and its abundant human resources should make Africa the most developed, peaceful and enviable continent.                                                                                                              

Instead, these natural endowments have become the curse of Africa, as the poor management of these resources has become major drivers of conflict. As despotic States and their cronies appropriate common resources of their States, for personal enrichment, and often supported by foreign powers, regional arms race escalated and conflicts became more endemic in Africa.

Many African States that are endowed in resources, have also failed to use them to promote the welfare of their citizens, thus creating internal divide that encourage militarism as alternative politics. As Africa acquired a perception as a conflict prone environment, both local and foreign investors, refused to invest in Africa in the long term, living the region to remain perpetually a haven for extractive investment and suppliers of raw materials. These contribute to further underdevelopment Africa.

In recent years, African population has been growing exponentially, and under severe Malthusian threat. This is heightened by the threat of climate-change, which devastates agricultural activities and impoverishes the land. The cross migration of African people in search of arable lands for agriculture and cattle rearing have equally produced violent conflicts in the continent.

All these and many other drivers, now shape Africa’s regional security challenges, and attract diverse approaches in managing the challenges.

 THE AIM OF AFRICA’S SECURITY FRAMEWORK, AND APPROACHES TO DEALING WITH CHALLENGES

 The security objectives of Africa and its interests, especially after emerging from the clutches of colonialism, should ideally be focused on enabling Africans to go about their daily lives, – freely and with confidence that their lives and property are secured, in a stable and just State of self-rule; that ensures their  prosperity in an environment and beyond. This was expected to be the essential first principle for the emerging States and their governance in a post independence status. But ironically, this was not to be in the consideration of the security framework of post independent African States.

The truth is that African security doctrines have focused mainly on the security of the ruling elites, and the maintenance of the status quo, in what has been termed as the ‘control paradigm’. This approach, very often relies on military force to produce compliance of conflicting parties, while ignoring the underlying issues that caused the conflict in the first place.                                                              

 In this framework, the security of despots, their governments, and those of the collaborative elites, have been foisted on the national Interest of States, and become the defining character in resolving conflict challenges.

A major characteristics of this concept and its perception of security, is that it relegates to the background, the issues of global justice, equity, and people centeredness in the analysis and pursuit of security challenges. This approach has been witnessed where despotic rulers exploit ethnic divisions and neo-colonialism to remain in power while crushing all forms of opposition as security threats.                                                                                                                    Equally, the growth of military dictatorships with false legitimacies, touting themselves as purveyors of the national interest, have resulted in the acceptable use of force to eliminate all challenges to ill-conceived insecurity. The results have been in more internal disagreements, more conflicts, more violence and more insecurity in Africa.

 It was also in the pursuit of a status quo based security, that African corrupt leaders and regimes were protected and supported by western democracies during the cold war era, while prevailing conflicts and violence were forcefully suppressed. These were only to re-appear in other forms to the greater damage of African security.

It is informative to note that over the years, some attempts have been made at the regional and continental levels to address the ‘control paradigm’ of Africa’s perception and approach to dealing with its conflicts, especially through the efforts of African Union (AU), the ECOWAS and the South African Development Community (SADC), through its various more people centered interventions.

These interventions have been well reflected in the Organizations’ Guidelines on democratic free and fair elections, and the collective approach to security management and peace keeping interventions, as well as norms setting for dealing with conflict situations.                                                                                                              The AU has equally established a peace and security Directorate, to provide enhanced institutional capacity for achieving security and stability in Africa, beyond the control security structure that aims at only maintaining the status quo (See, Peace and Security Organization, AU Untitled Document, 2004).

But change and implementation of security structures in Africa continent, remain the prerogatives of individual African States, which very often lacked the will power to implement them. But of greater significance in the security management of African States, has been the prevalence of excessive corruption, weak leadership, and poor institutional capacity of States, which all combine, to encourage the State centered ‘status quo’ conception of security in Africa.                                                     These issues define why the interchange between endemic conflicts and economic development in Africa, remain difficult issues to deal with, and demands alternative approach for effective management.

 ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURAL APPROACH TO SECURITY CHALLENGES IN AFRICA: WHAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE?

 While the ‘control paradigm’ has dominated security thinking and management in Africa in the past six decades of African statehood and independence, many conflicts continue to fester. The United Nations Development Programme Agency links these conflicts to the declining and low economic, infrastructure and social development of Africa. This has combined with other changing political, economic and security circumstances, to force most African governments to begin to consider some forms of reform in their security institutions, funding and perception, especially how security can integrate with civilian constituents and other stakeholders (See, Eboe Hutchful and Kayode Fayemi, Security System Reform in Africa).

 This need to move to a new security paradigm in Africa has been driven by a variant of trends, some of them conflicting. These include reforms in the external securities of foreign Nations, globalism and the end of the cold war conflicts, the process involved in the rebuilding of States and the demands of Donor Agencies. All these now impose the imperatives of change in the old military oriented structure of African security perception.

The drivers to leading to this desired alternative approach to security challenges in Africa have been extensively discussed in Eboe and Fayemi (Ibid), to include the followings:

1.   The peace agreements, which brought an end to some African conflicts, also, imposed some changes in security perceptions and the way forward.

2.   The growing democratization and dismantling of African authoritarian regimes and political structures, most of them military, began to suggest expansion of security views and new perception.

 3.   The drive to fiscal restructuring and monitoring of public expenditure, now becoming mandatory in African security structures, now call for reduced weapon accumulation and use as dominant approach to conflict situations.

4.   Changing strategic environment brought about by end of the cold war, and its associated conflicts, equally suggest changes in the attitude of developing countries in dealing with their conflicts.

5.   The growing importance and reach of regional and sub-regional collective security mechanisms, also suggest the need for new strategies in conflict reduction.

6.   The deteriorating security conditions of many African States in the face of global and State economic meltdowns, have induced the need for collaborative consciousness in managing all forms of conflicts.

 Under these new conditions, dialogue over security issues have become more acceptable as a strategy, and the need for reform of old thinking and application of security principles in Africa, has become both urgent and imperative.

NOW ENTER SUSTAINABLE SECURITY!

 This new approach and reform to African security structure, in which focus is more on ‘human security’ is being given prominence of new thinking, and is acclaimed to be the basis of building a sustainable security for Africa.

Sustainable security in Africa and indeed in any other part of the world is built on the premise that we cannot successfully control all consequences of insecurity, but must work to resolve the causes. In other words, fighting the symptoms will not work, instead, we need to focus on curing the disease, and focus our analysis of security threats on an integrated approach that seeks to prevent the causes of conflicts.                                                                                                                 Such an approach will need to deal with long term drivers of insecurity, including competition over resources, marginalization of minorities, and even management of climate change and its implications to Africa (See Ben Zala, Looking for Leadership, Sustainable Security in Latin America and Caribbean, Oxford Research Group, Norwegian Peace-Building Center).

Sustainable security in Africa will also take into consideration the justice and equity issues in African States and shift defense spending to human needs, including creation of jobs, and food security.                                                                                                                   As African States imbibe the concept of sustainable security, they will begin to focus on the root causes of our domestic threats, using the most effective means of doing so, and making cooperation and collaboration with citizens, the police, military and intelligence agencies, the new basis of building trust in a people centered security.

 This approach is equally in recognition, that the protection of individuals is critical to both domestic and international security, and implies that the security needs of citizens for their development are not always enforceable through military means. Therefore, national defense, law and order, need to incorporate the broader political, social and economic issues that daily affect citizens’ lives.                                                       

Within this wider focus, sustainable security structure, will in responding to security challenges use the instrument of force, only in a manner that is consistent with democratic norms and supportive of human development (See, Security System Reform and Governance, OECD, 2005).

African States, in adopting the sustainable security structures that focus on the entire security of their citizens, suggest agreement:

1.   That the security structure must reflect local needs and priorities of all stakeholders

2.   That security must be seen as a policy issue that invites input from a larger population, beyond the needs of the elites.

 3.   That security must move beyond the use of force, and develop integrated policy approaches and responses that cut across other sectors of public action and interests.

4.   That application of security, both operational, capacity and design must be accountable to the people, if it will provide lasting solutions.    

RESTAURANT BUSINESS
We all have three basic needs in our day to day activities,The three basic needs are Food,Clothe and shelter.Among all these, food is the greatest basic necessity needs in our society.We all know that without food in our body it may lead to sickness and to death.
    With these scenario, it has make many Nigerian to embrace this opportunity around us today.Restaurant business is a lucrative business that any one can do to earn a living .We should stop waiting for government to provide us an employment.We should stop perambulation.We should stop submitting application for white cola job that are not available.All what we need is to believe in yourself and have faith in God for success.Let your first thought be that you can do it yourself.The nation needs someone that can solve people`s problems,therefore managing a restaurant business  means you are solving the problem of food in the society and you will be earning good money that most civil servant cannot earn.
 YOU MAY ASK,WHAT IS RESTAURANT BUSINESS ALL ABOUT?  LET GET TO KNOW THE MEANING OF RESTAURANT. IT MAY BE DEFINED AS A PLACE WERE YOU GO TO WHEN YOU ARE HUNGRY, TO EAT YOUR DESIRE FOOD.
RESTAURANT BUSINESS IS THE ACT OF SETTING UP A VENDOR WHEREBY HUNGRY PEOPLE WE COME TO EAT FOOD AND PAY THE OWNER OF THE VENDOR.
YOU MAY EVEN ASK IF THE BUSINESS  NEEDS CAPITAL TO START WITH?.An adage says that nothing goes for nothing. Take for instance, those that searches for invisible job every day,they pay alot of money to those that called themself job consultant film and they may not get that job.In our educational  system, before admission is  given, you have to pay an nonrefundable fees before any one can answer you.Mind  you at the end one mite loose his money and all the effort will be in vain.
   sincerely, starting a restaurant business one need little capital.The capital you need depend on the location of the business and how you want to manage the business.you may decide to start alone or you may employ some staff for help.it all depend on the type of dishes you wish to offer your customer.But i advise you to start small and take a look at the patronage first.
  OTHER QUESTIONS THAT PEOPLE  ALWAYS ASK ABOUT RESTAURANT BUSINESS ARE

• IS THE BUSINESS LUCRATIVE?
• HOW MUCH CAN I START WITH?
• HOW WILL I CHOOSE MY LOCATION
• WERE CAN I GET MY FUND FROM?
• MUST I RESGISTER THE BUSINESS BEFORE STARTING?

• WHAT TYPE OF  EQUIPMENT CAN I START WITH?