Thursday, October 29, 2015

When Silence is Not a Virtue - Where is Mr. President?

If I were the Nigerian president, I would spend one hour every month communicating with the Nigerian people.
I would speak about our current situation, challenges, our interventions and what lies ahead. I would also mention areas where we are doing well. Each time, I would have one key official of my government with me to speak in detail about the more critical issues faced by Nigerians.
Once ministers are appointed, I would have one join me every month. This would eventually reduce to quarterly once we are up to speed and the new cabinet settles down.
Through my administration, I would speak with Nigerians at least once a quarter.
Also, I would make it a habit not to speak of domestic issues and new directions in policy or governance in any foreign country before I have spoken of it at home.

In times of crises and great national urgency,  leaders are often the rallying point for unity, patriotism and renewal of belief in a joint vision.
The leader must not only constantly articulate this vision, he must  communicate with effect  to rally the troops and get everyone in line towards the common goal.

Considering the dire security situation in the North East, the country-wide economic slow down, confusing monetary policy initiatives, etc., we expect Mr. President to be more communicative. This is not the time to be taciturn. There is hardly a great leader who led their country out of crises, wars and economic downturns that could be called a "silent achiever".

SAN

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Revisiting Awo


By Bola Ige - May 8, 2001

FOURTEEN years ago yesterday, Obafemi Awolowo passed on to higher
service. Two months and three days earlier, at his seventy eighth birthday
anniversary celebration, he had spoken prophetically about the
imminence of his transition, about the fact that he had not been
allowed to achieve his highest ambition of serving the people of
Nigeria, about how he was satisfied that he was going for a greater and
higher service, and of a life after life. Only few of his listeners at
Ikenne on that March 6, 1987 comprehended fully what he was talking
about. That was why all of us, friends and foes alike, were stunned and
devastated when he moved on from this mortal plane. The greatest
Nigerian ideologue so far, and the main issue in Nigerian politics
during the previous fifty years, as General Ibrahim Babangida had
described him earlier, left us.

Since the beginning of this year when, for over three months, my foes
and friends, for good and bad reasons, made me the centre of political
controversy in Nigeria, I have had, in my efforts at self-criticism and
objective self-critical appraisal, to turn to the mental spiritual and
political guidelines which Awo bequeathed to all of us who confess that
we are his disciples. For obvious reasons, I will not write about the
mental and spiritual lessons he taught me. But I drew upon the
guidelines of mental magnitude that he prescribed, and I read, once
again, his seminal writings in which one can find his clear thoughts
and analysis on the problems of Nigeria. I have once again read, marked
and inwardly digested, his main writings: (1) Path to Nigerian Freedom
(ii) Thoughts on the Nigerian Constitution; (iii) The People's Republic
and (iv) Strategy and Tactics of the People's Republic.

In the last few weeks, our country has been agog with the news of
political activities of persons and groups who seem to want to be of
relevance or who are groping for ways to bring about some sort of
realignment of forces. The scenario is unfolding and Nigeria's
political temporary contraptions called political parties and the
desire of political theoreticians, who have no real winnable
constituencies, to configure for us Nigeria's political landscape. It
is for these and other reasons that it is desirable, at the end of the
second seven-year cycle and the beginning of the third seven-year
cycle, that we should once again remind ourselves about Awo's thoughts
on a few important issues like (a) the national question; (b)
federalism; (c) the unity of Nigeria and (d) constitution making. I
doubt whether anybody in Nigeria has written cogently on the national
question more than Obafemi Awolowo. He posited and demonstrated lucidly
how the proper resolution of the national question is fundamental to a
viable and prosperous Nigerian polity. Because of the various and
different histories and cultures of our various nationalities, and the
various and different stages of our modern and social and political
development, he recommended a federation of Nigeria of not more than
eighteen states based largely on ethnic affiliation and language.

I am glad I have never deviated from Awo's principled position. And
from what we are seeing of and in the six Yoruba States, in the five
Igbo States and the six Hausa States, and from the nationalism that
imbues organizations like AFENIFERE, OHANAEZE and the militant youth
organizations among the Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa and Izon, objective
observers can see the futility of breaking up of our nationalities into
miniscule states which have been emasculated in power, prosperity and
progress. One thing I know: the day is almost here in Yorubaland when
the Alajobi will be the Garibaldi that will write Yorubaland once
again, and we will flourish once again, like we did under Awo.

Because I have no mandate of the Igbo, Izon and the Hausa, for example,
I cannot speak authoritatively as I can for Yorubaland. But the signs
are Unmistakable. Thirty years after the Biafran civil war, the Igbos
are realizing that creating five states out of Igboland does not
empower them to move forward or even to take needed meaningful steps to
heal the scars of the civil war. As for the Hausa-Fulani,
Sharianisation as a potent political weapon of ethnic nationalism is
being fashioned and sharpened. Which leads me to the postulations of
Awo concerning federalism. For Awo, the Nigerian federation is to be a
federal republic of states (large and small) who have come together on
certain basic agreed terms reached and sealed in a constitution that
would guarantee every state the rights and resources to manage its
affairs in those areas assigned to it, and which would enable the state
to make MAN the centre, the subject and object, and the raison d'etre
of all development, whether at federal, state or local government
level.

I have read almost everything Awo wrote, and for more than 25 years, I
was directly under his tutelage. Not once and nowhere did Awo advocate
the break-up of Nigeria, or that Yorubaland should break away from
Nigeria. His first book designed the path of the freedom of Nigeria,
not Yorubaland only; his People's Republic was about the Federal
Republic of Nigeria; his thoughts on the constitution was for the
Federal Republic of Nigeria; and when he called us of the Committee of
Friends to sit with him in Park Lane, Apapa, to work out strategy and
tactics, they were to be how to capture power not in Yorubaland alone,
but throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria, so that the best
welfare of the people could be more easily and more comprehensively
catered for.

Awo, of course, wanted Yorubaland to be strong and prosperous, but not
for any selfish end. The prosperity and well-being of the Yoruba nation
was to be a benchmark for the Federal Republic of Nigeria. As Awo used
to say, he could not be a good Nigerian, if he was not a good
Yorubaman! One can recall Awo's rebuke of my friend, brother and
colleague, Chief Bisi Onabanjo, when in 1983, following the NPN rigging
of elections, he called for a confederation. He gave him political
spanking and that publicity . I am aware of course, that not only has
Awo been vilified by Zik and other unitarists as a tribalist and
apostle of balkanisation of Nigeria, quite a few Yoruba concerned
nationalists have also queried why Awo did not lead Yorubaland out of
Nigeria during the Civil War. Chief Emeka Ojukwu's grouse, and that of
some of his misguided cronies, was that they were encouraged in their
secessionist bid by the motion which was passed by Yoruba leaders in
the Western Hall, Ibadan, about April 1967.

I know much about that motion because I was part of the group that
crafted it, and I actually moved it. It was this:

"If by any act of omission or commission the Eastern Region secedes,
Western Region will opt out" (of the Federation of Nigeria)
Only a daft person can read an invitation or encouragement to secede in
that resolution. Yoruba want to be part of Nigeria, unless pushed out
or not wanted.

And when secession was being prepared in Eastern Region, Awo led a
delegation which included Chief Jereton Mariere, that charismatic
leader of the Urhobos and erstwhile governor of Midwestern Nigeria, to
persuade Emeka Ojukwu not to secede, but join in working out a truly
federal constitution for Nigeria.

I was an unofficial adviser to the delegation from Western Nigeria to
the ad-hoc Constitutional Conference convened by General Gowon in
September and October 1966. Nowhere in our presentation did the West
advocate secession or even confederation. These things need to be
recalled so that our people must know the strategy to adopt in the
present circumstance.

Which leads me to the last point. What was Awo's reaction to
discussions about constitution-making. Awo was never passive, and he
never advocated non-participation in any discussions, however much he
knew that they would not yield the results he wanted.

Fortunately, there are quite a few Nigerian leaders who are alive and
can bear testimony to Awo's robust and all-embracing nationalism for
Yorubaland, and unalloyed patriotism for Nigeria, all his life: Chief
Anthony Enahoro, Chief Rotimi Williams, SAN, Chief Chris Ogunbanjo,
Hon. Effiong Ononopkono, Chief Felix Ibru, Chief J.A.O. Odebiyi, Gen.
Yakubu Gowon, and Alhaji Maitama Sule for example, not to talk of
Senator Abraham Adesanya, and three people who have known him longer
than most of us. Mr. Justice Adewole Thompson, Ven. E.O. Alayande and
Awo's jewel of inestimable value, our beloved Mama, Chief (Mrs) H.I.D
Awolowo. I wish great leaders like Chief Wenike Briggs, Senator J. S.
Tarka, and Ken Saro-Wiwa, to mention a few, were alive to add their
voices.

And so, on this fourteenth anniversary of Awo's transition, we who are
his devotees must learn and study him anew, in order not to lose focus
and chase shadows and false doctrines which cannot stand the test of
political rigours and constitutional engineering. I thank my creator
for this genius of a man whose political principles cannot fail and by
which I immovably stand.

Long live Obafemi Awolowo.

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

Monday, October 5, 2015

Kogi 2015 - The Paucity of Choice

Prince Audu of APC and Captain Wada of PDP
I wrote this on August 22, in response to the outrage expressed by citizens of Kogi and other well meaning Nigerians, on the uninspiring choices presented  by the leading political parties in the Kogi gubernatorial election. Well the worst happened and its now a fight between Audu and Wada.
Enjoy.
_________________________________________________________________________________

What you see in Kogi today is an aggregation of the opinion and wishes of the people. It is a problem that extends beyond Kogi. It's a Nigerian problem.
When you chose not to participate, you have said yes to anything that comes from those who do.
When you chose not to join the political process to the simple extent of knowing your ward delegate and making your desires expressly known to them while informing them and of possible political and other legal  repercussions in a corporate manner, then you give the delegate rent to sell your vote for N30k only.

As past and present governors, Wada and Audu emerged from relatively free and fair elections. If the PDP allows delegate elections through primaries, per their democratic process, Wada will win another landslide and carry the ticket against Audu, the APC's democratically nominated flag bearer.

How do you prevent this from happening in the future?

Join a political party and get involved in your constituency. Know your councillors, ward reps and local government chairman. Let them know you know where they live and where they do business. Do not be a threat. Just let them know they're not invisible beings but one of you.

Create a medium (online and offline) for constantly engaging with like minds who all have party cards from your constituency. Raise some amongst you and promote them to have influence. Support their political aspirations. Work for them like you did for the leaders of the "change movement" in these last  elections.

I see some of my friends here are already doing this. Kudos to you all.

If we remain advocates  without street presence where it matters, the Wadas, Audus and Burujis will continue to represent us.

That said, it will be very unfortunate if the front runners in the Kogi race end up being Wada and Audu. I hope the permutation,  somehow, changes for the sake of the people of Kogi.

SAN

Image courtsey of KogiReports

Saturday, October 3, 2015

Religious Zeal, Tolerance and the Nigerian

I know someone who posts religious verses and quotes on his Facebook wall very frequently. He professes his religious beliefs at every opportunity he gets. We are both Christians and attend the same Church. He is one step from becoming a full manager in a multinational company with strong diversity values and 60,000 employees in 180 locations all over the world. He was recently posted, on a tenured company assignment, to the US and now temporarily lives there with his family.

A few months ago, he put up a post on how wrong and abominable it was for the church of satan to erect a statue of a symbol of their worship on the grounds of one of their temples in a US city. He blamed the US president for the increasing heretic leanings of the nation. He then asked for believers to join him in, not only publicly condemning the city of Detroit for allowing this statue to be erected, but to consider employing any means necessary to prevent this recurrence in other US cities. He said some other things I would not mention here.

So I asked him a few questions:
1. Is that religious association a duly registered and legal entity in the US?
2. If the first question is true, do they have the same rights as other religions to worship and to promote their beliefs?
3. Did they get the municipal permissions to erect that statue?
4. Why are you so concerned what they believe in and how they choose to lawfully propagate it?
5. Is this in any way preventing you from practising your own religion?
6. Is the US a secular country?
7. How different is your intolerance and method of propagation than what ISIS and Boko Haram are doing in their quest for religious insularity?

He came to my inbox and warned me against criticizing him on his wall or trying to score cheap points, etc.
I obeyed him and deleted my comment.

You need to question that thing that drives you to want to "unduly" defend God or your religious beliefs. It is not your role. It  provides a fertile ground for extremism to be planted. And that can be sparked by anything into germination.
Live and let live. Coexist. Love your neighbour regardless of their beliefs. This world is big enough for all. Say no to religious extremism.

And I do not refer to those  who genuinely and respectfully provide clarity to those who ignorantly judge their religion or those who preach with the intent of winning converts through acceptable means.

My friend? No, he's not seeing this either...his choice.

SAN

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Leadership and The Blame Game - That Missed UN Meeting

Muhammadu Buhari, President of Nigeria, at the UNGA’s seventieth session. September 2015
In my line of work, I have reported to people and had people report to me in the organizational hierarchy. I have also been seen to shirk my responsibility or be negligent in my duties, by my superiors, client group or major stakeholder, because someone reporting to me did not do their job well. What did I do? I took the fall and went back to review where the internal process failed us.  That is what leaders do. A cross they must carry for system failure. I am sure this is no new concept to most.

I did not throw the "responsible" employee under the bus to be crushed by my boss or client groups. In their eyes, it was I who  failed. If it was system failure, we would fix it, working with the affected employees and relevant resources. If it was down to human error, simple negligence or wilful sabotage, we would handle that too...internally. All systems have laid down rules for treating such things. Definitely, the civil service does.

It was very unprofessional for President Buhari's handlers to have (even tacitly) exposed a civil servant to the public as the one responsible for mishandling the president's itinerary leading to him missing important meetings at the UN. This subjected the lady in question to the kind of public  stigmatization that should only be reserved for political leaders. Die-hards are already calling for her head for embarrassing the infallible one. If you are interested in building strong institutions, this is exactly how not to do so.

Once again, the president's media handlers are showing that they have opportunities for improvement. Also, this is another example of why a political leader needs others directly working for/with him and charged with the supervision of civil servants and other bureaucratic structures. Call them special assistants, ministers or noise makers. Just appoint them and free yourself. You are not superman.

SAN

Image source - UN Photo/Amanda Voisard

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Sallah in Sagamu


I remember our annual Sallah trips to Shagamu from Warri while growing up. For my grand dad, besides the religious significance, the Sallah was also for him, a time when his children and grandchildren would be re-united for 4-5 days every year. I looked forward to meeting my cousins, playing in the red Shagamu soil, eating Ebiripo, Ikokore, coco (sweet cocoyam), Ojojo and seeing Indian, Chinese and Cowboy movies at Rex Cinema.

But by far the major highlight of our Shagamu visits were the Ram fights at St. Paul primary school at Ofin, just behind our family compound. For days leading up to the actual Sallah day when the rams would be customarily slaughtered, we would lead my dad’s, gran dad’s, uncles and neigbours rams out to the St Paul school field. These rams would join scores of others from the different surrounding neighborhoods of our Ofin area of Shagamu, in the battle of the head-butts.
I still remember the process of selecting fighting partners. My older cousins would carry out the sizing up, baiting and taunting that leads to a challenge and then the rams in question would be lined up with a small section of the crowd watching.



Instinctively, the rams would know what to do, take up the challenge and give each other some distance along the same line by moving back without looking, and it’s on! They would use their hind hooves to scratch the earth around them, gather some traction and charge at one another and gbam! Thud thud thud, this procedure is repeated, without prompting until one gives up either by running away from the aggressor, staying still without charging or the owner throws in the towel by grabbing his ram and pulling away. Your dad had better buy a strong and tough looking ram, because defeat is never good for the ego.

I remember this one neighbor who was known for buying very big rams, usually of the stock that had bold white and brownish colour combos. He would forbid his children taking his ram out to fight.  So this year, he was away from home long enough for one of his brave sons to lead out this “King of rams” to the field. The whole of St Paul buzzed. Everyone wanted to fight this ram to grant theirs some kind of undisputed title. The owner, brimming with pride, finally agreed to spar with an average sized healthy looking ram. Everywhere became quiet. The big ram charged and won the first series of butts. Our camp was agog with celebratory chants and taunts directed at the other side.


The smaller ram was not swayed and kept on coming back for more. On and on they went, thud thud thud. At some stage, we saw the tide turning. Our big ajebutter ram was getting tired and showing reluctance while the other ram was only just starting and getting more determined with different set expressions showing on its face. When the big ram got knocked to the ground and took its time in getting back up, a rapturous noise rent the air from the other side. My big cousin conferred with his friends and advised they throw in the towel. Instead, they decided to go one more try. As they say, pride comes before a fall. This was to prove a very literal idiom, for in the very next charge ajebutter ram hit the ground and lay sideways with tongue and eyes askew.

There was commotion. Even the other side’s ranks were immediately depleted. Yawa race, as my Warri people would say. I have never run so fast to get home and away from any kind of blame. Ileya ram dead? One day to Sallah? Emi ko. Mo yee!

The good news is, the egbons in the house went back with the boys and found the ram, up and looking very disoriented. That was the last time I showed any respect to any ram, based on size.
I hear they have ram fight clubs that stage all kinds of activities around Sallah in parts of Lagos. I will review the animal cruelty implications (:) ) and, maybe one day, attend one just as a spectator.

I wish all my Muslim brothers, sisters, family and friends a happy Eid el Kabir.
#OneLOve

SAN

Friday, August 7, 2015

#Great_War_Speeches: Report to the American People on the Potsdam Conference - Harry S. Truman

As the world commemorates the twin bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the tail end of the Second World War, I cannot help but be in awe of this oration delivered to the American people by President Truman to signal the final onslaught on Japan and an abrupt end to the war. While I am less keen on the politics, one way or another, of the war, its major actors and outcomes, I found this to be a landmark speech on the use of extreme force in resolving conflict.

It remains one of the greatest testaments of the politics behind the atomic bomb and indeed, nuclear energy, and foretells what is to come decades later.
It is also a treasure trove of quotes. I loved it so much I read it out loud, the second time, as though I was in the oval office with speakers and cameras in front of me.

For me, this is right up there with Lincoln's Gettysburg address and Churchill's "This was their finest hour", in the pantheon of great war time speeches.

Enjoy it!   

SAN

_________________________________________________________________________________
"My fellow Americans:

I have just returned from Berlin, the city from which the Germans intended to rule the world. It is a ghost city. The buildings are in ruins, its economy and its people are in ruins.

Our party also visited what is left of Frankfurt and Darmstadt. We flew over the remains of Kassel, Magdeburg, and other devastated cities. German women and children and old men were wandering over the highways, returning to bombed-out homes or leaving bombed out cities, searching for food and shelter.

War has indeed come home to Germany and to the German people. It has come home in all the frightfulness with which the German leaders started and waged it.

The German people are beginning to atone for the crimes of the gangsters whom they placed in power and whom they wholeheartedly approved and obediently followed.

We also saw some of the terrific destruction which the war had brought to the occupied countries of Western Europe and to England.

How glad I am to be home again! And how grateful to Almighty God that this land of ours has been spared!

We must do all we can to spare her from the ravages of any future breach of the peace. That is why, though the United States wants no territory or profit or selfish advantage out of this war, we are going to maintain the military bases necessary for the complete protection of our interests and of world peace. Bases which our military experts deem to be essential for our protection, and which are not now in our possession, we will acquire. We will acquire them by arrangements consistent with the United Nations Charter.

No one can foresee what another war would mean to our own cities and our own people. What we are doing to Japan now--even with the new atomic bomb--is only a small fraction of what would happen to the world in a third World War.

That is why the United Nations are determined that there shall be no next war.

That is why the United Nations are determined to remain united and strong. We can never permit any aggressor in the future to be clever enough to divide us or strong enough to defeat us.

That was the guiding spirit in the conference at San Francisco.

That was the guiding spirit in the conference of Berlin.

That will be the guiding spirit in the peace settlements to come.

In the conference of Berlin, it was easy for me to get along in mutual understanding and friendship with Generalissimo Stalin, with Prime Minister Churchill, and later with Prime Minister Attlee.

Strong foundations of good will and cooperation had been laid by President Roosevelt. And it was clear that those foundations rested upon much more than the personal friendships of three individuals. There was a fundamental accord and agreement upon the objectives ahead of us.

Two of the three conferees of Teheran and Yalta were missing by the end of this conference. Each of them was sorely missed. Each had done his work toward winning this war. Each had made a great contribution toward establishing and maintaining a lasting world peace. Each of them seems to have been ordained to lead his country in its hour of greatest need. And so thoroughly had they done their jobs that we were able to carry on and to reach many agreements essential to the future peace and security of the world.

The results of the Berlin conference have been published. There were no secret agreements or commitments--apart from current military arrangements.

And it was made perfectly plain to my colleagues at the conference that, under our Constitution, the President has no power to make any treaties without ratification by the Senate of the United States.

I want to express my thanks for the excellent services which were rendered at this conference by Secretary of State Byrnes, and which were highly commended by the leaders of the other two powers. am thankful also to the other members of the American delegation-Admiral Leahy and Ambassadors Harriman, Davies, and Pauley--and to the entire American staff. Without their hard work and sound advice the conference would have been unable to accomplish as much as it did.

The conference was concerned with many political and economic questions. But there was one strictly military matter uppermost in the minds of the American delegates. It was the winning of the war against Japan. On our program, that was the most important item.

The military arrangements made at Berlin were of course secret. One of those secrets was revealed yesterday, when the Soviet Union declared war on Japan.

The Soviet Union, before she had been informed of our new weapon, agreed to enter the war in the Pacific. We gladly welcome into this struggle against the last of the Axis aggressors our gallant and victorious ally against the Nazis.

The Japs will soon learn some more of the other military secrets agreed upon at Berlin. They will learn them firsthand--and they will not like them.

Before we met at Berlin, the United States Government had sent to the Soviet and British Governments our ideas of what should be taken up at the conference. At the first meeting our delegation submitted these proposals for discussion. Subjects were added by the Soviet and British Governments, but in the main the conference was occupied with the American proposals.

Our first nonmilitary agreement in Berlin was the establishment of the Council of Foreign Ministers.

The Council is going to be the continuous meeting ground of the five principal governments, on which to reach common understanding regarding the peace settlements. This does not mean that the five governments are going to try to dictate to, or dominate, other nations. It will be their duty to apply, so far as possible, the fundamental principles of justice underlying the Charter adopted at San Francisco.

Just as the meeting at Dumbarton Oaks drew up the proposals to be placed before the conference at San Francisco, so this Council of Foreign Ministers will lay the groundwork for future peace settlements. This preparation by the Council will make possible speedier, more orderly, more efficient, and more cooperative peace settlements than could otherwise be obtained.

One of the first tasks of the Council of Foreign Ministers is to draft proposed treaties of peace with former enemy countries--Italy, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Finland.

These treaties, of course, will have to be passed upon by all the nations concerned. In our own country the Senate will have to ratify them. But we shall begin at once the necessary preparatory work. Adequate study now may avoid the planting of the seeds of future wars.

I am sure that the American people will agree with me that this Council of Foreign Ministers will be effective in hastening the day of peace and reconstruction.

We are anxious to settle the future of Italy first among the former enemy countries. Italy was the first to break away from the Axis. She helped materially in the final defeat of Germany. She has now joined us in the war against Japan. She is making real progress toward democracy.

A peace treaty with a democratic Italian government will make it possible for us to receive Italy as a member of the United Nations.

The Council of Foreign Ministers will also have to start the preparatory work for a German peace settlement. But its final acceptance will have to wait until Germany has developed a government with which a peace treaty can be made. In the meantime, the conference of Berlin laid down the specific political and economic principles under which Germany will be governed by the occupying powers.

Those principles have been published. I hope that all of you will read them.1

1See Item 91.

They seek to rid Germany of the forces which have made her so long feared and hated, and which have now brought her to complete disaster. They are intended to eliminate Nazisre, armaments, war industries, the German General Staff and all its military tradition. They seek to rebuild democracy by control of German education, by reorganizing local government and the judiciary, by encouraging free speech, free press, freedom of religion, and the right of labor to organize.

German industry is to be decentralized in order to do away with concentration of economic power in cartels and monopolies. Chief emphasis is to be on agriculture and peaceful industry. German economic power to make war is to be eliminated. The Germans are not to have a higher standard of living than their former victims, the people of the defeated and occupied countries of Europe.

We are going to do what we can to make Germany over into a decent nation, so that it may eventually work its way from the economic chaos it has brought upon itself, back into a place in the civilized world.

The economic action taken against Germany at the Berlin conference included another most important item--reparations.

We do not intend again to make the mistake of exacting reparations in money and then lending Germany the money with which to pay. Reparations this time are to be paid in physical assets from those resources of Germany which are not required for her peacetime subsistence.

The first purpose of reparations is to take out of Germany everything with which she can prepare for another war. Its second purpose is to help the devastated countries to bring about their own recovery by means of the equipment and material taken from Germany.

At the Crimea conference a basis for fixing reparations had been proposed for initial discussion and study by the Reparations Commission. That basis was a total amount of reparations of twenty billions of dollars. Of this sum, one half was to go to Russia, which had suffered more heavily in the loss of life and property than any other country.

But at Berlin the idea of attempting to fix a dollar value on the property to be removed from Germany was dropped. To fix a dollar value on the share of each nation would be a sort of guarantee of the amount each nation would get--a guarantee which might not be fulfilled.

Therefore, it was decided to divide the property by percentages of the total amount available. We still generally agreed that Russia should get approximately half of the total for herself and Poland, and that the remainder should be divided among all the other nations entitled to reparations.

Under our agreement at Berlin, the reparations claims of the Soviet Union and Poland are to be met from the property located in the zone of Germany occupied by the Soviet Union, and from the German assets in Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Rumania and East Austria. The reparations claims of all the other countries are to be met from property located in the western zones of occupation in Germany, and from the German assets in all other countries. The Soviet waives all claim to gold captured by the Allied troops in Germany.

This formula of taking reparations by zones will lead to less friction among the Allies than the tentative basis originally proposed for study at Yalta.

The difficulty with this formula, however, is that the industrial capital equipment not necessary for German peace economy is not evenly divided among the zones of occupation. The western zones have a much higher percentage than the eastern zone, which is mostly devoted to agriculture and to the production of raw materials. In order to equalize the distribution and to give Russia and Poland their fair share of approximately 50 percent, it was decided that they should receive, without any reimbursement, 10 percent of the capital equipment in the western zones available for reparations.

As you will note from the communique, a further 15 percent of the capital equipment in the western zones not necessary for Germany's peace economy is also to be turned over to Russia and Poland. But this is not free. For this property, Poland and Russia will give to the western zones an equal amount in value in food, coal, and other raw materials. This 15 percent, therefore, is not additional reparations for Russia and Poland. It is a means of maintaining a balanced economy in Germany and providing the usual exchange of goods between the eastern part and the western part.

It was agreed at Berlin that the payment of reparations, from whatever zones taken, should always leave enough resources to enable the German people to subsist without sustained support from other nations.

The question of Poland was a most difficult one. Certain compromises about Poland had already been agreed upon at the Crimea conference. They obviously were binding upon us at Berlin.

By the time of the Berlin conference, the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity had already been formed; and it had been recognized by all of us. The new Polish Government had agreed to hold free and unfettered elections as soon as possible, on the basis of universal suffrage and the secret ballot.

In acceptance--in accordance with the Crimea agreement, we did seek the opinion of the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity with respect to its western and northern boundaries.

They agreed, as did we all, that the final determination of the borders could not be accomplished at Berlin, but must await the peace settlement. However, a considerable portion of what was the Russian zone of occupation in Germany was turned over to Poland at the Berlin conference for administrative purposes until the final determination of the peace settlement.

Nearly every international agreement has in it the element of compromise. The agreement on Poland is no exception. No one nation can expect to get everything that it wants. It is a question of give and take--of being willing to meet your neighbor half-way.

In this instance, there is much to justify the action taken. The agreement on some line--even provisionally--was necessary to enable the new Poland to organize itself, and to permit the speedier withdrawal of the armed forces which had liberated her from the Germans. In the area east of the Curzon line there are over 3,000,000 Poles who are to be returned to Poland. They need room, room to settle. The new area in the West was formerly populated by Germans. But most of them have already left in the face of the invading Soviet Army. We were informed that there were only about a million and a half left.

The territory the Poles are to administer will enable Poland better to support its population. It will provide a short and more easily defensible frontier between Poland and Germany. Settled by Poles, it will provide a more homogeneous nation.

The Three Powers also agreed to help bring about the earliest possible return to Poland of all Poles who wish to return, including soldiers, with the assurance that they would have all the rights of other Polish citizens.

The action taken at Berlin will help carry out the basic policy of the United Nations toward Poland--to create a strong, independent, and prosperous nation with a government to be selected by the people themselves.

It was agreed to recommend that in the peace settlement a portion of East Prussia should be turned over to Russia. That, too, was agreed upon at Yalta. It will provide the Soviet Union, which did so much to bring about victory in Europe, with an ice-free port at the expense of Germany.

At Yalta it was agreed, you will recall, that the three governments would assume a common responsibility in helping to reestablish in the liberated and satellite nations of Europe governments broadly representative of democratic elements in the population. That responsibility still stands. We all recognize it as a joint responsibility of the three governments.

It was reaffirmed in the Berlin Declarations on Rumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary. These nations are not to be spheres of influence of any one power. They are now governed by Allied control commissions composed of representatives of the three governments which met at Yalta and Berlin. These control commissions, it is true, have not been functioning completely to our satisfaction; but improved procedures were agreed upon at Berlin. Until these states are reestablished as members of the international family, they are the joint concern of all of us.

The American delegation was much disturbed over the inability of the representatives of a free press to get information out of the former German satellite nations. The three governments agreed at Berlin that the Allied press would enjoy full freedom from now on to report to the world upon all developments in Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Finland. The same agreement was reaffirmed also as to Poland.

One of the persistent causes for wars in Europe in the last two centuries has been the selfish control of the waterways of Europe. I mean the Danube, the Black Sea Straits, the Rhine, the Kiel Canal, and all the inland waterways of Europe which border upon two or more states.

The United States proposed at Berlin that there be free and unrestricted navigation of these inland waterways. We think this is important to the future peace and security of the world. We proposed that regulations for such navigation be provided by international authorities.

The function of the agencies would be to develop the use of the waterways and assure equal treatment on them for all nations. Membership on the agencies would include the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and France, plus those states which border on the waterways.

Our proposal was considered by the conference and was referred to the Council of Ministers. There, the United States intends to press for its adoption.

Any man who sees Europe now must realize that victory in a great war is not something you win once and for all, like victory in a ball game. Victory in a great war is something that must be won and kept won. It can be lost after you have won it--if you are careless or negligent or indifferent.

Europe today is hungry. I am not talking about Germans. I am talking about the people of the countries which were overrun and devastated by the Germans, and particularly about the people of Western Europe. Many of them lack clothes and fuel and tools and shelter and raw materials. They lack the means to restore their cities and their factories.

As the winter comes on, the distress will increase. Unless we do what we can to help, we may lose next winter what we won at such terrible cost last spring. Desperate men are liable to destroy the structure of their society to find in the wreckage some substitute for hope. If we let Europe go cold and hungry, we may lose some of the foundations of order on which the hope for worldwide peace must rest.

We must help to the limits of our strength. And we will.

Our meeting at Berlin was the first meeting of the great Allies since victory was won in Europe. Naturally our thoughts now turn to the day of victory in Japan.

The British, Chinese, and United States Governments have given the Japanese people adequate warning of what is in store for them. We have laid down the general terms on which they can surrender. Our warning went unheeded; our terms were rejected. Since then the Japanese have seen what our atomic bomb can do. They can foresee what it will do in the future.

The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction.

I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb.

Its production and its use were not lightly undertaken by this Government. But we knew that our enemies were on the search for it. We know now how close they were to finding it. And we knew the disaster which would come to this Nation, and to all peace-loving nations, to all civilization, if they had found it first.

That is why we felt compelled to undertake the long and uncertain and costly labor of discovery and production.

We won the race of discovery against the Germans.

Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.

We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us.

The atomic bomb is too dangerous to be loose in a lawless world. That is why Great Britain, Canada, and the United States, who have the secret of its production, do not intend to reveal that secret until means have been found to control the bomb so as to protect ourselves and the rest of the world from the danger of total destruction.

As far back as last May, Secretary of War Stimson, at my suggestion, appointed a committee upon which Secretary of State Byrnes served as my personal representative, to prepare plans for the future control of this bomb. I shall ask the Congress to cooperate to the end that its production and use be controlled, and that its power be made an overwhelming influence towards world peace.

We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force--to prevent its misuse, and to turn it into the channels of service to mankind.

It is an awful responsibility which has come to us.

We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes.

Our victory in Europe was more than a victory of arms.

It was a victory of one way of life over another. It was a victory of an ideal founded on the rights of the common man, on the dignity of the human being, on the conception of the State as the servant--and not the master--of its people.

A free people showed that it was able to defeat professional soldiers whose only moral arms were obedience and the worship of force.

We tell ourselves that we have emerged from this war the most powerful nation in the world--the most powerful nation, perhaps, in all history. That is true, but not in the sense some of us believe it to be true.

The war has shown us that we have tremendous resources to make all the materials for war. It has shown us that we have skilful workers and managers and able generals, and a brave people capable of bearing arms.

All these things we knew before.

The new thing--the thing which we had not known--the thing we have learned now and should never forget, is this: that a society of self-governing men is more powerful, more enduring, more creative than any other kind of society, however disciplined, however centralized.

We know now that the basic proposition of the worth and dignity of man is not a sentimental aspiration or a vain hope or a piece of rhetoric. It is the strongest, most creative force now present in this world.

Now let us use that force and all our resources and all our skills in the great cause of a just and lasting peace!

The Three Great Powers are now more closely than ever bound together in determination to achieve that kind of peace. From Teheran, and the Crimea, from San Francisco and Berlin--we shall continue to march together to a lasting peace and a happy world!"
_________________________________________________________________________________

- Harry S. Truman;  being text of presidential address delivered through public Radio to the American people same hours after a B-29 bomber, The Great Artiste, dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan.