Opinion

NATO’s Presence: A Pitfall Or Respite?

Published

3 years ago

October 30, 2023

Following threats posed by post-World War II communist expansions across Europe, a coalition of western nations in 1949, formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).After the defeat of Hitler’s Germany across occupied territories, liberation had opened domestic struggles for power as well as the demand for democracy and social justice, a struggle in which the communists and the socialists engaged themselves in bitter conflicts. From hardening dividing lines over one issue after another, the struggles became part of the bigger competition among the victorious nations over the booty of war, especially between the Soviet Union on one hand, and France, Great Britain and the United States of America on the other. In the ensuing struggles, the Soviets annexed Eastern European countries from East Prussia, Poland, Hungary to Romania, while occupying areas from the Adriatic to the Baltic regions, and forcing formerly independent states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, into Soviet republics.
Russia applied crude coercion to install friendly governments in autonomous nations it did not annex. In those countries, anticommunist leaders were excluded from coalition governments, while propaganda campaigns, arrests and pressure were applied to eliminate non-communist parties, leading to consolidation of single-party dictatorships that operate on the Soviet model. In East Germany, the Soviets forcefully merged the Social Democratic party to a much smaller Communist party, then practically partitioned Germany into two, by granting independence to East Germany as the German Democratic Republic, situations which made the then British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, see an “Iron Curtain” descending on Europe.According to Churchill, “A shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately lighted by the Allied victory.
Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist international organisation intend to do in the immediate future, or what are the limits, if any, to their expansive and proselytising tendencies.” “… this is certainly not the Liberated Europe we fought to build up. Nor is it one which contains the essentials of permanent peace.” That speech, revealing the Cold War, set the rallying tone for the formation of NATO. Ever since, NATO has remained the world’s most powerful defence alliance. Heralding the organisation in 1949, United States President Truman called it “a shield against aggression.” NATO’s member nations declared that an armed attack against any one member state shall be considered an attack against all, with a further pledge to come to the aid of one another, stating NATO’s general aim as being to “safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation” of its members, by promoting “stability and well-being in the North Atlantic Area.”
However, after long years of the cold war, leading to the disintegration of the USSR and the unification of Germany, some groups are questioning what remains of Russia’s territorial threats of the post-WW II era to warrant NATO’s continued high military spendings. Organisations like the No To NATO, who urge NATO to promote disarmament, say improving people’s lives should be prioritised over weapons and wars which create instability, deprivation, social injustice and environmental destruction. Organisations like the Pax Christi International are also worried about the tendency towards arms race, stock piling of nuclear arsenals and the policy of pre-emptive nuclear strikes. Defenders of NATO however point to Russia’s continued aggression, especially in Eastern Europe, and currently in Ukraine, and NATO’s efforts in limiting the spread of those tendencies, as the reason for the continued relevance of NATO. NATO has also aided in stabilising peace and to fight terrorists around the world.
However, with the expansion of NATO membership to include former Warsaw-pact member nations, Russia whose President, Vladimir Putin, the KGB boss during the USSR era, who continues to bemoan the loss of USSR’s former glory, accuses NATO of endangering Russia’s security by expanding towards its borders. However Russia’s old game of aggressive external meddling, domination and sense of racial superiority against its Eastern European neighbours, right from the time of Joseph Stalin to the present, could be the major driving forces that push its neighbours towards the more liberal fold of NATO. The current case of Ukraine is a clear example. Russia’s devastating attacks in Ukraine shuddered many Eastern Europeans, the European Union (EU) and the rest of the civilised world, so much so that Sweden and Finland have seen the need to join NATO, while Ukraine regrets not being there already.
In their bid to assist Ukraine defend itself against Russia, NATO members appear to have learnt lessons from the build-up to the 2nd World War, during which Adolf Hitler, parading under a pretext of resentment for the Versailles settlement conditions which exerted heavy war-guilt punishments on Germany due to its role in the 1st World War, annexed Austria, while the world looked aloof. But unsatisfied Hitler went for Sunderland two weeks later, under another pretext of protecting a German-speaking part of Czechoslovakia. In the lackluster negotiations that followed, war-wary Britain and France, willing to appeace Germany in order to avert war, persuaded the Czechs to concede. Yet unappeasable Hitler went beyond his demands, and took the whole of Czechoslovakia instead, one of Europe’s best industrialised democracies. With such successes, Hitler’s popularity raged at home, as high as he was dreaded abroad.
He became more adventurous with escalating demands. He was exuberantly re-arming and recruiting more soldiers, while everywhere inflicting attacks on Jews and ethnic groups the Nazis labelled as inferior. Within weeks, Paris was over ran, and within months, all areas from Normandy to Sicily, with the help of Mussolini of Italy, was under Hitler’s control. Still unsatisfied, Hitler turned his attacks on Britain, the Netherlands and Russia where, though belatedly, he began to meet significant resistance by the Allied forces who had finally woken up to the situation. By then, what began as a localised campaign had turned into a significant war, raging the whole of Europe. It soon became the most atrocious World War II, spreading to African, Asia and America, and consumed between 45 million to 55 million lives.
It cannot be imagined the height of impunity to which detectors who go unchecked can ascend. Which is why the efforts by NATO, the EU and the UN, to contain the onslaught in Ukraine may be considered wise, in as much as it is managed to forestall escalation. NATO should however engage Russia in confidence-building by reconsidering Russian concerns on its expansion, while Russia should curtail its ambitions. If NATO expands in future, when the remnants of old USSR leaders are no longer on the scene, a new generation of liberal Russians may not worry as much.

By: Joseph Nwankwo

Opinion

Monthly Environmental Sanitation Imperative

Published

9 hours ago

May 18, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “A clean environment is not a government gift; it is a civic duty that protects our health, preserves our cities, and reflects our national character.”

For many Nigerians who grew up in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, the last Saturday of every month followed a familiar pattern. Roads were deserted, markets closed, and residents swept compounds, cleared gutters, cut overgrown weeds, and disposed off refuse. The monthly environmental sanitation exercise became a national ritual that promoted cleanliness, discipline, and civic responsibility. As an environment correspondent about two decades ago, I joined officials of the Rivers State Ministry of Environment on sanitation monitoring tours across Port Harcourt and surrounding communities. Although enforcement officers were sometimes accused of excesses, the exercise succeeded in creating public awareness about the importance of keeping our surroundings clean. Over time, however, the practice faded away in many states.

In its absence, indiscriminate dumping of refuse, blocked drainages and environmental neglect became increasingly common. Today, heaps of waste line roads, markets and motor parks, while gutters clogged with plastics contribute to perennial flooding. Given the mounting environmental challenges facing Nigerian cities, there is no better time to revive environmental sanitation. Its return is no longer a matter of nostalgia; it is a practical necessity for public health, environmental safety, and sustainable development. Poor sanitation remains a major cause of disease. Stagnant water and uncollected waste create breeding grounds for mosquitoes, flies and rodents, increasing the risk of malaria, cholera, typhoid and other infections. Floodwaters contaminated by refuse also expose communities to serious health hazards.

Rapid urbanisation has worsened the situation. Cities such as Lagos, Port Harcourt and Abuja are expanding faster than their waste management systems can cope. As populations grow, so does the volume of waste generated daily. Monthly sanitation exercises can help rebuild environmental consciousness. Beyond cleaning streets, they remind citizens that environmental cleanliness is a shared responsibility. They also offer an opportunity to educate children and young people about hygiene, public health and community participation. Critics argue that the old sanitation policy restricted movement and was sometimes abused by security personnel. Those concerns were valid, but they do not invalidate the concept itself. Rather than abandon it, governments should reform the programme to make it more humane, participatory and transparent.

That is why the recent decision by the Lagos State Government to reintroduce monthly sanitation deserves commendation. Even if participation is largely voluntary, the move sends a strong signal that environmental responsibility must be taken seriously. Other states should emulate this initiative. In Rivers State, the Rivers State Waste Management Agency has intensified efforts to improve waste collection and restore Port Harcourt’s reputation as the Garden City. Reintroducing monthly sanitation would complement these efforts and deepen public involvement. At the federal level, policies such as the Digital Waste Marketplace, the Plastic Waste Policy and the National Waste Management Network are commendable. However, environmental sanitation remains one of the most direct and visible ways to mobilise citizens toward cleaner communities.

The exercise, however, must be supported by efficient waste management infrastructure. Citizens cannot be expected to maintain clean surroundings if there are inadequate waste bins, irregular refuse collection, and limited recycling facilities. Governments at all levels should invest in modern waste management systems, properly fund sanitation agencies, and promote recycling programmes. Waste sorting should become standard practice to reduce the volume of refuse ending up in landfills and drainage channels. Countries such as Singapore, Sweden and South Korea have demonstrated that waste can become a valuable economic resource. Recycling industries in these countries create jobs while protecting the environment. Nigeria can adopt similar strategies and turn waste into wealth.

Environmental laws must also be enforced consistently. Regulations against illegal dumping exist in many states but are rarely implemented. Offenders should face penalties, but enforcement must be fair and free from extortion. Urban planning is another critical factor. Poor drainage systems, overcrowding and inadequate sewage infrastructure worsen sanitation problems. Governments must prioritise road construction, drainage maintenance and orderly urban development. Markets deserve particular attention. They generate enormous quantities of waste every day, yet many lack organised disposal systems. Local councils and market associations should work together to establish effective waste collection arrangements in commercial centres. Religious institutions, schools, traditional rulers and civil society groups also have important roles to play.

Environmental responsibility should be taught and reinforced as a social value. Community leaders can help change attitudes by consistently promoting cleaner habits. This issue is even more urgent in an era of climate change. Flooding, erosion and extreme weather events are already threatening many Nigerian communities. Poor waste disposal worsens these challenges by blocking waterways and reducing urban resilience. A clean environment also offers economic benefits. Well-maintained cities attract investors, tourists and businesses. Reduced disease outbreaks lower healthcare costs and improve productivity among workers and students. More importantly, cleanliness reflects national values. A nation that allows public spaces to deteriorate projects an image of disorder and neglect. Nigerians deserve cleaner streets, healthier neighbourhoods and safer communities.

Reviving environmental sanitation will not solve all environmental problems overnight, but it can serve as a powerful starting point. Combined with effective waste management, public education and stronger infrastructure, it can restore environmental consciousness across the country. Ultimately, environmental cleanliness is a shared responsibility. Government must provide leadership, infrastructure and enforcement, while citizens must demonstrate discipline and civic commitment. From disposing of household waste properly to keeping drains free of obstruction, every Nigerian has a role to play. If Nigeria is serious about protecting public health, reducing flooding and building livable cities, the return of monthly environmental sanitation is a step whose time has come.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

God’s Intentionality in Ecological System

Published

9 hours ago

May 18, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”Every component of creation is interdependent, demonstrating that God designed nature as a balanced system in which each part contributes to the wellbeing of the whole”.

From the very first chapter of Scripture, the Bible presents a profound truth: creation was not accidental, random, or without meaning. The universe emerged from the deliberate counsel of an all-wise God who fashioned every aspect of life with purpose and precision. The heavens were stretched out by His command, the earth was carefully positioned, the seas were bounded, and every living creature was assigned a distinct role within a perfectly coordinated ecological system. When God surveyed His completed work, He pronounced it “very good,” affirming that creation was whole, harmonious, and exactly as He intended. The natural world remains a visible testimony to God’s intentionality. The sun provides warmth and energy at the right intensity to sustain life. The moon governs tides and seasons. Trees absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen.

Rivers irrigate the land and quench thirst. Bees and butterflies pollinate crops. Birds disperse seeds. Animals maintain biodiversity. Every component of creation is interdependent, demonstrating that God designed nature as a balanced system in which each part contributes to the wellbeing of the whole. Nothing was made without significance, and nothing was left to chance. Among all created beings, humanity occupies a unique and privileged position. Unlike plants and animals, man was created in the image and likeness of God. This divine imprint endowed human beings with intelligence, moral consciousness, creativity, and the capacity for relationship with their maker. It also established mankind as the steward of creation. God granted humanity dominion over the earth, not as a license for reckless exploitation, but as a sacred trust to cultivate, protect, and preserve the world He had declared good.

Dominion, in God’s original intention, was to be exercised with wisdom, compassion, and responsibility. Human beings were meant to care for the land, use natural resources judiciously, and ensure that all forms of life flourished in accordance with divine order. The earth was to be managed as a trust from God, not plundered for selfish gain. Unfortunately, this divine mandate has been grossly misunderstood and widely abused. It is deeply regrettable that man has deviated so drastically from God’s original intention. Instead of stewardship, humanity has too often embraced greed. Instead of preservation, there has been exploitation. Instead of gratitude to the Creator, there has been reckless consumption and abuse of the environment. Across the world, forests are felled indiscriminately, rivers are contaminated, and fertile lands are stripped of their productivity.

Species disappear as habitats are destroyed. Air pollution threatens public health, and climate change disrupts weather patterns and livelihoods. What God created as a life-supporting ecosystem is increasingly treated as a disposable commodity. In Nigeria, the consequences are especially painful. Oil spills in the Niger Delta have devastated farmlands, poisoned rivers, and destroyed fishing communities. Poor waste management clogs drains and contributes to flooding. Erosion eats away homes and roads. Illegal mining and logging scar the landscape. In many cases, communities suffer while those responsible evade justice. At the root of much of this destruction is corruption. Funds earmarked for environmental protection, sanitation, and erosion control are often diverted for personal enrichment. Regulatory agencies are compromised through bribery.

Powerful individuals and corporations place profit above human welfare. Corruption thus becomes not only a moral failure but an assault on God’s creation. This environmental abuse is also a tragic expression of man’s inhumanity to man. When water is polluted, children fall sick. When farmlands are destroyed, farmers lose their means of survival. When rivers are contaminated, fishermen are plunged into poverty. When floods and erosion displace families, communities are torn apart. The burden of environmental degradation falls most heavily on the poor and vulnerable, while future generations inherit a diminished world. Yet, despite humanity’s failures, there remains hope for restoration. God’s purpose for creation has not changed. He still calls His people to responsible stewardship and righteous living. When individuals and nations return to God’s principles, they begin to view the earth not as an object to exploit, but as a sacred trust to preserve.

Responsible stewardship means protecting natural resources, planting trees, reducing pollution, disposing of waste properly, enforcing environmental laws, rejecting corruption, and treating others with justice and compassion. It requires governments to act with integrity, businesses to operate ethically, faith communities to teach creation care, and citizens to take personal responsibility for the environment. Creation care is therefore more than an environmental concern; it is a spiritual obligation. Our treatment of the earth and of one another reflects the sincerity of our reverence for God. To exploit nature, oppress the vulnerable, and enrich ourselves through corruption is to rebel against His purpose. To protect creation and uphold justice is to honor the Creator and participate in His original design. The world God made was declared “very good.” It is our solemn duty to ensure that our actions preserve rather than destroy that goodness.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Opinion

Confronting National Development In Chinese Style

Published

5 days ago

May 13, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “China’s rise was not a miracle. It was the result of deliberate planning, disciplined execution, and a national determination to make poverty reduction the foundation of national development.”

A short TikTok video by @ancientchinaforever recently offered a compelling summary of China’s remarkable transformation from one of the world’s poorest nations to a global economic powerhouse. In just a few minutes, it captured a lesson that developing countries like Nigeria cannot afford to ignore: meaningful development does not happen by chance. It is the product of vision, consistency, and a deliberate commitment to confronting poverty. In 1981, according to the World Bank, nearly 88 percent of China’s population lived in extreme poverty. The country was overwhelmingly rural, industrially weak, and lacking in modern infrastructure. Millions of people had limited access to quality healthcare, education, and basic social services. Yet China refused to accept poverty as its destiny. Its leaders made a strategic decision to treat poverty reduction as the starting point of national development.

Rather than relying on slogans or isolated welfare programmes, they created a coordinated system that mobilised government institutions at every level toward one overriding goal: improving the living conditions of ordinary citizens.

This was the turning point in China’s history. Poverty alleviation became a national mission. Clear targets were established, responsibilities were assigned to provincial and local governments, and officials were evaluated based on measurable results. Data was used to identify poor households, monitor progress, and adjust strategies where necessary.In effect, China built what may be described as a national development machine.The first major reforms focused on agriculture. Through the household responsibility system, farmers were given greater control over their land and allowed to sell surplus produce after meeting government quotas.

This policy created incentives for productivity and innovation. The results were dramatic. Agricultural output rose significantly, rural incomes increased, and millions were lifted out of poverty.With food security improving, China turned to industrialisation. The government established Special Economic Zones, most notably in Shenzhen, to attract foreign investment and promote export-driven manufacturing. What was once a small fishing community quickly transformed into one of the world’s leading industrial and technology hubs. Factories created millions of jobs, drawing workers from rural areas into expanding urban centres. China soon became the manufacturing capital of the world, producing electronics, textiles, machinery, and consumer goods for global markets.The revenue generated from industrial growth was reinvested in infrastructure and human development.

China understood that development requires more than factories. It demands modern infrastructure that connects people, goods, and markets. Massive investments were made in roads, railways, airports, seaports, electricity, and telecommunications.

Today, China’s high-speed rail system, modern cities, and efficient logistics networks stand as visible proof of decades of purposeful investment. Equally important was China’s commitment to education and healthcare.Schools were expanded, literacy improved, and vocational training equipped workers with the skills needed in a modern economy. Healthcare reforms reduced preventable diseases and protected families from being pushed deeper into poverty by medical costs.These investments ensured that economic growth translated into tangible improvements in living standards.

Another defining feature of China’s development model was policy continuity. Through successive Five-Year Plans, national priorities were clearly outlined and pursued over decades. While leaders changed, the core development agenda remained consistent. This stability encouraged investment, strengthened institutions, and allowed long-term projects to be completed. Unlike countries where each administration abandons the policies of its predecessor, China sustained a clear sense of direction.The results have been extraordinary. According to the World Bank, China has lifted more than 800 million people out of extreme poverty—the largest poverty reduction effort in human history. A broad middle class has emerged, and the country has become the world’s second-largest economy. Chinese companies such as Huawei Technologies and Alibaba Group now compete at the forefront of global innovation.

China’s journey has not been without challenges. Rapid industrialisation has contributed to environmental degradation, regional disparities, and demographic pressures. However, these challenges do not diminish the scale of its achievement. They underscore the complexity of transforming a nation of over one billion people. For Nigeria, China’s experience offers valuable lessons. First, poverty reduction must be treated as a strategic national priority rather than a campaign promise. Second, development requires long-term planning and policy continuity. Third, sustained investment in agriculture, infrastructure, education, and healthcare is essential. Fourth, institutions must be strengthened to ensure accountability and measurable outcomes. Finally, leadership must combine vision with disciplined execution. Nigeria is richly endowed with natural resources, entrepreneurial talent, and a youthful population.

What remains missing is a coherent and consistent development strategy that places national interest above politics. China’s transformation demonstrates that development is not a matter of luck. It is the outcome of clear priorities, effective institutions, and unwavering commitment. For countries still grappling with poverty and underdevelopment, China stands as compelling proof that when a nation confronts its challenges with strategic intent and collective discipline, extraordinary progress is possible.

Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi