Nigeria and Oil Prices

Charles T. Powers in his article (Feb. 23), “Nigeria’s Optimism Sinks with Oil Price,” could have made the points about that country’s reckless profligacy in the oil-boom 1970s and her current economic problems (most of them, unfortunately true) without the need to portray Maj. Gen. Ibrahim Babadinga, Nigeria’s head of state since August 1985, as a smiling buffoon, who is supervising his country’s drift. Nigerians recognize a good leader when they see one. A contentious environment requires a man of consensus, not a “bully,” and Babadinga, for most Nigerians, is a man of consensus.

As to the Nigerian government’s rejection of the International Monetary Fund prescription as a condition for a $2-billion loan, Powers errs by characterizing Nigeria’s action as sheer Nigerian machismo. Third World governments, from Africa to Latin America, are all too familiar with the dehumanizing effects of IMF’s strictly monetarist, 100% market-oriented prescriptions of their people, when even in the industrialized countries governments enact laws to bail out ailing corporations and provide subsidies for farm products.

Most Nigerians believe that much of the alleged foreign debt of $17 billion is spurious or nonexistent because of poor record-keeping practices by previous governments. Babadinga’s rejection of the externally driven economic prescription is definitely an assertion of national sovereignty and a resolve to negotiate his country’s legitimate debts as an independent sovereign nation.

Until the IMF is able to provide a showcase of a Third World country where its economic medicine has cured economic ills, many countries will continue to reject its prescriptions, even if that means certain hardship. If Nigerians are able to manage their economy well in spite of the IMF, many more countries, particularly in Africa, will learn from their experience. Nigeria may be a sleeping giant, for now, but certainly, her potential as a great country is not in doubt.

KWAKU ANNOR

Los Angeles