BusinessDay Nigeria BusinessDay 18 Jun 2018 | Page 11

Monday 18 June 2018

COMMENT

ANTHONY OSAE-BROWN

Osae-Brown is the editor of BusinessDay @ osaeB

The National Bureau of Statistics( NBS) has continued its great work of providing insightful data on economic activities in the country. Recently, it released what it called a‘ demographic statistics bulletin’ which provided some insights on the country’ s population, a topic that remains highly controversial. Based on the NBS figures, which it admits, is based on its projections, the country’ s population stood at 193 million as at 2016.

This represents about a 13 percent growth from the country’ s population of 170 million in 2012, based on the NBS data. In between 2012 and 2016, a period of five years, a total of 23 million brand new Nigerians were born, this comes to an average population growth of 4.65 million per year. Going by this population growth rate, the country’ s population will cross the 200 million mark by 2019 and of this number, at least

For the public sector, 30 million Nigerians under the age of eight has significant implication on how we plan our early childhood education programme. How well equipped are our early child education centres and primary schools to equip these kids for a rapidly changing world where knowledge is now the competitive edge?

C002D5556

BUSINESS DAY

11 comment is free

Send 800word comments to comment @ businessdayonline. com

Some interesting insights from Nigeria’ s demographic statistics

30 million will be under the age of eight years.

This means that a minimum of 30 million Nigerians would have been born between 2012 and 2019, a period of seven years. For the public sector, 30 million Nigerians under the age of eight has significant implication on how we plan our early childhood education programme. How well equipped are our early child education centres and primary schools to equip these kids for a rapidly changing world where knowledge is now the competitive edge? The current state of our public school system does not give much hope. There are also significant implications for provision of healthcare. How do we ensure that these kids do not die before the age of five? Again, the state of primary healthcare in the country does not give much hope.

For the private sector, investing in child linked products looks like a great investment opportunity. It is this data that explains the fact that Lagos state is said to have over 18,000 private schools and that the diaper selling business is a great business in the country. Businesses positioned to serve this market are likely to thrive into the future as demand in this segment is usually inelastic. Most parents, as long as they can afford it, and in most cases, even when they cannot afford it, will go the extra mile to satisfy their kids.

And there is evidence from the NBS data that the country will continue to have a healthy supply of babies in the next few years. The NBS data shows that the country’ s fertility rate moved up from 5.5 in 2015 to 5.8 in 2016. That is an average Nigerian woman has at least six kids in her life time. Jigawa state has the highest fertility rate, with an average of nine children per woman while Rivers, with just three children per woman, had the lowest fertility rate. Compare this with the fact that the average child per woman in Europe currently is one.

Average fertility rates in the Northern parts of the country were almost twice more than many states in the Southern part of the country. The high fertility rate is not surprising because there is little or no attempt to control population growth rate. Again, the NBS data shows that the number of married women, or women who are in some of form of partnership but are not using contraceptives to prevent pregnancy was 86.6 percent. This means an average of 9 out of every 10 married women were not on any form of contraceptive. If this is taken together with the fact that only an insignificant 1.1, that is an average of 1 in a 100 men use condoms and almost none are sterilized, then the consequence can easily be seen in the country’ s fast growing population.

Our capacity to continue producing babies is also quite healthy. The NBS data shows that there are about 24 million women in the age bracket 15 to 49 years that are currently married or in some form of a legal union. At an average fertility rate of 5.5, these women have the capacity to add 132 million new Nigerians throughout their reproductive life cycle of about 34 years. But population growth is geometric, because as more women get into the productive age, the productive base expands. This means that the number of new babies will even be higher than the number above.

Actual projections from the United Nation’ s Population commission shows that country’ s population will cross the 400 million mark by 2050, in just about 32 years from today. This means that it will take us just four more presidents including President Muhammadu Buhari, assuming he wins a second term, and each subsequent president completes a full 8-year tenure, for us to get to the point when Nigeria has four hundred million people living in it. This means that in just 8 elections, we will have twice the number of Nigerians that are currently in existence, an additional 200 million people to the current 200 million. Let that sink in.

The thought of it is both scary and promising. Scary in the sense that when you consider poor state of the country’ s public education system that the majority of these new Nigerians will have to pass through, then a nightmare scenario begins to build in your head. The current public education system in the country is not built to prepare Nigerians for the knowledge economy that is taking shape.

But it could be promising if you think of what the country could achieve if we ensure that all these new Nigerians that will be joining us are equipped and trained in the best educational environment possible. Imagine the endless possibilities of a country with 200 million youths below the age of 30 that are well trained and educated?

Note: the rest of this article continues in the online edition of Business Day @ https:// businessdayonline. com /

Send reactions to: comment @ businessdayonline. com

DAN STEINBOCK

Dan Steinbock is the founder of the Difference Group and has served as the research director at the India, China, and America Institute( USA) and a visiting fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies( China) and the EU Center( Singapore). For more information, see http:// www. differencegroup. net /

Here are the facts: Following hours of closed-door talks in the Hotel Capella Singapore, President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signed a joint fourpoint agreement: to establish new US-North Korean relations, a stable peace regime, a North Korean commitment to achieve the“ complete denuclearization” of the Korean peninsula, and the repatriation of the remains of American prisoners of war.

Unsurprisingly, the agreement does not include a firm“ verifiable” and“ irreversible” pledge by North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapon program. Yet, the Trump-Kim agreement is not a final deal, but a framework to pave the way to ongoing discussions. Consequently, it should be seen as a promising‘ memorandum of understanding.’

The Trump-Kim Deal and the Long Path to Peace in the Korean Peninsula

U. S. and North Korean leaders have never met before. So technically, a state of war prevails between the two countries. For these two leaders to sit down, agree on their differences and outline a path to resolve them is a very big deal.

Nevertheless, a real peace and stability requires far more than a fourpoint agreement- a bilateral peace agreement and U. S. withdrawal from the Korean peninsula.

No stability without peace agreement

In the West, North Korea is customarily portrayed as a sort of a paranoid hermit kingdom with demons as leaders. In reality, Pyongyang has long – and justifiably – seen America as an existential threat.

In 1951 – after Washington had lost its nuclear monopoly to the Soviet Union- the early setbacks in the Korean War prompted General MacArthur to consider using nuclear weapons against the Chinese and North Koreans – to use radioactive fallout zones to disrupt Chinese supply chains- until, he was dismissed by President Truman.

Nevertheless, between 1950 and 1953, the U. S. subjected North Korea to a devastating bombing campaign, which destroyed 85 percent of the country’ s buildings and caused one million civilians to die; more than the entire civilian deaths in World War II bombing of Germany and Japan, respectively. The scorched-earth policy set the standard of what was to come in Vietnam and the rest of Southeast Asia.

Ever since the 1953 Armistice

Agreement, Washington has seen North Korea as a“ rogue state.” Even with the Soviet Union, Washington supported“ peaceful coexistence”, but with North Korea, only a“ temporary ceasefire.” That’ s the material basis for fears of imminent intrusion in Pyongyang.

In this status quo, Trump’ s statement in the press conference that the U. S. had agreed to stop playing“ war games” with Pyongyang, referring to the joint military exercises with South Korea, is important. But while Trump added he wants to“ bring our soldiers back home” from South Korea, he admitted it was“ not part of the equation right now.”

Typically, the decision to cease the joint military exercises with South Korea was not included in the agreement. That’ s vintage Trump. Only days before, he had nearly agreed to the G7 Summit communiqué, which fell apart amid the controversial aftermath. In the Trump world, deals are seldom fixed entities, but always subject to changing circumstances.

Last August, former U. S. President Jimmy Carter who has negotiated with several North Korean leaders, noted that, for a long time, Pyongyang has sought a“ peace treaty to replace the [ 1953 ] ceasefire.” In his experience, North Koreans wanted peaceful relations with the U. S. and regional neighbors.

In view of the long record of U. S.- led regime changes and the recentlyundermined Iran nuclear deal, that’ s not a futile concern.

No lasting peace without U. S. withdrawal from the Korean pen- insula

In a televised 2013 New Year’ s address, Kim Jong Un advocated“ a radical turn in the building of an economic giant on the strength of science and technology by fanning the flames of the industrial revolution in the new century.” These economic efforts should“ be manifested in the people’ s standard of living.”

It was an appeal to the White House. But instead of seizing the transition in Pyongyang to work for the peace, President Obama opted for a Pentagon-led“ pivot to Asia” that virtually ensured another half a decade of nuclear escalation. After Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’ s outline for a Pentagon-led“ pivot to Asia,” Obama did not want reconciliation with Pyongyang. Rather, the objective was to seize the opportunity to cooperate with the then-President of South Korea, Park Geun-hye, a conservative hawk and the daughter of the controversial former President Park Chung-hee.

So, instead of rapprochement, Washington pushed for a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense( THAAD) anti-ballistic missile system in South Korea. As far as Washington was concerned, THAAD would kill two birds with one stone: it would subdue Pyongyang and, if needed, it could be used to contain China. These plans, however, fell apart in early 2017, when President Park was impeached and sentenced to 24 years in prison. That paved the way to the presidency of the more moderate Moon Jae-in, who seeks reconciliation with South Korea.

Nevertheless, Park’ s conservatives were able to postpone the repeal of the Operation Control agreement( OPCON), which allows the Pentagon- not Seoul- to control its military fate. The mission of the South Korea / US Combined Forces Command( CFC) is to“ deter hostile acts of external aggression” South Korea by a“ combined military effort.” The CFC is commanded by a U. S. General and it has operational control( OPCON) over more than 600,000 active duty military personnel both countries.

President Park managed to defer the transfer to 2022. In the event of war, U. S. interests will thus override the interests of South Koreans- in their own country. The ultimate barriers As a result, a true and lasting peace in the Korean peninsula requires not just on the Trump-Kim deal and the implied talks.

It is also predicated on a Trump administration that will continue to support the talks, the nullification of impeachment efforts against the White House, minimal losses for the incumbents in the U. S. mid-term elections, another Trump election triumph in 2020 – and continued support for the peace process in South Korea in the 2022 election.

It’ s a very, very tall order. But in Singapore, Trump and Kim took the first, historical step to the right direction.

• The original version was released by China Daily on June 14, 2018.

Send reactions to: comment @ businessdayonline. com