Editor's Note: This report, a combination of two written in 1999 and 2000, is reprinted here because of the unique nature of US intervention in Nigeria. Twice the US worked behind the scenes to put the same leader in power - once in 1976 and again, twenty-three years later, in 1999. That man, Olusegun Obasanjo, is known in the west to have been the first president to leave office voluntarily. It sounds better to put it that way than the way Nigerians do - which is to call him the "first to clean out his desk" before making his exit. And when he left, he took up residence with about a dozen western funded groups involved in what could only be described as subversive activities directed at Africa (primrily Nigeria). His return to power followed an election so stupifyingly rigged that nobody believed it to be legitimate. His rule the second time was worse even than the first. So despotic was Obasanjo that he's best known as the president who killed more Nigerians than all the rest put together. And given Nigeria's bloody history, that says a lot.

Colonialism's back -- and not a moment too soon.' That was the headline that appeared over an essay published by the Sunday New York Times magazine in April of 1993. Author Paul Johnson urged that 'the civilised powers,' as he called wealthy, western nations, subject the emerging countries of the southern hemisphere to formal 'recolonisation' for a period of roughly 50 to 100 years. Some people, he complained, 'are just not fit to govern themselves.'

Remarks like that are bound to make officials at the State Department edgy. They come painfully close to reality. In fact, western policy makers have for decades argued that less-developed countries cannot properly administer their own affairs without 'help' from the outside. But to associate that 'help' with colonisation, or to describe it as a form of neo-colonialism, only makes more difficult the exercise of paternalistic diplomacy and political guidance.

In reality, the fear that motivates western officials is not that developing nations will be poorly managed. They are concerned that certain potentially-powerful nations will slip out from under their influence and challenge that global power structure which George Bush called 'the new world order.'

Nigeria is one of those rising world powers. The nation is the demographic giant of Africa, with roughly a fifth of the continent's population, and Africa's largest oil producer. 'It is of strategic importance to the U.S. to assure continued access on secure and reasonable terms to the energy resources of Nigeria,' begins a formerly secret U.S. Information Service (USIS) country plan for Nigeria that was declassified in the early 1980s. USIS, the foreign propaganda arm of the U.S. government, 'has a particularly significant role to play in stimulating increased American influence in Nigeria, now of considerably heightened importance to U.S. strategic and economic interests,' the same report concluded.

And as Nigeria began its present move toward democratic government, most knowledgeable observers expected mischief from the world's self-proclaimed 'sole surviving superpower.' So perhaps it was not really a surprise when millions of dollars of unknown origin (the amount varies according to the source and date of the report) surfaced in the weeks leading to the first round of voting on 3 December [1998].

The 'mystery money' was in the hands of General Olusegun Obasanjo, who balked at revealing where he got it.

Obasanjo headed Nigeria's federal military government from 1976 to 1979, taking office when popular leader Brig. Murtala Muhammad was assassinated and leaving when Shehu Shagari was elected president.

Had he chosen to name his benefactors, Obasanjo's explanation still may not have been particularly credible. By most accounts, he was already a 'suspicious character' because of the circumstances surrounding his rise to leadership.

The coup that installed him occurred at a critical time in world history. Nigeria was still recovering from a disastrous civil war, and the OPEC oil boycott had just concluded. Because Nigeria opted to breach the embargo and export petroleum to the west, the country benefitted enormously from jacked-up oil prices and entered an era of unprecedented progress and optimism.

In mid 1975, when Murtala Muhammad succeeded predecessor Yakubu Gowon, policy planners in the west were on high alert about a second, theoretically 'crippling' OPEC strike. In fact, just one month after Murtala took over, the Congressional Research Service, which compiles information from other U.S. government agencies for legislators, prepared a master plan for military invasion of oil producing regions. The plan was presented to Congress on the grounds that such a confrontation would be seriously considered in the event of a second OPEC action. Among those countries studied as possible military targets was Nigeria.

Nigeria may well have been the very top of Washington's short-term policy agenda at the time. Indeed, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger went so far as to propose an official state visit to Nigerian soil -- an overture that was, to Kissinger's embarrassment, bluntly rejected by the Brigadier.

The timing of Murtala Muhammad's assassination, the event that brought Obasanjo to power, was itself questionable. Almost two years earlier, the U.S. Congress had begun an investigation into abuses by the Central Intelligence Agency, particularly the assassination of foreign leaders. And in the course of the hearings, then-President Gerald Ford made it clear that an executive order would be written barring such actions. But the promised order languished until February 18, 1976 -- exactly five days after Nigeria's popular leader was assassinated and Obasanjo was installed as his replacement.

There is no shortage of evidence linking Obasanjo to Washington power brokers. After he left office, he took up residence at a New York-based outfit, the African-American Institute (AAI), a political-influence venture created in 1954 with CIA money. Indeed, Obasanjo is and has been continuously on the AAI board of directors, even during the years of his detention in Nigeria after an alleged coup plot in 1995. Serving with him at AAI for part of that time was another interesting character, Ambassador Donald Easum, best known as the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria when the 1976 assassination brought Obasanjo into office.

Easum's sentiments toward Nigeria in the months just before Murtala's murder are made frighteningly clear in a series of confidential communiques between the U.S. Embassy in Lagos and the office of the Secretary of State in Washington. One, written by Easum on 20 January 1976 -- less than a month before Murtala was killed -- cautioned that academic and political leaders were planning to 'use oil as a political weapon' against the United States, and advised that the Nigerian government may be 'considering ways it might assert greater control over which consuming countries get Nigerian oil.'

And in a follow-up memorandum dated 2 February 1976, Easum hinted that U.S. officials were prepared to sabotage Nigeria's booming economy. Nigeria, he wrote, desires a 'leadership role' in the continent's political affairs, and will need a 'modern army' to be credible. The dispatch included a laundry list of weapons likely to be acquired by Nigeria's military along with Easum's recommendation that a 'civilian government might exercise more restraint.'

Then, in the stilted language of diplomatic communications, the cable concluded: 'One development would act as a constraint on Nigerian arms purchases: a sharp drop in the price of petroleum. Defence budget would presumably have to be cut proportionately with fall in revenue if government were to meet minimum developmental and social demands on its resources. Easum.'

Obasanjo is also a familiar figure at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington where he has been both a featured lecturer and an author of CSIS-produced literature. Among the more prominent figures associated with the Centre is Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State at the time of the assassination.

And as recently as the early 1990s, Obasanjo surfaced at events sponsored by the likes of the World Bank and the U.S. Institute of Peace, a 'think tank' created by the U.S. government during the Reagan years to monitor overseas 'conflict management' activities.

But perhaps most relevant to the election situation is Obasanjo's 'African Leadership Forum.' Nothing better illustrates the subtleties of contemporary neo-colonialist intervention than the Forum.

'In recognition of the vital necessity for developing and improving leadership capabilities in Africa,' begins an official description of the group, 'the Africa Leadership Forum was established in 1988 at the initiative of General Olusegun Obasanjo, former Head of State of Nigeria with the support of other individuals.' The 'other individuals' are unnamed.

The Forum's primary mission, again its own words, is to 'continually develop leadership capabilities in Africa' with the intent to improve 'governmental' performance and 'to ensure that the emerging and future leadership of Africa is given the exposure, the interaction, the knowledge, and the training for the burden and challenges of leadership.'

Another stated goal of the Forum to develop a 'an enduring security framework' for the continent, an ambitious task that envisions an Iraq-like 'total de-militarisation' of African nations under the watchful eye of the 'international community.' As part of that effort, says Forum literature, 'it has become imperative that a compilation of existing studies on defence and security expenditures in select African countries be undertaken.'

Yet another official text reveals that the Forum is designed to support aid donors who wish to 'play a critical role' in the development of African political institutions, and to further their interests by helping to 'monitor the utilisation of aid resources'

One regular activity of Obasanjo's Forum is to host conferences and seminars to legitimise policies recommended by the same aid donors. These events, organised in such a way as to appear to originate with an authentic African elite, enable western nations to conceal their involvement in African affairs.

One such meeting was initially supposed to take place in Nigeria, but was moved after Obasanjo's arrest to Accra, Ghana, where it was held in November of 1995. 'The purpose of the conference was to further explore ways and means of sensitising the African public servants,' says a brief report, to the 'challenges, issues and developmental needs' of the continent. A similar meeting took place at the headquarters of the Commission of European Communities in Brussels where the agenda was to draw up 'a blueprint ... to move towards a more open and integrated market' in West Africa.

Another Forum conference, held at the Brookings Institute in Washington in 1989, brought together a panel of 'experts' to discuss the process of 'economic reforms' and to assess 'the political dimension and prospects for outside cooperation with Africa.' Brookings, like CSIS, is a haven for retired government bureaucrats and those in between official assignments.

Among the panelists leading the Forum's discussion there was Robert McNamara, a former World Bank president and one-time U.S. Secretary of Defence who is best remembered as the architect of the bloody Vietnam war.

Indeed, McNamara is one of Obasanjo's most important mentors and a key player in U.S. foreign policy. Among other things, McNamara led a high-level delegation that traveled to Haiti after the election of the immensely-popular Jean-Bertrand Aristide [1991] and, on its return, pronounced him dangerously 'anti-American.' Before a year was up, Aristide was ousted by a gang of thugs on the CIA payroll.

McNamara turns up with startling frequency at Forum events. He presented the main address at a June 1990 leadership seminar in Ota, Nigeria, for example, where he characterised population control as one of Africa's most pressing needs.

As a prominent Washington insider, McNamara knew well that population control was not meant to help Nigeria achieve development, but rather to contain the growing global influence of strategically-important countries. In fact, a lengthy report prepared by the National Security Council in 1974 and adopted as official U.S. policy in 1976 explained in detail the U.S. interest in curbing the growth of population in emerging nations. Among other things, that document advised that increased population size would give developing countries a greater political voice in world affairs. And this was particularly true, it said, for nations like Nigeria that are wealthy in terms of natural resources.

'Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria's population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million,' the secret report said. 'This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa south of the Sahara.'

The same study, titled 'Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests' but better known as 'National Security Study Memorandum 2000' or 'NSSM 200,' also presented the idea of using 'multinational' lending institutions to encourage heads of state to adopt population-reduction policies. The World Bank, it noted, has a special role to play in imposing policies to achieve these goes. In fact, it added, 'The Bank's staff has prepared a policy paper on this subject.'

The World Bank president at the time was none other than ex-Pentagon chief and Obasanjo patron, Robert McNamara.

In the mid 1990s, however, the Forum's carefully-orchestrated activities in Nigeria started to unravel. In 1995, the outfit 'abruptly closed' its conflict mediation centre at Jos and deactivated its 'corps of mediators' on the grounds that 'it is most likely that the activities of the corps of mediators will be misconstrued,' to use the explanation provided by the Forum's internet web page.

And by July of 1995, the Forum had retreated to the premises of the U.S. Information Service post in Nigeria for its leadership development exercises -- the same USIS that had, two decades before, assigned itself 'a particularly significant role ... in stimulating increased American influence in Nigeria.'

Where the Forum gets its money is almost as puzzling as is the origin of Obasanjo's millions [a secret slush fund that provided massive amounts of cash to guarantee Obasanjo's election in 1998-99 - see below]. Seven 'current donors' to his Forum are listed in Forum literature -- including the U.S.-based Carnegie Corporation, the Ford Foundation (on whose Board Obasanjo once served), and the national development agencies of Canada and Denmark. Also named as both donor and 'collaborating partner' is the Global Coalition for Africa, a 'parliamentary' association that is co-chaired by Obasanjo ally Robert McNamara and receives

But the main source of revenue for Obasanjo's African Leadership Forum appears to be an Africa Leadership Foundation which is based in New York and also has offices in Nigeria. The Foundation was created by Obasanjo simultaneously with the Forum for the purpose of supporting Forum activities.

A spokesperson for the New York-based African-American Institute, the CIA-inspired political outreach group, says that the Africa Leadership Forum 'has always been separate from AAI.' But, she adds, 'due to the fact that Gen. Obasanjo is on our Board, AAI has always had a close relationship with this organisation.'

There is no phone number listed either for the Forum or its Foundation in New York. But the latter uses the mailing address of a residential condominium on the city's upscale Fifth Avenue. And at that location a telephone number is listed to one Dr. Hans D'Orville, the German national who serves as president of the Foundation.

According to D'Orville, the Foundation gets most of its money from 'traditional' grant-givers in the United States such as Carnegie Corporation and the large foundations. But when asked where Obasanjo got the election money, D'Orville told this correspondent, 'I have no idea.'