By Editor-in-Chief 
Recent disclosures from a US congressional hearing about the clandestine activities of USAID bordering on subversion, terrorism, and outright interference in countries around the world are, to say the least, disquieting.
In the case of Nigeria, where USAID had maintained a strong foothold, it is critical to ask, how deep and damaging, has the Agency’s clandestine presence, been?
Secondly, with the damning exposé at the US Congress and the decision by the White House in Washington to suspend the activities of the Agency, should Nigeria treat interests, known to have been the its local cohorts, as if, all, is well? I dare ask.
For the record, revealations from US Congressional hearing, were clear, pointed and unequivocal as Congressman, Scott Perry, accused the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as a rogue operation, funding subversion including terrorism in different parts of the world.
Perry, cited among others, the use of media outlets under the guise of “educational TV programs” for schools that reportedly, do not exist on which he alleged, USAID spent $20 million in one instance.
As at June 2020, USAID operations, pretentiously, meant to be for humanitarian assistance, economic development, and health initiatives in Nigeria, reportedly stood at about 1.8 Billion Dollars. That’s about 2.9 Trillion Naira at today’s exchange rate.
By all measures, is that sum not overly huge? But, what and where are the gains in real terms?
Since the exposé and allegations, documents with explicit information, have surfaced in the public domain, further generating fears about the suspicious intents of some local interests, including media operations in the country.
For instance, an extract from one of such documents, revealed US financing of a 24-hour satellite television channel in northern Nigeria, supposedly as part of its engagement in the fight against insurgency in the country.
The New York Times had reported and I quote, “the channel, will be named Arewa TV when it starts broadcasting, and will, quote again, “not broadcast News or political reporting and will be targeted at reconstructing the minds of youths, either subtly or explicitly”.
The report, had further revealed that the television project, financed at a cost of about $6 million and at take off, meant to be for two years from 2013, was run by Equal Access International, a San Francisco-based government contractor that had managed similar media programs, sponsored by the US State Department in Yemen and Pakistan.
Like other such engagements, it seems all so fine and good on the surface but as the US Congressional hearing has exposed, underneath, are damning subversive intents and goals, carried out in a manner that undermine the domestic interests of host nations.
Among questions arising is, can Nigeria afford to wave-off the sharp reactions by concerned groups, calling for thorough investigations, including by the National Assembly, of the issues exposed by the US Congressional hearing and the extent of subversion within Nigeria?
Can Nigeria afford to look away under the simplistic notion that the issues raised, are for now, only allegations?
With suspected involvement of some media outlets, just how far deep, is the damage to Nigeria’s national interest, especially, with the suspected affiliation of critical value forming institutions like the media, educational bodies and the Policy Drivers and Practitioners in these areas?
In particular, to what extent, have some Non-governmental organizations, Media outlets, educational bodies and other critical frameworks, been compromised and complicit as subversive assets or agents against the country?
Doesn’t it all question the integrity of the packaged humanitarian interventions or aids that inadvertently, compromise national interests?
Doesn’t the revealation expose the internal vulnerabilities that global aid distribution systems exploit, such that, rather than being defensive or inattentive, Nigeria should push for an independent investigation to ensure that international funds do not aid nor fortify subversive activities within its domain?
Equally, doesn’t the USAID exposé, demand decisive actions for effective oversight, risk assessment, evaluation and monitoring of the socio-political and security dynamics of so-called aid packages from foreign interests?
Above all, it calls for more critical internal reflection to be circumspect and cut dependency of whatever kind, even as the nation takes determined steps to engage with international partnerships but not as receiver of handouts that merely end up as Greek gifts with dire domestic consequences.