New Telegraph 
The recent imposition of $15,000 visa bond on applicants from 38 countries and the arrest of the Venezuelan President, Nicolas Maduro, by the United States, have continued to generate reactions. In this interview with BIYI ADEGOROYE, former Director-General of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, (NIIA), Prof Bola Akinterinwa, examines these issues from the prism of international law, politics and strategic national interests
How do you see the current visa restriction and $15,000 Visa Bond imposed on some countries by the United States of America?
It is perfectly in order. Every country in the world has the monopoly of deciding the conditions for the issuance of national passports to its nationals and the issuance of visas to foreigners coming to their countries.
Some countries may charge in their national currency, some in Dollar, others in Pound Sterling. In this particular case, it is the country that is directly affected that determines the condition and what to pay.
The issue is this. The amount the US is charging is a function of what is invested in providing the visa to the people. For instance, visa issuance of visas is being technologized in such a way that it has what they call readable chips.
The moment it is scanned by the security machine, the detailed information the applicant gave to the Embassy would be displayed before the visa is issued.
There are two levels to visa issuance. The first level is at the Embassy that interviewed you for the visa. So, it is believed that you have genuinely convinced the Embassy to have been given a visa.
But the Home Office still believes that you might have been fraudulent, and been able to use fraudulent documents not known to them. So, by the time you are given a visa, information will be communicated to the home office, which will now finalise to be sure that everything is okay, and it will be computerized.
So, the amount of energy, preventive security measures, because no country wants any holder of its visa to be a landed immigrant who will delay their exit period or over-stay, for flimsy excuses, like being sick and hospitalized and whatever. Nobody wants you to create unnecessary financial costs to the receiving country.
What issuing countries take into consideration varies from one country to the other. And people are more sophisticated, hence these countries put in counter measures to prevent and detect frauds and terrorism.
So, in the Nigerian context, there are many Nigerians seeking to travel to the US, and for this reason, the US authority will say, ‘for you not to be a landed immigrant; for you not to arrive and become a financial burden, you must meet these measures and you have to pay for that.
The second point is that many countries in the world, the US not being an exception, may generate money in the host country in order to pay for their social services. Yes, you don’t tax a sovereign government. You cannot take them to court. Being a sovereign, President Bola Tinubu can tax you to raise funds, but cannot tax an Embassy.
The reason is simply that the Embassy is considered ex-territorial. That is the land on which the US Embassy in Nigeria, the British and French Embassies and all are built is not part of Nigeria, rather part of the sending country. So, the laws of Nigeria do not apply to them.
Consequently, instead of sending money from the UK or America to their embassies in Nigeria, they also now try to raise funds from here and since they have seen that there are many Nigerians wanting to travel out of the country to visit or trade, it is an opportunity for the US and all to raise money from that. So, you pay for the service.
The third point is that the US wants to discourage people who do not have the means, but wants to just take advantage of easily getting into the country. Let me tell you, the cost of applying for a visa to the US is generally cheaper than what many countries charge, especially many other great powers.
Above all, at the level of bilateral relationship between Nigeria and the US,, do you know that the cost of procuring Nigeria’s visa outside the country is comparatively higher? What the US is trying to do is apply the principle of reciprocity.
So, President Donald Trump’s action is consistent with the America First and Making America Great Again Policy.
They are saying, ‘look, if we are paying so much for a Nigerian visa, why should they pay less?’ So, they now examine what they pay for Nigerian visas and ensure that Nigerian pays the equivalent.
How does that fall in line with the US’s deportation of illegal immigrants using the ICE?
It can be an extension, and it may not. The issuance of a visa, you know, when you own a passport, that is a recommendation by the government of Nigeria to the country you want to go to, that you are known to Nigeria, a citizen, you are not a criminal but you are worth being assisted.
So, when he applies for a visa, do assist him. The government of Nigeria will not recommend a criminal, and that is why when you have the passport, you are only holding it on behalf of the government of Nigeria.
That is why it can always be withdrawn at any point in time, if you do not represent the government of Nigeria very well.
Unlike the visa. When the visa is issued on the passport, it simply says ‘government of Nigeria, your recommendation of this citizen is quite good. We have considered it, and he has passed the questions given to him, and we are also recommending him to the government of the United States.’
That is why when you are issued a visa, you will still be subjected to some limited interviews at the point of arrival before the final approval for you to enter.
And you know when a visa is given, say for one year, two years, five or six, they can limit or reduce the duration upon arrival. So, when you are issued a visa, especially multiple entries, it simply means, say within those five years, you can travel as many times as possible.
The story is different from that of a single entry. How does that link to your question? If you were given, say a five-year visa, 2025 to 2029, and then you travel within that period once, and you are given three months to stay, if you overstay by two days, you have contravened the basis for issuing the visa, even though it’s a five-year visa. So, you have offended the system, and since everything is computerised, it is not hidden.
The computer reduces the number of days daily during your stay, until it comes down to zero, and turns red. And they can easily see this, and now, like President Donald Trump said, they don’t want those who don’t respect their laws in their country.
They will instruct the Homeland Security, who have seen these foreigners who have overstayed their welcome, to deport them. There are some people who would not overstay, but over-speed and are caught on the radar and are dealt with accordingly.
But is that applicable to tourist and business visas which fall under the current bond?
It is still the same thing. When, for instance, you overstay, during your business visit, no one will talk about your visa again, but the violation.
If you over-speed while driving, for instance, even when in possession of a valid visa, they will not talk about business, but infraction.
If you fall sick or you are a victim of an accident during a business trip and you are treated, you become indebted to the system.
They will not deny you medical treatment but will not allow the Health Insurance Company to pay you. But when the hospital is making claims for payment, the government will investigate how you entered into the country.
So, it is a sound objective, but in implementing them, issues are raised. So, all these 38 countries, their citizens have engaged in some infractions that offend the US government, and I don’t have any problems with that.
Regardless of your status, you see, this issue of illegal immigrants, in International Law, has many dimensions. International law does not allow any country of the world to add to the problem of the individual. That is why they talk of non-Refoulement.
There are many similar words, e.g, deportation or repatriation. In this case, when people are being deported, say from America to Nigeria, through Africa, and the aircraft cannot fly directly, to Africa, either because the aircraft will need to refuel, and they had to pass through a transit country, the issue is that, that aircraft, will never allow any of the immigrants being deported to come out, even if they are changing aircraft, they will ensure that the deportees move from one aircraft to another. Why? You know that aircraft have nationalities just like human beings.
Now, what happens is that, if anyone, for whatever reason, is able to come out of the aircraft and remains on the soil, such a person is non-refoulement – you cannot send him packing, or deport him. Because that person will be claiming protection under humanitarian laws.
This is why when people are being deported, they are not allowed to get down from the aircraft until they arrive at their final destination. And when they are disembarking from the aircraft, they must have contacted the local law enforcement agents or lawful authority which will receive them. So, this your question is not as simple as you make it look.
In this case, you can deport somebody, either for criminal infractions or declare a diplomat persona non-grata, for offending the state or engaging in activities which are incompatible with their diplomatic status.
Many are the ways you can send people packing and you allow them to quickly step out of the country under difficult circumstances. The bottom line is that every country wants to ensure national security and they use any means to embarrass any individual.
You are the one deciding to go to, say, the United State of America, hence you must accept their conditions. They believe that they are greater people, they are superior, and they want you to have the same standard of living. That is why they set all these criteria, and it is not different from Nigeria.
Nigerians are very proud people. Go abroad and ask people who are demanding a Nigerian visa. We behave as if we are the only country that Gd has solely created, because the conditions for our visa are not simple, but very difficult, difficult to meet. This is irrespective of whether you are coming for business or visit.
And those of who are coming for business, because they know that Nigeria is a very big market for their businesses, they lobby that they are good people, who should be allowed to travel in and out, without going through the necessary hassles. They will be asking for multiple visas and so on and so forth.
What do you make of America’s arrest and arraignment of Venezuela’s President, Nicolas Maduro?
Well, it is still the same argument of national security interest. You know, America believes in unilateralism; America believes in self-protectionism, America also believes in the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, which does not want any foreigner to come and intervene in its areas of domestic interest.
So, in this case, when you look at what Maduro did, he succeeded Hugo Chavez, who proclaimed himself a socialist with anti-American hegemony; Venezuela wanted to be autonomous but was flirting with the enemies of America.
And the US does not want any foreign intervening force in its area. So, the enmity between Maduro and the US is nothing more than that- that Venezuela cannot opt out of America’s area of interest.
You know it was Prof. Alaba Ogunsanwo, who once said that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And then it means a friend of my enemy is my enemy too. So, America is saying that if you are trying to promote socialism, rather than capitalism and democracy, then you are an enemy, and the best thing then is to ensure that you do not exist.
Moreover, the US has come up to say Maduro is a drug baron. It can be argued that Venezuela is the hub of drug activities. And even they know that when you want to crucify someone, you must find various offences against him. He was accused of being an agent of narco-terrorism in order to justify the arrest.
But at the end of the day, what International Law says is that you cannot use force to settle nternational disputes. Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force in intervention.
When they say intervention, it is with reference to engaging in businesses that are not yours – that falls within the domestic preserves of other sovereign states. In this case, if you are to use force, it can only be in the context of legitimate self-defence.
And that is what is provided for in Article 51 of the UN Charter. It means that what the US has been doing does not fall within that. The United States does not even believe in International Law.
Trump has made it clear. Even when Maduro was flown to the US to face trial, now if then he has regard for International Law, in fact when he was asked by The New York Times, as to whether there was a limitation to his power, he said Yes, the only limitation is if his own mind says don’t do it, he won’t. when asked ‘Does International Law set any limitations for you?’ He said ‘No, it doesn’t.’ So, it is a question of morality.
He said he did not believe in that. Now, to answer your question, I think he is talking about illegal legality. Legal, you can defend yourself legitimately if you have been aggressed, but Venezuela has not aggressed the United States regarding the allegation it is purported to give per se.
You know America has been intervening in Latin America for a long time now. The United States does not joke with national security and every country has the right to do that, but the issue now is that the US, in order to have security, has introduced a preventive or preemptive policy.
Which means that when you have threats to your national security, you don’t wait until the threats are taken closer to your international borders. You try to prevent the threat from far away. It is just like you have a fire about 500 metres away and you think it is too far.
If you do not go far away to quest the fire, then you will see that the wind will bring it faster than you can think. And in this case, Nigeria has a defence doctrine of not considering the country’s international security border as being with the immediate neighour.
We see it as far away Mali or Mauritania. Whatever happens there is considered happening on our border. The enemy of the United States is not directly Venezuela. It is not directly Mexico, nor is it Uruguay. Rather the enemy is far away in China, in North Korea, and in Russia.
So, when these countries are having closer understanding or relationship with neigbours of the US, the US cannot be threatened. That is why I talk about the legality of national security, to prevent insecurity being exported to you. When I talk about illegality, you see the way, many people were killed in the attack by the US on the Presidency of Venezuela.
And some reports said many Americans were also killed in the attack, but President Trump doesn’t talk about that. Because he knew that the Americans would be very hostile to it. And the contradiction there is that you said you do not want Maduro, but you wanted his VP to take over.
So, if the government of Maduro is illegitimate, what now makes that of his deputy legitimate? At the end of the day, it is all politics.
The point you should just note is that the capture of Maduro and his wife are at best meaningless. What is meaningful is that Venezuela has the biggest oil reserves in the world and that is what the US is particularly interested in.
President Trump does not want any other person to be in control of that. Oil is a strategic resource that is required to maintain leadership status in international politics and in line with this, President Trump held a meeting with the top executives of American oil companies last week, where they promised to invest over $100 billion into the Venezuelan oil industry
