Afghanistan: Biden defends US pullout, warns Taliban leaders - Newstrends
Connect with us

News

Afghanistan: Biden defends US pullout, warns Taliban leaders

Published

5 years ago

on

President Joe Biden says he has no regrets in withdrawing the United States troops from Afghanistan despite searing images of chaos in Kabul that exposed the limits of US power and plunged him into the worst crisis of his presidency.

He spoke Monday on the US pullout after scenes of bedlam dominated television news channels for days.

Biden blamed the Taliban’s takeover in Afghanistan on Afghan political leaders who fled the country and the unwillingness of the US-trained Afghan army to fight the militant group.

He warned Taliban leaders that they would face “devastating force” should they interfere with the US pullout.

“I’m deeply saddened by the facts we now face. But I do not regret my decision to end America’s war-fighting in Afghanistan and maintain a laser focus on our counterterrorism mission,” he said.

Biden was forced to send US troop reinforcements to Kabul to ensure a safe withdrawal of American diplomatic personnel and civilians as well as Afghan citizens who worked with the United States and could face reprisals.

Full speech of Joe Biden’s remarks on Afghanistan

Good afternoon.

I want to speak today to the unfolding situation in Afghanistan, the developments that have taken place in the last week and the steps we’re taking to address the rapidly evolving events.

My national security team and I have been closely monitoring the situation on the ground in Afghanistan and moving quickly to execute the plans we had put in place to respond to every contingency, including the rapid collapse we’re seeing now.

I’ll speak more in a moment about the specific steps we’re taking. But I want to remind everyone how we got here and what America’s interests are in Afghanistan.

We went to Afghanistan almost 20 years ago with clear goals: get those who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001, and make sure Al Qaeda could not use Afghanistan as a base from which to attack us again. We did that. We severely degraded Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. We never gave up the hunt for Osama bin Laden and we got him.

That was a decade ago. Our mission in Afghanistan was never supposed to have been nation-building. It was never supposed to be creating a unified, centralized democracy. Our only vital national interest in Afghanistan remains today what it has always been: preventing a terrorist attack on the American homeland.

I’ve argued for many years that our mission should be narrowly focused on counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency or nation-building. That’s why I opposed the surge when it was proposed in 2009 when I was vice president. And that’s why as president I’m adamant we focus on the threats we face today, in 2021, not yesterday’s threats.

Today a terrorist threat has metastasized well beyond Afghanistan. Al Shabab in Somalia, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al Nusra in Syria, ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq and establishing affiliates in multiple countries in Africa and Asia. These threats warrant our attention and our resources. We conduct effective counterterrorism missions against terrorist groups in multiple countries where we don’t have permanent military presence. If necessary, we’ll do the same in Afghanistan. We’ve developed counterterrorism over-the-horizon capability that will allow us to keep our eyes firmly fixed on the direct threats to the United States in the region, and act quickly and decisively if needed.

When I came into office, I inherited a deal that President Trump negotiated with the Taliban. Under his agreement, U.S. forces would be out of Afghanistan by May 1, 2021, just a little over three months after I took office. U.S. forces had already drawn down during the Trump administration from roughly 15,500 American forces to 2,500 troops in country. And the Taliban was at its strongest militarily since 2001.

The choice I had to make as your president was either to follow through on that agreement or be prepared to go back to fighting the Taliban in the middle of the spring fighting season. There would have been no cease-fire after May 1. There was no agreement protecting our forces after May 1. There was no status quo of stability without American casualties after May 1. There was only a cold reality of either following through on the agreement to withdraw our forces or escalating the conflict and sending thousands more American troops back into combat in Afghanistan and lurching into the third decade of conflict.

I stand squarely behind my decision. After 20 years, I’ve learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw U.S. forces. That’s why we’re still there. We were clear about the risks. We planned for every contingency. But I always promised the American people that I will be straight with you.

The truth is, this did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated. So what’s happened? Afghanistan political leaders gave up and fled the country. The Afghan military collapsed, sometimes without trying to fight. If anything, the developments of the past week reinforced that ending U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan now was the right decision.

American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves. We spent over a trillion dollars. We trained and equipped an Afghan military force of some 300,000 strong. Incredibly well equipped. A force larger in size than the militaries of many of our NATO allies. We gave them every tool they could need. We paid their salaries, provided for the maintenance of their air force, something the Taliban doesn’t have. Taliban does not have an air force. We provided close air support. We gave them every chance to determine their own future. What we could not provide them was the will to fight for that future.

There are some very brave and capable Afghan special forces units and soldiers. But if Afghanistan is unable to mount any real resistance to the Taliban now, there is no chance that one year — one more year, five more years or 20 more years — that U.S. military boots on the ground would have made any difference.

Here’s what I believe to my core: It is wrong to order American troops to step up when Afghanistan’s own armed forces would not. The political leaders of Afghanistan were unable to come together for the good of their people, unable to negotiate for the future of their country when the chips were down. They would never have done so while U.S. troops remained in Afghanistan bearing the brunt of the fighting for them. And our true strategic competitors, China and Russia, would love nothing more than the United States to continue to funnel billions of dollars in resources and attention into stabilizing Afghanistan indefinitely.

When I hosted President Ghani and Chairman Abdullah at the White House in June, and again when I spoke by phone to Ghani in July, we had very frank conversations. We talked about how Afghanistan should prepare to fight their civil wars after the U.S. military departed. To clean up the corruption in government so the government could function for the Afghan people. We talked extensively about the need for Afghan leaders to unite politically. They failed to do any of that. I also urged them to engage in diplomacy, to seek a political settlement with the Taliban. This advice was flatly refused. Mr. Ghani insisted the Afghan forces would fight, but obviously he was wrong.

 

So I’m left again to ask of those who argue that we should stay: How many more generations of America’s daughters and sons would you have me send to fight Afghanistan’s civil war when Afghan troops will not? How many more lives, American lives, is it worth, how many endless rows of headstones at Arlington National Cemetery? I’m clear on my answer: I will not repeat the mistakes we’ve made in the past. The mistake of staying and fighting indefinitely in a conflict that is not in the national interest of the United States, of doubling down on a civil war in a foreign country, of attempting to remake a country through the endless military deployments of U.S. forces. Those are the mistakes we cannot continue to repeat because we have significant vital interest in the world that we cannot afford to ignore.

 

I also want to acknowledge how painful this is to so many of us. The scenes that we’re seeing in Afghanistan, they’re gut-wrenching, particularly for our veterans, our diplomats, humanitarian workers — for anyone who has spent time on the ground working to support the Afghan people. For those who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan, and for Americans who have fought and served our country in Afghanistan, this is deeply, deeply personal. It is for me as well.

I’ve worked on these issues as long as anyone. I’ve been throughout Afghanistan during this war, while the war was going on, from Kabul to Kandahar, to the Kunar Valley. I’ve travelled there on four different occasions. I’ve met with the people. I’ve spoken with the leaders. I spent time with our troops, and I came to understand firsthand what was and was not possible in Afghanistan. So now we’re focused on what is possible.

We will continue to support the Afghan people. We will lead with our diplomacy, our international influence and our humanitarian aid. We’ll continue to push for regional diplomacy and engagement to prevent violence and instability. We’ll continue to speak out for the basic rights of the Afghan people, of women and girls, just as we speak out all over the world.

I’ve been clear, the human rights must be the centre of our foreign policy, not the periphery. But the way to do it is not through endless military deployments. It’s with our diplomacy, our economic tools and rallying the world to join us.

 

Let me lay out the current mission in Afghanistan: I was asked to authorize, and I did, 6,000 U.S. troops to deploy to Afghanistan for the purpose of assisting in the departure of U.S. and allied civilian personnel from Afghanistan, and to evacuate our Afghan allies and vulnerable Afghans to safety outside of Afghanistan. Our troops are working to secure the airfield and ensure continued operation on both the civilian and military flights. We’re taking over air traffic control. We have safely shut down our embassy and transferred our diplomats. Our diplomatic presence is now consolidated at the airport as well.

 

Over the coming days we intend to transport out thousands of American citizens who have been living and working in Afghanistan. We’ll also continue to support the safe departure of civilian personnel — the civilian personnel of our allies who are still serving in Afghanistan. Operation Allies Refuge, which I announced back in July, has already moved 2,000 Afghans who are eligible for special immigration visas and their families to the United States. In the coming days, the U.S. military will provide assistance to move more S.I.V.-eligible Afghans and their families out of Afghanistan.

We’re also expanding refugee access to cover other vulnerable Afghans who work for our embassy. U.S. nongovernmental organizations and Afghans who otherwise are a great risk in U.S. news agencies — I know there are concerns about why we did not begin evacuating Afghan civilians sooner. Part of the answer is some of the Afghans did not want to leave earlier, still hopeful for their country. And part of it because the Afghan government and its supporters discouraged us from organizing a mass exodus to avoid triggering, as they said, a crisis of confidence.

American troops are performing this mission as professionally and as effectively as they always do. But it is not without risks. As we carry out this departure, we have made it clear to the Taliban: If they attack our personnel or disrupt our operation, the U.S. presence will be swift, and the response will be swift and forceful. We will defend our people with devastating force if necessary. Our current military mission is short on time, limited in scope and focused in its objectives: Get our people and our allies as safely and quickly as possible. And once we have completed this mission, we will conclude our military withdrawal. We will end America’s longest war after 20 long years of bloodshed.

The events we’re seeing now are sadly proof that no amount of military force would ever deliver a stable, united, secure Afghanistan, as known in history as the graveyard of empires. What’s happening now could just as easily happen five years ago or 15 years in the future. We have to be honest, our mission in Afghanistan made many missteps over the past two decades.

I’m now the fourth American president to preside over war in Afghanistan. Two Democrats and two Republicans. I will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth president. I will not mislead the American people by claiming that just a little more time in Afghanistan will make all the difference. Nor will I shrink from my share of responsibility for where we are today and how we must move forward from here. I am president of the United States of America, and the buck stops with me.

I’m deeply saddened by the facts we now face. But I do not regret my decision to end America’s war-fighting in Afghanistan and maintain a laser focus on our counterterrorism mission, there and other parts of the world. Our mission to degrade the terrorist threat of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and kill Osama bin Laden was a success. Our decades-long effort to overcome centuries of history and permanently change and remake Afghanistan was not, and I wrote and believed it never could be.

I cannot and will not ask our troops to fight on endlessly in another country’s civil war, taking casualties, suffering life-shattering injuries, leaving families broken by grief and loss. This is not in our national security interest. It is not what the American people want. It is not what our troops who have sacrificed so much over the past two decades deserve. I made a commitment to the American people when I ran for president that I would bring America’s military involvement in Afghanistan to an end. While it’s been hard and messy and, yes, far from perfect, I’ve honoured that commitment.

More importantly, I made a commitment to the brave men and women who serve this nation that I wasn’t going to ask them to continue to risk their lives in a military action that should’ve ended long ago. Our leader did that in Vietnam when I got here as a young man. I will not do it in Afghanistan.

I know my decision will be criticized. But I would rather take all that criticism than pass this decision on to another president of the United States, yet another one, a fifth one. Because it’s the right one, it’s the right decision for our people; the right one for our brave service members who risked their lives serving our nation. And it’s the right one for America.

Thank you. May God protect our troops, our diplomats and all brave Americans serving in harm’s way.

Loading

Related Topics:
Advertisement

News

US Imposes 12.5% Tariff on Nigerian Imports Over Forced Labour Claims

Published

8 hours ago

on

July 24, 2026

By

US Imposes 12.5% Tariff on Nigerian Imports Over Forced Labour Claims

US Imposes 12.5% Tariff on Nigerian Imports Over Forced Labour Claims

The United States has imposed a 12.5 per cent tariff on imports from Nigeria as part of a new trade measure targeting 60 economies it says have failed to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labour.

The measure, announced on Thursday, July 23, 2026, by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), affects imports from 60 economies that Washington says have not “imposed and effectively enforced a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labour”. Nigeria is among the countries subject to the higher 12.5 per cent tariff rate, while some nations that have adopted or committed to implement bans on imports linked to forced labour will face a lower 10 per cent rate. The move follows investigations launched by the USTR in May 2026 under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 into 60 of the United States’ largest trading partners. According to the agency, it received more than 1,600 written submissions, held public hearings involving over 100 witnesses, and consulted more than 45 governments before announcing the tariffs.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the action was aimed at encouraging trading partners to strengthen measures against forced labour. “President Trump recognises that decades of moral suasion have not eradicated forced labour from global supply chains. The United States has had a forced labour import ban for nearly a century. It’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same,” Greer stated. Explaining the tariff structure, the USTR stated that 10 per cent is the appropriate rate for investigated economies that impose a forced labour import prohibition, have committed to impose such a prohibition through an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade, or have imposed a partial regime preventing the importation of certain forced labour goods. These economies include Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United Kingdom. The 12.5 per cent tariff applies to all other investigated economies, including Nigeria, Algeria, Angola, Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, Japan, Morocco, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and Vietnam, among others. A full list published by Punch Newspapers shows that Nigeria is grouped with 46 other economies facing the higher tariff rate.

READ ALSO:

A Federal Register notice issued by the USTR specifically confirmed that Nigeria would be subject to the 12.5 per cent tariff on its exports to the United States, except for products covered under listed exemptions. The notice stated: “Based on the findings in the investigation of Nigeria, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Nigeria, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice.” The notice added that the Trade Representative determined that the tariff rate and scope of exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.

The USTR clarified that certain categories of products would be exempted from the tariffs. These include raw materials whose restriction could trigger domestic supply shortages, goods capable of causing widespread economic disruption, products unavailable in sufficient quantities within the United States or from alternative suppliers, as well as selected imports from countries that have adopted or committed to enforcing bans on forced labour-related goods. Additional exemptions apply where the tariffs are not considered effective in addressing the trade practices identified during the investigations.

The new tariff regime comes after President Donald Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to introduce a temporary universal tariff on imports following a US Supreme Court decision that blocked his administration’s broader tariff programme under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Trump administration subsequently raised the rate to 15 per cent, with the temporary measure due to expire on Friday. For countries like Nigeria, the 12.5 per cent tariff comes on top of the existing 10 per cent baseline duty introduced under President Trump’s reciprocal trade framework, effectively raising total tariffs on Nigerian exports to the United States to 27.5 per cent.

The development comes as Nigeria continues efforts to expand non-oil exports and strengthen trade relations with major economies. If implemented, the additional tariff could make it more expensive for affected countries to sell products into one of the world’s largest consumer markets, raising concerns about trade competitiveness and export earnings. The USTR said the measure was aimed at levelling the playing field, arguing that countries that fail to prevent the import of goods produced with forced labour gain an unfair edge by allowing cheaper products to flood global supply chains. “The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labour is unacceptable. This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field,” Greer said. Nigeria already has laws prohibiting forced and compulsory labour, including constitutional protections and anti-trafficking legislation, but enforcement remains a key issue in international assessments. Some US trading partners have already criticised the new tariffs. Japan’s chief government spokesman, Minoru Kihara, said Japan regrets that the measure imposes tariffs on Japan solely on the grounds that there is no ban on the import of products produced through forced labour. Brazil called the measure “completely arbitrary” and accused the USTR of manipulating an issue of great importance to human rights for protectionist purposes.

US Imposes 12.5% Tariff on Nigerian Imports Over Forced Labour Claims

Loading

Continue Reading

News

House of Reps Passes State Police Bill with 311 Votes, Moves Nigeria to Decentralised Policing

Published

23 hours ago

on

July 23, 2026

By

House of Reps Passes State Police Bill with 311 Votes, Moves Nigeria to Decentralised Policing

House of Reps Passes State Police Bill with 311 Votes, Moves Nigeria to Decentralised Policing

  • The landmark constitutional amendment bill, transmitted by President Bola Tinubu, seeks to establish state-controlled police services alongside the existing Nigeria Police Force amid minority walkout protest.

In a historic move to restructure Nigeria’s security architecture, the House of Representatives on Thursday overwhelmingly passed the executive bill seeking to establish state police across the federation. No fewer than 311 lawmakers voted in support of the constitutional amendment bill, with Speaker Tajudeen Abbas confirming that 35 members participated virtually while 276 voted physically in the chamber. The legislation, titled “A Bill for an Act to Alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to Provide for the Establishment of State Police Services and for Related Matters (HB. 2797),” was approved following the consideration and adoption of the report of the House Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution, chaired by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu. The decision followed the Nigerian Senate’s earlier passage of its version of the legislation, bringing the proposed reform closer to becoming law. This comes weeks after the House had separately passed a constitutional amendment bill on state police, during which about 288 lawmakers supported the proposal.

President Bola Tinubu transmitted the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Alteration) (State Police) Bill, 2026 to the House of Representatives last week, describing it as a “critical component” of his administration’s strategy to reorganise Nigeria’s security architecture. In his letter to the House, the President stated that the bill builds on the significant work already done by the National Assembly and incorporates additional safeguards to ensure the effective implementation of a dual policing structure. Upon receiving the executive proposal, the House rescinded its earlier resolution of June 11, 2026, on the establishment of state police and dissolved the 12-member Conference Committee it had constituted on July 9, 2026. The decision allowed lawmakers to proceed with the executive-backed version of the constitutional amendment.

READ ALSO:

The proposed legislation seeks to amend Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution to formally establish both Federal Police and State Police formations across the country. Under the proposal, the National Assembly will determine the structure, organisation, administration, and powers of the Federal Police, while also providing the legal framework and national standards for establishing state police services. The bill provides that no state police force can begin operations unless it is established through a law passed by the relevant State House of Assembly and certified as meeting the minimum national standards prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly. Until then, the Federal Police will continue to perform policing duties in any state without an operational state police service. The legislation also limits the circumstances under which the Federal Police can intervene in a state’s internal security matters. Such intervention would only be permitted in cases of a complete breakdown of law and order, at the request of a state governor, or where a state police force becomes unable to function because of administrative, financial, or other challenges.

The bill proposes significant changes to the appointment and command structure of the police. Under the amendment, the Inspector-General of Police would be appointed by the President on the advice of the Nigeria Police Council from among serving members of the Federal Police, subject to confirmation by the National Assembly. State Commissioners of Police would be appointed by governors on the advice of the National Police Council from among serving members of the State Police, subject to confirmation by their respective State Houses of Assembly. The proposal also empowers governors to issue lawful directives to State Commissioners of Police on matters relating to public safety and maintaining law and order. However, where a commissioner believes such directives are unlawful or inconsistent with accepted policing standards, the matter may be referred to the National Police Council, whose decision would be final. To address concerns over possible abuse of state police by political authorities, lawmakers incorporated safeguards to protect civil liberties and political freedoms. One provision states that a state Commissioner of Police shall not arrest, detain, investigate, or deploy force against any individual, political party, or group merely for criticising a government, except in accordance with the law.

Despite the overwhelming support for the bill, the Minority Caucus in the House of Representatives staged a walkout from the chamber in protest, accusing the House leadership of violating constitutional provisions and the chamber’s Standing Orders during the passage. Addressing journalists shortly after leaving the chamber, the Minority Leader, Fredrick Agbedi, insisted that their action was not borne out of opposition to state police but against what they described as the abuse of parliamentary procedures. The caucus argued that the Speaker, while presiding as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, ignored clear constitutional requirements governing the alteration of the Constitution. “Constitutional amendment bills must be considered clause by clause, with each provision supported by a two-thirds majority of members as stipulated in both the Constitution and the House Standing Orders,” Agbedi said. He faulted the decision to merely read the long title of the bill and determine its passage through a voice vote without detailed consideration of each clause. Defending his handling of the proceedings, Speaker Abbas said the constitutional threshold required for the amendment had already been met, noting that 276 members signed the attendance register in support while 35 more voted online, bringing the total to 311 lawmakers in support—well above the two-thirds requirement of 240 members.

Following the House’s passage, the bill will now require concurrence with the Senate, which had already passed its own version earlier. Both chambers of the National Assembly are working in close collaboration to fast-track the constitutional amendment process. The harmonised bill must then secure the endorsement of at least two-thirds of the State Houses of Assembly (24 out of 36 states) before it can be transmitted to the President for assent to become part of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The push for state police has continued to receive support from several state governments. On Wednesday, Kano State Governor Abba Yusuf declared that Kano was ready for the establishment of state police, describing the initiative as critical to improving security and protecting lives and property. “The proposed State Police will complement, not compete with, the Nigeria Police Force. Both institutions share the responsibility of protecting lives and property and maintaining law and order,” Yusuf said. He added, “Kano State has the institutional capacity, human resources, and political will to establish and sustain State Police when the necessary constitutional frameworks are in place.” The governor also pledged his administration’s support for efforts to strengthen Nigeria’s security system, saying, “We will support every legitimate initiative that strengthens Nigeria’s security architecture and creates a safer environment for citizens.”

House of Reps Passes State Police Bill with 311 Votes, Moves Nigeria to Decentralised Policing

Loading

Continue Reading

News

Nigerian researcher develops AI system to transform marine conservation, fisheries management

Published

1 day ago

on

July 23, 2026

By

Nigerian researcher develops AI system to transform marine conservation, fisheries management

Nigerian researcher develops AI system to transform marine conservation, fisheries management

A Nigerian researcher, Dolapo Salim Olatoye, is attracting international attention with his groundbreaking work that combines Artificial Intelligence (AI) and ecology to develop smart monitoring systems capable of transforming marine conservation, fisheries management and biodiversity protection in Nigeria and across West Africa.

Olatoye, currently pursuing a fully funded PhD at the University of Pisa, Italy, said his research focused on developing computer vision and remote-sensing technologies that could enable scientists to automatically monitor marine ecosystems using underwater cameras, satellite imagery and sensor data.

His research, which forms part of two European Union Horizon-funded projects, comes at a time when governments and technology companies worldwide are increasingly deploying AI to tackle environmental degradation and biodiversity loss.

According to him, the systems he is developing use advanced object-detection and ensemble computer vision models to identify marine species automatically, making ecological monitoring faster, more accurate and scalable than traditional manual survey methods.

He noted that while many ecological AI tools are designed by computer scientists with little biological field experience, his approach bridges both disciplines through years of practical fisheries and marine fieldwork in Nigeria and Italy, alongside hands-on expertise in deep-learning engineering.

“I build the detection models myself and deploy them as working software rather than research demonstrations,” Olatoye explained, adding that the goal is to create practical tools that close the gap between field science and engineering.

The researcher began his academic journey at the Federal University Oye-Ekiti, where he studied Fisheries and Aquaculture and graduated as the best student in his department during the 2018/2019 academic session.

READ ALSO:

 

His outstanding academic performance earned him a fully funded Master’s scholarship at the University of Salento, Italy, where he graduated with a perfect score before securing another fully funded doctoral scholarship at the University of Pisa, one of Italy’s leading research institutions.

Beyond Europe, Olatoye believes his work holds enormous promise for Nigeria.

With an 853-kilometre coastline along the Gulf of Guinea and some of West Africa’s richest marine resources, Nigeria still meets only about 30 per cent of its annual fish demand through local production.

Experts believe improved scientific monitoring of marine ecosystems could significantly strengthen fisheries management, support conservation efforts and enhance food security.

Nigeria is also among eight Gulf of Guinea nations that signed the Yaoundé Declaration, committing to the sustainable management of ocean resources. The Federal Government has equally identified agriculture as a priority sector under its National Artificial Intelligence Strategy, creating opportunities for AI-driven solutions in fisheries and environmental management.

Olatoye said the technologies being developed for marine ecosystem monitoring align closely with these national priorities and could eventually be adapted for use by Nigerian fisheries and conservation agencies.

His work also reflects a growing global movement where leading technology companies are investing heavily in AI-powered biodiversity monitoring.

Google Research has developed SpeciesNet, an AI platform that has processed more than one billion wildlife images and audio recordings from 11 countries to identify animal species automatically.

Similarly, Microsoft’s AI for Good Lab recently unveiled Project SPARROW, a solar-powered bioacoustic monitoring system designed to track biodiversity in real time.

According to Olatoye, these initiatives demonstrate that AI is no longer being used merely to automate data collection but to revolutionise how scientists understand and protect ecosystems.

As part of his commitment to open science, Olatoye is also developing EcoQuad, a software platform emerging from his research.

The tool has already been adopted as instructional material for teaching at the University of Pisa and is designed to be openly accessible, allowing researchers and institutions to adapt it to local needs.

He expressed the hope that Nigerian and West African scientists would not have to depend entirely on imported technologies but would instead develop and customise world-class AI tools locally.

“My ambition is to build open, reproducible monitoring systems that meet the same standards as those developed by leading research groups in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada,” he said.

He added that by making such tools accessible, researchers across Africa would be better positioned to participate fully in the global scientific community while addressing local environmental and food security challenges through home-grown innovation.

 

Nigerian researcher develops AI system to transform marine conservation, fisheries management

Loading

Continue Reading

Trending