Nigeria’s war on terror

Also published in Daily Trust

Though all over the world politicians engage in political opposition and struggle against each other, the extent of political sophistication of a particularly country is determined by the amount of the sense of responsibility that defines its politicians’ conduct. In functioning democracies, where transparency and accountability characterize governance, politicians never and in fact don’t have to be desperate in their struggle against each other, because they realize that what actually matters and indeed determines the political success of a politician, is the amount of his concrete achievements and/or real potential to deliver.

Yet, notwithstanding their political differences, they collectively and individually uphold and indeed sanctify certain fundamentals, e.g. the bases of their continued corporate existence, and never allow their political differences to undermine them under any circumstances. This appears particular obvious during a grave security threat, serious economic crisis or catastrophic natural disaster facing their country. Meanwhile, their political analysts treat and analyze issues objectively, which influences the political awareness of their average electorate.

For instance, notwithstanding the justifiability or otherwise of the so-called war on terror declared by the former American President, George Bush (Jnr.) in the wake of the Sept 11 attacks in the United States, the country including the opposition supported him, and though there were few dissenting voices, these never amounted to undermining the resolve to wage the war anyway. Besides, even after the change of government in 2009 that brought the main opposition party under Barack Obama to the White House, there is no fundamental change in the country’s approach in that regard, only that the Obama administration has tactically avoided the use of the notorious tag of “war on terror” while maintaining the status-quo on the ground.

However, in Nigeria, there seems to be no issue considered too fundamental to be politically exploited and intellectually manipulated by our politicians and analysts respectively. For instance, several violent groups posing existential threats to the country’s survival e.g. OPC, MASSOB, MEND and indeed the most deadly Boko Haram, have been undermining the very foundations of Nigeria’s corporate existence, nevertheless political interests and/or ethno-religious prejudices have always frustrated efforts ostensibly aimed at tackling them.

I am particularly disturbed by the amount of ethno-religious politics unnecessarily interpolated into the issue of Boko Haram quagmire. It’s obvious that, some powerful but narrow-minded opposition politicians and conspiracy theory analysts are desperately determined to take their political opposition to any extent even at the expense of the nation’s security and stability.

Even though the President himself is equally guilty of politicking with issues of such significance as it appeared vividly in his hasty exoneration of the MEND from responsibility for the Eagle Square bombing in 2010, and his boastful claim that he knew the perpetrators, and that there were Boko Haram moles in his own administration, I believe he should be supported in the current military onslaught against the insurgents anyway.

Incidentally, though I have some reservations over the composition of the committee mandated to talk to Boko Haram leadership, the timing of the amnesty and the dialogue offers offered by the President to Boko Haram, which I regarded as quite premature, the criticisms that continue to trail these presidential initiatives are unfortunately largely subjective in nature. Besides, the critics have failed to come up with any practical alternatives.

  

Therefore this military operation is actually quite overdue, as all possible options had already been exhausted.  Yet the decision to launch it didn’t have to be within the context of the state of emergency in the first place; instead it should have been processed through normal constitutional and institutional channels. Unfortunately however, vested interests wouldn’t allow such a decisive decision to be taken that way, hence the need to resort to the declaration of the state of emergency.

In any case, in as much as the there is need to keep up the pressure and maintain the momentum and intensity of the ongoing military operation against the insurgents as the situation on the ground requires, government should also ensure the protection of innocent lives and properties while the operation continues. After all, from the little information coming out from the war fronts, it’s obvious that the insurgents were actually getting stronger prior to the operation, as they had reportedly taken control of several territories particularly in Borno state.

  

Yet in view of the notoriety of Nigerian security agents in perpetrating human rights abuses and indeed crimes against humanity in such situations, government should particularly ensure that they strictly stick to their rules of engagement.

Meanwhile, government should encourage those who are prepared to renounce violence among the insurgents, and motivate them with whatever incentives necessary, including amnesty, rehabilitation and assistance to enable them reintegrate into the mainstream society. By the way, the recent presidential order to free some of the suspected Boko Haram members and their women is equally good in this regard.

Likewise, it’s noteworthy that, as long as there is no good leadership in the country, security challenges and threats of this nature would always emerge from time to time. And given the increasingly precarious security challenges in the country, Nigerian politicians, intellectuals and analysts should realize the urgent need to put their differences aside in order to confront the many serious existential threats facing the country, which if left unchecked could eventually destroy the remains of the already feeble foundations on which the country, miraculously, manages to subsist.