By Ussiju Medaner
Last week I suggested, based on facts, that Nigeria’s insecurity and the one-sided, manipulated responses it has generated are worrisome and can only be addressed when we come to terms with the sordid reality that Nigerians are facing.
This is coupled with all the crises that are crippling the country. On one hand, the perpetrators of the insecurity are having a field day wreaking havoc on all of us, while on the other hand, some of our people find it difficult to let go of their emotional attachment to religion, ethnicity and other political motivations driven by hatred for certain figures in power. The reason we continue to suffer insecurity and have to endure Donald Trump’s insult of classifying our nation “a country of particular concern” and referring to us as a disgraced nation, is primarily because we have made insecurity impossible to fight and end by our sworn hatred for the same country.
This week, I review issues as they relate to how we got here and what we might possibly do to get our house in order and restore hope of safety back to Nigeria. I will insist that the first fact that must be established and which we all must accept if we really want a national closure that positively end insecurity in the country, is the fact that there are no orchestrated killing targeting any particular religion or tribe in the country. We must all see what is happening the way it is to be able to solve the problem. Over the years, by indulging in the terrible narrative of christening every attack across the country as another attack by the Fulani herders or whatever other nomenclature we give them, we have helped the real perpetrators escape and roam freely, and even emboldened them to act more. The truth we don’t want to accept but which stares us in the face now is that people commit their crimes and pass the buck to the Muslim Fulani.
The Boko Haram remains the stronghold of insurgence in the country. The sect in format and name has the ideology of targeting Christians; that much several people would conclude. But reality and documented history of attacks by the sect and figures of casualties wouldn’t lie and do say something different. I remember, in 2014, at the very peak of the operation of the sect, when a section of the country was already struggling to establish Christian targeted attacks, precisely on Friday, 28 November, the sect carried out a well orchestrated attack on the Kano grand Central Mosque, during the Friday prayer. On record, 130 Muslim worshippers were killed while more than 140 were injured.
I seriously have the aversion to mentioning religion and tribe while mentioning these victims, but here it is necessary to dispute the lies they want the world to accept as our reality. If the Boko Haram would massively attack a mosque as far back as 2004, and have continued to do so even till now, how do we then conveniently and confidently frame such as a Christian genocide?
It is a terrible thing that Nigerians are being slaughtered like chicken and kidnapped like worthless pieces of articles without end, and yet, the best response from Nigerians are pure emotions and profiteering conclusions. How we benefit individually from the crises seems to be more important to us than how the country breathes a respite. It is more profitable as self-serving for us to building narratives that serve our purpose than to organise a solution to our real challenges.
I followed a Christian leader, Reverend Ezekiel from Plateau State as he continues to make serious attempts to establish the existence of Christian genocide in the country. He went all the way to document the identities of all the Christians killed, totaling 300 people in 2010. But unfortunately for his direction of narrative and very fortunate for the truth and Nigeria, in his very documentation, he submitted that the attackers were on a mission known to the people; they had informed them they were coming to revenge their people who were killed some two years back. The attack was a reprisal as the narrator himself submited, but he went ahead to brandish the 300 names as evidence of Christians slaughtering in the country to Donald Trump and the whole world.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, genocide is deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. This definition represents the United Nation standard for definition of genocide as contained in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The key word in genocidal classification is “intent”. The pattern of insecurity and killings in Nigeria does not march that description. The intent to attack and kill from only one religion or ethnic group cannot be established because it doesn’t exist.
If by any chance and luck we can get to the point where we jettison the false narrative of Christian genocide or directed attacks on any fraction of the country, then we would be able to begin to ask the real questions that needed to be asked. What exactly are the factors responsible for the continued insecurity across the country? With an open mind, and readiness to accept that these disposing factors differs from region to region and must never be unified. Secondly, we must ask, why has the government failed Nigeria and Nigerians for close to two decades of insecurity in the country? Why has continuous bloated investment in security have nothing to show the people?
Now, to the causes we must first embrace. Nigeria’s instability and growing insecurity is a symptom of a myriad of deeply rooted factors that vary significantly across its diverse regions. Understanding these causes demands an appreciation for the unique economic, social, cultural, and political conditions that define each area. Any attempt to over simplify these challenge into a singular cause would continue to hurt our capacity to respond appropriately and fight the menace frontally. Our responses must also be homegrown, unique to the challenges and the causative factors as much as the prevailing nature of the population involved.
In the North, challenges are often tied to socioeconomic disparities, inadequate education, and the rise of extremist groups. The demographic landscape, characterized by high youth unemployment and poverty, fuels the appeal of Boko Haram and similar entities, leading to violence and instability. The book haram and all emerging sects of similar statures continue to benefit from a pool of readily available manpower created by the failure of government at all levels over the decades to convert the children and youths of the region into useful tools for the country. Ending insecurity in the northern Nigeria must definitely go beyond military operation. Alongside military responses, the government must sincerely begin to correct all the developmental errors of the past that take the region to where it is now. Gross education and empowerment of the youths is a task we cannot afford to play with if we are serious about finding solutions to the problem. As we get more and more youths and children of the region engaged over the coming years, the strength and capacity of the insurgent to refuel will continue to dim until it would finally become insignificant.
Conversely, the South is primarily marked by resource control issues, particularly in the oil-rich Niger Delta. The local populations feel alienated from the wealth generated by oil extraction, leading to militancy and protests aimed at asserting control over resources. Environmental degradation resulting from oil spills exacerbates tensions and contributes to instability. The series of homemade and sincere solutions the government from the day of Late President Yaradua projects has tremendously restore sanity and peace to the region. The establishment again of the South-South development commission has become another mileage in sustaining the peace of the region. I hope we will be able to keep this up.
The net insecurity in the eastern Nigeria currently has a single root; the uncoordinated structure of the agitation for Biafra. All manner of insecurities are now currently hiding under the banner of everything that agitation represents and has assembled. This is a topic i intend to discuss separately, possibly in the third part of this series.
In the Middle Belt, ethnic conflicts arise from competition over land and resources, intensifying communal violence between farmers and herders. Historical grievances and competition for arable land amid climate change and desertification lead to entrenched hostilities. This has been ongoing for over 50 years without far reaching solution. This is also a chapter that deserves full attention and I will look critically to present that in a later part of this series.
Additionally, the overarching influence of corruption and ineffective governance transcends regional boundaries, with each area bearing the brunt of mismanagement and neglect. Thus, the instability in Nigeria cannot be attributed to a single cause; instead, it is a complex amalgamation of unique regional factors that necessitate nuanced and localized approaches to address them effectively. In all these, religion, tribe and regional belonging do not appear.
Addressing Trump readiness to fly with the false narrative is also at this point very important. The narrative of Christian genocide in Nigeria has gained momentum in recent weeks, drawing significant attention from prominent figures, including Donald Trump. However, the fervor surrounding this narrative can be examined through a geopolitical lens that reveals deeper motivations. America’s concern with Nigeria’s pivot towards China and its independent strategies in managing resources illustrates a growing apprehension over its influence in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Historically, the U.S. has maintained a strong interest in Nigeria, given its status as Africa’s most populous nation and a key player in oil production. With a relationship fundamentally built on economic interests, America has often attempted to exert influence in Nigeria to ensure stability and maintain its geopolitical foothold. However, Nigeria’s recent shift towards China signifies a fundamental change in its international relations. By seeking a bold partnership with China, Nigeria is not only positioning itself for infrastructural development but also redefining its sovereignty. This move raises the stakes for the U.S. and affects its established dominance in the region.
Under the aegis of Chinese investment, Nigeria has embarked on numerous infrastructure projects that promise long-term benefits. Unlike traditional Western partnerships, which often come with stringent conditions, China is perceived as a more flexible ally, allowing Nigeria the leeway to negotiate terms favorably. According to reports, China has committed billions to infrastructure, energy, and transportation projects across Nigeria, a stark contrast to the limited support historically provided by American entities like the World Bank and the IMF. This shift away from Western partners is crucial as it suggests that Nigeria is not only ready to pursue development partners that align with its national interests but also to assert its independence from U.S. influence.
Moreover, Nigeria’s assertiveness is reflected in its negotiation tactics. For instance, amidst the ongoing global energy crisis fueled by the conflict in Ukraine, Nigeria has leveraged its natural gas reserves to renegotiate terms favorable to its interests. This ability to dictate terms in exchange for resources demonstrates a significant departure from previous decades, where Nigeria often found itself at the mercy of foreign powers. The shift is not merely economic; it symbolizes a challenge to the status quo, one that many in the U.S. view with apprehension.
Donald Trump’s vocal support of the Christian genocide narrative can thus be seen as a rallying point; it underscores a dual intention to protect American interests while attempting to reshape public opinion regarding Nigeria. By framing the narrative in moral terms, Trump seeks to galvanize support for interventionist policies; however, this approach risks oversimplifying the complex socio-political realities in Nigeria, which encompasses not only religious tensions but also ethnic strife and economic disparities.
As America perceives Nigeria’s newfound agency as a threat to its influence, the consequences may ripple through diplomatic relations not only between the U.S. and Nigeria but across the entire region. The U.S. has historically intervened when it perceives national interests are threatened; thus, Trump’s threat to “come in gun blazing” could indicate a readiness to escalate tensions. Such posturing could fuel further instability in Nigeria, potentially exacerbating the very issues that the rhetoric aims to address.
Furthermore, it’s essential to recognize that the narrative surrounding Christian persecution is not just a tool for American political agenda but also reflects genuine pain and struggle experienced by many in Nigeria. Yet, the simplification of these narratives into a unilateral genocide discourse risks overshadowing the multifaceted nature of the crises and may yield counterproductive consequences.
In conclusion, as Nigeria embarks on a journey of self-determination and strategic partnership with global powers like China, America’s adaptation to these changes will be pivotal. The intersection of geopolitics and narratives of human rights needs careful navigation to avoid exacerbating tensions and fostering a more balanced international conversation on development, sovereignty, and human rights.
Professor Medaner is reachable via justme4justice@yahoo.com.
