 |
| United States Ambassador to Nigeria, James Entwistle |
Entwistle
LAST Sunday’s visit of the United States
Ambassador to Nigeria to the International
Conference Centre, in Abuja, where the collation
of results for the 2015 Presidential election was
taking place, was a brazen breach of diplomatic
protocol. It was a visit that should be
condemned for what it represents: an undue
interference in a sensitive and important internal
affair of this country.
James Entwistle, while at the ICC, was quoted
as saying that the Permanent Voter Card
employed in Nigeria’s 2015 elections, by the
Independent National Electoral Commission, was
of higher technological value than the one in use
in his home state of Virginia in the US. “I think
we need to come and study it so that we can
use it in my country,” he said. Although
seemingly well-intentioned and commendable on
its face value, that statement, to say the least,
was also patronising.
While it is sometimes permissible, and indeed
acceptable, to prod a reluctant country into
taking actions perceived to be beneficial to the
country, there should be a time to draw the line,
especially on matters that have to do with the
internal affairs of a sovereign state. If there are
international rules and conventions governing
conduct among nation states, such should be
respected and applied in all circumstances.
Policy options, especially on the choice of a
political, economic, social and cultural system,
and the formulation of foreign policy, fall into
the category of matters which each state is
permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty,
to decide freely. It will be unimaginable for the
Nigerian ambassador in the US to behave in a
similar manner during an election in his host
country.
This brings to mind the ongoing spat between
the White House and the Israeli Prime Minister,
Benjamin Netanyahu, following the latter’s recent
visit to the US, on the invitation of the Congress.
The visit was termed to be too close to the last
Israeli election, and would be taken for an
endorsement of Netanyahu by the American
government, thus conferring an undue advantage
on him over other candidates. For this reason,
the American President, Barack Obama, had
refused to accord him the courtesy of an official
welcome.
Although there is no written law in America that
says the president should not welcome a visiting
head of government heading into a reelection
battle, yet, there is a tradition to that effect,
which Obama was not ready to break with – not
even for the sake of an Israeli prime minister.
So, if the Americans could go to such length to
uphold their own tradition and convention, then
they should also be able to respect the
sensibilities of other people.
The use or non-use of the PVC attracted a
heated debate before the election and it should
not be an issue for diplomatic comments. Yet, it
is obvious that the ambassador was only
exploiting the weak institutions in Nigeria and
the failure of governance to treat the country in
such a disrespectful manner. Over the years,
Nigeria has endured bad governance that has
effectively retarded her growth and development.
The country has been described as one with
abundance of potentialities, but which have
failed to translate into tangible benefits. A look
at all the indices of development has seen
Nigeria languishing in the lowest rungs of the
ladder, contending with failed states such as
Somalia, Afghanistan and Yemen.
Corruption has emerged as the bane of the
country. Regrettably, more than two years after
some Nigerians made away with over N2 trillion
in an oil subsidy scam, not one person has so
far been jailed. These are some of the
shortcomings that countries like the US exploit
to dabble in the internal affairs of Nigeria. But it
should not be so.
Not surprisingly, attempts by American “experts”
to analyse events in Nigeria have almost always
brought out a warped and stereotyped outcome
that stands facts on their heads. Their inability,
or deliberate refusal, to situate the Boko Haram
insurgency as part of a global terrorist and
jihadist movement typifies this.
For instance, John Campbell, a former US
ambassador to Nigeria, has spent a great deal of
efforts misinforming the world that Boko Haram
is a product of marginalisation, poverty and lack
of education, despite abundant evidence to the
contrary. Claiming to be an expert on Nigeria, he
recently said, “Boko Haram insurgency is a direct
result of chronic poor governance by Nigeria’s
federal and state governments, the political
marginalisation of northeastern Nigeria, and the
region’s accelerating impoverishment.” He is
wrong.
This is not only disingenuous, but a deliberate
twisting of facts. In the first place, poverty is a
common feature in almost all parts of Nigeria.
Second, Boko Haram, in pursuit of its nihilistic
mission like every jihadist terrorist organisation,
has never mentioned economic deprivation as a
grouse. Besides, in the past few years, sons of
prominent Nigerians, with privileged
backgrounds, have come out to openly identify
with global terrorist movements, which rubbishes
outright, any claims of poverty as motivation.
Was it marginalisation for instance, that pushed
the well educated Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
son of a multimillionaire businessman, into
attempting to bomb an American airliner on
Christmas Day of 2009? Was it also poverty that
made the son of a former Chief Justice of
Nigeria to travel all the way to Syria to join
forces with the Islamic State terrorists? It is also
on record that Buji Foi, a commissioner in Borno
State, resigned his appointment to take up
leadership position in Boko Haram. That certainly
does not look like an action that was driven by
poverty.
The French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, was
quoted as saying last month, “There are 3,000
Europeans in Iraq and Syria today. When you do
a projection for the months to come, there could
be 5,000 before summer and 10,000 before the
end of the year.” Can Campbell in all honesty
ascribe this to poverty and marginalisation? How
come the actions of the three teenage schoolgirls
that recently travelled from Britain to join ISIS
were not attributed to poverty and
marginalisation? Why should analyses of similar
situations in different places produce different
results?
False narratives such as Campbell’s explain why
the US government does not consider Boko
Haram terror as a security threat to Western
countries. America’s position on this is summed
up by the views expressed in January by James
Marks, a retired major general and Executive
Dean, College of Criminal Justice and Security at
the University of Phoenix, who said, “The United
States can do anything it needs to do to rid
Nigeria of Boko Haram. It could be long term
effort, but it can be done. The US has the
capability, we have all the elements and power
but it is not a priority.” This is regrettable.
Comments