Category: Editorial

To lay Boro’s ghost to rest, Nigeria must do justice to all, majority or minority  

Isaac Jasper Adaka Boro, Ijaw hero, others’ villain, remains an incubus that just won’t go away — 48 years after his 23 February 1966 declaration of a “Niger Delta Republic”, and a “12-day revolution” launched by his Niger Delta Volunteer Force.

Since that crushed “revolution”, there had been a Civil War (1967-1970) to keep Nigeria one, but keep seceding Biafra at bay — a war in which the pardoned Boro and his braves even fought, on the Nigerian side.

There had also been a series of coup d’états, purportedly to keep Nigeria “strong and united”, though a middle level officers’ coup, led by the late Major Gideon Orkar, attempted to excise some northern states from that “united” Nigeria.

There had also been a return to democracy (or more strictly, civil rule), after the military command-and-obey structure had exhausted itself. The military command mindset turned Nigeria from a putative thriving federation into a near-arid unitary state.

Still, after every movement sans motion, and a centenary after amalgamation, Nigeria seems back where Isaac Boro started: a republic torn apart by clear structural oddity and socio-economic injustice, but which the ruling elite wager they can keep together — not by addressing the unworkable structure, injustices and allied problems, but by sheer force of arms.

But Boro’s ghost of disjuncture remains as potent as ever. After his “Niger Delta Republic” had come the ill-fated Biafra. Now is renewed Niger Delta militancy over “resource control”, Boko Haram insurgency in the North East, purportedly angling for an Islamic Republic, current excitement in the South West, with minimum demand for a return to regionalism but with an extremist strand hollering for an Oduduwa Republic.

Aside, there is a South East fringe that romanticises Biafra, despite the tragedy of the Civil War, in the activities of the Ralph Uwazurike-led Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB). But even Uwazurike’s group would appear pacifist compared with the Biafra Zionist Movement (BZM), a group led by Ben Onwuka, that on June 5 raided the Enugu State Broadcasting Service (ESBS) radio studios, to declare a “Republic of Biafra”. The raid left two dead, including a policeman on guard. The same group had, on March 7, attacked the Enugu State Government House. It insists Enugu remains the capital of Biafra.

In the Middle Belt, there is a self-determination group that comes with the rather scary name of Arewa Christian Alliance for the Peaceful Disintegration of Nigeria (ACAPDON). That takes self-determinism from the charted waters of geo-political zones to the uncharted territory of religion.

Over the years, it would appear the result of alienation of Nigerians from Nigeria has morphed from failed republics, which attracted the failed medicine of military interventions; to a failing state, which even a democratic change of guards appears incapable of solving. That points to the structure — the very fundament of the Nigerian state. Yet, things need not have metastasised this much, if the Nigerian authorities had taken good heed of Boro’s 1966 danger signals, even after crushing it militarily.

Boro’s profile of Ijaw nationalism, if not Niger Delta separatism, would appear to explain President Goodluck Jonathan’s absence at his reburial, for which he drew flak from some of his kith-and-kin. Indeed, it would have been impolitic for a sitting Nigerian president to attend such a ceremony, lest he be accused of supporting “threats to national unity”.

But it is exactly that grand hypocrisy, of shunning ugly but true reflection of the Nigerian disjuncture, which has resulted in the present near-free fall, to which a solution must be found, to avert a total failure of the Nigerian state. Even from sheer symbolism, the grand pretence has gone on for too long.

Take Boro himself as confusing, if not manipulated, symbolism. He was born in Oloibiri (now in Bayelsa State), where Shell Darcy first struck petrol on January 15, 1956. Ironically, the first coup occurred exactly 10 years later, on January 15, 1966.

That coup provided the anomie for the launch of Boro’s “12-day revolution” that declared a “Niger Delta Republic.” But the social trigger was the dingy Oloibiri (sickening symbol of neglect for the whole Niger Delta region), even as the oil from its bowels nourished a far-away Federal Government and not-so-near Eastern Region government. That core complaint of neglect and injustice, in Niger Delta agitation has, therefore, remained unchanged, despite a son of the Niger Delta becoming Nigerian president.

Though the Aguiyi-Ironsi military government charged and convicted Boro and company for treason, the Yakubu Gowon amnesty and pardon came with a tinge of manipulation. That drafted a grateful Boro into the federal side, in a war waged to keep Nigeria one. Biafra (not Nigeria) was the new putative overlord over the Niger Delta and its resources, and must be taken out.

But the “friendly fire” that threw up Boro as Civil War hero also consumed him, as he died during the war. In this case, Boro’s fate was no different from Ken Saro-Wiwa’s, another Civil War federalist, hanged over Ogoni rights agitation by the Sani Abacha military government. Ironically, Saro-Wiwa and Abacha were Civil War collaborators: Saro-Wiwa was Port Harcourt administrator; Abacha was the city’s garrison commander!

Years of systemic injustice, breeding a stalled economy, mass poverty and hopelessness have turned the Boro ghost into an ethnic ogre that ravages all parts of the country, calling for drastic changes, failure which they threaten disintegration. Yet, there is an ongoing pantomime at the National Conference, which seems to want to skirt the problems, instead of taking them head on.

Boro’s demands were the earliest of warnings to Nigeria on the imperatives of building a country founded on justice, equity and fair play. The Ijaw nationalist might have died in 1968, at the Civil War, aged only 30. But the only way to put his ghost to rest is to do justice to all by addressing his demands.

A man with many firsts departs

In range and durability, the career of Monsignor Pedro Ayodele Martins, whose remains were buried last Tuesday, was one of the most remarkable of our time. It was a career of many firsts, spanning 70 years and ranging from the secular to the ecclesiastic.

Monsignor Martins was the first Lagosian to be ordained a Catholic priest, first Catholic chaplain for the Nigerian Army, and first director of the Nigerian Army Chaplain Services (Catholic). After military service, he served as vicar-general to the Catholic Archbishop of Lagos, Olubunmi (as he then was) Okogie.

Previously, he had taught at St Gregory’s College, Lagos. In and out of the military, he showed promise as a writer and painter, and as an all-round athlete.

It is a measure of the confidence he earned during his military service and the humaneness he brought to bear on all his assignments that he was appointed chairman of a committee to review the wholesale dismissals from the public service that the military regime of General Murtala Muhammed and Olusegun Obasanjo carried out in a well-intentioned purge that was perverted in execution.

Monsignor Martins carried out the task with his accustomed fairness.

Born in Lagos in 1910, he was the grandson of a Brazilian slaver. His paternal grandmother was an ethnic Hausa. He grew up in a household that observed Christian and Moslem traditions. This background would seem to explain his approach to his work as a priest, soldier, and public servant, indeed his entire life.

He was religious without being dogmatic or doctrinaire. He made friends across the faiths, was open-minded, tolerant and accepting. With his inevitable pipe, he cut the figure of a man who felt as comfortably at home in the rectory as at a social gathering.

We can only speculate about how Monsignor Martins thought of the present situation where every issue, whether social, or political, is examined through the prism of religion even in his beloved Lagos, which used to be a bastion of inter-faith engagement and community.

Given his own background, he must have been distressed that religion has been turned into a wedge issue by all manner of aspirants, to be exploited for personal or group advantage, and not an instrument for forging common purpose.

In his personal life and throughout his remarkable career in the secular and ecclesiastic spheres, Monsignor Pedro Martins taught us that we can adhere to different faiths or subscribe to no faith and yet maintain civil discourse and seek common purpose.

FOR YEARS, President Obama has been claiming credit for “ending wars,” when, in fact, he was pulling the United States out of wars that were far from over. Now the pretense is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.

On Monday, a loathsome offshoot of al-Qaeda, the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, captured Mosul, one of Iraq’s most important cities, seizing large caches of modern weaponry and sending half a million civilians fleeing in terror. ISIS, which can make the original al-Qaeda look moderate, controls large swaths of territory stretching from northern Syria into Iraq. On Tuesday, militants advanced toward Baghdad, capturing Tikrit and other cities.

If Iraq joins Syria in full-fledged civil war, the danger to U.S. allies in Israel, Turkey, Jordan and the Kurdish region of Iraq is immense. These terrorist safe havens also pose a direct threat to the United States, according to U.S. officials. “We know individuals from the U.S., Canada and Europe are traveling to Syria to fight in the conflict,” Jeh Johnson, secretary of homeland security, said earlier this year. “At the same time, extremists are actively trying to recruit Westerners, indoctrinate them, and see them return to their home countries with an extremist mission.”

When Mr. Obama defended his foreign policy in a speech at West Point two weeks ago, he triggered some interesting debate about the relative merits of engagement and restraint. But the question of whether Mr. Obama more closely resembles Dwight D. Eisenhower or Jimmy Carter is less relevant than the results of his policy, which are increasingly worrisome.

In Syria, where for three years Mr. Obama has assiduously avoided meaningful engagement, civil war has given rise to “the most catastrophic humanitarian crisis any of us have seen in a generation,” Mr. Obama’s United Nations ambassador Samantha Power said in February.

In Libya, Mr. Obama joined in a bombing campaign to topple dictator Moammar Gaddafi and then declined to provide security assistance to help the nation right itself. It, too, is on the verge of civil war.

In Iraq, Mr. Obama chose not to leave a residual force that might have helped keep the nation’s politics on track, even as the White House insisted there was no reason to worry. Denis McDonough, then deputy national security adviser and now White House chief of staff, told reporters in 2011 that Mr. Obama “said what we’re looking for is an Iraq that’s secure, stable and self-reliant, and that’s exactly what we got here. So there’s no question this is a success.”

Now Mr. Obama is applying the same recipe to Afghanistan: total withdrawal of U.S. troops by 2016, regardless of conditions.

At West Point, the president stressed that “not every problem has a military solution.” That is obviously true. In fact, a goal of U.S. policy should be to help shape events so that military solutions do not have to be considered. The presence of U.S. troops in South Korea, for example, has helped keep the peace for more than a half century.

Total withdrawal can instead lead to challenges like that posed by Iraq today, where every option — from staying aloof to more actively helping Iraqi forces — carries risks. The administration needs to accept the reality of the mounting danger in the Middle East and craft a strategy that goes beyond the slogan of “ending war responsibly.”

– Washington Post

•Nigeria’s Super Eagles seeks glory as the world’s football fiesta starts today

What has arguably become the world greatest fiesta kicks off today. We speak of course of the World Cup football tournament. The world, or shall we say, the world of football  will be riveted to the frills, the thrills and the magic of the round leather game for the next one month. Nothing else excites, unites and concentrates the attention of the peoples of the world today more than the game of football and the World Cup tournament held every four years is the showpiece.

This 20th edition will be held across cities in the South American country of Brazil, following after a tradition that started 94 years ago in Uruguay, also in South America. Thirty-two countries, including the host, will bid for the World Cup silverware, the grandest football trophy of all. The favourites to win the diadem include the host Brazil, her continental rival, Argentina, the defending champion, Spain, and Germany. Any result to the contrary would be an upset of the form book.

Some of the biggest names that make the game tick are abundant among these four top nations. There is Lionel Messi of Argentina who has won the World Footballer of the Year trophy four times in a row; Spain boasts of a host of stars like Xavi Alonso, Andres Iniesta and Sergio Ramos, while the German team has Thomas Muller who won the Golden Boots at the last edition in South Africa, 2014 and Bastian Schweintieger. Brazil has an up and coming Neymar but her strength may be in her all-star that is devoid of any out-of-the-world star in the mold of Pele and Ronaldo. Other big stars the world would look forward to include Cristiano Ronaldo, the current World Footballer of the Year from Portugal, Mario Balotelli of Italy and Yaya Toure of Cote D’Ivoire.

Nigeria’s Super Eagles, the reigning African champions will be led to the mundial by its coach, Stephen Keshi, the same one who led them to win the African Football Championship in South Africa last year. Nigerians are hopeful of a good tournament for the Eagles this time, having not made an impression in the tournament after her 1994 debut edition in the USA. That remains Nigeria’s  golden era when she paraded world renown stars like Stephen Keshi, Rashidi Yekini (now late), Emmanuel Amunike, Victor Ikpeba, Daniel Amokachie and Sunday Oliseh, to name a few.

Regrettably, there are few big names playing in top leagues across the world in this class of 2014. Secondly, Keshi has been rebuilding the Eagles over the last two years and though it managed to pick the African trophy, the team cannot be said to be ready yet to contest creditably at this level of world football. Another point to note is that this crop of Eagles does not seem to be endowed with fleet- footed, young and talented players. While the average age in most countries’ teams may be 25, Nigeria’s team may not have such luxury. But some players in this team we expect to make an impact include the goalkeeper, Vincent Enyeama, strikers Emmanuel Emenike and Victor Moses.

Nigerians may not expect their team to lift the cup but they look forward to a respectable performance. They expect good team play and they expect to see the creativity and pace that make our football fluid and exciting. It is noteworthy that Keshi has included about three players from the home league; that is good for Nigeria’s football development. And win or lose, we hope that the current initiatives for growing the game will continue as bountiful results are already being reaped by way of engaging our youths and creating employment for them.

It is our prayer that this season of world football festival will usher in peace and harmony to a world that has become increasingly fractured. We hope that humanity will ride on the crest of this exciting global show to eschew anger, violence and bigotry which seem to be finding new fervor among the peoples of the world. May the best team win.

What a difference between Brazil’s performance on and off the pitch. Its footballers are renowned for their dazzling skill and jogo bonito – or beautiful game. But in 2007, when then-president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva won Brazil the rights to host this year’s World Cup, he performed the political equivalent of simply booting the ball up the pitch.

Expecting a nation known for its lousy roads and poor infrastructure to run purposefully after that wildly punted ball may have seemed plausible at the time. Back then, the Bric club of emerging powers was all the rage and Brazil could seemingly do no wrong. But the Bric brand has since dimmed, and Sepp Blatter, head of Fifa, the international football body, has even said Brazil’s World Cup preparations are the worst he has ever seen. This is not the promising narrative Brazil once imagined.

Still, the tournament’s 12 stadiums will probably be ready in time, even if at the last minute. And as President Dilma Rousseff has commented, un-Chinese-like delays are part of the cost of Brazil being a democracy with a free media and the right to dissent – civil rights that Ms Rousseff, who struggled against the country’s military dictatorship, has fought for all her career. Whatever Brazil’s shortcomings, these qualities are worth celebrating at a tournament that will take place only a week after the 25th anniversary of the crackdown against the Tiananmen Square protests.

The games kick-off this Thursday when Brazil takes on Croatia in São Paulo. So will begin a tournament that is part sporting spectacle and part the world’s most peaceful demonstration of full-bore nationalism. Indeed, one of the World Cup’s most appealing features is that small countries often do well, even if they are usually European or Latin American. (Apologies to everybody else, but all 10 top-rated teams are from these continents.) Traditionally, they deploy different playing styles: European efficiency versus Latin flair. But that divide has blurred as Latin-American footballers in European leagues have learnt new ways of playing, and brought them home. Brazil’s team, although the favourite, has even been criticised for being rigid. Such homogenisation may be the price, or benefit, of globalisation. But that does not mean the games will lack drama.

Nor will the tournament lack for off-pitch excitement either. Fifa faces tough questions in São Paulo this week about Qatar’s allegedly corrupt clinching of hosting rights for the 2022 World Cup. A broader question is whether emerging countries, with more pressing social needs, should hold such events at all; Brazil will also host the 2016 Olympics. If so, then these should be treated as an opportunity: a chance for sporting events to be hauled back from their fixation with money and buildings, and restored to the games instead.

The biggest off-pitch drama, though, will be that of Brazil itself, especially given presidential elections in October. While there is no correlation between Brazil’s performance in past World Cups and subsequent election results, this time may be different. Last year, more than 1m people took to the streets in protest against shoddy public services with a cry for “Fifa standard hospitals too”. The economy is slowing. Ms Rousseff’s approval rating, although still well ahead of her opponents, is sagging. Brazil can feel mired in malaise.

A victorious tournament might lift that feeling – however momentarily. A bad loss, which might crystallise popular misgivings, could deepen it. For many reasons, the country therefore needs to emerge from a tournament that is judged a success, or at least good enough; especially as almost half the planet will watch some of it. Given Brazilians’ natural warmth and optimism, most likely it will. Let the contest begin.

– Financial Times