Tag: negotiable

This is my third and last intervention on President Buhari’s statement that Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable. In my first two articles, I made the point that it is understandable for any president – especially a president under pressure as Buhari has been – to make the statement that his country’s unity is not negotiable or questionable. In our experience in this country, a statement like that by any president does not amount to anything. We have heard it in one form or another, again and again, from all our past presidents. What would amount to much, what we Nigerians want from any president – especially from our current president who expressly promised us change – is a plan to keep our country harmoniously together by removing the perennial reason why various ones among our indigenous nationalities have been questioning Nigeria’s unity and Nigeria’s existence as one country.

Since Nigeria became a self-governing country in 1960, various Nigerian nationalities, or at least persons claiming to act on behalf of their nationalities, have, under certain circumstances painful to their nationalities, questioned Nigeria’s unity as one country and threatened (and tried) to terminate it. They are perpetually pushing, and forcing Nigeria’s unity to be renegotiated.

Young Ijaw patriots led by Isaac Boro, and others subsequently led by Ken Saro-wiwa, did it. Youths of the Ijaw and other peoples of the Niger Delta are doing it now with methods that are hurting Nigeria very decisively. These youths are united by a common reaction to the horrible degradation of their Delta environment under the impact of the petroleum industry, by a rejection of the iniquitous sharing of the benefits of their homeland’s petroleum resources, and by the neglect of their part of Nigeria by an apparently uncaring Federal Government.

The Hausa-Fulani political elite did it in May-October 1966 when they mobilized crowds of their people to demand Araba (separation) and to seek to enforce Araba by killing Igbo citizens in Northern cities.  They did these things partly because of their painful losses in a Nigerian military coup, and partly because the consequent Federal Military Government seemed determined to destroy all regional autonomy, to seize control of all power over Nigeria, and especially to subdue the Northern Region.

The Igbo people did it by striking for a separate country of Biafra in 1967-70. They did it because their security as a people had become seriously compromised in Nigeria, and because the then Military Government under the North’s dominant control seemed to them to represent even greater   threats to their security in Nigeria.

Youths of Kanuri and related peoples, choosing the banner of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and the name Boko Haram, have been doing it since 2009. We have been led to believe generally that their sole reason is religious and that their sole objective is an Islamic caliphate, and we miss the fact that Kanuri nationalism (with a strong dose of rejection of Fulani hegemony and a desire for a separate country) is a major motivation of theirs – and we fail to see the fact that their revolt derives much of its strength from indigenous local support in their homeland in the North-east.

Youths of the Arewa North, led by highly educated young men, did it in 2014 by holding street demonstrations and demanding that the North should cut relations with Nigeria, that “the failed experiment of Nigeria” should be terminated, and that all Southerners should quit the North within two weeks and all Northerners resident in the South should return home immediately. They did these things because they felt that their Arewa North was being disrespected, neglected and marginalized by the Nigerian Federal Government of that day, and that the Nigerian Federal Government was incurably corrupt and incompetent.

Among the large and considerably literate Yoruba nation of the Nigerian South-west, very many youth groups, called ‘self-determination groups’, have long been itching to do it, only restrained by their adult population and the cultural sensitivities of their nation. They are itching to strike for their Yoruba nation because their Yoruba nation has been losing too much, and declining too sadly, and becoming ever poorer, as a result of the excessive concentration of power and resource control in the hands of a Nigerian Federal Government that is always inclined to resist and frustrate the progress and development of the Yoruba nation, a Federal Government  that is characterized by stunted desire for modern development, by horrific incompetence, and by mind-boggling corruption – a Federal Government that seems to be on a mission to dampen development and spread corruption and poverty all over Nigeria.

Yes, Nigeria’s unity is being questioned and threatened all the time by various Nigerian peoples. No presidential threats, no number of amnesties, no amount of presidential bribes, no security agency’s menace, and no amount of military violence, has succeeded in shutting up our nationalities – or is likely ever to succeed in shutting them up. The passion for Biafra is much more popular today among the masses of ordinary Igbo people than in 1967; Delta militants are sharper and more difficult to subdue today than in the time of Isaac Boro or Saro-wiwa; Yoruba self-determination groups are better informed today and much better ready to promote their nation’s interests, etc. And let us not deceive ourselves –  it is these peoples that hold the final say, and that will wield the ultimate knife, on the fate of Nigeria’s unity and Nigeria’s existence as one country – no matter what presidents may say, threaten, intend to do, or do.

Moreover, while the international community was, on the whole, more inclined to support Nigeria’s unity against Biafran separation in 1967-70, the international community is today much more likely to arise and protect any Nigerian nationality being militarily attacked by Nigeria for demanding a Biafra or a Niger Delta Republic or an Oduduwa Republic. In recent decades, the world has become quite strongly, sensitized towards protecting its weaker peoples who, because they are trying to exercise their right of self-determination, are being subjected to brutalities and oppression by strong countries or stronger neighbours. The doctrine that weak nationalities have the right to protection by the world, and that the world has the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (cryptically put as R2P) is now a vital reality in our world.

It is very probable, therefore, that, given the present trends, more and more Nigerian peoples will demand self-determination and separation (and a renegotiation of Nigeria’s unity) in no distant a future. It is also probable that they will do so with increasing intensity and capability. And, if some of them happen to do it together or even merely simultaneously, it seems probable that Nigeria would buckle under the pressure.

Because more and more Nigerians worry about these probabilities, and because more and more Nigerian nationalities painfully reject the poverty, corruption, crookedness and impunity that the Nigerian Federal Government represents, more and more well-meaning Nigerian voices are being raised for the restructuring of the Nigerian federation. Meanwhile, leaders of a section of Nigeria, the Arewa North section, choose to oppose restructuring with all their might, for no other reason than to make the point that they ae dominant in Nigeria, and that only what they want has any chance of being chosen and done in Nigeria. They may appear to be winning their victory; but they are likely soon to be labouring under the terrible historic guilt of being responsible for Nigeria’s disappearance from the map of the world.

The special point about President Buhari is that he belongs to the leadership of this Arewa North section of Nigeria, and that Nigerians, and the whole world, have the right to presume that he has the ability to persuade his people to change their stand on the all-important question of restructuring of the Nigerian federation. He has a historic duty here; and his place in history will obviously depend on what he does with that duty.

Here is my second response to President Buhari’s statement that Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable. When he made that statement, he was obviously worried about the potent threats to Nigeria’s unity arising in various parts of Nigeria. He was saying in effect that he would not let Nigeria’s unity be renegotiated under his watch – that he would hand Nigeriaintact to his successor. It was a statement of intent, the kind of statement to be expected from any president.

However, since President Buhari made that statement, some persons and groups have echoed him affirmatively. They say yes, Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable. What these people seem to mean is that, fundamentally, and by certain immutable laws, Nigeria’s unity is sacrosanct, immutable, untouchable – that under no circumstance can Nigeria be dismembered or dissolved. Whoever says this is wrong, flatly wrong. And if the president shares their meaning, he too is very wrong.

There is no country on earth that is beyond being dismembered or dissolved. Throughout human history, countries have arisen, flourished, and then lost some parts, or broken apart. Countries that are made up of different nationalities, with the different nationalities possessing their different ancestral homelands in the same country, are particularly likely to lose some of the nationalities over time or to break up. It is common human experience that every nationality (or “tribe), no matter how small, is imbued with a fundamental desire and urge to control its own life and determine its own destiny. That is why every multi-nation empire or country in history, no matter how powerful or how long-lasting, breaks up in the end.This universal human experienceis being enacted todayon all continents of the world. No country is above it.

See what has happened in our world in the course of only the past century – indeed, in the course of only the past 30 years. By 1900, two large and powerful multi-nation countries – theAustro-Hungarian Empire and the Turkish Empire – dominated the map of most of Europe and the Middle East.By 1918, both had broken up.In both cases, though a major Europe-wide war provided the occasion for the breaking up, the powerful and fundamental cause of the breaking up was the desire of the many different nationalities to governthemselves and determine their own futures.

With the breaking up, many new countries immediately showed up on the world map – Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and many others. Of these new countries, some (like Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and others) still contained some different nationalities. In about 1990, each of such countries broke up, and their different nationalities became separate countries. Yugoslavia broke into seven new countries – Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Kosovo. Czechoslovakia broke into two –Czech Republic and Slovakia.

For most of the 20th century, another large European country, the Soviet Union, was one of the most powerful countries in the world. It contained the large Russian nationality and many different smaller nationalities. In about 1990, this powerful country suddenly broke up into 13 different countries – Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldavia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. The small country of Georgia contained the Georgian nationality and two tiny nationalities (Abkhazia and South Ossetia). Both soon separated from Georgia.

All over Europe, any country that still includes two or more nationalities today is in trouble, because their different nationalities are agitating for separation. In Spain, the Basques and the Catalans want to separate from the Spaniards and have countries of their own. In Belgium, the Fleming and Walloon nationalities are talking separation. In Britain, the Irish separated in 1921 to have their own Irish Republic; and the Scots and Welsh are close to doing that now.

In Asia, soon after the independence of India in 1947, the peoples of northern India separated and formed one country called Pakistan; and then, eastern Pakistan separated and became the Republic of Bangladesh. China is increasingly facing agitations for separation by its small nationalities – the Uighurs of Xsinjiang, Manchurians, Lower Mongolians, and Tibetans.

In the Indian Ocean, the small island country of Sri Lanka consists of two nationalities – the Tamils and the Sinhalese. Since independence, the Tamils have been struggling to have their own separate country.In Indonesia, East Timor broke away in 2002 and became the Republic of Timor Leste, and many other small nationalities are also demanding separation – namely, Aceh, Riau, Ambom, Irian Jaya, and Madura.In America, French Canada is struggling to separate from English Canada and become a separate country.

InBlack Africa, each of the countries, as created and structured by European imperialists, defies order and stability. Each combines many nationalities; each has boundaries that split up nationalities; each, in its internal structure, refuses to accord respect to its many nationalities.And unfortunately, the leaders of the various nationalities have generally proved wanting in clearly stating the real desires of their peoples.The result has been that most countries of Sub-Saharan Africa are reeling in chaos, conflicts between nationalities, rigged elections and violent protests, primitive attempts by some nationalities to dominate others, violent overthrows of governments, destructive corruption, civil wars, acts of genocide.

In the light of the worldwide needs and demands for self-determination by nationalities, the world has had to create order – to protect every nationality. The General Assembly of the United Nations Organization adopted a “DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES” which affirms the right of every “indigenous people” or nationality to determine its own political status freely and in peace.  Its Preamble states as follows:” – – the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant onEconomic, Socialand Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, affirm the fundamental importance of the right of self-determination of all peoples, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. And its

Article 3 then affirms: “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.

The DECLARATION emphasizes that indigenous peoples exercising or seeking to exercise their rights of self-determination may not be subjected to discrimination by the countries to which they currently belong, may not be subjected to any kind of violence, may not, individually or collectively, be denied their human rights or denied justice, may not have military action brought upon their territory without their consent or request, may not have their democratic rights of association or of expression interfered with, etc.

All countries of Africa are signatories to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. But in addition, the African Union (AU) has a charter on this matter – the African (Banjul) Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. Its Article 19 states:”All peoples shall be equal, they shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another” And Article 20:1 affirms:”All peoples shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination”.

Nigeria is a signatory to all these international laws; Nigeria is bound by them, andno Nigerian law limits, or can limit, their effectover Nigeria. It is therefore not true that Nigerian nationalities are barred from seeking separate countries for themselves out of Nigeria, or that Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable.

The combination of prevailing realities in our world points to the probability that agitations for separation from Nigeria would increase in number, intensity and skills, and that Nigeria would ultimately break up. The horrendous misgovernment of Nigeria reinforces that probability.

If President Buhari is serious about preserving Nigeria as one, what he has to do, in addition to his anti-corruption war, is to lead Nigeria to restructure its federation, restore to each people the control of their resources, empower each state to fight poverty and disorder competently, cut the Federal Government to a much smaller size, and stop the perpetual strategizing of one Nigerian nationality to hurt and dominate the others. Nobody who leaves these undone can succeed in keeping Nigeria one – even with the best of military capabilities.

President Buhari says that Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable. He means, obviously, that Nigeria must never be dissolved and that no nation that is now part of Nigeria can ever take leave of Nigeria and become a separate country. Well, we must concede that he is saying what a Nigerian president is supposed to say. It is inconceivable that anybody who happens to be the president of any country would say that the country he presides over could break up. No way.

However, when a president says that his country’s unity is not negotiable, the world has a right to ask him what he intends to do to preserve his country as one. That question is particularly apt if the country is swaying on the verge of breaking up. Nigeria is manifestly swaying today on the verge of breaking up. There is not much of a doubt about that. One only has to take a look at the trouble spots across Nigeria to see this most clearly.

Take the Igbo South-east. Many Nigerians are used to assuming that the Igbo people are not really serious about Biafra – that the Igbo people are too attracted to (and too spoiled by) the benefits of Nigeria to act definitively to break away from Nigeria and start a separate country of their own. But, today, that assumption about the Igbo no longer stands as solid as before. The many Igbo organizations clamouring for Biafra, the increasing numbers of youths, older adults, and organizations involving themselves, and the fervour, passion and political skill they are increasingly bringing into the struggle (both at home and in the wide world), allseem to point to one probable outcome – namely, that Biafra could indeedbecome a reality someday.

Take the Niger Delta. Many Nigerians also commonly assume much the same kind of things about the peoples of the Niger Delta as they do about the Igbo. But it is critically important that we should assess the Niger Delta situation correctly. When Isaac Boro started the Niger Delta fight against Nigeria in the early 1960s, he was leading only a handful of passionate youths like himself. His chances of succeeding against the power of the Nigerian Federal Government were nil. Today, with the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), the Niger Delta Avengers (NDA), and some other less known Niger Delta militant groups, the story is totally different. There are not many other separatist groups in the world today that command the same magnitude of weaponry and financial resources that these Niger Delta groups command. It is very little known to Nigerians that, under the amnesty programmes of succeeding federal governments, many thousands of Niger Delta youths were able to go abroad to acquire various kinds of training in weaponry, combat, and the flying of aircraft.

In short, Nigeria is being confronted in the Niger Delta today by a series of considerably capable military outfits. These boys are superior to Boko Haram in many respects – and Nigeria has been fighting Boko Haram with only little success since 2009. Also, though the North-east does feature a lot of geographical difficulties for the Nigerian military, such difficulties are minor compared with those of the Niger Delta. To attempt to subdue the Niger Delta, the Nigerian military must be ready to fight endless amphibious battles – against people who are seasoned inhabitants of the creeks, lagoons and swamplands of the Delta. It is in the light of these tough realities that President Buhari has wisely suspended military campaigns in the Niger Delta and chosen to urge various citizen groups to appeal to the Niger Delta militants for peace.

Moreover, unfortunately, if more serious war were to come, Nigeria does not now command the alliance that fought against Biafra in the civil war of 1967-70. It is no longer possible for Nigeria to amass the hordes of Middle Belt and Yoruba soldiers that won most of the victories of that civil war. The Yoruba and Middle Belt peoples have found that there is hardly any benefit for them in fighting for Nigeria. All the policies put together by the military regimes since 1970 with the support of theArewaNorh elite,all the centralization of power and resource control and its outcome in horrible poverty across Nigeria,  all the federal attempts made to suppress most other peoples of Nigeria and their cultures, all the strange claims of the Arewa North  elitefor sole control of Nigeria’s federal power, all the religion-based killings of Southerners in parts of the North, all the aggression against the peoples of the Middle Belt and the threats against the Yoruba and other peoples of the South, all the weird happenings ofBoko Haram and the Fulani herdsmen’s killings and destruction in the Middle Belt and the South, all the apparently perpetual strategizing to hurt the peoples of the Middle Belt and the South – all these have fragmented Nigeria beyond measure. A country of many peoples like Nigeria can only be sustained by mutual respect, by a common sincere desire to prosper together, and by a general agreement to obey the agreed rules of co-existence. Unfortunately, Nigeria has been trying hard to forge unity through the weakening (and even destroying) of its various peoples, and has been bruised through impunity after impunity. The sense of “common country” has been vitiated.

Since Buhari has said that the unity of Nigeria must remain, we must understand him to mean that he intends to take steps to mend the wounds of Nigeria in order to ensure Nigeria’s continued existence and unity. We must therefore ask him what the steps are that he intends to take. Until now, over a year since he was sworn in as president, he has said not a single word about such steps.

Countless Nigerians, from all parts of the country, have been clamouring for a restructuring of the Nigerian Federation – to the ends that viable states might be created, andthat much of the powers and resource control perversely crowded into the hands of the Federal Government be devolved to the federating units in order to empower the federating units to promote socio-economic development again, fight poverty, and restore hope to Nigeria. His answer to these demands has been that restructuring is a no-no with him – even though his election campaign promises had included restructuring as an important piece in his Change Agenda.As blood has been continually shed in most parts of Nigeria by well-trained Fulani herdsmen and foreign Libyan mercenaries all armed with highly sophisticated weapons, President Buhari has chosen not to speak to Nigeria, to explain what is happening, to elaborate what the Federal Government of Nigeria intends to do about it, and thereby to allay the fears of Nigerians. On the contrary, reports keep circulating that the Federal Government is intent on getting state governors across Nigeria to grant land for so-called “grazing reserves” for the Fulani herdsmen, even though most Nigerians are expressing  fears that those grazing reserves are yet another plan aimed at hurting various Nigerian peoples. Finally, from most parts of Nigeria, the protest has been loud that President Buhari’s appointments into his government, especially his appointments into the security forces, have given undue emphasis to his North and even ignored some other parts of Nigeria, but his response has been to continue to do more of the same.

From no more than the above, it seems very unlikely that the Buhari presidency will do much to redirect Nigeria away from dismemberment or breaking up – and that would be a pity. Of course, he might intend to use force to keep Nigeria together – but, given the realities of our times, that is a step with very doubtful outcomes. And, in any case, what sort of unity can exist in a country that is kept together by wars and the military conquests of its various peoples? If it comes to that, how many Nigerian peoples, large or small, look like weaklings who will surrender perpetually to armedforce – force by either the regular Nigerian military,or force by irregular militias and Mujaheed in such as Boko Haram or the armed herdsmen and their Libyan mercenary support? No, it is to be hoped that President Buhari will yet choose other paths that can lead to sure and sustainable unity for Nigeria.