America’s stand on arms sale to Nigeria Despite the much touted promise of assistance to Nigeria on the Boko Haram insurgency by the United States of America, it is now very clear that no military assistance will be coming from the country, after all. The US Ambassador to Nigeria, Mr. James F. Entwistle, who made this clear penultimate week, said the position of the US was informed by the unimpressive human rights record of the Nigerian military. He said the highhandedness of the Nigerian Army in its fight against Boko Haram, especially in the North-Eastern part of the country, has been headlined by massive human rights abuses, and that it is the policy of the US government to restrict the flow of arms to such countries and armies. Speaking at the American University of Nigeria (AUN), Yola, the US envoy said: “it will be ungodly for the US to sell arms to Nigeria, a country that its military is notoriously known for human rights abuse. We cannot sell our arms to a country that will use our technology, which is meant for defence of helpless people, to harass helpless citizens”. In addition to this alleged woeful human rights record of the Nigerian Army, Washington is also afraid that the arms so procured could get into the wrong hands, considering Nigeria’s unimpressive control of arms both within the country and across its borders. This is a fear that the US government has always expressed about Nigeria and some other countries which it has identified as failing states. It is rather ironic that the same United States which insists Nigeria is not doing enough to battle the insurgency is citing this legislation and standing in Nigeria’s way as the country tries to procure the arms it desperately needs to end this insurgency. The US’ claim of human rights abuses by the Nigerian military, without any concrete evidence to support it, raises questions on the sincerity of the promise of help to Nigeria. The country’s refusal to sell arms to Nigeria in the face of massive killings of innocent Nigerians by the Boko Haram sect, which oddly appears not to be having much restrictions on its access to arms and ammunitions, calls for raised eyebrows on the real interest of America in this matter. It has, indeed, been argued in some quarters that the US position is its subtle way of ensuring that its prediction about Nigeria collapsing by 2015 comes to fruition. For one, the American government cannot vow that this stance of not selling arms to countries with criminal human rights record has been strictly adhered to in all instances. Global conflicts are replete with instances of the US deliberately backing dictatorial regimes with arms and financial aid – both in the Middle East and Latin America. In those instances, human rights issues were relegated to the background, as narrow selfish interest took preeminence. So, it is rather dumbfounding that the US authorities would block access to arms for Nigeria at this time of critical need when insurgents have virtually overrun the North-Eastern flank of the country. It is amazing that at a time that Boko Haram is unleashing terror on Nigerians, bombing markets, bus stations, schools, kidnapping and killing ordinary citizens at will, the US is barring the access of Nigeria to the arms that could be used to address the situation. The alleged human rights abuses on which America has hinged its position are mostly grossly exaggerated, and they cannot in any way be compared with the horrors and unbridled bloodletting by the Boko Haram sect. The stance of the US on this matter calls to question its genuine determination to see an end to the insurgency in Nigeria. We, therefore, feel that the US ought to rethink its position on this matter, if the Obama administration wants to be seen as serious about its promise of help to Nigeria. The need for a review of the restriction of Nigeria’s access to arms becomes clearer when it is considered that humanity will likely witness even more grave human rights abuses by Boko Haram, if the Nigerian military continues to be starved of arms, while the terrorists continue to enjoy unfettered access to illegal arms. But then, the US position, no matter how ill-informed, is also a wake-up call to the Nigerian Army. In every conventional war, there are always rules of engagement. We cannot throw human rights to the dogs simply because the insurgents have refused to adhere to the rules and are killing at will. We must not engage the terrorists on their barbaric terms. While the rest of the developed world can understand the excesses of the insurgents, which is common with terrorist groups the world over, it is often very difficult to excuse the excesses of a standard, trained force like the Nigerian Army. The time has come for the army to clean up its act. If this is done to an appreciable level, the US would be compelled to reconsider its stance on arms sale to Nigeria. The US ambassador made this very clear when he hinted that Washington would be willing to favourably review its position as soon as there is evidence that things are improving on the human rights front and there is a clear sincerity of purpose on the part of Nigeria in its war against terrorism as well as in the handling of arms so procured. The Nigerian military should, therefore, get its acts together and make a special appeal to the US to give special consideration to the Nigerian situation. That way, we could save ourselves the embarrassment of entering into all manner of rogue agreements to procure desperately needed arms, as recently happened with our misadventure to South Africa. That way too, thieving public officials would not be given a blank cheque to loot our treasury all in the name of striking under-the-table deals to procure arms for our military. Finally, although physical arms and ammunition remain a key plank of the war against terrorism, Nigeria must not also lose sight of the fact that intelligence gathering, proper planning and transparency are equally important.
Posted on: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 05:02:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015