It is an election eve gift for President Goodluck Jonathan and what a massive boost from the most unexpected quarters, United States, an initially strongest supporter but lately coolest in any wish for Jonathan’s political fortune in the 2015 elections, which, every passing day to the monumental event, are turning out to be the toughest in his political life. United States did not deliberately set out to boost Jonathan’s image in this daunting matter of the kidnap of secondary school girls in Chibok, Borno State. In fact, even if inadvertently, United States could only have worsened Jonathan’s public image problem(s) but for the disastrous end of America’s armed misadventure in Yemen. For some years, two hostages, a British American citizen, Luke Somers and a South African, Pierre Korkie had been kidnapped and held by Muslim fundamentalists in Yemen. The incident remained almost unknown at least to Nigerians. Meanwhile, Boko Haram drew world attention to Nigeria more disgustingly than the insurgents’ notorious indiscriminate violence on everything – fellow Nigerians, institutions, universities, schools, churches, mosques etc. Eight months ago, Boko Haram introduced a new dimension to their insurgency by kidnapping innocent almost 300 girls at a secondary school in Chibok, Borno State. It all seemed the frightening development would be short-lived, hence, the nationwide and foreign demands on the Jonathan administration to rescue the girls. Even American President Barack Obama’s wife, Michele joined with her placard calling for the release or rescue of the girls. Then, at Abuja, there was the spring-up of concerned Nigerians, mostly otherwise gainfully employed ladies who, since then, sacrificed their time to daily agitate for the return of the Chibok girls. The kidnap incident was enough trouble for Jonathan. What really put his back on the wall to be facing darts from all directions was how to rescue the girls, and that attracted negative criticisms, demanding armed rescue attempt. In the midst of that intermittent pressure, Jonathan was stoutly advised in this column several times on the risk if he dared armed rescue attempt. The portent was mass bloodshed, as any number of the Chibok girls could be murdered by Boko Haram in sheer desperation. Even if in the process, Boko Haram captors of the girls were killed by the armed rescue team, that would not save Jonathan from total blame nor console the bereaved parent of the Chibok girls in that situation. Whether in strict response to the series of solo advice in this column not to risk armed rescue attempt or in his own personal stand on the crisis, President Jonathan refrained from any armed rescue attempt, despite the unending criticisms and calls for the deployment of armed troops to rescue the girls. United States government sent well-armed soldiers to rescue the two kidnapped hostages at Yemen last weekend. Both were killed by their captors, along with other unlucky victims around! Last week’s American tragedy in Yemen even till now is hardly known to ordinary Nigerians who, even tomorrow, may join renewed calls on Jonathan to embark on armed rescue attempt. It must be emphasised that this column feels vindicated for being in the forefront, opposing any idea of armed rescue attempt for the Chibok girls. What America gambled in Yemen and ended in disaster, a bloody mess, was what Jonathan has refused to do, as it turned out, quite rightly in the matter of the Chibok girls. Despite the chilling fact that the stalemate on the Chibok girls is running into its 300th day, it is a stalemate worth sustaining, no matter the agony. At least, our over 200 Chibok girls are safely presumed to be alive while their American co-hostages in Yemen are indisputably dead. Yes, the plight of the girls whilst in captivity gives any observer disturbing real or imagined experiences. But reports of the bloodshed of the girls in any rescue attempt will be worse. It remains a sound judgment on President Jonathan’s part not to contemplate armed rescue attempt. Ironically, Jonathan’s vindication on not subjecting the Chibok girls to the risk of mass bloodshed is passing completely unnoticed in Nigeria. Jonathan has his failures in other areas but on the threatening indefinite captivity of the Chibok girls, the man should be appreciated for his self-restraint. 1979 is a long time since America first failed in armed rescue attempt of its hostages in Iran. Thirty-five years later, the Yankees in their almighty military prowess, unfortunately again, taught the world, at least Nigeria, the hard lesson of waiting bloodshed in armed rescue attempts on hostages. Notably, on their part, Americans of all strata, took the Yemen kidnap hostage armed rescue disaster in good faith. Should that tragedy have occurred in Nigeria with the Chibok girls, Goodluck Jonathan would have faced unpredictable and unpleasant backlash from all quarters, including the short sighted hawks pushing for armed rescue. By the way, Jonathan’s vindication by the American tragedy in Yemen does not in any way dimmish the well-meaning action of the ladies protesting in Abuja demanding the return of the Chibok girls. The protesters never demanded the return of the girls by any means. Indeed, the Abuja protesters have never demanded armed rescue attempt. Accordingly, their protest all along was mainly to sustain the plight of the Chibok girls in public mind, and will continue to serve that purpose. On the precipice of contempt? Former President Olusegun Obasanjo is back in public domain, in his natural role of controversy. He wrote his autobiography simultaneously with his memoirs, a right of any current or past public office holder. The man often detests k-leg(s) in efforts or plans of fellow citizens but never saw such handicap in the timing and part-contents of his three-volume memoirs or autobiography. Obasanjo released his books at a time he was facing a libel suit in court over his public comments on one of his erstwhile political associates. Furthermore, the very subject of his libel suit forms major content of the memoirs. Thirdly, the trial judge imposed an injunction, stopping the release of the books to the public till the end of the libel suit trial. Fourthly, the court duly protected Obasanjo’s possible financial loss if eventually the injunction were to be evacuated. Towards that end, the trial court made the plaintiff in the libel suit, Buruji Kashamu (to) enter a bond payable to the court registrar, all estimated financial loss Obasanjo might have incurred, if at the verdict, the court discovered publication of the books should not have been restrained. Obasanjo still went ahead and launched the books but created an escape route. Obviously, he was not served the court order before he launched the book on the next working day or thereabout. He should have kept within that seeming impregnable defence. Unfortunately, Obasanjo passed his own judgment on the Nigerian bench. Those sitting there? Obasanjo even took an undisguised swipe at the judge who granted the injunction. From all media reports, Obasanjo said, “in a normal judiciary, the judge should be sanctioned and I hope something will be done.” In return, Justice Ashi of Federal Capital Territory Wuse, Zone 11 court ruled that the launching of Obasanjo’s books contravened his earlier (judge’s) order stopping or at least postponing the public release of the book. The judge also ordered Obasanjo to explain why he should not be tried for contempt of court, within 21 days. Will Obasanjo respond? Nigerians are waiting. Among Russia, US and Nigeria Nigerians should be enjoying the diplomatic tango among United States, Nigeria and the old bear, Russia. Suddenly, the Americans announced the termination of a training programme for Nigerian soldiers as part of America’s contribution to ending the Boko Haram insurgency. In a cordial atmosphere, such an announcement should have been jointly. But in this case, only the Americans spoke. How times have changed. Four years ago, United States was the chief political gynecologist, which delivered the Jonathan administration. Even before ailing former President Umaru Yar’Adua died, American serving secretary of state Hilary Clinton and her predecessor Condoleeza Rice virtually forced the Jonathan administration on Nigeria. Thanks to National Assembly, which in a panic under American pressure, amended Nigerian constitution through a nebulous doctrine of necessity. Governor Dambaba Suntai of Taraba State has been invalid for the past two years. Yet, the same principle of necessity with which the fate of President Yar’Adua was sealed, could not be applied to the Taraba State governor even as the man is unable to stand or recognize his environment. A lot has happened since four years ago to make President Goodluck Jonathan and his American mentors no longer compatible. Hence, the termination of the military training program at Nigeria’s request. In a way, the disagreement between Nigeria and United States on arms sales is more of history repeating itself. America could not sell combat aircraft to Nigeria for a quick kill of the Boko Haram insurgents. It was the same story during the civil war. America’s refusal to sell arms to Nigeria offered the defunct Soviet Union the long-awaited opportunity to establish its influence in Nigeria by picking on the emotive issue of “balkanization” of Nigeria if Biafra succeeded. Nigeria, with Soviet arms, survived even tenuously, as one country. On the other hand, the very same Balkan countries have all disintegrated into different sovereign countries. The major country in the Balkans, Yugoslavia has disintegrated after a bitter civil war, into Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania etc. Even the former Czechoslovakia has since split into two independent countries. There are even worse ironies. The old Soviet Union, which opposed disintegration of Nigeria, has since disintegrated under the Presidency of Mikhail Gorbachev, into over 20 different independent nations among which are Russia and Ukrane. Russia, which backed Nigeria against secession during the civil war is the same Russia currently supplying arms to Crimean to hasten the territory’s secession from Ukraine. If the subtle secession attempt of Boko Haram is wrong in Nigeria, why should Russia be supporting secession in Crimea, part of Ukraine? In another twist, United States, while not selling arms to Nigeria to combat Boko Haram insurgency, is the chief backer of Ukraine against Russian support for the current attempted breakaway of Crimea from Ukraine. Insurgency in different parts of the world presents conflicting situations for United States and Russia.
Posted on: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:48:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015