The four-decade situation in the Niger Delta is a 'crisis that will
not go away,' Sabella Abidde writes in Pambazuka News, which 'if not
properly addressed may reverberate across international systems.'
Given that the Nigerian government has proven itself 'incapable' of
solving the problem, Abidde argues the case that 'the time is now for
the international community', 'especially the United States of
America' 'to step in.'
The history of the Nigerian Niger Delta crisis is well known. We know
that this is not a crisis that came about because a group of men and
women got bored and then decided to take on the Nigerian government for
the fun of it. No. This is a crisis that has been brewing for decades.
And for several decades, the Nigerian government thought it could simply
massage cosmetics over deep wounds. The multinational oil companies also
thought they could buy off a group of elites and all would be well. The
international community also acted as if the conflict was a local issue
to be confined to the backwater.
In any case, no one is interested in the blame game. The time is now,
the hours are here for political will and other tangible resources to be
applied to a crisis that, if not properly addressed, may reverberate
across international systems. The Niger Delta crisis, as the world has
now realised, will not soon go away. There is a limit to which people
will endure abuse, exploitation and rape. Because the Nigerian
government has proven incapable of solving this problem, the time is now
for the international community – especially the
United States of America – to step in.
A once localised condition has now become a global imperative, and as
such, we urge the United States to take a leading role in this matter:
Fashion or refashion policies to address the crisis. Appoint an envoy or
a 'czar' for the region. There is precedence for such a foreign policy
initiative. And this needs to be done because the Yar'Adua government,
as events and records have now shown, is clueless and disingenuous.
A critical examination of America's foreign policy in the last two
decades proves that it is concerned with environment issues and with
matters dealing with social dislocations, international health
challenges and uncontrollable migration that are likely to constrict its
resources; and that it is also concerned about activities that are
likely to cause the unplanned disintegration of friendly nations. Above
all, it is concerned about terrorism. We see all these as some of the
end results of the Niger Delta crisis. It is in light of this that we
urge the US to formulate or readjust its foreign policy to accommodate
the ongoing quagmire.
In 1976, human rights were at the centre of President Jimmy Carter's
foreign policy paradigm. Some ethical and moral choices were made.
Today, we expect the United States government, under the tutelage of
President Obama, to make the same choice: Actively participate in
finding solutions to the Niger Delta crisis. It is in the interest of
the US to do so, a utilitarian choice that is in the interest of all
parties. Indeed, America will gain prestige by doing what is right for
Nigeria and for the people of the region.
As of today, we cannot say that the policy toward the region is just,
virtuous or ethical. At a time when there has been untold amount of
inhumanity, neither the State Department nor the White House, has made
unequivocal foreign policy statements that side with the oppressed.
Insofar as the Niger Delta is concerned, we do not see America's moral
principles in motion. She is absent, silent, and seems irrelevant.
During President Obama's visit to Ghana, and Secretary Clinton's visit
to Nigeria and other African countries, African governments, amongst
other things, were advised to adopt democratic principles rooted in
justice, good governance and strong institutions. We have not seen these
in the oil-producing communities or in the country as a whole.
A country's foreign policy practices are generally rooted in
well-established principles and values – principles
and values that are vital for the survival and wellbeing of its people
and national interest. Jerel Rosati tells us that Foreign Policy is the
‘scope of involvement abroad and the collection of
goals, strategies, and instruments that are selected by governmental
policy-makers.' Foreign policy instruments include trade and trade
embargoes, military intervention, veto power, aid, and lending policies.
In the United States, as elsewhere in the world, a number of factors
determine the scope and nature of foreign policy. And whatever those
factors may be, the end game of foreign policy is the furtherance and
sustenance of the national security interest of the state. A country's
foreign policy may, in addition to the interest of self, also benefit
friends and alliances while at the same time deterring foes and
antagonists from engaging in actions that might otherwise cause harm or
derail specific goals.
Foreign policies are not always directed at nation-states alone. The
1646 to1648 Peace of Westphalia “which ended both the thirty and
eighty years' wars in Europe â€" ushered the modern era
where nation states became the primary focus of global politics. In
addition to nation states, foreign policies may be directed at non-state
actors, i.e. non-governmental organisations, multinational corporations,
regimes and institutions, terrorist groups, and oppressed ethnic
nationalities.
For instance, the United States had a policy that protected the Kurds of
Northern Iraq from Saddam Hussein's deleterious policy. What's more, the
US, in collaboration with the United Nations and Portugal, championed
the political independence of East Timor. Occasional missteps aside,
Washington has a long history of championing noble causes: Helping to
free nations and aboriginal groups from the grip of subjugation;
spreading democratic values; preaching free markets and the inalienable
rights of peoples to design their own destiny.
As noble and humane as its foreign policy may be, America has, on
occasions, misread global events and/or misplaced its priorities. At
other times, it simply chooses the wrong cause or the wrong side. This
is rare; but we see this misplacement, misreading and false choice in
its relationship with Nigeria vis-Ã -vis the rich but
ravaged and underdeveloped Niger Delta. The Obama administration also
seems to be committing the same blunder President Clinton committed in
not forcefully dealing with General Sani Abacha in perhaps the darkest
hour in Nigeria's tumultuous history. His carrot and carrot alone policy
allowed Abacha to run amok. And Obama, it now seems, is about to make
the same mistake with Yar'Adua.
What we have in the Niger Delta region is a tragedy and travesty, a
grave injustice; and an unacceptable expression of man's inhumanity to
man. Sadly, this has been the case for over four decades -- “ with
the situation becoming desperately pronounced in the last decade.
Through it all, Washington has been silent; turning blind eye to a
condition that calls for it considerable power and influence. It is not
too late to do so.
And so we implore the United States government to employ its
considerable power and influence: Call the Nigerian government and the
multinational oil companies to order in their treatment of the
oil-producing communities. Indeed, the intervention of the US is
urgently needed in this matter. The Yar'Adua government can no longer be
trusted to find a sustainable solution to the crisis. The government
needs help.
There are several reasons why the White House should get involve in this
crisis:
First, it is simply the right thing to do. The US is not and cannot
always be the world's policeman. Nonetheless, situations such as the low
intensity conflict in the Niger Delta deserve America's attention --
“ especially since we know the root cause of the conflict. And we
also know who the predator and the victims are.
Second, ecological degradation -- “ such as the one we have on
almost every inch and space in the Niger Delta" -- “ is not just a
local problem, it has global implications. Quite a few scientific
findings have shown that environmental degradation negatively impacts
global security and prosperity.
Third, there are systemic studies that indicate that poverty,
hopelessness and cruelty leads people to violence and terrorism. Because
the three variables are present in the region, elements and groups
within the region may be amenable to outside forces looking to recruit
terrorists. In a spider web-like world, terrorism has no boundary.
Fourth, if the economic, political and institutional underdevelopment
continues, the crisis may become too complex and too perilous to
resolve. In time, the cost of oil exploration and distribution may
become very costly. And in fact, the cost of some commercial activities
may become exorbitant as the region is directly tied to the global
economy.
Finally, the continuing crisis may trigger the violent disintegration of
Nigeria, with consequences that may overwhelm the West African sub
region. Should this happen, the United States and Europe will have to
contend with refugees and internally displaced people. The resulting
social challenges may even become a burden on a continent that is
ill-equipped to handle minor crises.
Chief Ojo Madueke, the foreign minister, and the minister of Niger Delta
affairs, Obong Ufot Ekaette, had on several occasions voiced Yar'Adua's
opposition to outside help. Frankly, we think the government should
rescind its opposition. No amount of military armament from Israel or
elsewhere can solve this crisis. The Israelis themselves live in
constant fear of the unknown: Military supremacy in the region has not
assured them a stress-free sleep. President Yar--Adua should
demilitarise the Niger Delta and then come to the table with clean hands
and a clear conscience -- with the United States as the referee.
