•‘We may become a pawn on the chessboard of international politics’
By Shina Abubakar
Nigeria’s former Ambassador to the Philippines, Dr. Yemi Farounmbi, discusses what Nigeria did wrong and what it should be doing in the face of threat by President Donald Trump to send troops to Nigeria in defense of persecuted Christians.
Following Trump’s threat declaring Nigeria a country of particular concern, what do you think is the aftermath of his threat? What did we do wrong, and what did we do right?
If we look at the content of the threat, he was said to have accused the Nigerian government of aiding and abetting what he called Christian genocide. He said that due to the government’s inability to provide security for Christians, America would take action to protect them, fish out the terrorists, and deal with them. There are two things involved in that.
The first, of course, has to do with the sovereignty of Nigeria. As a member of the United Nations, we are recognized as a sovereign nation, not necessarily subject to the threat or bullying of another nation. So diplomatically, it would be considered wrong for America to invade Nigeria. The declaration they have made is allowed under their own laws governing international religious freedom. America has declared several countries like Russia, China, and North Korea as countries of concern. Now, the second issue is their genocide claim.
Is there any veracity in it? We have been trying to say it is not true, but the facts available may not justify our position. The Americans will recall that the Catholic Bishop of Makurdi was there last year to testify before the Foreign Relations Committee of Congress. In his testimony, he talked about Christian genocide in the Middle Belt. He provided evidence, data, and other information. Nigeria did not respond.
Of course, we had no Ambassador who could have contacted Congress to provide alternative data, if indeed we had them. That same Bishop was invited again by the Foreign Relations Committee this year, where he gave additional information about Christians slaughtered on Christmas Day and Easter, and about Christian communities that had been completely wiped out. Nigeria kept quiet. There was no counter move. So, by our silence, we had, in a way, accepted the veracity of the claim.
We all know that Boko Haram, the Islamic State of West Africa Province, and the Islamic State of Greater Sahara have been molesting Nigerians. In some instances, we have been able to prove that these terrorists are not necessarily Nigerians. They were imported either as a result of the collapse of the Gaddafi government or through our own deliberate importation in 2014 to strengthen a particular party to win an election, with the threat that if the party did not win, they would make Nigeria ungovernable. All of these facts are in the public domain. So, making denials may not be the answer. What we ought to do is implement the directive that the President gave to the new service chiefs. At the time he gave this directive, there had been no Trump threat. He talked about the mutation of insecurity, saying that the security problems were taking different forms and must be tackled in their current state. Today, the greatest threat to Nigeria may not be Boko Haram or even the Islamic State of West Africa Province.
It may be the Islamic militias that are ravaging the North East, North West, and North Central, making life difficult for Christians and some liberal Muslims. We have seen instances where Muslims who are not fanatics have been assassinated. So, apart from maintaining that, as a sovereign nation, we should be allowed to solve our own problems, we must also be seen to be addressing the problem the way the President directed the service chiefs.
It would be a lie to deny that the President visited Plateau State after 300 Christians were massacred. We can now begin to take action to show that the state is not a collaborator and that the Nigerian government should not be punished for actions carried out by imported terrorists. The third thing I think we ought to be doing is not in the media but diplomatically. We need to deploy seasoned diplomats who are respected internationally, such as Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, a product of Temple University, who is well respected in American diplomatic circles; and Professor Tunde Adeniran, a product of Columbia University, who is also respected in those circles. There are a few Nigerians like them whose services the government should secure to reach the Black Caucus in Congress, the Foreign Relations Committee, and black leaders. A respected citizen like Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, whose voice carries weight across the world, could also be deployed to explain our situation and renew confidence in the government. This is what I expect.
As it seems now, what in your opinion is the best-case scenario as well as the worst-case scenario for Nigeria?
I don’t think Trump is going to invade Nigeria. I think he has simply brought the issue to the front burner. Even in the past week, we have seen reports that many terrorists are migrating out of Nigeria because they do not belong here in the first place. We have also seen that in some parts of the North East, over 30 people who had been held by terrorists were rescued after the military destroyed their base. This kind of determined demonstration to protect Nigerians irrespective of faith, tribe, or class is what we like to see. So, I don’t expect any worst-case scenario as long as the new service chiefs continue with renewed vigor.
When terrorists are captured, they should be taken to court and punished appropriately. In the past, it appeared that terrorists were not made to face justice. For instance, in the case of Deborah’s killing, nothing happened to the culprits. If we change our attitude, the world will take note. These days, you do not need diplomatic cables to monitor reports. The international and social media report everything in real time. So, we must protect our citizens, whether Christian or Muslim, poor or rich. When the outside world begins to see that, they will know that the government is not a collaborator or supporter of terrorists.
You already said you are not expecting any worst-case scenario. But in the midst of all this, China and the European Union have expressed support for Nigeria. What do you think this means for the country?
For me, we should first sort out our own problems. If we had done that, nobody would be talking about all these issues. We may become a pawn on the chessboard of international politics because of the continuing rivalry between China and the USA and the intervention of the European Union.
All of these may boost our image as a striving country, but we should still solve our own problems. We cannot deny that we have security problems. The perpetrators might not be Nigerians, but the incidents are happening in Nigeria. When Sunday Igboho operated in Igbo Ora, he showed evidence that some Fulani herders there did not speak the Nigerian version of Fulfulde but one with a French intonation, proving they were not Nigerians. We were careless because for years we did nothing. Now is the time to act and protect ourselves.
The Fulani, Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo, and the over 350 ethnic groups in Nigeria have always lived together in peace. In my village, there are Fulani families who have lived there for more than 100 years. Their children bear Yoruba names and speak better Yoruba than I do.
We have never had problems. But when you import terrorism, you must combat it because it can be dangerous. Rather than allow ourselves to become a pawn in the rivalry between China and America, let us solve our own problems so that we can continue to enjoy our country as we always have.
In the midst of all these, many people still believe that there are ulterior motives for the US President declaring Nigeria a country of particular concern, and that Christian genocide is just a smokescreen. What is your thought on this?
I have listened to theories that claim it is because of our resources, especially crude oil. I think those arguments are uninformed. America has not bought a single barrel of crude oil from Nigeria since the Jonathan administration. They discovered they have enough from shale and have since turned inward for their own supply. Since Jonathan’s time, Nigeria has relied on countries like India for crude exports. So, it cannot be about oil. However, it can be political.
Trump became President riding on the wave of conservative Pentecostalism. He may not be a good Christian, but politically, that was his platform. Now that the midterm election results have been devastating for the Republicans, with defeats in places like New York and California, he may want to return to his base and do what conservative Americans want to hear—this pretentious Pentecostalism. So, it might be for political reasons.
To think it is about our resources is wrong. We sometimes lack a sense of history. We forget that when we wanted to remove Jonathan from power, we sent a team to meet the American Secretary of State. That influenced Obama’s policies against Jonathan. What is happening now is similar to what we did before.
We must face our problems, solve them, and make our people happy. We should be so committed to Nigeria that citizens will be ready to defend it irrespective of the might of America or any other country. If we fail to do this, we will continue to deceive ourselves. For too long, we have refused to face reality. When the Fulanis destroy things, we say they are not Fulanis but “herders.” Who are the herders? They are not Hausas. So, why are we refusing to face reality and solve our problems so that our country can focus on development in today’s world?
The post Trump: Nigeria should not be punished for actions carried out by imported terrorists — Amb Farounmbi appeared first on Vanguard News.
