'Nigeria: the context for violence' (2006-2013)

[KingJaja]

No doubt, the political and ethnic difference are at the root of much of the division in Nigeria at present. However, we need not forget that the economic situation is the backdrop that is the breeding ground for the abscesses occurring in the political and ethnic divide.

I wonder, Kingjaja, what you think about this new investment initiative by the government. Does its safeguards against corruption and goals for trickling out into the general economy helpful ... helpful in the sense of medium to long term relief?

People tend to forget that Nigeria was a collection of warring ethnic groups before Pax Britannica. The Nigerian state has attempted to enforce Pax Britannica, but failed. The alternative could be to build a national identity, but we failed to do so for fifty years.

About the SWF, it won't have much impact in Nigeria. The money has to be spend in Nigeria to be effective, and when the money is spent is where the corruption occurs.

[KingJaja]

A Nigerian intellectual's take on the problem of Northern Nigeria.

Only last week, however, an impressive array of mostly Northern notables was convoked for the purpose of finding solutions to the unrelenting violence. These efforts are impressive displays of concern. But among this gamut of views and propositions, there is nothing on the table that suggests that we are prepared to admit the origins of the crisis or intelligently engage on permanent solutions.

While we grope for solutions, to my mind, the region faces three distinct possibilities: First, increased federal security effort could produce a temporary restoration of the pre-existing order of inequality secured by force. Second, the regime of insecurity could become institutionalised to the extent of the region becoming more like Somalia and thus become effectively de-coupled from the rest of the federation. The latter would be characterised by periodic fire fights between armed factions and the rise of warlords. With the characterisation of elements of Boko Haram as part of an international terrorist organisation by the US, we may soon play host to drone attacks on suspected terrorists targets in Nigerian territory. The third more positive possibility is an internal political revolution in which a new leadership emerges to seriously address the challenges of development and modernisation of the region, literally continuing from where the late Sar’dauna of Sokoto left off in 1966.

Most interpretations of the turn of events in the North are mostly as foolish as the blind quest for solutions in wrong directions. The anomy in the region is not exclusively a failure of security. The North is as insecure as the rest of Nigeria and people are not strapping explosive belts around their waists in other parts of the country. It is also not necessarily a political pressure to get a Northern president in 2015. How come Boko Haram has targeted key Northern leaders including, most recently, some traditional rulers and key politicians? It is true Al Queda and other fundamentalist anarchists seek fertile ground in places where poverty and desperation drive people of friendly faith to buy into their theology of mindless bestiality. But the Nigerian show of repeated violence is not strictly theirs; our strategic position vis-a-vis Western interests is mostly marginal but our weak security infrastructure makes this place attractive to casual anarchists, be they Boko Haram, kidnappers or glorified oil thieves erroneously dubbed Niger Delta militants.

http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/...Av7cg.facebook

[Dayuhan]

With the characterisation of elements of Boko Haram as part of an international terrorist organisation by the US, we may soon play host to drone attacks on suspected terrorists targets in Nigerian territory.

This illustrates one of my reservations about a US declaration of Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. Of course it isn't true: most groups on the FTO list have never experienced a drone strike or any other military action. It will be widely believed, though, and if militants believe they're in line for US attacks they've little reason not to attack US or other international targets.

[KingJaja]

This illustrates one of my reservations about a US declaration of Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. Of course it isn't true: most groups on the FTO list have never experienced a drone strike or any other military action. It will be widely believed, though, and if militants believe they're in line for US attacks they've little reason not to attack US or other international targets.

That's the problem. On the one hand, the US insists on keeping this classification system which is of dubious utility, while on the other, being afraid of using it "for fear of attacks on US interests".

The Nigerian public is forming the opinion that the US is either complicit or acquiesces to the existence of Boko Haram, because in their view, if there ever was an "open and shut" case of a Foreign Terrorist Organisation - this is it.

So how can the US spin its self out of this corner? It can't. Eventually, sooner than later, under pressure from public opinion in Nigeria and political pressure from the Republicans - the Obama administration will have to apply the FTO designation to Boko Haram.

[KingJaja]

The Catholic Archbishop of Owerri Diocese, the Most Rev. Anthony Obinna, has said Christians may soon take up arms in self defence, if the killings by the Boko Haram sect continue unabated.
He said Christians will no longer watch religious extremists butcher their loved ones, but would rise up in defence of their lives and faith.
The cleric spoke at the Assumpta Cathedral in Owerri, the Imo State capital, during the media briefing of the Odenigbo Annual Lecture.
He said it is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens and urged the Federal Government to sit up.
Archbishop Obinna said: “It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to protect all citizens, irrespective of religious, ethnic or political affiliations, in any part of the country, but in a situation where it fails to do so, we will take up arms and defend ourselves.”

http://www.thenationonlineng.net/201...%E2%80%99.html

[Dayuhan]

That's the problem. On the one hand, the US insists on keeping this classification system which is of dubious utility, while on the other, being afraid of using it "for fear of attacks on US interests".

It's of no utility at all to Nigerians. It's not meant to be. It's a tool of US policy, no less or more, and it will be used only if the US thinks its use will produce more gain than risk for the US.

The Nigerian public is forming the opinion that the US is either complicit or acquiesces to the existence of Boko Haram

Part of the Nigerian public, perhaps. The FTO designation would convince another part that the US is on the verge of intervening or is actually intervening in a domestic Nigerian problem. The question is which perception is a bigger problem for the US.

So how can the US spin its self out of this corner? It can't. Eventually, sooner than later, under pressure from public opinion in Nigeria and political pressure from the Republicans - the Obama administration will have to apply the FTO designation to Boko Haram.

The US government is not notably responsive to public opinion in Nigeria.

Has the Republican Party been applying pressure to have the FTO designation applied to BH?

We shall see what has to be or does not have to be done. Nothing, I would guess, until after the election, after which the Obama administration may or may not be around. How a Romney administration would handle the situation would handle the situation is a hard call to make, but I suspect that avoidance of perceived or actual foreign entanglement will be high on the agenda no matter who wins.

[Dayuhan]

Couple of comments on the issue:

https://blogs.cfr.org/campbell/2012/...-organization/

Why NOT to Designate Boko Haram a Foreign Terrorist Organization

A group of Nigeria watchers, including myself, has sent the secretary of state a letter urging that northeastern Nigeria’s “Boko Haram” not be given a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) designation.

Boko Haram is different from other FTOs, such as Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Tamil Tigers, which have an organizational structure and a unified goal. Boko Haram is a highly diffuse movement with little, if any, central organization. In fact, the name “Boko Haram” is a label applied only by the Nigerian government, press, and security services, usually to describe the violence occurring (daily) in the north of the country. Most watchers agree that this violence is perpetrated by a myriad of actors, including former followers of the murdered preacher Mohammed Yusuf as well as criminal and other elements.

The uniting feature of Boko Haram is its focus on Nigeria. Its rhetoric does not include international jihadist themes. With the isolated exception of the UN headquarters bombing in Abuja, which is viewed in Nigeria as a collaborator with the Nigerian government, its targets have all been Nigerian, usually police, military, places of worship, and drinking establishments. Notably, most of Boko Haram’s victims have been Muslim...

There's a quote in this one that seemed interesting:

http://www.internationalpolicydigest...-organization/

Nigeria’s Ambassador to the U.S. Prof. Ade Adefuye, said his country was opposed to the declaration of Boko Haram as a FTO for a number of reasons:

• It will enhance the image and prestige of Boko Haram among other terrorist organizations which may be encourage them to strengthen their ties to Boko Haram.
• It will give the impression that Nigeria is not able to contain the sect when it has successfully contained Niger-Delta militants who were more focused, better organized and deadlier.
• An FTO operating in any country is subject to America’s search and destroy operations which includes the sending of drones as is currently happening in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Such activities bring untold suffering to citizens of such countries. “We do not want that in Nigeria,’’ he said.
• The U.S. does not have direct evidence of the dangers posed to it by the activities of Boko Haram.
• That a declaration of a Nigerian-based FTO militants was “strongly against our drive for American foreign investment.’’ He explained that Nigerian citizens arriving at American ports would be treated as inhabitants of an FTO based country and that each traveller would have to prove that he does not belong to Boko Haram.

Does that position accurately represent the position of the Nigerian Government?

[KingJaja]

Nigeria's Islamist terror sect Boko Haram has allegedly changed tactics from bombings to cybercrime with its latest assault - releasing online the personnel records of the country's top spies.

The personal data of more than 60 staff at the State Security Service (SSS), including home addresses and names of immediate family, were dumped online along with a threatening message from Boko Haram.

The SSS has waged a deadly campaign against the sect, which wants to impose Sharia or Islamic law over Africa's most populous country.

The leaks have alarmed analysts who have asked whether agents are too compromised from within to beat Boko Haram.

"This is a national embarrassment," one official told AP.

"I was shocked to see my details posted on the internet," said one former agent. "I've not heard anything from anybody. I was surprised that such information could be leaked."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/37...eria-s-top.htm