Agree that the issues in Nigeria have little to do with ideological radicalization; this is a populace that has been "radicalized" by their situation. The discovery of oil and its effects on the south of the country, and modern ideological salesmen peddling Islamist propaganda are merely working to turn up the heat in this troubled nation. Religion here is geographic and also makes clear breaks on interactions between segments of the larger populace. BL, these people are "radicalized" by their situation, not by their religion.
It's great that USAID wants to help, but such grassroots efforts serve ease our own consciences more than they work to address the problems driving such issues. My concern is the vast amount of oil coming out of Nigeria (I read somewhere that there is the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez oil spill in Nigeria every year due to lax rules (hard to believe that western oil companies would profit at the harm of the environment when rules allow them to...). More importantly the U.S. is like a teenage boy talking to a beautiful girl in such situations. Our judgment becomes impaired, and we do and put up with ridiculous crap that makes our friends shake their heads in wonder.
I suspect we are fearful to press the Nigerian government to make the substantive reforms that could mend the growing rifts in their populace (or address the damage to the global environment) due to a mix of strong lobbying by US Oil companies and concern that China, who is very strong in Africa, will supplant us as the main developer/consumer of this resource (much like we Blue Falconed Great Britain on the Saudi market years ago).
A bilateral US/China approach might be the most effective way to approach this, or a trilat US/EU/China approach. This is about economics and politics; so security constructs such as NATO are really not appropriate to the mission at hand. Unless we continue to ignore the problem and it erupts in a major way, that is.
Bookmarks