An 'Understanding' With Terrorists?

by Eze Eluchie

Would President of Pakistan, Mamnoon Hussein, or any political leader in government or opposition parties in Pakistan, in the midst of ongoing efforts by the Pakistan military and State to liquidate terrorists, visit Waziristan, the hot-bed of Taliban terrorist activities, in a lavish ‘victory parade’, not protected with an extraordinary security operation?

Would President of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani, or any political leader in government or opposition parties in Afghanistan, in the midst of ongoing efforts by the Afghan military and State to liquidate terrorists, visit Jalalabad, the hot-bed of Taliban terrorist activities, in a lavish ‘victory parade’, not protected with an extraordinary security operation?

Is it by accident that Western political leaders committed to the war against terror clandestinely visit Iraq and Afghanistan , announcing such visits only after their airplanes are safely out of enemy airspace on the journey back to their respective countries?

When a ‘politician’ provocatively and lavishly visits terror prone and terror-controlled territories, it is suggestive that there may be a deeper ‘understanding’ between such ‘politician’ and terrorists than would ordinarily be expected.

Does Muhammadu Buhari, the APC Presidential candidate in Nigeria’s forthcoming Presidential elections, who embarked upon a well publicized campaign tour of Bornu State {the hotbed of BH insurgency activities in Nigeria, including a visit to Chibok where a few months ago, the ‘abduction’ of some school girls purportedly by BH had attained international notoriety}, have an ‘understanding’ with the terrorists who have made life precarious and dysfunctional in Nigeria’s North East zone? Is this ‘understanding’ within the scope of law? Would such ‘understanding’ survive forensic examinations and inquiry? Could knowledge of such ‘understanding’ be helpful to domestic and international Security agencies in tackling a most vicious terrorist group that has raped, beheaded, murdered, kidnapped, maimed and committed all manners of vile atrocities against not only Nigerians, but citizens of several countries, including Staff of the United Nations organizations headquarters’ complex in Nigeria.

Perhaps General Buhari knows something the rest of us do not know about BH. The General should be encouraged to share this unique 'understanding'.  

Picture: APC Presidential Candidate, ex Nigerian dictator, General Muhammadu Buhari

Abuses, Sanctions, then Dialogue?

by Eze Eluchie

Often times, relationships between States can be likened to that between persons. Strategies that will work to build better relationships between individuals will suffice to foster and sustain inter-State relationships; and likewise, what will serve as precursor for estrangement between persons will in most cases lead to feelings of ill-will and mutual suspicion amongst countries.

If one truly seeks amity, refraining from use of degenerative language in addressing those one seeks friendship with, mutual respect for the sanctity of each other’s space, and generally being of good conduct regarding the affairs of others serves to engender mutual goodwill and trust and friendship amongst States. Under such environments, issues of mutual benefit to the entities concerned can then be dialogued over with better results.

Bearing the foregoing in mind, one is a bit perplexed at the pattern which seems to have been adopted by Western States in their dealings with Russia over events in breakaway Eastern parts of Ukraine.

Firstly, sequel to the decision of the people of Crimea to join the Russian State, all manners of foul and vile language was used to describe Russia and its leadership with different Western media outlets leading the campaign of calumny. Unbecoming language was casually thrown about, throwing caution to the winds. Some went as low as to describe imagined ailments afflicting the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, which serve to impair Putin’s mental abilities.

Secondly, when that failed to undo the unification referendum and resolution of the peoples of Crimea and the conflict in Eastern Ukraine intensified, debilitating sanctions, in total disregard of international trade laws, such as the World Trade Organization protocols and conventions, were imposed against Russia, leading to a near collapse of the Russian currency and economy.

And then, with the failure of sanctions, spirited efforts, led by German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, are now being focused on what should have been from the very onset, the first line of action: dialogue.

How is this approach supposed to succeed? You abuse first, try out crushing sanctions, then you come to dialogue? And you wish to be listened to with any measure of good faith? Good gracious!

To compound matters, in a recent interview with Vox.com, the US President, Barrack Obama reveals what everyone had long known: that the US “occasionally have to twist the arms of countries that wouldn’t do what we need them to do if it weren’t for the various economic or diplomatic or, in some cases, military leverage that we had – if we didn’t have that dose of realism, we wouldn’t get anything done, either.” And we expect these other countries to continue to dialogue in good faith?

Well the ‘carrot-and-stick’ approach only applies if the entity being dealt with is herbivorous/vegetarian and does not have a stick of its own. If the entity against whom the carrot-and-stick approach is applied is carnivorous (does not really like carrots) and also has several sticks of its own, in this case a nuclear-powered behemoth, strategies simply have to change!

The crisis is, unfortunately, resulting from poor approaches adopted in resolving it, swiftly getting to the point of no return.

Picture: Defective foreign policy approaches escalating violence in Eastern Ukraine

Nigeria needs understanding, not ultimatums!

by Eze Eluchie

At times one really wonders what the foreign policy objective of the Obama administration is regarding Nigeria and sub-Saharan Africa generally.

After frustrating efforts of the Nigerian Government to acquire military assets that would have tilted the course of Nigeria's war against terror against the terrorists, the US Secretary of State has the temerity to express 'displeasure' against the decision independently arrived at by Nigeria's electoral umpires, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), to postpone the general elections on grounds of the rising insecurity occasioned by sustained BH onslaughts?

The statement contained in the Press Release by the State Department to the effect that 'The United States underscores the importance of ensuring that there are no further delays' should be totally discountenanced as unnecessary interference in the workings of our INEC. Let it now be known that there yet exists, under our Constitution, room for further extension if our domestic circumstances so demands. INEC is mandated to ensure that elections must be held not more than 30 days to the handover date of May 29 2015 - theoretically speaking, a further extension can be validly accommodated if INEC deems such necessary.
   
Is there veiled efforts to ensure the destabilization of Africa's most populous country and largest economy? And has the consequences of such vocation been well thought out?

Nigerians are committed to ensuring a free, transparent and credible electoral process within the ambit of our laws recognizing that the lives and safety of our citizenry is of paramount concern. As has become clear to all Nigerians in the course of our war against terror, Nigerians, and mainly Nigerians are the victims. We have to sort these issues by and for ourselves.

In these crucial periods, Nigeria needs the understanding and support of its friends, not veiled threats and ultimatums.

Nigeria will eventually prevail!


US State Department Press Statement on postponement of elections in Nigeria.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/02/237290.htm#.VNdc7vL0thA.twitter


Picture: US Secretary of State, John Kerry {Listen, Nigeria needs understanding, not ultimatums}