Travel Ban on Nationals of Seven Muslim-Majority States: Donald Trump, You Got It Wrong!

by Eze Eluchie,

The bombastic that he is, when Donald Trump as a candidate for the US Presidential elections was announcing at virtually all his campaign stops that he would, if elected, ban all Muslims from travelling into America, many an observer felt that such gross talk was merely to key into the base sentiments of the so-called middle-class fellows who had been abandoned by globalization and felt a need to ‘retrieve their America’ from whosoever.

The candidate is now POTUS and to the consternation of the international community, what had been thought of as mere campaign rhetoric has been signed into an Executive Order which bans travel to the United States of America by nationals of the following 7 Muslim-dominated countries, to wit: Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq and Iran! By fiat, a blanket embargo had been placed on all individuals whose sole criteria was being nationals of the 7-listed countries irrespective of their personal differences.

Whenever there is a blanket labelling of any group of people based on their religion, race, colour, particular physical peculiarities or other subjective criteria, and such subjective criteria forms the sole basis of apportioning benefits or liabilities, humanity hurts; as fairness, justice and equity takes the backseat. Experts in human psychology will readily confirm the commonality of our humanity. Human beings, of whatsoever race, creed, colour and wheresoever they may be located on earth are comprised of a similar number of basic building blocks, chromosomes. Saintly or criminal dispositions can be found in peoples of all races, nationalities and religions. Just like there are persons of saintly dispositions who happen to be nationals of European and North American countries or of any creed whatsoever, there are also persons of same disposition amongst the countries who are now subjected to very unfair categorizations resulting from the Executive Order, irrespective of creed.

What really did Mr. Trump hope to achieve by this clearly not well thought out blanket ban? Further alienate the nationals of these countries? Increase the recruitment base for extremist Islamist terror organizations? Make nationals of the listed countries who might have contributed or are contributing or intending to contribute to US advancement have a rethink? Ready the minds of other Muslim-dominated countries and Muslims generally where ever they may reside of whatever nationality (including Americans) begin to harbour ill-will against the US? The questions are endless, all in the negative without any likely positive purpose of such blanket ban.

When it is realized that nationals of the embargoed countries have not participated in any terrorist attacks against the US on US soil for the past several decades, as opposed to some other financially and strategically well-endowed countries Muslim-dominated countries within the same region whose nationals seem to have a passion for attacking the US (particularly Egypt and Saudi Arabia whose nationals formed the bulk of the terrorists who participated in 9-11), the use of the guise of security threats posed by nationals of the listed countries as the excuse to place the blanket ban exposes a unique personal flaw of Mr. Trump that had previously only been hinted at – a willingness to move against supposedly weaker states whilst shying away from confronting stronger adversaries – the countries whose nationals are banned from travelling to the US, with the exception of Iran, are relatively weak states.

Immediate dire consequence of this ban will manifest firstly in Somalia, where efforts to shore up the internationally recognized Government will be be dealt a near fatal blow by the blanket categorization of all Somalis.  Al-Shabab will be celebrating the travel ban as most Somali’s will now have no other option than to pitch tents with its ‘the-West-hates-us’ ideology.  The people of Sudan who are now made to join their long-term dictator and fugitive from ICC-trial, Omar al-Bashir in the list of those banned from travelling to the US may begin to rethink their hostility to Al-Bashir who is now made to look like ‘one of them’. The only entities who are celebrating the travel ban will surely include ISIS, AQIM, l Qeida and other extremist Islamist terror groups whose job of soliciting for more converts has suddenly been made easier.

There is no doubt that every country has the right to protect its citizens from harm and terrorists the best way it knows how, but such protections cannot be in a manner that contradicts basic norms of decency and has all the potential of boomeranging  to cause greater harm.  It is difficult to see in any way the travel ban would benefit any interests of the United States or its position as a leading democratic nation or the so-called ‘leader of the free world’.  

On the ban of travel to the United States for nationals of 7 Muslim majority countries, Mr. Trump, you got it woefully wrong!

Picture: Placard at rally protesting the travel ban.

Nigeria's Continuing Manifestations of Religious Bigotry and Intolerance

by Eze Eluchie,

When an ethnocentric and religious bigot presides over a secular country, systematic efforts to outlaw all other religions except the bigots religion takes center stage (such as the present instance of exclusion of all other religious associations except the Islamic Muslim Student Society of Nigeria in a university funded from state treasury).

This effort at religious cleansing by the Umar Musa Yar'Adua University, Katsina State, is merely one of several of its kind going on simultaneously across the country masterminded by government agencies. Other manifestations of religious bigotry (some of which have taken place with explicit support and or encouragement of Nigeria's Federal Government, include: Ethnic and religious cleansing, interference in the management of Christian religious organizations, demolition of Christian places of worship, abolition of Christian association from educational institutions and other public forums, and so on. These efforts will continue and perhaps only abate when frontally confronted.

FREEMIND and the various media associated with it and FB Page had, prior to the 2015 presidential elections, severally warned Nigerians of the character and persona of Mr. Buhari prior to the 2015 general elections. Now as religious bigotry manifests in high political offices in Nigeria, and the highest political office for that matter, Nigerians and the rest of the interested international community should brace themselves for what portends to be a most turbulent period – as there is bound to be resistance to the unfolding evil.

For any still interested in keeping the Nigerian contraption as an entity, the very first steps must be how to, within the provisions of the law, get the Muhammadu Buhari-led junta and its ethno-religious extremist mannerisms out of office as soon as possible.

Restructure and Renegotiate the Nigerian contraption whilst there is yet time.....

Picture: Copy of circular banning all religious except the Islamic Muslim Students Society of Nigeria in a publicly funded university in the home State of President Buhari.

ECOWAS Illegitimate War of Aggression Against The Gambia.

by Eze Eluchie,

For starters, let it be clearly understood that the actions of the President of The Gambia, Yahya Jammeh, to unilaterally seek to annul the results of the Presidential elections held in his country on 1st of December 2016 which he himself (President Jammeh) had voluntarily accepted defeat and publicly congratulated the winner thereof, is most reprehensible, unfortunate and unbecoming of a genuine leader.

President Jammeh’s action has been rightly condemned by the international community, with unanimous resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Presidential Council, amongst several others.

All over the world, there are international conventions and protocols, and proper procedures and channels for addressing misconducts and harms by Heads of States or other high ranking state officials,  against the people over whom they rule, particularly if such misconducts threaten the peace and stability of the country concerned and the sub-region or the wider international community. Proper care is always taken to ensure that justice is served

It is in the light of the foregoing that it has become imperative to assess the reaction of the Authority of the Heads of Government of ECOWAS to the political crisis in The Gambia and gauge whether such reaction is legitimate, commensurate with the transgressions/wrongs allegedly committed, or if the ECOWAS reaction itself opens another Pandora box of transgressions and illegalities which the international community should rightly step into to ensure that justice is served.

After its initial response of condemning Presidents Jammeh’s repudiation of his concession of defeat and the failure of a Delegation of its member states Heads of Government which sought to compel President Jammeh to leave office as scheduled, the Authority of Heads of State of ECOWAS (the highest organ of the West African sub-regional inter-state union) proceeded to order President Jammeh to vacate his office at the expiration of his tenure by midnight on the 18^th of January 2017, or risk being forcefully removed from office by military action.

The order of the Authority of Heads of State of ECOWAS immediately raised tension across The Gambia, leading to mass exodus of peoples from Banjul, its capital city, to the hinterland and, with several thousands more fleeing from The Gambia to neighbouring Senegal and beyond. As the deadline approached, military hardware and soldiers from ECOWAS member states (Nigeria, Senegal, Togo and Mali) amassed around The Gambia in very hostile manners, preparatory for an invasion to implement the order to vacate office imposed by the Authority of Heads of State of ECOWAS.

ECOWAS ACTION IS UNLAWFUL AND ILEGAL.

The relationship amongst ECOWAS member states is governed, basically, by the provisions of the ECOWAS Treaty as revised. A fundamental principle upon which ECOWAS is rooted is the principle of non-aggression against member states, as provided in Chapter II, Article 4(d) of the ECOWAS Treaty.

Chapter II, Article 4(e) further provides for “maintenance of regional peace, stability and security through the promotion and strengthening of good neighbourliness”, whilst Chapter II, Article 4(d)  provides for “peaceful settlement of disputes among Member States, active co-operation between neighbouring countries and promotion of a peaceful environment as a prerequisite for economic development”.

Nowhere in the ECOWAS Treaty is there a mandate for member states to wage war against other member states.

The Authority of Heads of State of ECOWAS has no powers whatsoever to unleash war or send in troops under any guise, more particularly in an aggressive manner, against the Government and peoples of The Gambia.

Quite contrary to the use of force and waging of war against member states, the ECOWAS Treaty, very explicitly provides for referral to its Community Court of Justice, which is situate in Abuja, Nigeria. Most unfortunately,  in its haste to remove President Yahya Jammeh from office, ECOWAS and its Authority of Heads of States is in default of Chapter III, Article 7 (3) {g} and {h} of the ECOWAS Treaty which provides as follows: “to refer where it deems necessary any matter to the Community Court of Justice when it confirms, that a Member State or institution of the Community has failed to honour any of its Obligations or an institution of the Community has acted beyond the limits of its authority or has abused the powers conferred on it by the provisions of this Treaty, by a decision of the Authority or a regulation of the Council;

(h) request the Community Court of Justice, as and when necessary, to give advisory opinion on any legal questions”

Only the African Union and the United Nations Security Council have the mandate, under their enabling charters to order military actions against recalcitrant governments and or entities. The activities and war being waged against the peoples of The Gambia by the ECOWAS and its Authority of Heads of States tantamount to a war of aggression under international law.

Impending Mass Murders and Mass Atrocities.

Having concluded that military action by ECOWAS and its constituent states against The Gambia over mere electoral matters is a wasteful and vicious war of aggression, it  will be apt to access the quantum of harm that will be occasioned, the entity leading the assault on The Gambia and its peoples and likely consequences thereof.

Already, an armada of forces comprised of soldiers from Nigeria, Senegal, Togo and Mali have amassed on the borders of The Gambia. The Gambia basically has no functional army. Considering the number of troops amassing at the borders of The Gambia, in the event of an appropriate and expected resistance from security personnel of The Gambia, a massacre of Gambian forces will ensue.  

Also considering the records of precision in the deployment of bombs and other arsenal of the lead-country in the assault against The Gambia, heavy civilian causalities will certainly occur. The Nigerian troops who are leading the assault against The Gambia are synonymous with abuse of right of civilians in Nigeria and just within the past 48 hours had bombed an Internally Displaced (IDP) Camp situate in Nigeria killing over 100 civilians comprised of the IDP’s and some field staff of international humanitarian organizations. Massive civilian causalities can be presumed from the war of aggression being waged by ECOWAS against The Gambia.

For the deaths and atrocities resulting from an illegitimate and unlawful war of aggression, there ought to be consequences to prevent repeats of such rascality in international relationship between states.

Worrisome Consequences:

What makes the situation in The Gambia more worrisome is the fact that internal and domestic conflict resolution mechanisms were basically not explored as the Authority of Heads of State of ECOWAS appeared in a haste to flex powers that were far outside its mandate. To compound matters, the Parliament of the Republic of The Gambia, had as a stop-gap measure, passed a resolution conferring legitimacy for a 90-day extension of tenure for President Jammeh, a resolution whose validity was yet to be tested in under existing mechanisms of The Gambia. In other words, if forces of the military of ECOWAS member states invade The Gambia to install a new President on the 19^th of January 2017 as is being threatened, ECOWAS would have set a very worrisome precedent of ousting a legitimate government of one of its member states.

ECOWAS is setting a dangerous precedent for itself and countries within the union. If an invasion can be undertaken for mere electoral issues for which available local remedies have not been exhausted, who knows what excuse will found the next military invasion of another member state further down the line? Will it be legitimate if the military of any two or more member states of ECOWAS invade another ECOWAS member state to stop the maltreatment or marginalization of ethnic minorities? Will it be legitimate for such invasion to be undertaken over commercial issues? ECOWAS has indeed opened a new vista of problems and conflict for itself from which extrication will not be easy.

Picture: Map and Flags of ECOWAS member states and the Arch 22 in Banjul, the capital city of The Gambia.