Some Nigerians applauded President Goodluck Jonathan’s tough talk
against terrorism when he visited Maiduguri recently. He dismissed the
amnesty request made by elders of Borno state when he categorically
stated that he will not grant amnesty to Boko Haram on the grounds that
it is a faceless terrorist group. Prior to the Borno elder’s request,
The Sultan of Sokoto Alhaji Saa’d Abubakar made a similar request, in
line with the views that had variously been expressed by sections of
the northern elite, including the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF).
Hawkish commentators believe that Boko Haram does not deserve amnesty
and should not be granted amnesty. Such commentators allege that the
scourge of Boko Haram has persisted because of the perception of G
Jonathan as a weak president.
They typically allege that if Boko Haram had sprouted during the
tenure of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, they would long have been
history. They swear that he would have meted out the Odi treatment to
the hotbeds of Boko Haram insurgency in Northern Nigeria and peace would
have since returned to the region. My question to such hawks is, did
peace return to the Niger Delta as a result of the Odi massacre?
Not at all, rather the insurgency became bolder and more daring.
Infact, the Odi massacre became a major turning point to the low
intensity agitation existing in the region at that time. The aggrieved
militant groups of the Niger Delta terrorized the region putting our
national oil infrastructure at grave risk. The Federal Government’s
Joint Military Task Force moved in to restore sanity to the region.
They succeeded in bloodying the nose of the militants but failed
woefully in imposing peace in the region until the late President Musa
Yar’Adua offered amnesty to the militants. Boko Haram is a different
kettle of fish. The worst enemy you can have is one who is willing to
kill himself in order to hurt you. It requires a bizarre mentality to
load bombs on yourself or in a car and head for your target knowing
fully well that you are on a journey of no return. As vicious as the
Niger Delta militants were, they all wanted to live.
None of them deliberately sought to kill himself. It is catastrophic
for any nation to have thousands of suicide driven insurgents within its
borders. It is double jeopardy if the insurgents have learned to
operate through widely scattered cells, making it hard to contain them.
Consequently, I am tempted to ask, is this a war that can be won through
military might? My answer is a capital NO. The pattern across the world
is that military successes in the fight against terrorism are routinely
matched with reversals.
That is why our Joint Task Force routinely announces the capture or
killing of leading Boko Haram commanders and the capture of large cache
of arms and few days later the group engages in lethal strikes somewhere
else. A case in point was the killing of 52 Boko Haram members after Mr
President left Maiduguri, and two days later the insurgents shot two
PDP leaders in the state. A week later they successfully sacked a prison
in Gwoza, Borno State. If military power is a deterrent, America and
its allies with their vast military superiority would have since won the
global fight against terrorism, especially in countries like Iran,
Pakistan, Afghanistan etc.
If military power can do it, Israel would have achieved peace with
the Palestinians. In the past two years Israel invested more than ten
billion dollars in Israeli Defense Force (IDF) operations in Palestine.
But the IDF killed or captured only about 1500 Palestinians, most not
proven terrorists. Worse still, IDF could not stop suicide bombers from
hitting targets within Israel. America and its allies have consistently
maintained that they cannot negotiate with terrorists. Surprisingly that
policy is changing.
Today, they are beginning to talk of winning the hearts and minds of
communities where Islamist terrorists have their havens. Beyond that,
they are beginning to consider the possibility of negotiating with
terrorists because the war cannot be contained. The human costs are
simply appalling. In Palestine, like in Northern Nigeria, the lives of
thousands of innocent people have been disturbed, permanently changed or
destroyed by only a handful of terrorists. Killing people without trial
or proof of guilt invites anarchy. This brings me to the story of a
5-year old boy in Maiduguri who witnessed the brutalization and death of
his father in the hands of soldiers.
Few weeks later, the boy was sent by his mother to buy detergent with
N5. He got to the shop and said to the shopkeeper that he will like to
buy a bomb. Soldiers were alerted and they subsequently questioned the
boy. He told them that his mother sent him to buy detergent but he will
rather buy a bomb. Why do you need a bomb? He said he needs it to kill
the soldiers who killed his father. In effect, as you get rid of one
generation of terrorists, their bitter children are taking their place.
This is precisely why Israel has not achieved peace with its neighbours
and it is precisely why America and its allies are beginning to consider
winning the hearts and minds of communities bearing the scourge of
terrorism.
I think it is pragmatic for Mr President to reconsider his position
on granting amnesty to Boko Haram for the simple reason that Islamist
terrorism is a war that we cannot win through military power. Besides,
the most respected voices in the North have requested for amnesty and
turning it down can only strengthen the resolve of Boko Haram to
continue fighting and encourage many Northerners who have been sitting
on the fence to join the struggle. It is in our collective interest to
work towards a closure of this scourge because the next phase of the
insurgency may not be limited to the North. May the Almighty grant us
the wisdom to solve our problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment