Dr. CHRIS OGBOGBO, lawyer and former Head, Department of History, University of Ibadan, in this chat with Assistant Politics Editor, DANIEL KANU, speaks on contending issues in the country’s international relations, among others
Recently, a seminar where you were a discussant reflected on issues militating against the development of the country. What informed the gathering?
Dr. CHRIS OGBOGBO
It is true that the Ibadan school of History decided to organise a seminar to mark Nigeria’s 100 years (of amalgamation) and the rationale behind it is basically to say we cannot afford to be quiet at such a historic turn in our nation’s history. With regard to the high points or challenges Nigeria as a nation has faced, you can only interrogate that when you look at it from the various sectoral perspectives. First and most important is the question of nation-building; second is the welding of Nigerians together. Can we say that the various component units that were brought together in 1914 have been forged in such a way that we now have what we can call Nigerians as different from people from their various ethnic cleavages? That is one of the major challenges we tried to interrogate. We also tried to look at what the pains and gains have been for different parts of this country; that is the six geo-political zones. For most Nigerians, it would appear that the events in the past, say 20 years, had made it look like it has all been sorrowful. But some of us venture to argue that the totality of the Nigerian picture, despite distresses and strains, is that Nigeria has come a long way and we are marching forward positively.
What were some of the problems you really identified as militating against the nation’s growth?
First is the question of unity; second is the issue of leadership and the character of leadership that is directly linked with the character of the Nigerian state. It is clearly a predatory state and there is the issue of our social values, the fact that, unlike before, there has been a cascading downwards of our social values as a people. There is the religious factor, and we have seen how it has generated a lot of tension and has become a source of disunity within the Nigerian state. We have highlighted a lot of these issues and they have given us a clear picture of where we are in terms of our scoresheet in the country.
At what point did we get it wrong?
It is true that there were some challenges, a good number of them that you can trace to the colonial period. However, I will prefer to start my analysis from 1960 when Nigerians took charge of their own affairs. From 1966, it would appear that the incursion of the military into our political space not only disrupted our political march towards democracy; it also polluted our social and economic values and had very deleterious consequences on our political structure. Don’t forget that it was the military that led us into a civil war, and it does not appear as if we have learnt sufficiently from the consequences of the war. The very essential lessons we ought to have derived from it we seem to have glossed over. If you ask me, as a historian, I would locate it at the time the military intervened in our body polity. They not only corrupted the political system, they also fouled the economic and social values of the Nigerian.
What is your position on the prediction that Nigeria will disintegrate by 2015?
There is no basis for that, despite our challenges. Looking into our history, 100 years where we are coming from show that Nigerians are not ready to disintegrate. The things that bind us together even before 1914 are more than the things that threaten to disintegrate us.
How would you react to the current security challenge in the country?
The current security challenge in the country is very unfortunate. We have been having series of such challenges in the past. We were just getting out of the one in the Niger Delta, but the most critical of all today is the Boko Haram episode. Don’t forget that it did not start with President Goodluck Jonathan’s era; but when he took over, there was a heightening of the activities of the group. Initially, a lot of people felt that government was handling it with kid gloves. Government then stepped up its security apparatus to deal with the problem. My position is that it has become apparent that it is not just a government problem; all Nigerians, particularly those of us far from the scene where the violence is taking place, must not just be interested but must bring our wherewithal to bear in trying to find a solution to the problem. We must begin to defend our territory from our neighbour’s territory. As far as I am concerned, it is a declaration of war on the Nigerian state. Countries fight wars and they don’t lose as many persons as we have lost, given the activities of the Boko Haram.
Do you see sabotage in the system, given that government had sometimes raised alarm?
Well, sabotage can be looked at from two perspectives: those who deliberately sabotage and those who have knowledge – though they are not originally part of the group – but keep silent. Then, there is a third category emerging; those who have been intimidated into being silent if they must remain in the South East part of the country. Clearly, because of the religious flavour, there are some people who are in government or in government parastatals who may share the same kind of religious ideological views with the Boko Haram. To that extent, such persons will become sources of sabotage to the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Do you see the Boko Haram scourge having any international implication for the country?
Of course, the international dimension is massive. Consistently, the literature on Boko Haram is indicating that a good number of them have their camps outside the Nigerian geographical area. Don’t forget that the first time the military moved in massively, it was to the extent that they were flying flags within the Nigerian borders, in territories that ought to be for Nigerians. Of course, we have also traced the fact that in terms of manpower and supply, you cannot take away the activities of Boko Haram sect from the Libyan upheaval and the movement of some of those rogue fighters with their arms and ammunition providing for the Boko Haram both in terms of weapons and mercenaries. Of course, their religious inclination indicates that their religious linkages go beyond the frontiers of the Nigerian territory. All these, no doubt, have serious international implications.
Recently, the federal government carried out a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rebasing exercise that presented Nigeria as the biggest economy in Africa, but most Nigerians are worried that the exercise did not reflect on the quality of life of the Nigerian. Was the action worth it?
Yes, I believe it is worth it. I think Nigerians, for obvious reasons which I call the burden of history, have become very pessimistic people. The truth is that the rebase is to look at what they would have done a long time ago to see how the Nigerian economy has been growing and changing, the structural changes that have taken place. It is true that given the size of the economy, it is not directly commensurate with the standard of living of the people. But don’t forget that it is all about your GDP. How big your economy is does not translate to how the wealth of the country is distributed; but the fact that your economy is growing. Growth is different from development, and its impact on the people is different.
Nigeria claims to be the giant of Africa, but the treatment the country receives even from small countries appear to be embarrassing, as the country sometimes tends to be silent on critical international issues. Why is it so?
There are various perspectives to look at the tag, giant. It may be in terms of size, population, endowment, our capability and our foreign policy towards our African neighbours and Africans all over the world. Yes, we have shown sufficient concern as the history of our foreign policy indicates. However, when it comes to treatment, we have been given bad treatment. As we always say in international relations, “foreign policy is a product of your domestic setting”. When in your domestic setting you have too many challenges, you discover that you cannot come together with one voice as a strong nation to condemn any act that affects you negatively in the international setting. Look at how Nigerians are being treated outside this country, even in places like Ghana. Recently, a Nigerian student was killed in Ghana. That incident is sufficient for the Ghanaian government to answer questions with regard to that incident, to serve as a warning that such a thing must not happen again and that they will be answerable to the Nigerian state when they treat a Nigerian in that manner. But we are too busy, too factionalised within the country. Elsewhere, when such a thing happens, both the opposition and the ruling party would come together, because what is required at that point is to say, no, this cannot happen to a Nigerian. As a Nigerian, I am not satisfied with the kind of protection Nigerians get outside their territory. But sadly, you also ask yourself, within our country, are we well protected? Are people not dying like chickens? And that is why I said when your domestic policy is well-packaged, it will reflect in your external relations with other countries.
What do you think should be done?
To change this perception, there will be need to re-invigorate the foreign policy unit of the Nigerian state. What do I mean by that? We should become more proactive. For most of the carrots we have given out in the past, it is time they started yielding fruits. We demand respect from not just our fellow Africans, but even from the major powers. Look, Nigeria plays all her roles in the international arena. Is it in peace-keeping? For every three black soldiers you find in any peace-keeping effort across the globe, two are Nigerians. So we have played our role. We have to demand what is due to us as a people, as a country, and then, more importantly, put our house in order because that itself will elicit respect. They will know that it is not business-as-usual.
What you have said requires strong leadership. Do you think the leadership we have can rise to this challenge?
The leadership can, but now they have not adequately done so. I will say that the leadership will need what I may call a re-calibration of some of these challenges, particularly in the foreign ministry. Most of our foreign policies will need to be given a bite. I was happy when South Africa started saying we must have Yellow Cards, and Nigeria called them to order immediately. We want more of such actions in our relationship with other countries. Look at the unfortunate comment that President Robert Mugabe, at his level of governance, made concerning Nigeria on corruption.
As we approach 2015, are you in any way worried?
I am not afraid. I am concerned, but I want to say it is good for this country. What we are witnessing – and it looks as if everywhere is shaking – is what I call the emergence of the minorities in Nigeria within the nation’s political space. The minorities have realised their powers both in the South and in the North, and it is not going to be business-as-usual. Most of the security challenges we have in the Northern part of this country, from Jos to the North East, are partly because the minorities are beginning to challenge the status quo: the Hausa-Fulani oligarchy. There are going to be tension, but members of the ruling class are sufficiently greedy. They can’t go beyond that precipice as to tear the country. They will heat up the place, but it will still cool down again.
