Foreign countries and observers seem to be falling over themselves to be part of Nigeria’s general elections scheduled for February 14 and 28. Head, News Desk, VICTOR EBIMOMI, takes a look at what could have informed the sudden development.
For instance, after months of perceived lukewarm relations between Nigeria and the United States, the conclusion by many was that Washington and its allies would leave Nigeria to its fate.
A nation and its travails
This impression particularly gained weight when, on January 20, a former military chief from America, Major Gen. James ‘Spider’ Marks declared that Nigeria and Boko Haram were not his country’s priority.
Marks, the Executive Dean, College of Criminal Justice and Security at the University of Phoenix, had in an interview with CNN said that the growing insecurity and pogrom in the North East part of Nigeria is not a priority to the U.S.
He was responding to questions on why over 40 world leaders, including about four million people, took to the streets in France when only 17 people were killed by terrorists recently, and whereas during the same period, over 2,000 people were allegedly massacred in Baga, Borno State, without any global show of concern. The retired General maintained that Nigeria and the entire black Africa was not a priority for the U.S.
“The stack difference is that while world leaders are in complete solidarity and outrage against what happened in France vis-a-vis Nigeria, truly, that should be surprising because what is happening in Nigeria is real madness, but it is not a priority.
“The United States can do anything it needs to do to rid Nigeria of Boko Haram, it could be a long-term effort, but it can be done. The U.S. has the capability, we have all the elements and power, but it is not a priority. This is the problem. We are committed elsewhere in the world, but black or Western Africa is not the priority. That is the case right now, and it may be hard to say; Boko Haram is a regional issue.
“But if it appears in some other regions of the world, like white Africa, which is North Africa, or in the Middle East or somewhere else, we would be alarmed. But it is a regional issue,” he said.
America’s volte face
But in a rare twist of event, five days later, American Secretary of State, John Kerry, flew into Nigeria to make a case for a peaceful and violence-free election.
He met with the two front-runners, President Goodluck Jonathan of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Muhammad Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
“Anyone who participates in plans or calls for widespread or systematic violence against the civilian population must be held accountable, including being ineligible for an American visa,” he warned.
Apart from U.S., which has now shown manifest interest in the poll, all of Nigeria’s major allies, including Britain, European Union (EU), Canada, Japan, the United Nations (UN), Germany, Ireland and France are sending monitors, some even more than one group.
There are other 72 local observer groups led by the African Union (AU) development partner known as New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD).
Against the background that the sudden interest in Nigeria is coming when, just few months ago, the country was allegedly denied procurement of high calibre ammunition to fight the rampaging Boko Haram sect, many have ascribed interpretations to the renewed interest. Critical political watchers, for instance, argue that the sudden involvement goes beyond mere diplomatic engagement.
There is, for example, the suspicion that the recent call for the postponement of the general elections by the National Security Adviser (NSA), which generated heated reactions across the land, may have triggered the renewed interest of the international community in Nigeria.
Strategic interests at play
This, on its own, cannot be divorced from the strategic and economic position of the country to western nations. TheNiche gathered that the major concern of America and its allies over the call is that the backlash of any poll shift may be too tricky.
Nigeria is the largest black nation on earth, with a population close to 200 million people out of Africa’s estimated total population of 1.033 billion people. That is a significant proportion representing almost 20 per cent in a continent that is home to 54 recognised sovereign states, and two de facto independent states.
As a result, many keen observers insist that with that population, Nigeria cannot be just ignored because, in all ramifications, it mirrors Africa’s strength. The argument has been that if Nigeria ventures to veer off sane lane of politics and is eventually engulfed in political crisis, the concomitant humanitarian crisis would be unimaginable; the neighbouring African countries who are contending with ravaging poverty and other economic crisis might not be able to handle the influx of refugees into their countries, while the international community might face a herculean task in resettling the refugees.
There is also the fear by some political observers that in the event of Nigeria breaking up, the Western interests in the country would risk their investment coming under serious threats.
Historians particularly argue that if it is recalled that the U.S. had few years ago predicted that Nigeria would break up by 2015, the unfolding events leading to elections could have attracted special interests by the international community.
“Their sudden interest in the affairs of the country may thus be in guarding against that controversial prediction or in supervising it,” volunteered a research fellow at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), Lagos, who asked not to be mentioned.
Drumbeats of war
Curiously, pointers that the country may be moving towards the precipice are becoming noticeable, or so they seem. For instance, the political parties are already claiming victory before the election, a development which analysts say is dangerous to the polity. As a result of the heat, there are threats of ‘war’ from foot soldiers of the leading figures in the political parties.
Some ex-militants from Niger Delta, where Jonathan comes from, have repeatedly warned of war if Jonathan loses the election. Penultimate Saturday, they also reiterated their resolve to go to war after a meeting held in Government House, Balyesa, Jonathan’s home state. They particularly threatened to unleash violence on the country and take back Niger Delta oil, should the president lose.
They were also reported to have said that any attempt to dethrone Jonathan would be seen as a direct attack on the Ijaw nation. These utterances attracted condemnation from former Minister of Defence, Gen. Theophilus Danjuma, who demanded immediate arrest of some of the militants for threatening to plunge the country into war if President Jonathan is not re-elected.
In the North where Buhari comes from, there is also the fear that if APC loses, there could be mayhem. This fear is accentuated by the violence that followed the 2011 election in the aftermath of the presidential election which Buhari lost to Jonathan. Incidentally, the atmosphere then was not as charged as it is currently.
A careful consideration of all these, according to informed analysts, may have accounted for the increasing concern of the international community on the country.
Comprehensive or selective monitoring?
However, the report that the international observers would not monitor the election in the Boko Haram-infested area of North East does not match with the expectation of the people. Some argue that it amounts to selective monitoring – which will definitely affect their final reports, while others say it would make mockery of the security invincibility of the so-called super powers who are sending in observers.
But yet, some still contend that the action smacks of double-dealing, maintaining that it could be because they don’t have much economic interest in the troubled zone. Yet the argument stressed further that the leaders of the observer groups might not have confidence in the security to protect their lives, pointing out that even Jonathan was reluctant to go there, until recently.
But the most engaging of the argument has always been the questions it recurrently throws up: has the international community seen a big danger lurking in the dark and wants to quickly nip it in the bud? What is the strategic importance of Nigeria in global politics?
Kerry mentioned it, albeit in passing, during his visit to Nigeria. He said: “Violence has no place in democratic elections and I can guarantee you that the perpetrators of such violence will not be welcomed in the United States of America. Nigeria is Africa’s most populous nation and one of the world’s largest democracies. It is blessed with some of the planet’s most valuable and abundant natural resources.”
Reactions
Giving a clear perspective to the questions, Femi Aborishade, an activist and lecturer, noted that there was no way pecuniary gain could be ruled out of the motives of the countries planning to take part in the election.
“Fundamentally, it is not because of the love of the people who may be killed if there is violence, but because their economic interest will be in jeopardy if there is crisis,” he said.
But to Dr. Tunde Oseni of the Department of International Relations, Leeds University, Ibadan, Oyo State, there is nothing bad in foreign countries expressing interest in Nigeria’s election, adding that the world has become a global village where what happens in a country attracts interest of others.
He noted that Nigeria has also been part of the monitoring teams for other countries’ elections, the recent being Ghana where former President Olusegun Obasanjo led Economic Community of West Africa States (ECOWAS) observer team comprising 250 members.
“In international diplomacy, you can’t but have some countries who will be interested in election in other countries. I think it is not unusual because we live in a globalised world,” he explained.
On why the gesture is all about election and no significant move to help tackle the hydra-headed Boko Haram menace, the don maintained that “it is open to debate”.
International relations expert and former Nigerian Ambassador to Belgium, Prof. Alaba Ogunsanwo, also agreed that the observer countries indeed have economic interests, adding, however, that they also want to use Nigeria as example for other countries.
He stressed that the observers countries are more interested in saying that if a country like Nigeria can have a peaceful election, other countries in Africa will follow suit.
“It is all part of the chicanery; they must have something to monitor,” he said.
He, however, conceded that monitoring elections has become universal, noting that even Nigeria, especially through non-governmental organisations (NGOs), has also been to many countries to monitor elections.
The monitoring of the coming election in Nigeria, to some extent, is irrelevant because the two major parties are the same, having been peopled by the same politicians who only cross-carpet when their interests are not accommodated, he added.
“The monitoring is irrelevant; there is nothing to monitor. They (two parties) are the same. Those in APC have once been in PDP and vice-versa,” he said.
Asked whether the monitoring was not borne out of the need to avoid violence during the election, he argued that we don’t need election observers to prevent violence, since they were here in 2011 and claimed that the election was free and fair yet there was post-election violence.