Nigeria’s uneasy equations
Jonathan Power (Power’s World)
23 February 2012
The governor of the northeastern
Nigerian state of Yobe, Ibrahim Geidam, where the extremist Boko Haram
movement had its origins, told me that the situation is now “under
control”.
He
pointed to the recent arrest of its spokesman and the way he was
cooperating with his interrogators. He also told me of the splits that
had developed in the movement. President Goodluck Jonathan in a rare
one-hour interview told me much the same. But he added a caveat. Boko
Haram still has plenty of destructive power. “Who is to know if they
have infiltrated major institutions, even here in the presidential
compound? It might be a cook, a cleaner or a driver, waiting for their
moment to explode a bomb.”
In
his opinion the movement gets support in both ideology and arms from Al
Qaeda’s North African affiliate and the extremist movement in Somalia.
However, when I talked to former president Olusegun Obasanjo, he told me
that the evidence for that was not watertight.
Wole
Soyinka, the Nobel Laureate for Literature, has said that the situation
is not dissimilar to the one that existed during the civil war of the
1960s when oil-rich Biafra in the east attempted to secede from Nigeria.
He points to the years of insurgency, the recent blowing up of the UN
mission.
Defeating
it is a tricky business, to say the least. The police have often used
violent tactics. This has led to a backlash, recruiting more members for
the movement.
Some
observers compare this with the insurgency that until recently
terrified the people of the Niger Delta, including the expatriate oil
workers they kidnapped for ransoms. The fighters made themselves rich on
stealing oil. Jonathan and his predecessor, Umaru Yar’Adua, managed to
win a truce and awarded the fighters handsome “scholarships” so they
could train for skilled work. For the most part it seems to have worked.
But
Obasanjo decries this. “Once the principle of buying off is established
the blackmail will continue and other radical groups like Boko Haram
will demand the same. Jonathan disagrees. “One cannot compare the two
movements”, he argues. “The Delta militants had to be part compensated
for the large amounts they were making from oil bunkering”. “Buying off”
will not be used with Boko Haram, an ideological movement not a
gangster one.
Most
of Nigeria is unaffected by the movement. Despite the departure of
frightened Christians to the south most of the country is not perturbed.
When the killings have taken place in the north Muslims moved to
protect churches and the Christians reciprocated by sending people to
protect mosques.
Neighbouring
countries have also helped. Cameroon has been a haven for the militants
to escape to. Now Chad and Niger are cooperating with the Nigerian
police. Besides this the Americans have sent bomb disposal experts and
are clearly prepared to do more if asked.
The
Muslim north is much poorer than the Christian south, held back for
over a century by conservative clerics and leaders. Education is poor
and health clinics are scarce and youth unemployment is high. One does
not find the rip-roaring economic progress prevalent in the south.
Without the drag of the north Nigeria would have double-digit economic
growth rate.
The
poverty has contributed to the rise of Boko Haram, although the
president makes the valid point that there are many countries with dire
poverty, including Muslim ones where there is no political violence.
It
will take years to defeat Boko Haram, just as it did to defeat the
insurgency of the Delta. The country is already judging Jonathan by his
ability (lack of it, critics say) to get on top of the situation. It
will certainly test the metal of the president who otherwise is making
great strides with his domestic economic and social policies. We will
see.