Nigeria Content Online

If one has be

selective when considering the advice of Theodore Roosevelt (US

President 1901-1909) to ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’, it’s

probably better to go with the ‘big stick’ part. Naturally, one is free

to speak harshly and carry a big stick – countries which have them

often do. But what one wants to avoid – especially in international

affairs – is speaking harshly when one has only a small stick.

This does not

appear to have been the policy of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in

its recent dealings with the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

whose ‘Brotherly Leader’, Muammar Ghadaffi, it will be recalled,

suggested in March that Nigeria should be divided into a ‘Muslim North’

and a ‘Christian South’.

Our response was

bold and forthright. Although Senate President David Mark felt that

there was no point discussing anything said by a “madman”, the House of

Representatives called on the government to sever ties with Libya,

report Ghadaffi to the United Nations Security Council and ask the

African Union to investigate whether he was funding sectarian crises in

Nigeria. On its part, the federal government expressed “strong

reservations and disappointment” and recalled our ambassador for

‘consultations’.

The national mood

was of anger and rejection, as well it might be. According to Ghadaffi,

his suggestion was modelled on the 1947 Partition by which British

India was divided into secular India and Muslim Pakistan. That caused

not only the displacement of over twelve million people, but sectarian

violence during which up to 500,000 were killed.

Even when it was

pointed out that there were many Muslims in southern Nigeria and many

Christians in northern Nigeria, the great advocate of African unity did

not sheath the knives with which he proposed to dismember Nigeria.

Instead, he recommended our division into several “ethnic” states. This

time the ‘Guide of the Revolution’s model was Yugoslavia, whose break

up gave rise to the odious practice of “ethnic cleansing” and scenes of

violence, rape and abuse of human rights on a scale unprecedented in

Europe since the end of World War II.

If the best

Ghadaffi could suggest for a major nation in the continent that he has

always dreamed of leading was displacement, death and destruction,

Nigerians might be forgiven for imagining that humble words and abject

apology ought to precede any return to the status quo ante. We might

expect confirmation that Libyan funds and assistance (which, in the

post-Lockerbie settlement era, are no longer free to make trouble in

the Western world) have not been re-directed towards stirring things up

in Nigeria.

Apparently not.

Well, it is Nigeria whose citizens are on death row in Libyan jails. It

is Nigeria whose impoverished political opposition could be such a

tempting target for Libyan campaign contributions. And it is Nigeria

that has the sectarian crises.

Perhaps our

government ought to have considered all this before going out on a limb

to make a lot of indignant noise about Ghadaffi’s suggestions while

leaving him in possession of the saw. Small wonder that President Ellen

Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia felt bold enough to try to ease it out of

his hands, a strange intercessor between Nigeria and Libya. Despite our

pulling Liberia’s chestnuts out of the fire both by sending our

soldiers to fight and die in that country’s civil war and by granting

their ex-president, Charles Taylor shelter in order to pave the way for

peace there, Johnson-Sirleaf only seems to remember our contribution

when she is actually on Nigerian soil. In other parts of the world, she

only improves on her usual silence when Nigeria is being disparaged

with some cutting remark of her own.

For example, during

her 2006 visit to Libya she remained silent while Ghadaffi berated

Nigeria for handing Taylor over for trial by the Special Court for

Sierra Leone. No doubt it would have been awkward to interrupt

Gadaffi’s rant to admit that it was actually her own government that

had handed Taylor over to the UN-run court, and that all Nigeria had

done was return him to Liberia – and to her custody. Perhaps she

resented our failure to accede to her earlier suggestion that we should

send Taylor direct to Sierra Leone.

With such a

mediator, it’s hardly surprising that the traffic has been pretty much

one-way. Libya sends an envoy who is received in Abuja by our

president. Said envoy comes not to withdraw or apologise for Ghadaffi’s

offensive suggestions but to protest about David Mark’s. We send a

whole minister of foreign affairs who is received in Tripoli by Libya’s

prime minister. Our minister signs an agreement by which we agree to

normalise relations, exchange ambassadors and generally make nice. We

rush our ambassador back to Libya. Libya, which had not bothered to

decorate Abuja with an ambassador before the crisis, ignores the

agreement to designate one as part of the settlement now.

Perhaps Nigeria

ought to have followed David Mark’s advice to ignore the ‘Brotherly

Leader’ after all. As one observer, quoting Shakespeare, put it: our

initial reaction turns out to have been “full of sound and fury,

signifying nothing”.

No apology. No assurance of non-interference. No Libya cowering at our big stick. Indeed, no big stick. Nothing.