Rethinking American Foreign Policy on Nigeria On April 28th, a secret military tribunal sitting in Jos, Nigeria condemned to death five military officers and one civilian for allegedly plotting to overthrow the Sani Abacha dictatorship. Aside from the mockery of justice the proceedings embody, it once again demonstrated in compelling terms that the Nigerian military is imploding, and threatening to take the rest of the country with it. Perhaps the country might have gone along but for the role being played by a group of courageous activists. Led by Olisa Agbakoba, the United Action for Democracy (UAD), groups 26 human rights and democracy movements, who are dedicated to building an open society in Nigeria. The real question now is this: will the United States government continue its tacit support for the dictatorship, or will it come down in favor of a broad-based, pro-June 12 civil society movement? Nigerian politics has been undergoing rapid change in the last six months. It has become patently clear that the Nigerian people will no longer tolerate military-backed tyranny. Led by a reenergized opposition movement, the Nigerian people are mounting an increasingly effective challenge to the Abacha's tyranny. For example, the UAD issued a clarion call for a boycott of the April 25th National Assembly elections, and Nigerians responded. A similar response is expected for upcoming May 1st protests. Since coming into being in late 1997, the UAD has demonstrated that a powerful, unifying and national force can be mustered to effectively challenge General Abacha's regime. And it increasingly is likely that the UAD will be the civil society coalition that helps end almost fifteen years of political repression. As the Nigerian people mount their challenge, the military junta, hobbled by paranoia and corruption, has sent living standards tumbling to pre-independence levels. Public services such as the state-owned oil, telecommunication and power companies are largely nonexistent. Fuel, has been a rationed commodity for about a year now. Economic activity, when undertaken, is challenging and hampered by bureaucratic corruption. Political activity is deeply exclusionary and dangerous. Nigeria's gallows are filled with myriads of political prisoners, many detained without charge. Despite pleas from personalities such as Pope John Paul, Nigeria's security chiefs have refused to show clemency. Dissent is not acceptable; it is punished by imprisonment, exile, or death. Even the much heralded political transition program, that moderate observers hoped would succeed, has been manipulated to no end. State Department spokesman, James Rubin, was recently forced to admit that the program was now "hopelessly flawed." Thus, by whatever standards Nigeria under Abacha is assessed, it has failed. Nigerians recognize that and want something else: a democracy led by Chief M.K.O Abiola, within which their various voices can be heard, not brutally silenced by automatic weapon fire. Thus, the United States government must realize that no longer can it afford to wait. The evidence is no longer ambiguous. Nigeria's generals would rather destroy the country first before giving up power. America must refuse to countenance that outcome. A viable and responsible option to the carnage a continuation of General Abacha's regime promises exists in the form of the UAD and their calls for a Government of National Unity led by Chief Abiola. Hence, the United States should as a matter of urgency support such an outcome. And there are many ways to do this: · providing covert support (financial, diplomatic and logistical) to the UAD; · offering to help Abacha and his ministers obtain political asylum in other countries; · publicly stating that America and her G-7 allies would provide wide ranging support for a new Government of National Unity led by Chief M. K. O. Abiola, detained winner of the 1993 elections; · putting pressure on the European Union and China to cooperate in isolating General Abacha's regime, and · if only for its symbolic impact, imposing a full oil sanction. The last recommendation is key because it will be interpreted by future generations of democratic leaders in Nigeria as a signal of America's moral commitment in a time of crisis. The cost to American consumers will be low, given that a near-glut exists in international oil markets today. Since as of March 1998 Nigerian government survey reluctantly admitted, 80 percent live below the poverty line, the impact of such sanctions will be minuscule on the population. It will hit the financial war chest the military taps to finance its multiple campaigns of repression. It would be tragic if American diplomacy, historically renowned as a powerful force for good and beacon of hope, wilts before the flames of tyranny. As America examines its heart, I challenge her to reflect on the recent cold blooded murder of innocent citizens on April 15th in Ibadan by security forces, as they protested General Abacha's self-succession project. Nigerians are now struggling to create an empowered, open society, in which they can make choices such as June 12, 1993, and have them respected by the military. Indeed, it would be a shame if the United States should be seen to be supporting those who oppose such changes. |
Home | Archives | L-Word by Email | About The L-Word | Staff | Feedback