BOKO HARAM: THE NEW AL-QAEDA?

The recent report presented to the US House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security by the Sub-Committee on Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence titled “Boko Haram: Emerging Threat to the US Homeland” highlights the increasing danger to national and international security which the Nigerian terror group now poses. The report chaired by Patrick Meehan, Chairman of the US Congressional Committee, declared that Boko Haram has “quickly evolved and poses an emerging threat to US interests and the US homeland”.

Alarmingly, the report acknowledged the potential link between Boko Haram and al-Qaeda which has previously been suspected by observers. It stated: “Boko Haram has the intent and may be developing capability to co-ordinate on a rhetorical and operational level” with al-Qaeda which is active in Africa, including in Algeria, Mali, Niger and Somalia. One notes that al-Shabab, the militant group with very close links to al-Qaeda has been engaged in a long-running conflict with the Somali government.


Who are Boko Haram?

Boko Haram is an Islamic organisation which was formed in 2002 with the aim of establishing an Islamic state in Northern Nigeria as it considers the present government unislamic and one which is run by unbelievers. The group is headquartered in the North-Eastern Nigerian city of Maiduguri and its official name of Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad, translates as “people committed to the propagation of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad.”

The group has been responsible for attacks on government buildings, churches, public infrastructure and police buildings which have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people in the country although the death toll may surpass that presented in official figures. The profile of the group was previously restricted to the country’s populace; however that changed on 26th August 2011 when it orchestrated a bold suicide-bomb attack on the UN Headquarters in Abuja, the nation’s capital city, killing about 24 people. The group was also blamed for an attack in the Nigerian North-Eastern town of Damaturu which resulted in the deaths of dozens of people.


The Report’s Aims

It has been stated by those involved in producing the report that the US would take positive action in addressing the threat posed by Boko Haram so as to avoid a repeat of its intelligence services initial underestimation of militant groups such as al-Qaeda and the Haqqani network which is based in Pakistan. The report’s authors highlight the need for swift action in dealing with Boko Haram in stating: “If the US acts quickly on the military, intelligence and diplomatic fronts, it can ensure the relative protection of US interests while assisting the Nigerian government in containing Boko Haram.” The Nigerian government’s security forces have so far been unable to contain the threat posed by Boko Haram despite the deployment of a substantial number of military personnel to the Northern region of the country. Observers of recent events will not fail to have noticed recent comments made by President Goodluck Jonathan that the government intends to commence negotiations with the group.


Opposition to the Change in Government’s Tactics

This latest move, namely engaging in dialogue with the group, has however been met with the discerning cries of critics, not least that of the influential Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). In the keynote speech delivered by its President, Chief J.B. Daudu, at an event held last week – Human Rights National Security: The Challenges of Terrorism and Response of Law Enforcement Agencies in Nigeria – the NBA highlighted that any meetings between the government and Boko Haram may have the unwanted effect of sending a message to like-minded groups that the government only listens in the face of intimidation and terror. The NBA National President stressed: “The danger is not in the fact that negotiation on its own is not good but that (i) you are dealing with bounty-hunters and other opportunists and (ii) such meetings may send the signal to like-minded people prone to engage in similar acts that the government only listens when you intimidate and resort to terror.”


Recommendations of the Report

Despite the valid criticism, one can understand the change in tactic of the government. Certainly the deployment of military forces has not borne fruit and one can argue that the government is only taking a leaf out of the US and NATO book as both have proceeded to engage the Taliban in dialogue after 10 or so fruitless years of military warfare. It remains to be seen whether dialogue will prevent the further escalation of hostilities in a country of 150 million where poverty, corruption and insecurity are rife. The US and the Nigerian government will also do well to implement the recommendations contained in the report. Central to these were closer liaison between US Intelligence agencies and Nigerian security services, and increased US support for programmes which enhance the ability of Nigerian forces to target and counter Boko Haram attacks. Whatever one’s views on probable solutions to this issue, global security analysts will however welcome the fact that lessons have been learnt from the failure of the international community to tackle al-Qaeda in its infancy before it morphed into a full grown adult capable of carrying out attacks on the scale of 9/11.

TORTURE: DO AS I SAY, BUT NOT AS I DO

Only the most sincere amongst us will admit that it is much easier to proffer advice than it is to adhere to one’s own advice. The age old adage has never been as apt as at present following claims of torture and the illegal “renditioning” of terror suspects by two of the world’s superpowers, the United States of America and Britain.

Both countries, purveyors of human rights standards, have never shied away from levelling criticisms at “third world countries” or even at fellow superpowers like China and Russia when it is perceived that human rights standards have not been adhered to. Therefore, the discovery of intelligence files by journalists and Human Rights Watch officials which revealed a close co-operation between Libya, UK and US authorities in “renditioning” terror suspects is particularly damaging to the credibility of the British and American human rights credentials.

The papers, which were discovered in the offices of Moussa Koussa, Libya’s Head of Intelligence Services under the Gaddafi-led government, reveals that America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service, the MI6 together “rendered” terror suspects to Libya on numerous occasions. The individuals were then allegedly subjected to acts of torture. The find of the huge cache of documents and its contents contradict previous denials issued by both governments denying involvement in the “renditioning” of terror suspects.


Rendition


Rendition involves the abduction and transfer of individuals from one jurisdiction to another and beyond the legal protection of the transferor state. If the allegations are substantiated, the actions of Britain and America will have contravened Article 3 of the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which prohibits State parties from “expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”. Notably, the Convention was ratified by the UK on 8th December 1988 and the USA on 21st October 1994.

The evidence against the UK and USA is certainly stacking up. On 5th May 2011, the BBC reported in an article titled “Torture Inquiry to Examine UK-Libya Intelligence Links”, that the former Libya Foreign Minister under Gaddafi, Abdelati Obeidi had asserted that the MI6 was operational in Libya until February 2011. In addition, Mr Abdel Hakim Belhaj, a commander of anti-government forces in Tripoli and former terror suspect revealed that he was captured by the US in Bangkok, Thailand and taken to Libya by both the CIA and MI6 in 2004 where he was tortured. At present, the High Court is still seised of a case brought by Omar Awadh Omar who alleges that he was “rendered” to Uganda in 2010 after being kidnapped in Kenya. In his claim, Mr Awadh alleges that he suffered physical abuse from British and American interrogators. He alleges that he was threatened, beaten, punched and slapped during the course of the interrogation.


The Baha Mousa Inquiry


These disturbing reports come on the heels of “The Report of the Baha Mousa Inquiry” released on 8th September 2011 which investigated the assault of detainees by UK soldiers guarding them. Baha Mousa was an Iraqi man who was tortured and beaten to death in British Army custody in Basra, Iraq in September 2003. The Inquiry surmised that the victims of the 1st Battalion The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment (1QLR) suffered an “appalling episode of serious gratuitous violence”. The subsequent post-mortem found that Baha Mousa had sustained 93 external injuries in addition to internal injuries including fractured ribs.

The incidents highlighted above can hardly be said to be the isolated incidents the UK and USA would have us believe. Amnesty International’s 2010 Report, “Open Secret: Mounting Evidence of Europe’s Complicity in Rendition and Secret Detention”, revealed that several European countries including Italy, Germany, Poland and others had co-operated in the rendition of terror suspects. It has also been difficult to verify whether these flights transporting individuals to 2nd or indeed 3rd States for the purpose of circumventing legislation against torture have ceased. Worryingly, Phil Shiner, the lawyer representing the family of Baha Mousa, asserts that the actions which led to the deaths of Baha Mousa are not a one-off as claimed by the UK military authorities. In an article published in The Guardian on 8th September 2011 and titled “Baha Mousa: Killed in the Shadows”, Phil Shiner asserts that he also acts for about 151 Iraqis who were tortured and abused in 14 different UK Army facilities and by different battle groups. The acts of torture perpetrated on these individuals were said to include mock executions, threats of rape, sleep deprivation, temperature manipulation and solitary confinement for long periods of time.



Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay


The furore arising from the Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay Detention camp episodes have hardly been extinguished before the recent spate of rendition and torture scandals erupted. One recalls the horrid reports of the many human rights violations including torture, rape and sexual abuse meted out by the US and UK Armies to prisoners held in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. In addition, it is impossible to forget the lurid reports of torture, beating and poor prisoner conditions in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp which has been used since 2002 to hold detainees from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is also significant that the detention camp still remains open despite President Obama’s pre-election promise to close it if he assumes the post of President of the USA. Also, although the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has ordered an inquiry into “the relations between the British and Libyan services”, the fact that 14 or so soldiers involved in the torture of Baha Mousa and other Iraqis are still serving is ammunition enough for those who decry the hypocrisy of the West. It is also significant to mention that the inquiry found that some senior officers were aware of the abuses. This revelation may suggest that the attitudes displayed by the soldiers may be more deep rooted within the military institution than previously thought.


The Future


The flagrant violation of international human rights laws and the Geneva Convention against Torture and Inhuman Treatment by the US and UK hardly sets an example to countries who have been at the receiving end of “lectures” delivered by leaders of the so called “first world”. Undoubtedly, half-hearted attempts via inquiries and investigations sanctioned to address allegations of torture, rendition and other human rights abuses will be seen by countries where these illegal practices take place as legitimising the actions. After all, if it is acceptable by the UK and USA, why should it not be the same for the likes of Bahrain, Pakistan, Uganda et al. The danger however is that these acts of torture, if left unchecked, will become an even more effective recruiting tool for extremists than the speeches and teachings of the leaders of these groups.