NIGERIA: CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY COMMITTED BY BOTH SIDES, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH CLAIM

Reports by one of the leading global human rights organisations, Human Rights Watch, that at least 2,800 people have been killed since the onset of the Boko Haram-led insurrection in the West African country of Nigeria are evidence of the scale of the humanitarian tragedy currently pervading Northern Nigeria.


In its Report, the organisation stated that both the Nigerian security authorities and the militant group were complicit in the commission of crimes against humanity. According to Human Rights Watch some of the attacks carried out since the commencement of the conflict bore the characteristics of “deliberate acts leading to population ‘cleansing’ based on religion or ethnicity”. In case the participants in the conflict need to be reminded, offenders charged with crimes against humanity can be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.


The Report attributes the killings of Muslim clerics critical of the group’s activities and innocent Christians to Boko Haram and at the same time blames the Nigerian authorities for “physical abuse, secret detentions, extortion, burning of houses, stealing money during raids, and extrajudicial killings of suspects”. Although the leadership of Boko Haram is yet to respond to the conclusions of the report, the government, via its spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Sagir Musa, denied that it had been involved in the ‘culture of impunity for violence’ which the report imputes to it. Lieutenant Colonel Musa averred: “There is no established or recorded case of extrajudicial killing, torture, arson or arbitrary arrest by the JTF (Nigeria’s joint military and police taskforce) in Borno state”.


Followers of global affairs and passive observers alike will note that the Islamist sect has waged a three-year long campaign against the government with the aim of establishing an Islamic state and in effect seceding from the country. Boko Haram are also rumoured to be backed by Somalia’s Al-Shabaab militia and Al-Qaeda who have of recent successfully made inroads – see Mali and Mauritania – into the Western region of Africa. Boko Haram’s notoriety and initial successes were of such significance that a United States Congressional Panel was established to address the threat posed by the group.


The government’s initial lackadaisical and disjointed attempts at dealing with the menace have now been replaced with a joint army and military crackdown commensurate with its opponent’s might. It has successfully conducted raids on areas within the northern part of the country, the region predominantly populated by Nigeria’s Muslims and which is effectively the group’s stomping ground. The group’s bases have been routed, its fighters arrested and some of its figureheads killed following the reinvigoration of the government’s campaign against the militancy. The killing of the group’s spokesman Abu Qaqa by the authorities in a gun battle last month against the authorities was just the news which the country’s beleaguered leader needed to placate critics who have lambasted the lack of urgency he has shown in his handling of the situation.


The Nigerian government at least acknowledges that military engagement on its own will not be sufficient to usher in the peace and tranquillity which previously reigned in the now tumultuous region of Northern Nigeria. To this end it has attempted to engage Boko Haram by way of negotiations in order to achieve an impasse in the dispute. However, Boko Haram’s continued demands for the full implementation of Sharia law in the whole of Northern Nigeria has put paid to hopes that a non-military solution to the troubles can be achieved in the circumstances. Aside highlighting the human tragedy pervading in the warring region at present, the Report does well to remind the protagonists in the conflict of the accountability which awaits them at the International Criminal Court after the war has been won and lost.

MALI: U.N. PONDERS MALI GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST FOR MILITARY INTERVENTION

Last week’s news that the West African country has called on the United Nations (U.N.) to intervene militarily in order to reclaim parts of the country currently controlled by Islamist militants, though welcome, raised several eyebrows and subsequently questions amongst followers of the country’s recent fortunes. The most vital of the questions which have arisen are whether the call for intervention has come too late and secondly, whether the said intervention will achieve its desired aims if approved by the UN.


Recent History

Prior to the unfolding of the events of March of this year, Mali had been hailed by observers as one of the few democratic success stories in Africa. In March of this year however, and borrowing from the Nigerian author Chinua Achebe’s seminal masterpiece, things fell apart when a gang of soldiers initiated a coup d’etat which saw to the overthrow of the nation’s President. A combination of forces, namely Tuareg rebels who have always had an axe to grind with the government following decades of claims of marginalisation, together with various groups of Islamist militants acting jointly and severally launched an operation against the establishment which has resulted in the Northern region of the country being fully under their control. It is also reported that people in that region of the country are now subjected to Sharia law, which is the strictest form of Islam.


Call for Intervention

The call for intervention was said to have been made by way of a letter sent by the Malian government to the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the contents of which were revealed by the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. In calling for a U.N. resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, under which the U.N. can authorise military interventions, the Malian government stated that terrorists, drug dealers and criminals currently occupy areas of the country and as such it needed the support of an international force “to help the Malian army to reconquer the occupied areas of northern Mali.”

Mali’s request for intervention was met with a rather familiar obstacle in a divided United Nations. At a special summit arranged by the U.N. to address all things Mali-related and held against the background of the recent U.N. General Assembly, the Malian Prime Minister Cheick Modibo Diarra stated: “There is an urgency to act to end the suffering of the people of Mali and to prevent a similar situation that would be even more complicated in the Sahel and the rest of the world.” Diarra’s impassioned plea for assistance was supported by the country’s Colonial Father, France who’s President Francoise Hollande pledged his country’s support to the idea of a potential military action.



Reservations to Calls for Intervention

Whilst France had no reservations in throwing its hat in the ring in support of military intervention, the reverse was the case with the US who appear to be exhibiting more restraint than they have been associated with in recent times, perhaps an indication of their reduced influence in the global politics arena. Hilary Clinton, the country’s Secretary of State insisted that a legitimate government had to be put in place before such an action could be considered. In respect of what can only be described as the multi-dimensional nature of the problems currently facing Mali, Clinton stated: “This is not only a humanitarian crisis; it is a power keg that the international community cannot afford to ignore.” She continued “in the end, only a democratically elected government will have the legitimacy to achieve a negotiated political settlement in northern Mali, end the rebellion and restore the rule of law.”

Clinton’s stance has also received support from the U.N. Secretary General who has also raised reservations regarding the topic of military intervention on the ground that it may further exacerbate the already critical humanitarian crises in the region.


The Future

Although the American call for caution in respect of the potential for military action is comprehended, a legitimate question which then arises is how democratic elections can be held in a country where a sizeable area is controlled by Islamist militants who abhor the concept of democracy and accordingly the principles and ideals associated with it. Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly clearer by the day that diplomacy may be futile in salvaging the situation. The July 5 Security Council sanctioned ECOWAS (The Economic Community of West African States) mission which was mandated to apply political means to resolve the conflict hardly made any notable gains despite its credible efforts. Its failure was no doubt significantly handicapped by the difficulty in identifying all the warring factions in order to commence any form of effective negotiations as Al-Qaeda is only but one of the several Islamist militant groups said to be operating in the northern region of Mali.


Sound-off

Whilst the U.N.’s sounds of caution are laudable its prevarication on the same subject has already contributed to the humanitarian crises facing the region and clearly lessons have not been learnt. A rational move at this point would be the authorisation of ECOWAS troops – who have indicated its preparedness to send troops at short notice – in order to quell the flames emanating from the nation’s combustion. Sooner rather than later the U.N.’s leadership will be forced to make the decision it has attempted to circumvent for some time which in sum amounts to whether the benefits of military intervention outweigh the potential of a worsening of the humanitarian crises which has resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent Malians.