INTERNATIONAL CONDEMNATION FOR BOKO HARAM'S CHRISTMAS DAY ATTACKS IN NIGERIA

On 11th December 2011, 1worldinternational published a piece on Boko Haram, the terrorist group with Nigerian origins which has over the last few years masterminded attacks against the Nigerian government, public infrastructure, civilians and churches. In the article entitled “Boko Haram: The New Al-Qaeda?”, the writer highlighted the threat posed by the group. The article also covered fears raised by the U.S.A about the Nigerian government’s inability to deal with the insurgency and the prospect that the national problem may spiral into an international concern.


The Attacks

In a replication of its brazen series of attacks in Nigeria last Christmas, the group struck on 25th December 2011 in what appears to be a well thought out and coordinated attack leaving 40 dead and scores injured. The first attack occurred outside a Catholic Church situated near the capital city of Abuja, killing 35 and wounding around 50. It is reported that this was a suicide attack on worshippers milling around the church premises following the conclusion of the Christmas morning mass. The second blast occurred close to a church in the central city of Jos and further explosions occurred in the North-East towns of Damaturu and Gadaka. The Associated Press reports that the recent fatalities bring the total death toll from the insurgency to 504 this year.


International Condemnation

The attacks have led to widespread condemnation being heaped upon the group. The U.K. Foreign Secretary, William Hague said: “These are cowardly attacks on families gathered in peace and praying to celebrate a day which symbolises harmony and goodwill towards others. I offer my condolences to the bereaved and injured.” In the same vein, the White House Spokesman, James Carney said: “We condemn this senseless violence and tragic loss of life on Christmas day. We offer our sincere condolences to the Nigerian people and especially those who lost family and loved ones”. Further support has also come from the French and German governments. The French President Nicolas Sarkozy expressed “solidarity in Nigeria’s fight against terrorism” while the German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle stated: “Even on Christmas day, the world is not spared from cowardice and the fear of terrorism.” The Vatican City also denounced the attacks in stating that the group’s action was an act of “blind hatred” seeking to “arouse and feed even more hatred and confusion”.


Sound-off

The group via its spokesman has claimed responsibility for the attacks. In its statement, the group said: “There will never be peace until our demands are met”. “We want all our brothers who have been incarcerated to be released; we want full implementation of the Sharia system and we want democracy and the constitution to be suspended.”

Analysts fear that the group has links to the al-Shabaab militia which controls large swathes of Somalia and al-Qaeda operatives with influence in the African states of Niger, Mauritania, and Chad to name but a few. Matters are not been helped by the Nigerian government who seem reluctant to acknowledge the threat posed by the group to the nation’s security and stability or the government’s hesitance to accept the assistance offered by the international community. The frayed dynamics of this already fractious country coupled with the latest insurgency leads observers to conclude that Nigeria may soon become West Africa’s equivalent to East Africa’s Somalia.

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.

THE KENYAN INVASION OF SOMALIA: IS THIS TAKING SELF DEFENCE TOO FAR?

On Thursday of the past week, the Kenyan government confirmed that its troops had been sent into the territory of its neighbours, Somalia, in response to the recent spates of kidnappings allegedly perpetrated by the al-Shabab militia who operate out of Somalia.


The Kenyan Incursion

Al-Shabab, which is said to be strongly linked to al-Qaeda and who exercise control over Southern and central Somalia are blamed for the killing of Briton, David Tebutt and the abduction of his wife from a Kenyan resort, the killing of a French woman following her kidnap from her holiday home in Kenya and the kidnap of aid workers – Montserrat Serra and Blanca Thiebout – of Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF) who were recently seized from a refugee camp at the Kenya-Somalia border. “The security of our country is paramount. We will defend our territorial integrity through all measures necessary to ensure peace and stability” stated Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki to the press on 20th October 2011. Mr Kibaki added that “all necessary measures” included military operation within and outside Kenya.


Legal Basis

The Kenyan government insist that the UN Charter legitimises its incursion into foreign territory. “These measures will involve invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter that pronounces self-defence as an inherent right and which is also keeping with the current Kenyan constitution,” said the Kenyan Minister for Internal Security, George Saitoti. The legal instrument referred to by Mr Saitoti, that is Article 51 of the UN Charter, provides that: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the UN.” In line with this provision, it would appear that Kenya is thus legally entitled to resort to force.


The Somalian Position

However, the Somalian position is acutely converse to the views espoused by the Kenyan government which justifies its operation on Somalian soil. Somalia’s envoy to the UN, Omar Jamal, has stated that the Kenyan incursion constituted a violation of its sovereignty. Mr Jamal stated: “There is a very serious concern from the Kenyan government that there have been some kidnappings in their country, but at the same time I think that to take the very unilateral action of going into Somali territory is a breach of international law.” In an interview, the contents of which was published in an article in The Independent on 17th October 2011, the Somalian Ambassador to Kenya, Mohammed Ali Nur, reiterated the views of Omar Jamal on what he perceives as a clear violation of its territory by Kenya. “As a sovereign country we cannot condone any country crossing our border…we will not allow any country to invade us.”


Self defence against non-State actors

Of course, every country has a right to defend itself against armed attacks and in this vein many will agree that the Kenyan government is entitled to take measures, military and otherwise in response. However, the issue of the legality of counter-measures adopted by Kenya is threatening to strain the relationship between the UN-backed Somalian transitional government and the Kenyan government. Unfortunately the text of the UN Charter fails to resolve the disagreement between the countries. The difficulty lies in the fact that the UN Charter was drawn up at a time when armed attacks by non-State actors against another State was a rarity, or perhaps not anticipated to constitute the problem which has achieved conundrum-like status. It was therefore left for case law, academics, UN resolutions and the International courts to attempt to purify the muddied waters. Importantly, Judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), whilst considering the legality of the construction of a wall in occupied Palestinian territory, discussed the matter of whether Article 51 of the Charter recognises the existence of an inherent right to self defence in the case of an attack on a State by a non-State actor. Needless to say, the great opportunity which lent itself to these legal practitioners to clarify matters was squandered following disagreements over the interpretation of the said Article of the Charter.


Muddied waters

However, Resolution 1368 (2001) and Resolution 1373 (2001) which were adopted in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks both appear to acknowledge a right to respond to such attacks although there has been no resolution since then with similar wording or impact. If this is an endorsement of the above, then it would appear that the Kenyan government’s actions are legal under international law. However this assertion would also seem to suggest that Rwanda may legitimately attack Congo DRC for harbouring forces aligned with the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) which threaten the Rwandan border, or that Uganda may be entitled to legitimately launch military action against Congo DRC for harbouring Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) which has waged a 20 year rebellion against the Ugandan government of President Yoweri Museveni. In addition, the prospect may also exist of a full blown conflict between the NATO-propped Afghanistan government and Pakistan over what the US perceive to be the Pakistani government’s support for al-Qaeda and the Haqqani militia who utilise Pakistani territory in making their forays into Afghanistan. In the earlier referred-to Congo DRC cases, the Congolese government seems to lack the capacity to expel, as is the case in Somalia, the terror groups from operating within its territory. Given the increasingly complex world in which we live in, it goes without saying that the immediate clarification of this issue is imperative if the current misunderstanding relating to the text and scope of Article 51 is not to be replicated in the future.