West African PeaceReview
Peace, Conflict Resolution and Governance Issues
Edition 01
October-December 2009
Contents
1. Editor’s Note
2. Women and peace building in Africa
3. Feature: Wade’s big challenge
4. COVER STORIES :
Peace after the Jackal
Tending olive plants: democracy and stability
Building bridges of understanding
Spurning culture of impunity: between passive complacency and tough choices
Kimberley Process: dimming the shine of conflict diamonds
The media and peace building in West Africa
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) Viewpoint
5. Roots of Conflict: Nigeria: This House Must Stand
6. Niger: blowing dusts of conflict
7. Conflict Watch: Niger Delta: good governance is the key to peace (Part One)
8. Periscope: Ghana: stable for Africa
Page 2
Peace Capital
For peace to prevail in Africa…
1. There should be good governance at all levels - accountable and transparent leadership with a zero tolerance for corruption.
2. There should be true democracy, not pseudo-democracy. True democracy is all about free and fair elections, respect for rule of law, basic human rights and press freedom.
3. Politics of bitterness must be avoided. Government should not regard opposition politicians as enemies, but indispensable players in the democracy playing field. For its part, the opposition should be objective in commenting on government policies.
4. There should be term limits for heads of state. The sit-tight and life-presidency syndrome must be discarded.
5. Governments must honour international treaties, protocols and conventions on good governance, human rights and freedom of expression.
6. Former warlords and heads of state guilty of crimes against humanity must be punished to serve as a deterrent to others and prevent culture of impunity.
7. African governments should put in place poverty alleviation and youth skills empowerment programmes that will help improve the standards of living of their peoples.
8. Governments should collaborate with civil society organizations to plan and organize peace education and sensitization campaigns. Such campaigns should harp on virtues of peace and expose the horrors of war.
9. Governments should set up organs and forums for conflict prevention and mediation in many places in their countries..
10. There should be a responsible and fair allocation of the national cake among the constituent regions in a country.
11. Racial slurs, stereotyping and ethnocentrism should be avoided. All forms of marginalizing of any ethnic group or region in a country must be avoided.
12. There should be religious tolerance.
13. Xenophobia must be avoided
14. International laws banning arms proliferation and illegal trade in diamonds and other precious stones should be rigidly enforced.
15. The Military must be subordinate to civilian authority, and stay completely out of politics. No coup can be justified in any country, whatever the reasons given.
Quote
“Everybody is a potential refugee. In crisis situations, doctors, lawyers, engineers and other qualified persons may be forced into refugee camps. Our politicians should learn to embrace peace for the sake of the country and its people.”
-Igna Gabriel,
Former Federal Commissioner for
Refugees in Nigeria.
West African PeaceReview is a quarterly journal of Media for Peace and the Environment (Mepeev).
Chief Editor
Patrick N Olisa
Editorial Committee
Patrick Olisa, Madi Njie, Emmanuel Vandy, Saikou Jammeh, Kingsley Sam.
Graphic Design
Babatunde Olaitan
Printed by INK (7787836/9935153)
Readers are welcome to photocopy and circulate articles.
Please acknowledge West African PeaceReview and send us a copy of your publication.
Contacts:
Gambia
Patrick N Olisa
Jabbi-Kunda
Off Brikama Highway
C/o Box 929
Banjul.
The Gambia
Tel: (220) 4370639
(220) 7277257
Email: mepeev@yahoo.com
Patscript2003@yahoo.com
Nigeria
Nwabu Ogo
U.J.O Lodge
C/o Box 13246
Ikpoba Hill
Benin City.
mepeevnig@yahoo.com
Editor’s Note
Mepeev’s Mission
Welcome to the maiden edition of West African PeaceReview, the very first publication from Mepeev’s stable.
The contents of this journal reflect our advocacy role as journalists, and are meant to inform and communicate for a culture of peace, democracy and good governance in West Africa and beyond.
West Africa experienced horrible conflicts in the past few decades. Liberia and Sierra Leone are struggling to rebuild from the rubble of fatal civil wars that almost obliterated their national identities; Ivory Coast still tries to sort out a conflict that left the country divided for several years; uneasy peace reigns in Guinea Bissau; the Casamance conflict in Senegal is yet to be completely resolved; Militants in Nigeria’s Niger Delta are up in arms against the federal government; Guinea Conakry periodically totter on the edge of the precipice of conflict; Tuareg rebels occasionally trouble Niger and Mali; while terrorists gradually infiltrate desert areas of the sub-region, especially Mauritania.
Given this worrisome scenario, we, the members of Mepeev, have resolved to campaign tirelessly for the entrenchment of a democratic and peace culture in West Africa. The media’s role and response determine the trajectory of democracy in Western societies, and we don’t want Africa to be an exception, as democracy is an indispensable pre-requisite for enduring peace and stability anywhere.
As media practitioners, information is our prized capital, and our positive information dissemination campaigns give great leverage to peace building efforts in our sub-region. We as much as possible help to build bridges of understanding between communities, politicians and countries; suggest peaceful alternatives to war; promote understanding as well as extol the virtues of peace and point out the grim consequences of war. We also promote and support peace building and conflict prevention and mediation mechanisms at the grassroots.
We are very careful to be non-partisan in whatever we do. We are aware of the dangers of harmful tendencies like religious bigotry, ethnocentrism and delusive patriotism, which are capable of wiping up internal strife, fuel inter-country conflict, as well as goad mischievous policymakers to their worst excesses.
It is absolutely necessary to prevent a conflict from taking root in any country. A conflict in one country has the potential to spill over to neighbouring countries, as past events in West Africa have shown.
Mepeev, along with other peace-loving individuals and organizations, will work always, to ensure a conflict-free West Africa.
Patrick N Olisa
Contents
Cover stories
Women and peace building in Africa
Wade’s big challenge
Roots of conflict
Niger: blowing dusts of conflict
Niger Delta: good governance is the key to peace
Country periscope
Women and peace building in Africa
Women have a crucial role to play in peace building in Africa. As mothers they are closer to the children in their early, formative years. Thus their influence in individual homes that form the nucleus of a society is very crucial to stability in any African country. Furthermore, the polygamous nature of most African societies makes it rather difficult for most men to be very close to all their children or be able to monitor them closely. Given this state of affairs, responsibility for imparting the necessary moral virtues to the children is most often shouldered by individual wives in a large, polygamous household.
International bodies – the United Nations Organization (UNO) and the African Union (AU) are increasingly recognizing and emphasizing on the important role women have to play in peace building in Africa, more so as statistics show that women and children suffer more in the continent’s wars. In most of these wars women are often subjected to abuses. Many of them are raped by rebels and sometimes even government forces during conflicts. Very young girls have been abducted and forced to become wives and concubines of rebel fighters. Also, majority of the occupants of the refugee camps in Africa are women and children.
Following several campaigns by women’s rights movements, in the year 2000, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1325. This resolution on women, peace and security was a historic step that acknowledged the essential role of women in peace building. It calls for the inclusion of women in decision-making at all levels.
A significant aspect on the resolution is the emphasis on the family in conflict resolution and peace building; women’s involvement in UN field-based operations especially among military observers, civilian police and human rights and humanitarian personnel; and for the need for women and girls to be given due consideration in the design of refugee camps, in repatriation and resettlement, in post-conflict reconstruction, in disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.
During the 2nd Ordinary Session of the Assembly, held in Maputo, July 2003, the Heads of State and Governments adopted the protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the rights of women in Africa. They also re-affirmed the principle of promoting gender equity as well as ensuring the full participation of African women as partners in Africa’s development. While discussing on the Special Session on Gender, during the Third Ordinary Session of the Assembly, the Solemn Declaration on Gender, adopted in 2004, Heads of States and Governments committed themselves to ensuring that African women participate fully in the prevention, resolution and management of conflicts in post-conflict reconstruction efforts.
Furthermore, in February 2005, the UNDP Regional Gender Programme (RGB) of Regional Bureau for Africa (RBA) organized a meeting of government representatives, NGO’s, UN agencies, the African Union and Gender Focal Point of Regional and Sub-Regional Organizations at the ‘African Women Governance and Peace Forum’ in Kigali, Rwanda, as part of activities to support actions at the African Union. At that forum, participants unanimously adopted the idea of a network on gender, peace building and governance. The African Union, in partnership with the UNDP Regional Gender Programme (UNDP RGP) was then challenged to facilitate the process of establishing this continental network.
Laudable as the resolutions and protocols are, there is little evidence to show that they have actually been effectively implemented in many African countries. Though gender issues are increasingly taking centre-stage in many African countries, attempts to command greater participation of women in peace building and governance are hampered by certain factors. Prominent among such factors are constraints that sprung out of the peculiar traditional peace building methods, and the political culture of different societies on the continent. Also, the question arises over the preparedness of many of the women to assume such roles.
Every traditional African society has its own peace and conflict resolution mechanisms, however abstract or complex they might be to an outsider. The active participation of women in peace building or conflict mediation efforts in any of these societies is largely determined by the level or extent of the socio-political space they are given by the male folk.
Women played significant political roles, and wielded some influence in some pre-colonial West African states like Kanem Bornu, Asante and some others. However, in these modern times when traditional authority is merely symbolic and ceremonial, women are increasingly seen as being relevant only as homemakers and economic complements, even in societies that were traditionally matriarchal. It would suffice to mention that African societies are overwhelmingly patriarchal, and this patriarchy pervades attitudes and perceptions especially as they relate to women.
The constraints notwithstanding, women can indeed get involved in, and make positive contributions to peace building in Africa, if the right policies and programmes are set in motion. The collaboration of governments and civil society is very important. To their credit, the civil society organizations are working tirelessly in this direction. For their part, governments must do more, and go beyond mere protestations and signing of international protocols and conventions.
Government and civil society must also take into account what it takes to position the women, and put them in a vantage position to contribute maximally to peace projects. Women can fit into the African peace building matrix effectively when they are adequately educated, and knowledgeable about gender rights, sustainable resource management, as well as true democracy. All of the above pre-requisites are interlinked, and concentrating on some while leaving out others could prove defeating for efforts to fully involve women in peace building processes.
(To be continued)
Feature
Wade’s big challenge
Senegal is supposed to be one of Africa’s success stories in democracy. In the 2000 presidential elections, Abdoulaye Wade, then an opposition candidate, managed to defeat the incumbent, Abdul Diouf, who had been in power for 20 years. That was something very rare in African politics. Furthermore, the country also happens to be one of only two countries in West Africa that are yet to experience a military intervention in politics. This reputation that would have in all respects established Senegal as the doyen of peace and stability in West Africa has been tainted by the embarrassment of a 22-year old conflict in its southern Casamance province.
The Octogenarian Abdoulaye Wade, a very influential and respected figure in African politics, promised to bring peace to Casamance when he was sworn into office as president in 2000. The Senegalese people and the international community believed him, as he had some pedigree in peace mediation. Before he assumed the presidency of Senegal, Wade had played the role of peace facilitator in the 1990s when, as an opposition leader, he was mandated by the Abdul Diouf government to meet with the imprisoned separatist Movement of Casamance Democratic Forces (MFDC) leader Father Diamacounde Senghore (now deceased).
The sage-like Wade lived up to his promise when his government signed a general peace accord with the MFDC in December 2004. The signing of the peace accord officially marked the end of 22-years of fighting between government forces and the MFDC rebels.
It is to Wade’s credit that peace has largely returned to many parts of the restive province. While commending the sage-like president (who was handed another seven-year mandate by the Senegalese electorate in 2007) for his efforts at bringing peace, it is pertinent to point out that much needs to be done for peace to reign without breach in southern Senegal.
Even though the greater majority of the MFDC rebels have laid down their arms, some unidentified gunmen suspected to have been among the rebels are bent on being spoilers to the peace, and have continued to bring untold suffering to the war-weary people of Casamance. It could be recalled that when the peace accord was signed, a faction led by Salif Sadio distanced itself from the peace agreement and continued fighting, operating largely from the forests of Guinea Bissau. When the renegade Sadio’s forces were routed out of Guinea Bissau by that country’s army in 2006, he and his men relocated to Casamance, where they clashed intermittently with government troops.
The problem was exacerbated with the death of Father Diamacounde Senghor in January 2007. The vacuum left the MFDC without a unifying and commanding personality. The recent upsurge in violence is disturbing. Attacks mounted by gunmen in August 2009 resulted in the death of a Senegalese soldier. The Senegalese army responded by bombing areas where the armed men were believed to be hiding. In the first week of October six Senegalese soldiers were killed and several others injured by a rocket-propelled grenade fired by suspected separatists fighters. The local population has not been spared. They still suffer from exploding land mines and occasionally, depredations of some former rebels, who carry out campaigns of intimidation to gain control over land to enable them grow cannabis or get the profits from the fruit trees and other economic plants that abound in the region.
At the height of the conflict, many Casamance indigenes fled to The Gambia as refugees, and though some have since returned, many are still averse to the idea of returning, apprehensive of what they perceive as the state of insecurity in many places in their native region. It looks as if the peace achieved in the region is in danger of faltering. Herein lies Wade’s big challenge.
Wade had played prominent roles in peace initiatives in different parts of Africa – Madagascar, Chad, Darfur, Mauritania and elsewhere. It would do Senegal – and West Africa, a lot of good if Wade could also apply his sage tact in dealing with the likes of Sadio.
The Senegalese government certainly has a big advantage, as the public mood in Casamance is in favour of peace. Furthermore, the rebellion in the restive province never really took the form of a mass insurrection.
Though the thickly forested Casamance favours guerrilla warfare, something the rebels had capitalized on, they are very much aware that realistically, it is not possible for them to defeat the Senegalese Army. Persistence on the part of government in convincing the few die-hard rebels that a dialogue is the only alternative will create a situation in which they (the rebels) will find themselves increasingly isolated. Punitive expeditions, like the one carried out by 2006 by the Senegalese army against Sadio could most likely do more harm than good to the peace process. However, meaningful overtures and round-table talks might do more to persuade the renegades to lay down their arms, and consolidate the peace that has so far been achieved.
Thankfully the region is not awash with precious stones, something that could have attracted international profiteers and sinister war-instigators who sponsor conflicts in certain parts of Africa in order to continue exploiting resources illegally and unhindered. That explains why the Casamance conflict did not assume the horrendous dimension, and the barbarity that characterized the wars that took place in countries like Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Knowing all these, the onus is on Wade to ensure that normalcy returns to the region. From all probability, the occasional attacks that occur after the signing of the peace accord seem more of criminal banditry, than political insurrection.
Experiences in other parts of Africa have shown that many ex-rebel fighters resort to banditry out of frustration due to joblessness. The Casamance is not an exception. People are less likely to resort to carrying arms if economic opportunities exist for their survival. Harnessing the vast natural resources in the region will result in economic transformation, and prosperity. That is another challenge for Wade.
Casamance is the most beautiful part of Senegal. The diversity of the region’s flora and fauna is astonishing. In contrast to other parts of the country, it is inundated with lush, evergreen forest. It has often been called the Bread Basket of Senegal, because of the enormous agricultural produce harvested from there annually. Much of the produce finds its way to other parts of Senegal and neighbouring Gambia. Fruits and vegetables, which are widely cultivated in the region, make it a potential agro-processing industry zone.
Other promising sectors are energy and tourism. The Casamance has some good waterways that can be harnessed to produce electricity, while its wetlands and vast array of wildlife makes it an attractive spot for eco-tourism. All these make the area attractive for investment. But it all to a large extent depends on the political will of the Senegalese authorities.
COVER STORIES
Peace after the Jackal
Charles Taylor’s influence and actions coloured the West African political landscape for two decades. To many people in West Africa and beyond, the personae of Charles Taylor, ex-president of Liberia is a combination of the charming orator, jail-breaker in the United States, and ex-gun-slinging-warlord.
Swinging assault rifles the way some feudal master of the manor swung the hickory walking stick, Taylor claimed, at the beginning of the Liberian civil war, that his rebellion was a redeeming inferno that was lighted to incinerate the Doe aberration. But it soon became clear that his consuming lust was to acquire the country as his personal fiefdom, and wider areas of West Africa especially the Mano River countries, as part of his empire. In order to actualize his ambition, Taylor unleashed his infernal arm, and like some monstrous octopus, his tentacles spread to most of West Africa, bearing surrogate warlords that were alter egos of the Charles Taylor psych.
At the peak of the insurgency, he was like one possessed by the conquering spirit of Ghengis Khan, the bloodletting of Caligula and the oratorical savvy of Hitler. In executing his war, he made the Hobbessian spirit pervade his domain, and made life nasty, brutish and short for many unfortunate souls.
Taylor devastated Liberia, exported war to Sierra Leone, and instigated a rebel insurrection in Guinea Conakry. It was once alleged that some elements from his rebel army were fighting alongside rebels in Senegal’s Casamance region. In 1996 eight men who were part of his fighting forces sneaked into peaceful Gambia and attacked an army barrack, killing six unarmed soldiers in cold blood.
Economic considerations were also part of Taylor’s programme, as he controlled the mineral and forest resources that abound in the Mano River area, especially diamonds, iron ore, timber and rubber, using proceeds from the sale of the commodities to enrich himself and fund his war.
During the war Taylor’s rebel fighters referred to him as ‘the President’, and his heady stance in the many peace conferences convened to find an end to the war tasked the patience and diplomatic resolve of sub-regional political juggernauts to the utmost.
Even though Nigerian-led ECOMOG forces spiked the guns of Charles Taylor’s earlier attempts to grab Liberia, elections held in 1997 saw him emerge as the president of that country. Like the lecherous rover that finally succeeded in acquiring the object of his lust, he went ahead to tighten his grip on the country - the first act of the plan was kicking out the stabilizing ECOMOG force from Liberia. But the luck of history was against him.
The coals of the inferno he had lit as a rebel leader were still smouldering somewhere in Liberia. It did not take long before the Saikou Konneh-led Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) and the Movement for Democracy in Liberia (MODEL) rebels stoked these coals into flames of war that engulfed Liberia once again. Reeling under a UN arms embargo, Charles Taylor now ironically found himself bayed from all sides by rebel armies, the way his rampaging forces once surrounded Doe, as war became the familiar refrain defining the socio-political landscape of this a-century-and-a-half republic. By then the countryside of Liberia was oozing blood, and Monrovia had begun to bleed.
It finally became clear to all that Taylor’s continued stay at the presidential mansion in Monrovia was the peace-spoiler in Liberia. And so he had to be eased out of office through an agreement brokered by the then Nigeria Olusegun Obasanjo, leading him to a three-year sojourn in Nigeria. The rest is history.
Though out of the scene, the Taylor’s ominous shadow seemed to loom over the sub-region. Even after his capture and handing over to the International war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone, there were still fears that his presence in that country, even as a prisoner, could bode ill for security.
A Charles Taylor on the loose foisted on the minds of the governments and peoples of the countries of the Mano River Union the type of chilling fear a the jolly roger strikes in the hearts of sailors of merchants ships sailing the seven seas in bygone ages. The fear and alarm his escape generated when it was announced that he escaped from his Calabar abode in 2006 was a sheer revelation of his brigand reputation. The reason is clear: Many countries in West Africa do not really possess the military capability to respond decisively to any Charles Taylor-inspired insurgency.
The fact that there are over a 100 000 ex-combatants in Liberia alone, many of them Charles Taylor loyalists, justifies this fear. Most of these ex-fighters in Liberia are unemployed, restless and disenchanted with the prevailing economic state of affairs in their country, and thus could have easily been tempted to once again fall back into the forest to join their former leader. Thankfully, the ex-warlord is now safely tucked away in a prison cell in The Hague, where he is facing charges on war crimes and crimes against humanity.
That Charles Taylor appeared on the scene to became a catalyst for the most brutal wars ever fought in the sub-region could rightly be regarded as one of the low points in West African history. Some school of thought posits that whatever exists is the property of an act. That is why it is sometimes argued that West Africa merely played into the hands of Taylor. Grim socio-economic circumstances, and the charged political climate prevalent in Liberia, which was then also a phenomenon in many other countries in West Africa, conspired to make and provide a fertile arena for the former warlord and his ilk to operate.
Taylor’s power mongering antics, both as a rebel leader, and as president of Liberia, was in no way a departure from a malaise that has always plagued African politics - leaders building around themselves a cult of personality, and by their very unpopular acts and policies make their countries breeding grounds for dissent.
There is also the collusion theory. Ego politics and personality clashes among African leaders had played a part in many wars that ravaged the continent. How could it be explained that Taylor was given free space to start his rebellion from neighbouring Cote d’Ivoire? Why was it easy for Taylor himself to export war into Sierra Leone? Imagine the ease with which Saikou Konneh’s LURD forces invaded Liberia from Guinea Conakry in 2002/2003. Why was it possible for some Casamance rebels to operate from Guinea Bissau at the height of the insurgency? Was it not an open secret that Burkina Faso channeled lots of support to rebels in the north of Cote d’Ivoire? In the light of the above, it could be deduced that West African leadership was largely responsible for conflicts that brought untold suffering to millions in the sub-region.
However, with the threat of another Charles Taylor-inspired war now over for good, many believe that the prospects for lasting peace in West Africa remain bright. But the challenges are many, and must be addressed by all those concerned for peace and stability to become a permanent feature of the West African polity.
Tending olive plants: democracy and stability
Democracy is the peace capital of the global polity. Jack Snyder and Edward D. Mansfield, in their article in the id21 insights bulletin asserted: “Mature, stable democracies have not fought wars against each other, and they rarely experience civil wars.” West Africa’s ruling elite ought to take note.
The West African leadership, which, as had already been mentioned, was largely responsible for the slide into chaos in the sub-region, must know that building peace without solid democratic institutions in place might eventually become an exercise in futility. Genuine democracy results in good governance, and encourages the inflow of foreign aid and investment, which leads to economic growth and prosperity. These are essential building blocks for peace and stability.
Perhaps, Africa can take a cue from what happened in post-World War II Europe, especially Germany, where, in the aftermath of a tragic war, the evolution of strong democratic institutions became the impetus for peace and prosperity. Describing the rapid socio-economic and political transformation that took place in Western Europe decades after the destruction and despair wrought by the war, Lance Morrow of Time Magazine wrote: “Civilizations, as well as forests, may be swept by devastating fires. But sometimes in the aftermath, the very ashes nourish the soil, and gradually a vigorous new growth rises. It is an inspiring but terrible kind of reforestation – historical progress by way of an apocalypse. Phoenix industries arise from the stubble, cities recrystallize. The forest obviously forgives the fire. In 50 years the new order may become so lush that hardly anyone remembers the shock and despair…A population that had descended from Bach to barbarism may find its way, sadder but wiser, toward Bach again.”
A paper presented a participant at an Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) conference held February 2009 in Banjul, The Gambia, depicted a bleak picture of the state of affairs in West Africa when it lamented: “Violent conflicts have greatly retarded the social, economic and political development of the West African sub-region especially in the past one-and-half decades. The destruction of human and material resources has been enormous. Efforts at creating the lofty goals of economic development for which Ecowas was created in 1975 have greatly been compromised by internal wars and conflicts, mass population movements and major economic downturns.”
It could be seen from the above extracts that it is not difficult to draw political parallels between pre-World War 11 Europe and Post-independence Africa. Europe went to war in 1939 due largely to a phenomenal rise of undemocratic forces on the continent. The conflicts that rocked Africa after independence directly and indirectly were a result of the truncation of democracy by post-independent leaders.
A great lesson post-conflict West Africa can learn from the European experience is that countries in the western part of Europe embraced democracy after 1945. This enabled them to put their economic acts together and get their development equation right, while the Eastern European countries that toed the line of totalitarianism got trapped inside the poverty cesspit. Eastern Europe is gradually finding its way towards Bach again, only after a taking a courageous decision of breaking with communism, and opting for democracy.
While the bad news is that democracy and good governance in West Africa is still a far cry from internationally accepted standards, the good news is that democracy is gradually taking root in countries like Ghana, Mali, Republic of Benin, and interestingly, the two countries that had been worst affected by conflicts in the sub-region - Liberia and Sierra Leone. Senegal and Cape Verde have had uninterrupted democratic governance since independence.
In Liberia, free and fair elections were held in 2005, though the initial mood after the exit of Taylor was that of apprehension and concern that the new-founded peace could prove to be phoney. The elections ushered in Mrs. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf as Africa’s first female president. Mrs. Sirleaf has set about the task of national reconciliation and reconstruction with vigour. She has made transparency and accountability, hallowed ethics in governance, in a bid to root out corruption. Adding strength to Sirleaf’s determination is the unspoken resolve of the Liberian people to never again allow their country be turned into a war zone. This can only be made possible if there is a responsible leadership whose power is derived from the people.
Sierra Leone also scored an important point for democracy in West Africa when an opposition party candidate, Earnest Bai Koroma won the presidential elections held in that country in 2007. That an opposition party was able to dislodge the ruling party from power through the ballot box proves that democracy is coming of age in Sierra Leone.
Snyder and Mansfield also noted that there is always the danger that states emerging from conflicts that are unable to complete successful transitions to democracy might be plunged back into war. This is also true of authoritarian and repressive states. They maintain that, “the most fundamental cause of war in transitional states is the gap between demands for political participation and the political institutions and organizations necessary to meet those demands”. Liberia fell into this trap in 1997 when Taylor assumed the presidency of the country. Liberians and the international community thought erroneously that the conflict was over for good. Though the war was presumed to be over, there were no strong democratic institutions in place. And since there were no institutional means to address grievances or concerns, another rebellion soon broke out in 1999.
Liberia and Sierra Leone seem to be getting it right presently because of the political will of their leaders and peoples to follow what Snyder and Mansfield called “democracy in the right sequence: state building first, then free and fair elections”. The same cannot be said of other post-conflict countries in the sub-region, like Guinea Bissau and Cote d’Ivoire, or some countries that emerged from long years of totalitarian or repressive rule, like Nigeria, Guinea Conakry, Togo and Mauritania. The future stability of these countries remains uncertain because true democracy is yet to take root.
The existence of strong democratic structures in a country will insulate it from instability, as prevailing circumstances will hit home to would-be coup makers and other adventurers that they will not be welcome. Many Guineans welcomed with unprecedented enthusiasm, Captain Musa Dadis Camara and other junior army officers who seized power after the death of Lansana Conte in December 2008, because of the sham democracy that operated in the country, as well as the cancerous corruption, inefficiency and widespread poverty that left the populace completely disenchanted. However, recent events in that country have proven that Captain Camara is yet another power mongering military adventurer who intends to stay for a long, long time.
Building bridges of understanding
Building understanding among the population by getting ex-fighters fully re-integrated into the mainstream of the society has been part of ongoing efforts to consolidate peace in West Africa. This has been a big problem for the post-conflict countries, especially Liberia and Sierra Leone, as programmes tailored in that direction are constrained by factors such as deep-seated animosity haboured by people who were severely abused by rebels during the war. Relatives of those who were murdered by rebels are also averse to any form of association with people who they feel were members of a horde responsible for the death of their loved ones. The recent outrage voiced by many people in Sierra Leone when it was discovered that ex-combatants were among men recruited and trained to serve in the presidential guard clearly attests to the distrust people in that country still have for ex-rebels.
The establishment of a peace and reconciliation commission and war crimes tribunals in Liberia and Sierra Leone respectively have been part of attempts to reconcile former combatants and give people a sense of justice. That notwithstanding, the problem still remains largely unsolved, and is compounded by the weak economy of the countries, which makes it difficult for them to provide employment for ex-combatants, or provide them loans to start their own businesses. It is not safe for many ex-combatants to remain unemployed. The likes of Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh found willing recruits among the mass of unemployed and impoverished youths in their countries.
Agriculture offers a lifeline for ex-fighters, and Liberia is doing fairly well in this regard. It is reported that many ex-combatants are now engaged in tidal rice cultivation in certain parts of the country. This is one of numerous opportunities available in Liberia and elsewhere in West Africa, which is blessed with a fertile soil and rich in natural resources. Expanding the scope of these opportunities and other positive alternatives is a challenge that faces the governments of Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cote d’Ivoire and the rest of West Africa, as well as the international community. Achieving this requires a partnership between the governments of West African countries and NGOs and the donor community. Many of these are working together in the area of massive re-orientation campaigns to channel minds and attitudes to dwell on positive peace building. This includes building bridges of understanding between surviving victims of conflict and ex-combatants. In this instance, empowerment could play a crucial role in diffusing tensions in post-Taylor West Africa.
Spurning culture of impunity: between passive complacency and tough choices
After the signing of the infamous 1939 Munich Pact that compelled a sovereign nation, Czechoslovakia to cede a third of its territory to Hitler’s Germany, Neville Chamberlain, the then British Prime Minister, who played a key role at the summit in Munich, returned to London triumphantly waving a piece of paper that contained the wordings of the cessation agreement and declared that “there will be peace in our time”.
It did not take the world long to realize that the Munich Pact was no peace at all. Rather, it encouraged Hitler, making him believe that he could get away with cross-border impunity. That gave him the leverage to drive on with his dream of a Pan-German Lebensraum with relentless vigour. The ‘peace in our time’ became the ominous prelude to a tragic war - the most destructive yet fought by mankind.
The moral of the Munich Pact story is a case for spurning culture of impunity in domestic and international politics. A lot has happened in African politics in the past – especially during the cold war years. In fact it can conceivably be argued that most of the wars that took place, and still ongoing in West Africa were the fallouts of the politics of the cold war.
In those days, the superpowers, seeking to win client states in Africa, often turned a blind eye to the misrule and abuses perpetrated by regimes that warmed to them. This encouraged a culture of impunity – and many African leaders took full advantage of it. Imagine the way a spare-educated Master Sergeant Doe of Liberia murdered the democratically elected Tolbert and dragged his body through the streets of Monrovia. The Master Sergeant coup-maker then flew on to Lagos, the then capital of Nigeria to attend an OAU summit. He went there in his capacity as the new Liberian head of state. Dressed in military fatigue, he cut the figure of a puss-in-boots presenting himself as the emissary of a fictitious Marquis of Carrabas. Doe’s misdemeanor was the prologue of the morbid drama of a war that engulfed his country a decade later.
Today the equation has changed in international power politics. Western attitudes and perceptions as regards to governance in Africa have also changed, and their mantra about democracy and good governance resonates everywhere.
But impunity has many faces in Africa, where it is a hydra-headed monster.
It goes beyond a leader oppressing his people. It includes such misdemeanors as brazen looting of the national treasury, rigging elections and flagrant disregard for international conventions and protocols. The last act was clearly demonstrated through the actions of Charles Taylor and some others. Taylor, through the time he was a warlord and when he assumed the presidency of Liberia, was an impediment to peace efforts. He launched attacks on ECOMOG, the regional peace keeping force and exported war to Sierra Leone, yet he ended up as the President of Liberia. Little wonder he was able to kick out the sub-regional peace keeping force, ECOMOG, after he came he assumed leadership. That was a violation of an agreement that preceded the elections that brought him into office.
Also disturbing is the fact that the late President Boigny of Cote d’Ivoire, itching to settle a personal score with Doe, had allowed Taylor to use his country as a base to launch the war. Thus a personal acrimony between Doe and Boigny became one of the factors leading to a 15-year war that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. It should be noted that no West African Head of State, individually or under the umbrella of ECOWAS, came up with a verbal condemnation of Boigny’s action.
Taking stock of the grim consequences of the Taylor-inspired conflicts in West Africa, and in a bid to guard against re-occurrence of such conflicts, Ecowas institutionalized a comprehensive strategy for conflict prevention and management through the Protocol relating to the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peacekeeping and Security signed on 10th December 1999; and the Supplementary Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance signed on December 21st 2001 by the Heads of State and Government of Member States. But such steps have never seemed to be enough. In most cases, they turn out to mere paper works. Ecowas is most often a blind umpire reluctant to gamble with the tough choice of reining in perverse fellows. Herein lies the danger.
Building peace and stability in the sub-region requires a critical reassessment of peer roles in triggering off, and stoking conflicts. This means shirking off passive complacency in the face of any glaring impunity and calling the bluff of West African leaders who, through their domestic policies and style of governance are likely to create situations that would breed dissent among their people and engender future conflict. Erring leaders usually fashion means of spurning the searchlight on their activities - they are always quick to take umbrage when their perverse acts are frowned at by the international community - with their spokespersons forcefully expressing the righteous indignation of their bosses. They invoke all necessary clauses in international laws and conventions about sovereignty and undue interference in a country’s internal affairs. Reacting to a communiqué expressing concern over the atmosphere of repression, insecurity, witch-hunting and gangsterism in Liberia issued in 2001in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso by some West African politicians, the minister of information in Charles Taylor’s government, Reginald Goodridge said: “Liberia has never interfered in the internal affairs of other countries, particularly our neighbours and how they pursue their democratic principles. So, I’m surprised that anyone …in West Africa would meddle in the internal affairs of Liberia by challenging what we do and how we do it.”
If genuine democracy, good governance and respect for human rights and economic prosperity were the hallmarks of the polity in Liberia and Sierra Leone, Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh would have found it extremely difficult to win recruits into their rebel armies. Tyranny breeds dissent.
However, there have been some positive developments in this area in recent years, like the arrest and trial of Charles Taylor, and the arrest of former Chadian leader, Hissene Habre. The latter has been in the news in the past few years. The issue was putting him on trial in Senegal, where he lives in exile, for gross human rights abuses he committed while in power.
After a lengthy diplomatic wrangling involving the Senegalese government, the European Union and African Union, Dakar eventually passed legislation that made it possible for Habre to be brought to trial. Though the trial is yet to commence due to financial constraints, his fate is a clear signal to serving African leaders that there is always a dear price to pay for impunity
Kimberley Process: dimming the shine of conflict diamonds
The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for rough diamonds, formally adopted in November 2002 by over 50 nations that dominated the production, processing and consumption of diamonds was essentially aimed at preventing the use of proceeds from sale of diamonds to fund conflicts, especially in Africa.
West Africa is very rich in mineral resources. Countries like Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea Conakry, Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire and Nigeria are richly endowed with easy-to-mine precious stones, semi-precious stones, precious metals and other solid minerals.
Gemstones and other natural resources were decisive factors in many wars in Africa – Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Angola, Sierra Leone and Liberia. The longevity and intensity of the conflicts in these countries were largely determined by the presence of precious stones.
Whenever a conflict sparks off a warlord is able to get rich quick and sustain his depredations through plundering of diamonds and other gemstones that are easy to sell in the international market. It is also easy to attract more fighters who are lured by prospects of making big fortunes from mining and sale of the minerals.
In many cases, soldiers of fortune without any idea of what an ongoing war is all about come from different countries far and near, attracted by diamonds and other precious stones. The glitz of gems also accounts for rapid proliferation of rebel groups in some of the conflict zones, as competing warlords fight over mining territories. The two bloodiest civil conflicts in West Africa, in Liberia and Sierra Leone, were largely fueled by precious stones especially diamonds. It is believed that the war in Casamance did not assume the ferocity and scale of the former two simply because there were no precious stones booty to attract adventurous fighters within and outside Senegal.
The activities of Dutchman Guus Van Kouwenhoven, is a good example of the active role foreign businessmen and cartels play in conflicts in Africa. Guus was notorious for colluding with Charles Taylor to illegally export diamonds and forest (timber) resources from Liberia. He actively collaborated with Taylor, with his (Guus’s) Oriental Timber Company participating in the ‘blood diamonds’ trade, and supplying weapons to the the Liberian warlord. In 2006 a court in Guus’s native country found him guilty of breaking a United Nations embargo on Liberia and sentenced him to eight years imprisonment.
The success of the Kimberley Process in West Africa depends on the effectiveness of government monitoring regulations within West Africa; and the prevailing character and direction of the international diamond trade.
In West Africa, diamonds are known to exist four countries – Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Cote d’Ivoire. While Ghana has a long tradition of strict government control of mining and sale of all solid minerals in its territory, post-conflict governments in Liberia and Sierra Leone are making efforts to ensure that all trading in diamonds are in line with international regulations. The Liberian Government went as far as setting up a diamond house in Monrovia, and ten diamond certification centres in ten other towns all over the country to supervise the trade in diamonds. It was in recognition of this that the UN lifted a six-year ban in export of Liberian diamonds in April 2007.
However, there are concerns about the mining and export of precious stones in a country like Cote’ d’Ivoire, where the central government is yet to fully assume total authority in the north of the country, despite making peace with the Forces Nouvelles. It is believed that illegal trade in precious stones takes place at the country’s porous northern border with Burkina Faso.
Forces outside West Africa greatly determine the diamond trade, and so long as powerful, informal cartels based mainly in Europe, Middle East and Asia continue to operate, trade in uncertified diamonds will continue to flourish. Recently, global conflict watchdog organizations like the International Crisis Group (ICG) have raised alarm that the KP is in danger of failing completely, as conflict diamonds are still very much in full shine. In this instance, the onus is on global bodies like the UN to fashion means of checkmating those who are bent on circumventing the purpose the KP sets out to achieve.
The media and peace building in West Africa
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) Media in Democracy journal spells out the role the media plays in the democratic process, and defines the correlation between successful democracy and stability when it stated: “The text of democracy is the quality of public debate, transparency and tolerance in society. It is the media that the people look to for the cultural richness and opinion, ideas, and thoughts which exist in every community and which provide the raw material for democratic debate. Journalism can be a catalyst for social change…if democracy fails, the results as recent events in Europe and Africa have shown, can be tragic and devastating.”
There are different perceptions as to the media’s role in Africa. While the journalists see themselves as societal watchdogs and communicators for democracy, good governance, citizenship and peace, the political elite largely regards them as nosey parkers.
The former president of Cote d’Ivoire, Henri Konan Bedie, once delivered a stinging indictment of his country’s media when he said: “there is a gutter press in Cote d’Ivoire which threatens stability because it thrives on provocation and defamation”. Bedie’s outburst against the fourth estate was understandable. He was of the old species of African leaders infected with the sit-tight bug. To them, the fourth estate is always in an unspoken alliance with opposition politicians. Thus, journalists are usually classified among those threatening national security.
However, it is sad to admit that history later proved Bedie right. Sections of the Ivorian press brought the profession into disrepute for the role they played during the civil war in that country. When the war broke out in September 2002, the media stoked, rather than help to put out the fire. Media channels openly took sides in the conflict, like the Ivorian Radio and Television Services (RTI) which simply became a propaganda arm of the government, and TOMPI FM, that supported the cause of the Forces Nouvelles. Much has also been said and written about the negative role some sections of the media played during the Rwandan genocide of 1994.
The media in West Africa are learning from such past mistakes, and are make sure it never happens again. The media’s role in peace building and during conflict situations is very important, and sensitive. This role is captured clearly by Agnes Adama Campbell of ActionAid Gambia: “There are always many parts to a conflict. There are those who are active combatants and there are those who are influential and the media and the media is in that category. They have a voice in terms of reaching out, disseminating information, and for me the non-violent means of resolving conflict should be sold by the media as an alternative strategy by which people can come together, discuss and dialogue in a forum where multi-voices could be heard and solutions sought. Such process just doesn’t come from the political leaders.”
True. Much as the onus is politicians to ensure peace, there is a limit to what they can do, especially when it comes to reaching out to the people. This is where the media comes in. The fourth estate must play the part of informing the people, and effecting positive changes for peace to reign in Africa.
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) Viewpoint
Is it the job of the journalist to promote peace?
Many people come into journalism because they want to change the world, for the better, but this is not the only motivation. Some seek influence and power, others to gratify their vanity by seeing their name in print. There is no compulsory requirement for journalists of the Hippocratic oath taken by doctors binding them to observe a code of ethics. Many journalists do adopt their own code of ethics drawn up by their own journalists’ unions or adopted by the IFJ Code of Conduct. Clause seven of the IFJ Code says: “The journalist shall be aware of the danger of discrimination being furthered by the media, and shall do the utmost to avoid facilitating such discrimination based on, among other things, race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, and national and social origins.
These codes focus on the need to avoid bad practice; they are not generally forthcoming about what constitutes good practice. We should be clear, however, that it is not the job of the journalist to resolve conflict or to create peace. This would be over-ambitious for a profession which has no special training in conflict resolution and which often fails to act independently. Before and during national wars, national media play the major role in justifying that war to the population – focusing on the merits of the national interest, the evils of the enemy and the courage, dignity and justice of their own forces. Independent voices are usually in a minority and find it difficult to make themselves heard. When journalism does play a part in bringing conflict between nations to an end it is usually after the killing has started, and the images of death start to overshadow the rhetoric of war. This is true of journalism in wealthy countries with advanced journalism and liberal press laws. African journalists who often have access to little technology, face restricted freedom to travel, and work under constrictive press laws have an even more difficult task.
Even doctors, with their years of training and their knowledge of medicines are not expected to cure the problems of society. Indeed the first duty of the doctor is to do the patient no harm, and the original Hippocratic oath contains the promise ‘To please no-one will I prescribe a deadly drug, nor give advice which may cause his death.’
Journalists too have a duty not to prescribe deadly drugs to local populations, but this is not the same as a duty to be responsible for promoting peace. Such an obligation could lead journalists to fret about the things they cannot control, and to control what they report, based on a series of self-inflicted prohibitions.
Good journalism does play a crucial role in helping to prevent ethnic conflict and the healing process after conflict, by focusing on what journalists do best, which is to communicate. Journalists who focus on developing skills, an inclusive approach to their jobs, building networks of good contacts and the self-confidence to listen to people from every ethnic group, will be better placed to give information and insight they need to make judgements, and play a role in building understanding between communities. In this sense journalists are likely to become peacemakers, but only if they keep their sights clearly fixed on the demands of the job, investigating what is happening and reporting it honestly and clearly. The good intentions of journalists can only be realized when they have developed the skills and the tools to do their jobs well. Which would you rather? Get into a bus where the driver has a passionate belief in the right to travel and the burning desire to cross continents, or a bus where the driver can work the controls, knows the role of the road and is committed to making progress while avoiding accidents? (Well, both, you might hope.)
Accurate and honest reporting is not a short cut to peace – it may reveal injustice, conflict or killings – but it is less dangerous than rumour, and is an essential building block for understanding. The journalist may not know how to resolve conflict – that is the job for the conciliator or politician – but the journalist should know how to explain one person’s life and point of view to another person, and in doing this the journalist can build bridges between people who see each other as less than human.
If conflict is in the air then it does not take much skill or expertise to act as cheer leader to those who are fanning the flames. Encouraging people to hate their enemy is not journalism – we can leave that to people who design posters for army recruitment centres. Encouraging people to understand and express their own feelings and to recognize and acknowledge those of opposing groups is journalism of the highest order. Such journalism inevitably shows the similarities between people who are opposed to each other, because no-one has yet discovered an ethnic group which does not love its’ children, want to live in security or feel afraid when threatened.
Roots of Conflict
Nigeria: This House Must Stand
Nigeria is a state of many nations crying out to be released from the strait jacket of an oppressive and suffocating unitary system, with a leviathan of a federal government in the driving seat. In other words, Nigeria is a unitary state masquerading as a federal state. What then is federalism? Or to put it in another way, how is a unitary constitution different from a federal constitution? Obafemi Awolowo (premier of the defunct Western Region) has noted that in the case of a unitary constitution, the supreme legislative authority in the state is vested in one government. Whereas in the case of a federal constitution, the supreme legislative authority is shared between between the general or central government and the regional, provincial or state governments, all of which are coordinate with and independent of one another in regard to the powers and functions expressly or by necessary implication vested in them by the constitution.
As K.C. Wheare put it, “the fundamental and distinguishing characteristics of a federal system is that neither the federal nor the regional governments are subordinate to each other, but rather, the two are coordinate and independent.” In short, in a federal system, there is no hierarchy of authorities, with the central government sitting on top of the others. All governments have a horizontal relationship with each other.
But Nigerian federalism contradicts all known criteria for federations. According to Professor Ben Nwabueze, a unitary constitution for a federal system of government exposes a fundamental contradiction in our constitutional system. Nwabueze, who has identified five main areas and aspects in which the 1979 and 1 999 constitutions have altered power relations in Nigeria in favour of the federal government and at the expense of the states, also points out that the accumulation of political power has also been accompanied by the transfer of the overwhelming bulk of state resources to the centre, resulting in the political and financial atrophy of the states.
The regional constitutions in the 1960 and 1963 constitutions described each region as “a self-governing region of the federal republic of Nigeria.” To buttress the self-governing status of each region, adequate provisions were made to guarantee their economic independence, thus avoiding the hollowness of a declaration of self-governing status totally undermined by economic dependence. Moreover, consistent with the federal character of the country, i.e. a country of many nations, the basis of revenue allocation was strictly derivative.
Section 140 which made provision for the sharing of the proceeds of minerals, including mineral oil, stated that “there shall be paid by the federal government to a region, a sum equal to 50 per cent of the proceeds of any royalty received by the federation in respect of any minerals extracted in that region and any mining rents derived by the federal government from within any region.” For the purpose of this section, the continental shelf of a region was deemed part of that region.
By Section 136(1), 30 per cent of general import duties was paid into a distributable pool for the benefit of the regions. With regard to import duties on petrol, diesel oil and tobacco, the total sum of import duty collected, less administrative expenses, was fully payable to the region which the petrol or diesel oil or tobacco was destined. A similar provision was made for excise duty on tobacco.
With regard to produce i.e. cocoa, groundnut, rubber and hides and skin, the proceeds of export duty were shared on the basis of the allocation of revenue and the proportionate share of such proceeds that went to the region it originated from, clearly buttressed the operating base of true federalism. As a direct consequence of the concentration of powers and resources in the federal government under the 1999 constitution, Nigeria has been plunged into an unending series of crises since the commencement of the so-called Fourth Republic on May 29, 1999. The country is concurrently confronted with:-
1. Fierce competition for the capture of power at the centre leading to tension and instability of the polity.
2. Mutual suspicion and fears of domination and marginalization between ethnic nationalities leading to the rise of ethnic militias and violent conflicts.
3. The denial of the oil producing areas any right of control and management of their resources, resulting in gross environmental pollution, poverty and wretchedness, again, giving rise to militancy of the local populations, violent disruption of oil production and total disenchantment of the Niger Delta with the Nigerian State.
It has thus become clear that until Nigeria returns to true federalism, there can be no real growth, progress, development, and harmony amongst the ethnic nationalities that make up the country. There is a clear consensus that absence of good leadership is another major source of Nigeria’s problems. The persistence of poor human materials at the control of the levers of power has proved very expensive for the country. Fola Arthur-Worrey in his book, retells a very expensive joke on Nigeria which has made its rounds in many national and international circles. According to this story, when God in his infinite wisdom was creating the states in the world, he made sure that every single state in the world got a fair share of resources. Thus states X; Y; and Z may get resources A, B and C, BUT will be passed by God when he is sharing resources D, E, and F between states R, S, and T. This fair distribution system was applied to every state in the world, with the singular exception of Nigeria. Nigeria received all the resources that God distributed. Other states became envious and angry. When God noted the restiveness of the other states he silenced them with this statement: “Do you seek to reveal your thoughts for which I myself am responsible? You worry about my seeming bias towards the land called Nigeria. And so you might under normal circumstances, but this are not normal circumstances. Yes, I appear to have given this land an unfair advantage over the others…He paused and turned to stare contemplatively at the map. “But wait until you see the type of people I will put there.”
Yes, it may be considered an expensive joke. But if we examine our conduct as a state and society since 1960, don’t you think we deserve it? My only modification is to substitute leaders and rulers for people. It is our leaders and rulers who have put us where we are.
Virtually every ruler is controlled by the inordinate greed for power and wealth. The interests of the people in this country have been consigned to the devil. Looting and plundering the treasury, cheating, rigging elections, oppressing the weak and the masses, gross indiscipline insensitivity and irresponsibility, chaotic mentality, and, therefore, a chaotic polity. These are the legacies of Nigerian rulers.
Nigerians must have observed the recent hysterical clamour of our rulers from the north and the East about 2007. Each zone is claiming that it must produce the president in 2007 and must rule Nigeria. They are almost going to war with themselves over these selfish and thoughtless claims. And you get the impression that Nigeria is a predatory cow that must be milked in turn by predatory cabals.
Not one of them has said anything about the interest of Nigerians, not to mention the wishes of Nigerians. Nothing is being done about our welfare and development. That of course is irrelevant. We must all lie down prostrate and be ruled without our consent. It is in the midst of this shame, disgrace and embarrassment that the insensitive and callous are screaming themselves hoarse in staking their claims to milk Nigeria to death. Part of the grave problem facing us today is our stubborn and consistent refusal to practice and culture of democracy. And so we have civilian governments, but no democracy. Democracy, which is the indispensable twin of the rule of law, is based on two key elements: (i) Popular control over collective decision-making and decision-makers (ii) an equal right to share in such control, i.e. personal equality.
It is not, therefore clear why democracy cannot thrive in Nigeria, in view of the massively rigged 2003 elections? With the electoral travesty of 2003, Nigeria is now stuck at the threshold of democracy and cannot gain entrance.
There is a total absence of the proper orientation and attitude for operating a multi-national country. No government can successfully operate a multi-national state without applying a full dose of autonomy, solidarity, cooperation among the federating units inter se and between them the federal government or centre. Tragically, Nigerian federalism is bereft of democracy, is bereft of the rule of law, is bereft of solidarity, is bereft of cooperation and is bereft of the tolerance. What we have is seizure of funds of fellow governments, and aggressive and warlike claims to trunk roads.
Unquestionably, corruption, which is an aspect of indiscipline, is the greatest impediment to development in Nigeria.
Starting with the beginning of the Second Republic, also known as the Shagari era, Nigeria has been acknowledged as the headquarters of corruption worldwide. Those old enough will recall the military tribunals set up by the Buhari/Idiagbon regime and how it was revealed to a stunned populace that the inimitable creativity of Nigerians was able to milk millions of naira from the youth service ‘stone’ as we all thought the service was. Names like Obasa and Kila became household synonyms for the looting and plundering of an obscure agency. Imagine what must have happened in the mainstream agencies.
We thought that was the worst and jokingly retold stories about a civilian governor who on being caught with about N4 000 000 [then, in 1983, worth about $8000 000] state funds in his bedroom, retorted unrepentantly that there was nothing wrong in keeping government money in government house!
Alas, that was the era of perinatal innocence. The Babangida era saw the practice of looting of the treasury become an accepted national culture. And so when queried for the missing $12.4 billion Gulf War windfall, which the Financial Times of London first revealed, and which the Okigbo panel of eminent Nigerians confirmed, Babangida’s response was simply an updated version of the Barkin Zuwo reaction.
Whilst we are still reeling under this shock, the post-Abacha era revealations hit the country. Mind-boggling sums in dollar and pounds had been crudely carted away from the Central Bank. Sums like $600 000 000 and 280 000 000 were regarded as tips of the icebergs. ‘Gifts’ of 30 million Duetschmark and millions of dollars were casually tossed at ministers and all persons close to Aso Rock became dollar multi-millionaires.
The Abubakar transition programme did not spare the country either. Vast blocks of oil fields were given to ‘friends’, country villas surpassing Roman edifices were brazenly built, and our foreign reserves dipped from $8 billion to just over $3 billion.
The Nigerian tribune of Sunday August 1 reported in blazing headlines that 14 top looters in the federal government circles stole N11 trillion in the Babangida/Abacha era. The topmost looter allegedly has more than 6.5 billion pounds sterling, 7.1 billion Swiss Franc, $2billion and 9 billion Deutschemark, in his foreign accounts.
What has been stated so far is a summary of some of our problems. If we do not tackle them with vigour and determination, we cannot long survive as a state.
(Excerpted from a keynote address delivered by professor Itse Sagay, SAN, eminent Nigerian jurist and academician, at an annual conference of the Nigerian Bar Association in Abuja)
Niger: blowing dusts of conflict
The president of Niger, Mahmud Tandja’s tenure elongation antics has been the focus of international attention on West African for most of 2009. The ex-army colonel, who was elected into office in 1999 and 2004, has succumbed to the temptation of what is generally regarded as the besetting sin of many African leaders – overstaying their welcome. And the way he has set about achieving his term extension is a sad reminder that some African leaders have learnt nothing, and are unwilling to break with the old unfashionable post-colonial African system that gave rise to political dinosaurs. Worse still, Tandja is so consumed in his lust for power that he seems not to ponder at all on the likely consequences of his actions on his vast desert country. So far, all entreaties from the international community, including Ecowas (which he was once chairman) to reconsider his decision have fallen on deaf ears.
The way he dissolved his country’s parliament when the members refused to support his plan to hold a referendum that would pave the way for him to change the clause in the constitution limiting a president to two-terms, and the manner in which he dissolved the constitutional court when it ruled that it was illegal to organize the referendum, reveals Tandja as the consummate power monger who will stop at nothing to remain in office.
Niger is richly endowed with uranium, and seismic surveys carried out in the country have confirmed the existence of oil. A leading French company has signed a multi-million dollar contract with the Nigerien government to mine the uranium. Oil companies are also queuing for a slice of the investment pie. Added to these are the country’s agricultural potentials, including livestock. These developments, and the fact that the Nigerien economy has been registering a positive growth rate in recent years, seem to indicate that the country under Tandja, is making progress economically.
And so Tandja claims he has set Niger on the path towards prosperity, and that he needs more time to complete the good work he has started. But his words and actions run counter to what the president of the United States, Barack Obama emphasised in Ghana during his first visit to Africa. Mr Obama had said: “Africa doesn’t need strong men, it needs strong institutions.” That message is yet to sink into the heads of Tandja and some other African leaders who arrogate to themselves knowledge of the act of governance. A country with strong democratic and good governance structures in place doesn’t accommodate life presidents. A president, even if he rules all his life, cannot live forever. We’ve seen too many instances of countries in Africa plunging into a succession crisis after the death of a long-serving president. But a strong democratic and good governance culture lasts for generations. Tandja’s argument sounds completely hollow. The latest UNDP country development index rated Niger as the poorest in the world, not a good score for a president bragging about his development credentials. Adding to the country’s woes is a recent projection that due to poor rains, three million people might be threatened by famine this year.
The present near-political impasse he is led his country into is not Tandja’s first misdemeanor. In October 2006 he had stirred the hornet’s nest when he decided to expel about 150 000 Muhammedian Arabs from Niger. The nomadic Muhammedian Arabs migrated to Niger from Sudan and Chad as far back as 1840 and as recent as 1984 in search of water, for tens of thousands of cattle, camels and other livestock they own. The migrants also intermarried with other Nigeriens – Hausas, Fulanis and Tuaregs. Tandja’s government claimed that the expulsion order was necessary because traditional rulers of other communities accused the Arabs of rape, theft and killings. But Aishatu Musa of the BBC Hausa service in an interview with BBC Focus on Africa suggested that the expulsion order was politically motivated, as rich Mohammed Arabs were known to be supporting the political ambitions of Hama Ahmadu, the then prime minister of Niger.
It was reported that some of the Arabs were actually deported by the Nigerien authorities, though the majority vowed to resist any attempt to deport them. The government eventually decided to repatriate only those that were not properly documented. Nevertheless the seed of future conflict was sown, as the Arabs were made to feel insecure by the actions of the government and could easily pander to the mischievous dictates of anyone intent on causing chaos in Niger.
Mamadou Tandja is supposed to be a respected figure in West African politics, and knew that xenophobia or mass expulsion of a particular people is against the African Union Charter on Human and People’s Rights. Xenophobia and the attempts by Bedie to edge out a political rival, Allasane Quattarra, through application of ill-defined citizenship laws were the root causes of a civil war that almost tore Cote d’Ivoire apart. The problem between the Mohammedian Arabs and the Niger government was particularly dangerous, considering the inferno next door in Chad and Sudan. The conflict between Arabs and Black Africans in the latter shows how deadly a racial strife can become, especially for a country like Niger, which already has one - the Tuareg rebellion in the north of the country.
Coming again to the present. Tandja has organized his referendum, which was overwhelmingly in his favour. He has now changed the constitution to extend his stay. Not without some strong-arm tactics, though. Opposition politicians who opposed him were picked up and detained by security forces. The parliamentarians he rendered jobless were also slammed with corruption charges. That was a way of further punishing them for daring to oppose him.
Meanwhile, opposition politicians and democracy activists in the country have vowed to continue their campaign against this rape of democracy. The future of democracy in the country remains uncertain.
Niger is a very hot country, and the political temperature is rising. We pray it does not get to a boiling point. That depends to a large extent, on Tandja.
Conflict Watch
Niger Delta: good governance is the key to peace
(Part One)
Events in the Niger Delta dominate news from Nigeria these days, and like most other information filtering from that country, stories about these events are at best, discouraging and at worst, gruesome. Media close-ups on the oil-rich region beam to the world images of environmental degradation, militant attacks on pipelines and oil installations, and kidnapping of foreign and local workers in the oil industry.
While a war of attrition is being fought out in the swampy zone, the causes of the conflict itself have become the subject of contrasting claims by the protagonists acting out the muddy drama – the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that wants the world to believe that the security problem in the Niger Delta is nothing more than the actions of some irresponsible brigands, criminal elements motivated by selfish greed. Not so, say the militants, who maintain that theirs is a legitimate struggle to address the injustices their area, which provides the resources that is the economic lifeline of the Nigerian state, has been subjected to for many years. Their grievances centre on three pressing issues: environmental degradation; economic deprivation; and marginalization. They’ve not had a slice of the national cake, notwithstanding the fact that the ingredients for the sumptuous cake were taken from their own land. The claims and counter-claims of the parties embroiled in the Niger Delta conflict leaves the international community confounded as to the crux of the conflict. Meanwhile, the plot thickens, with no denouement in sight.
A honest, rational thinking Nigerian from any of the geopolitical zones in the country can maintain in all fairness, that none of the parties in the conflict is completely right or completely wrong in its’ assertions. The Nigerian government is simply trying to downplay the seriousness of the festering conflict. And trying to distinguish between the militants genuinely fighting for the socio-economic emancipation of the Niger Delta from those who are common bandits is as difficult and confusing as the maze of waterways and creeks crisscrossing the region.
The Niger Delta, which is also known as the South-South, one of Nigeria’s six geo-political zones, is made up of six states – Delta, Rivers, Bayelsa, Cross River, Akwa Ibom and Edo. The insurgency has largely been concentrated on the first three states, which are homes to the fourth largest ethnic group in Nigeria, the Ijaws. All the minority ethnic groups in southern Nigeria are also in the region.
The Niger Delta is located in the Guinea Coast, and onshore and offshore lie one of the largest reserves of oil in the world.
While the once dirt-poor Arabian peninsular now glitters in the glory of economic development and high standard of living brought about by petro-dollars, it is a gory paradox that the land and peoples in the Niger Delta are suffocating under a petro-peril. A visit to the area confirms the claim by the militants that some parts of their once arable land has been rendered worthless and waters polluted, killing off marine life. Unable to farm or fish for economic sustenance, it is rational for one to expect that the returns from the sale of oil, the drilling which brought about the degradation in the first place, would be used to provide succour for the economically and socially beleaguered populace. But, alas the paradigm of morality never features in the socio-economic scheme of successive leaders in Africa’s most populous nation. Also, the fact that the South-South is the only geopolitical zone yet to produce a head of state or government in the country lends credence to the claim by the militants that the region is politically marginalized.
A critical and objective analysis of the conflict raging in the Delta will reveal that it sprung up out of bad governance. Many people within and outside Nigeria point accusing fingers at successive federal governments for neglecting the Niger Delta. Nigeria has a notorious reputation for breeding leaders with kleptomaniac tendencies, and past leaders could largely be blamed for the deplorable state of the Niger Delta. However, care should be taken in apportioning blame.
While the federal government should take the blame for not putting in place the right policies for development, or not setting strict environmental guidelines for the oil companies operating in the area, we should not discount the role other internal forces played in impoverishing the land and peoples of the Niger Delta.
It should be remembered that Nigeria is a federal state with three tiers of government – federal, state and local government. The latter two receive monthly allocations from the federal government, and in line with the derivation clause in the country’s constitution, the oil producing states, comprising the six Niger Delta States and three others – Imo, Abia and Ondo receive 13 percent of the revenue from oil and gas drilled from their land. The oil producing local government areas also receive additional revenue from the federation account.
While the 13 percent might sound small, in reality, it is a relatively large amount that could make a lot of difference in the lives of the people in any of the oil producing states. Long before militant activities started, states like Rivers, Delta, and Bayelsa, every month received, and are still receiving huge sums from the federation account, far more than many African countries manage to generate and get as development aid in any month. In addition, many of the local government areas receive more than half a million US dollars monthly. The states and local governments also generate revenue from rates and taxes, as well as occasional generous donations from resident oil companies.
In an interview with BBC Network Africa sometime in 2009, the governor of the Northern Nigerian state of Jigawa, Sule Lamido, claimed that “the state and local government authorities in the oil producing states are largely to blame for the underdevelopment in the area”. According to him, the derivation money the oil producing states and local government areas are getting is being mismanaged to the detriment of the people. Some Nigerians tend to write such assertions off as the misguided view of a northern politician. But there are elements of truth in what the governor said. Lamido is among the leading personalities in Nigerian politics (he served as foreign minister in Obasanjo’s government), and knows very well that as it is at the federal level, the money doesn’t go where the mouth is in the states and local government areas.
Professor Ade Adefuye, Ecowas adviser on good governance, and a Nigerian himself, once said: “Corruption has undermined democracy, resulting in the emergence of unpopular leaders, legitimacy crisis for political leadership, … state fragility, destructive conflicts and weak institutional capacity to effectively perform the task of governance.” The professor’s words quietly capture the sordid scenario in the Niger Delta. Over there, as in other parts of Nigeria, graft defines politics.
Unsurprisingly, five out of six former governors from the Niger Delta states are under investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Nigeria’s anti-graft agency. One of them, Diepreye Alamiyeseigha, a former governor of Bayelsa State, actually served time in prison, after being convicted of corruption charges. Prior to that he was arrested in the United Kingdom for money laundering, but managed to jump bail. Two others James Ibori and Lucky Igbinedion, former governors of Delta and Edo states respectively, are currently facing corruption charges at the courts.
In Nigeria, corruption at the state and local government level is as pervasive as at the federal level. The states and local governments are supposed to be nearer to the people, but sadly, poor governance happens to be the norm. State and local government officials are only adept at awarding phoney contracts, conduits through which they siphon money that belongs to the people, and meant to improve their lives.
Because state governors and local government chairmen in the Niger Delta, as in other parts of Nigeria, are completely bereft of ideas about good governance, and busy looting the oil money, they lose sight of the vast non-oil economic potentials that abound in their areas. The Niger Delta is rich in renewable agricultural resources, and has great potentials for massive production in palm produce, fisheries, aquaculture, timber, rubber, fruits, cassava (which Nigeria is now the leading world producer and exporter), and many food and cash crops.
The world sees the Niger Delta as an important oil-producing zone, but one thing most of the world isn’t aware of is that before anyone knew about the existence of petroleum on the bowels of the earth, the Niger Delta was part of an area in Southern Nigeria which the British referred to as the “Oil Rivers” in the 19th Century. This was because the area, like most of Southern Nigeria, was littered with the most economically viable of plants – the palm tree.
Periscope
Ghana: stable for Africa
Ghana celebrated 50 years of nationhood in style in March 2007. The country can boast of being one of the most stable in West Africa. It must have had its share of military coups in the past, but Ghana today seems to have rediscovered itself and reinvented the Nkrumah spirit.
The 2008 presidential election was tight, and happy enough, transparent. That an opposition candidate – John Atta Mills defeated the candidate of the ruling party, the second time a ruling party is losing out in pools in Ghana, shows that democracy has come of age in the country. The country is home to solid mineral resources – gold, diamonds, bauxite and manganese, and yet has never been the lure for importunate warlords. For its peace and political stability, good governance, respect for human rights, and sustained economic growth, Ghana qualifies as the beacon of hope for West Africa. Unsurprisingly, the first African American president of the United States, Barack Obama, included Ghana in his itinerary on his first visit to Africa in 2009.
Benin: another peaceful transition
Benin is regarded as one of the success stories in the nascent African democratic project. Successful elections held in March 2006 lent credence to this view. Veteran international banker Yaya Boni – considered an outsider by many, emerged the surprise winner at polls that was given a clean bill by international observers. More encouraging was the fact that voting was largely free of ethnic bias, and this is a great hope for peace and stability. That old-timer Mathieu Kerekou bowed out gracefully in deference to his country’s constitution debunks the notion that all African leaders are hybrid life-presidents. Aside from crippling economic problems, Benin has largely been a very peaceful country, and free from the type of ethnic and religious conflicts that plagues its’ giant eastern neighbour Nigeria or the succession bickering of western neighbour Togo.
Cape Verde: island of hope
Cape Verde has a reputation as a real dove in West Africa. This Portuguese-speaking Island nation has maintained a peace culture typical of small island nations. The stability the country enjoys could be said to account for its’ relative economic growth and stability in a sub-region where poverty is rampant. The racial mix in the country has in no way affected its’ political fortunes. Elections held in 2006 passed off peacefully. It is no surprise that Cape Verde has progressed economically to become a middle-income country, the first in West Africa to achieve that status. Little wonder the country was among the six African countries the US secretary of state, Mrs. Hilary Clinton visited during her recent trip to Africa.
Togo: hope after the dinosaur
For most of the 1990s Togo was treated as a pariah nation by the West. That was as a result of the late President Eyadema’s perceived poor human rights record. Selective sanctions were imposed on the country, and because of that, the tiny country’s economy suffered. That notwithstanding, Eyadema, who ruled Togo for 38 years, somehow cut his edge as a regional peacemaker by hosting peace conferences and acting as mediator in some of West Africa’s conflicts.
At home many Togolese hailed Eyadema as a unifying force and commended him for the peace and stability the country enjoyed. After his death in 2005 the Togolese army defied the constitution and quickly handed over power to his son, Faure. This action was branded a constitutional coup by both the African Union and ECOWAS. The Togolese authorities balked and organized elections which Faure won. This led to serious riots in the country. ‘Togo is no one’s personal fiefdom’ was the battle cry of the dissenters who had hoped for a completely new political dispensation in the country after the death of Eyadema. The security forces moved in to quell the riot and Togo tottered on the brink of conflict. However, the situation was brought under control – not without loss of lives and displacement, though, and many Togolese fled to nearby Ghana and Benin. However, the tension has worn off and Faure Eyadema is now doing his best to maintain the peace in his country.
Edition 01
October-December 2009
Contents
1. Editor’s Note
2. Women and peace building in Africa
3. Feature: Wade’s big challenge
4. COVER STORIES :
Peace after the Jackal
Tending olive plants: democracy and stability
Building bridges of understanding
Spurning culture of impunity: between passive complacency and tough choices
Kimberley Process: dimming the shine of conflict diamonds
The media and peace building in West Africa
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) Viewpoint
5. Roots of Conflict: Nigeria: This House Must Stand
6. Niger: blowing dusts of conflict
7. Conflict Watch: Niger Delta: good governance is the key to peace (Part One)
8. Periscope: Ghana: stable for Africa
Page 2
Peace Capital
For peace to prevail in Africa…
1. There should be good governance at all levels - accountable and transparent leadership with a zero tolerance for corruption.
2. There should be true democracy, not pseudo-democracy. True democracy is all about free and fair elections, respect for rule of law, basic human rights and press freedom.
3. Politics of bitterness must be avoided. Government should not regard opposition politicians as enemies, but indispensable players in the democracy playing field. For its part, the opposition should be objective in commenting on government policies.
4. There should be term limits for heads of state. The sit-tight and life-presidency syndrome must be discarded.
5. Governments must honour international treaties, protocols and conventions on good governance, human rights and freedom of expression.
6. Former warlords and heads of state guilty of crimes against humanity must be punished to serve as a deterrent to others and prevent culture of impunity.
7. African governments should put in place poverty alleviation and youth skills empowerment programmes that will help improve the standards of living of their peoples.
8. Governments should collaborate with civil society organizations to plan and organize peace education and sensitization campaigns. Such campaigns should harp on virtues of peace and expose the horrors of war.
9. Governments should set up organs and forums for conflict prevention and mediation in many places in their countries..
10. There should be a responsible and fair allocation of the national cake among the constituent regions in a country.
11. Racial slurs, stereotyping and ethnocentrism should be avoided. All forms of marginalizing of any ethnic group or region in a country must be avoided.
12. There should be religious tolerance.
13. Xenophobia must be avoided
14. International laws banning arms proliferation and illegal trade in diamonds and other precious stones should be rigidly enforced.
15. The Military must be subordinate to civilian authority, and stay completely out of politics. No coup can be justified in any country, whatever the reasons given.
Quote
“Everybody is a potential refugee. In crisis situations, doctors, lawyers, engineers and other qualified persons may be forced into refugee camps. Our politicians should learn to embrace peace for the sake of the country and its people.”
-Igna Gabriel,
Former Federal Commissioner for
Refugees in Nigeria.
West African PeaceReview is a quarterly journal of Media for Peace and the Environment (Mepeev).
Chief Editor
Patrick N Olisa
Editorial Committee
Patrick Olisa, Madi Njie, Emmanuel Vandy, Saikou Jammeh, Kingsley Sam.
Graphic Design
Babatunde Olaitan
Printed by INK (7787836/9935153)
Readers are welcome to photocopy and circulate articles.
Please acknowledge West African PeaceReview and send us a copy of your publication.
Contacts:
Gambia
Patrick N Olisa
Jabbi-Kunda
Off Brikama Highway
C/o Box 929
Banjul.
The Gambia
Tel: (220) 4370639
(220) 7277257
Email: mepeev@yahoo.com
Patscript2003@yahoo.com
Nigeria
Nwabu Ogo
U.J.O Lodge
C/o Box 13246
Ikpoba Hill
Benin City.
mepeevnig@yahoo.com
Editor’s Note
Mepeev’s Mission
Welcome to the maiden edition of West African PeaceReview, the very first publication from Mepeev’s stable.
The contents of this journal reflect our advocacy role as journalists, and are meant to inform and communicate for a culture of peace, democracy and good governance in West Africa and beyond.
West Africa experienced horrible conflicts in the past few decades. Liberia and Sierra Leone are struggling to rebuild from the rubble of fatal civil wars that almost obliterated their national identities; Ivory Coast still tries to sort out a conflict that left the country divided for several years; uneasy peace reigns in Guinea Bissau; the Casamance conflict in Senegal is yet to be completely resolved; Militants in Nigeria’s Niger Delta are up in arms against the federal government; Guinea Conakry periodically totter on the edge of the precipice of conflict; Tuareg rebels occasionally trouble Niger and Mali; while terrorists gradually infiltrate desert areas of the sub-region, especially Mauritania.
Given this worrisome scenario, we, the members of Mepeev, have resolved to campaign tirelessly for the entrenchment of a democratic and peace culture in West Africa. The media’s role and response determine the trajectory of democracy in Western societies, and we don’t want Africa to be an exception, as democracy is an indispensable pre-requisite for enduring peace and stability anywhere.
As media practitioners, information is our prized capital, and our positive information dissemination campaigns give great leverage to peace building efforts in our sub-region. We as much as possible help to build bridges of understanding between communities, politicians and countries; suggest peaceful alternatives to war; promote understanding as well as extol the virtues of peace and point out the grim consequences of war. We also promote and support peace building and conflict prevention and mediation mechanisms at the grassroots.
We are very careful to be non-partisan in whatever we do. We are aware of the dangers of harmful tendencies like religious bigotry, ethnocentrism and delusive patriotism, which are capable of wiping up internal strife, fuel inter-country conflict, as well as goad mischievous policymakers to their worst excesses.
It is absolutely necessary to prevent a conflict from taking root in any country. A conflict in one country has the potential to spill over to neighbouring countries, as past events in West Africa have shown.
Mepeev, along with other peace-loving individuals and organizations, will work always, to ensure a conflict-free West Africa.
Patrick N Olisa
Contents
Cover stories
Women and peace building in Africa
Wade’s big challenge
Roots of conflict
Niger: blowing dusts of conflict
Niger Delta: good governance is the key to peace
Country periscope
Women and peace building in Africa
Women have a crucial role to play in peace building in Africa. As mothers they are closer to the children in their early, formative years. Thus their influence in individual homes that form the nucleus of a society is very crucial to stability in any African country. Furthermore, the polygamous nature of most African societies makes it rather difficult for most men to be very close to all their children or be able to monitor them closely. Given this state of affairs, responsibility for imparting the necessary moral virtues to the children is most often shouldered by individual wives in a large, polygamous household.
International bodies – the United Nations Organization (UNO) and the African Union (AU) are increasingly recognizing and emphasizing on the important role women have to play in peace building in Africa, more so as statistics show that women and children suffer more in the continent’s wars. In most of these wars women are often subjected to abuses. Many of them are raped by rebels and sometimes even government forces during conflicts. Very young girls have been abducted and forced to become wives and concubines of rebel fighters. Also, majority of the occupants of the refugee camps in Africa are women and children.
Following several campaigns by women’s rights movements, in the year 2000, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1325. This resolution on women, peace and security was a historic step that acknowledged the essential role of women in peace building. It calls for the inclusion of women in decision-making at all levels.
A significant aspect on the resolution is the emphasis on the family in conflict resolution and peace building; women’s involvement in UN field-based operations especially among military observers, civilian police and human rights and humanitarian personnel; and for the need for women and girls to be given due consideration in the design of refugee camps, in repatriation and resettlement, in post-conflict reconstruction, in disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.
During the 2nd Ordinary Session of the Assembly, held in Maputo, July 2003, the Heads of State and Governments adopted the protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the rights of women in Africa. They also re-affirmed the principle of promoting gender equity as well as ensuring the full participation of African women as partners in Africa’s development. While discussing on the Special Session on Gender, during the Third Ordinary Session of the Assembly, the Solemn Declaration on Gender, adopted in 2004, Heads of States and Governments committed themselves to ensuring that African women participate fully in the prevention, resolution and management of conflicts in post-conflict reconstruction efforts.
Furthermore, in February 2005, the UNDP Regional Gender Programme (RGB) of Regional Bureau for Africa (RBA) organized a meeting of government representatives, NGO’s, UN agencies, the African Union and Gender Focal Point of Regional and Sub-Regional Organizations at the ‘African Women Governance and Peace Forum’ in Kigali, Rwanda, as part of activities to support actions at the African Union. At that forum, participants unanimously adopted the idea of a network on gender, peace building and governance. The African Union, in partnership with the UNDP Regional Gender Programme (UNDP RGP) was then challenged to facilitate the process of establishing this continental network.
Laudable as the resolutions and protocols are, there is little evidence to show that they have actually been effectively implemented in many African countries. Though gender issues are increasingly taking centre-stage in many African countries, attempts to command greater participation of women in peace building and governance are hampered by certain factors. Prominent among such factors are constraints that sprung out of the peculiar traditional peace building methods, and the political culture of different societies on the continent. Also, the question arises over the preparedness of many of the women to assume such roles.
Every traditional African society has its own peace and conflict resolution mechanisms, however abstract or complex they might be to an outsider. The active participation of women in peace building or conflict mediation efforts in any of these societies is largely determined by the level or extent of the socio-political space they are given by the male folk.
Women played significant political roles, and wielded some influence in some pre-colonial West African states like Kanem Bornu, Asante and some others. However, in these modern times when traditional authority is merely symbolic and ceremonial, women are increasingly seen as being relevant only as homemakers and economic complements, even in societies that were traditionally matriarchal. It would suffice to mention that African societies are overwhelmingly patriarchal, and this patriarchy pervades attitudes and perceptions especially as they relate to women.
The constraints notwithstanding, women can indeed get involved in, and make positive contributions to peace building in Africa, if the right policies and programmes are set in motion. The collaboration of governments and civil society is very important. To their credit, the civil society organizations are working tirelessly in this direction. For their part, governments must do more, and go beyond mere protestations and signing of international protocols and conventions.
Government and civil society must also take into account what it takes to position the women, and put them in a vantage position to contribute maximally to peace projects. Women can fit into the African peace building matrix effectively when they are adequately educated, and knowledgeable about gender rights, sustainable resource management, as well as true democracy. All of the above pre-requisites are interlinked, and concentrating on some while leaving out others could prove defeating for efforts to fully involve women in peace building processes.
(To be continued)
Feature
Wade’s big challenge
Senegal is supposed to be one of Africa’s success stories in democracy. In the 2000 presidential elections, Abdoulaye Wade, then an opposition candidate, managed to defeat the incumbent, Abdul Diouf, who had been in power for 20 years. That was something very rare in African politics. Furthermore, the country also happens to be one of only two countries in West Africa that are yet to experience a military intervention in politics. This reputation that would have in all respects established Senegal as the doyen of peace and stability in West Africa has been tainted by the embarrassment of a 22-year old conflict in its southern Casamance province.
The Octogenarian Abdoulaye Wade, a very influential and respected figure in African politics, promised to bring peace to Casamance when he was sworn into office as president in 2000. The Senegalese people and the international community believed him, as he had some pedigree in peace mediation. Before he assumed the presidency of Senegal, Wade had played the role of peace facilitator in the 1990s when, as an opposition leader, he was mandated by the Abdul Diouf government to meet with the imprisoned separatist Movement of Casamance Democratic Forces (MFDC) leader Father Diamacounde Senghore (now deceased).
The sage-like Wade lived up to his promise when his government signed a general peace accord with the MFDC in December 2004. The signing of the peace accord officially marked the end of 22-years of fighting between government forces and the MFDC rebels.
It is to Wade’s credit that peace has largely returned to many parts of the restive province. While commending the sage-like president (who was handed another seven-year mandate by the Senegalese electorate in 2007) for his efforts at bringing peace, it is pertinent to point out that much needs to be done for peace to reign without breach in southern Senegal.
Even though the greater majority of the MFDC rebels have laid down their arms, some unidentified gunmen suspected to have been among the rebels are bent on being spoilers to the peace, and have continued to bring untold suffering to the war-weary people of Casamance. It could be recalled that when the peace accord was signed, a faction led by Salif Sadio distanced itself from the peace agreement and continued fighting, operating largely from the forests of Guinea Bissau. When the renegade Sadio’s forces were routed out of Guinea Bissau by that country’s army in 2006, he and his men relocated to Casamance, where they clashed intermittently with government troops.
The problem was exacerbated with the death of Father Diamacounde Senghor in January 2007. The vacuum left the MFDC without a unifying and commanding personality. The recent upsurge in violence is disturbing. Attacks mounted by gunmen in August 2009 resulted in the death of a Senegalese soldier. The Senegalese army responded by bombing areas where the armed men were believed to be hiding. In the first week of October six Senegalese soldiers were killed and several others injured by a rocket-propelled grenade fired by suspected separatists fighters. The local population has not been spared. They still suffer from exploding land mines and occasionally, depredations of some former rebels, who carry out campaigns of intimidation to gain control over land to enable them grow cannabis or get the profits from the fruit trees and other economic plants that abound in the region.
At the height of the conflict, many Casamance indigenes fled to The Gambia as refugees, and though some have since returned, many are still averse to the idea of returning, apprehensive of what they perceive as the state of insecurity in many places in their native region. It looks as if the peace achieved in the region is in danger of faltering. Herein lies Wade’s big challenge.
Wade had played prominent roles in peace initiatives in different parts of Africa – Madagascar, Chad, Darfur, Mauritania and elsewhere. It would do Senegal – and West Africa, a lot of good if Wade could also apply his sage tact in dealing with the likes of Sadio.
The Senegalese government certainly has a big advantage, as the public mood in Casamance is in favour of peace. Furthermore, the rebellion in the restive province never really took the form of a mass insurrection.
Though the thickly forested Casamance favours guerrilla warfare, something the rebels had capitalized on, they are very much aware that realistically, it is not possible for them to defeat the Senegalese Army. Persistence on the part of government in convincing the few die-hard rebels that a dialogue is the only alternative will create a situation in which they (the rebels) will find themselves increasingly isolated. Punitive expeditions, like the one carried out by 2006 by the Senegalese army against Sadio could most likely do more harm than good to the peace process. However, meaningful overtures and round-table talks might do more to persuade the renegades to lay down their arms, and consolidate the peace that has so far been achieved.
Thankfully the region is not awash with precious stones, something that could have attracted international profiteers and sinister war-instigators who sponsor conflicts in certain parts of Africa in order to continue exploiting resources illegally and unhindered. That explains why the Casamance conflict did not assume the horrendous dimension, and the barbarity that characterized the wars that took place in countries like Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Knowing all these, the onus is on Wade to ensure that normalcy returns to the region. From all probability, the occasional attacks that occur after the signing of the peace accord seem more of criminal banditry, than political insurrection.
Experiences in other parts of Africa have shown that many ex-rebel fighters resort to banditry out of frustration due to joblessness. The Casamance is not an exception. People are less likely to resort to carrying arms if economic opportunities exist for their survival. Harnessing the vast natural resources in the region will result in economic transformation, and prosperity. That is another challenge for Wade.
Casamance is the most beautiful part of Senegal. The diversity of the region’s flora and fauna is astonishing. In contrast to other parts of the country, it is inundated with lush, evergreen forest. It has often been called the Bread Basket of Senegal, because of the enormous agricultural produce harvested from there annually. Much of the produce finds its way to other parts of Senegal and neighbouring Gambia. Fruits and vegetables, which are widely cultivated in the region, make it a potential agro-processing industry zone.
Other promising sectors are energy and tourism. The Casamance has some good waterways that can be harnessed to produce electricity, while its wetlands and vast array of wildlife makes it an attractive spot for eco-tourism. All these make the area attractive for investment. But it all to a large extent depends on the political will of the Senegalese authorities.
COVER STORIES
Peace after the Jackal
Charles Taylor’s influence and actions coloured the West African political landscape for two decades. To many people in West Africa and beyond, the personae of Charles Taylor, ex-president of Liberia is a combination of the charming orator, jail-breaker in the United States, and ex-gun-slinging-warlord.
Swinging assault rifles the way some feudal master of the manor swung the hickory walking stick, Taylor claimed, at the beginning of the Liberian civil war, that his rebellion was a redeeming inferno that was lighted to incinerate the Doe aberration. But it soon became clear that his consuming lust was to acquire the country as his personal fiefdom, and wider areas of West Africa especially the Mano River countries, as part of his empire. In order to actualize his ambition, Taylor unleashed his infernal arm, and like some monstrous octopus, his tentacles spread to most of West Africa, bearing surrogate warlords that were alter egos of the Charles Taylor psych.
At the peak of the insurgency, he was like one possessed by the conquering spirit of Ghengis Khan, the bloodletting of Caligula and the oratorical savvy of Hitler. In executing his war, he made the Hobbessian spirit pervade his domain, and made life nasty, brutish and short for many unfortunate souls.
Taylor devastated Liberia, exported war to Sierra Leone, and instigated a rebel insurrection in Guinea Conakry. It was once alleged that some elements from his rebel army were fighting alongside rebels in Senegal’s Casamance region. In 1996 eight men who were part of his fighting forces sneaked into peaceful Gambia and attacked an army barrack, killing six unarmed soldiers in cold blood.
Economic considerations were also part of Taylor’s programme, as he controlled the mineral and forest resources that abound in the Mano River area, especially diamonds, iron ore, timber and rubber, using proceeds from the sale of the commodities to enrich himself and fund his war.
During the war Taylor’s rebel fighters referred to him as ‘the President’, and his heady stance in the many peace conferences convened to find an end to the war tasked the patience and diplomatic resolve of sub-regional political juggernauts to the utmost.
Even though Nigerian-led ECOMOG forces spiked the guns of Charles Taylor’s earlier attempts to grab Liberia, elections held in 1997 saw him emerge as the president of that country. Like the lecherous rover that finally succeeded in acquiring the object of his lust, he went ahead to tighten his grip on the country - the first act of the plan was kicking out the stabilizing ECOMOG force from Liberia. But the luck of history was against him.
The coals of the inferno he had lit as a rebel leader were still smouldering somewhere in Liberia. It did not take long before the Saikou Konneh-led Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) and the Movement for Democracy in Liberia (MODEL) rebels stoked these coals into flames of war that engulfed Liberia once again. Reeling under a UN arms embargo, Charles Taylor now ironically found himself bayed from all sides by rebel armies, the way his rampaging forces once surrounded Doe, as war became the familiar refrain defining the socio-political landscape of this a-century-and-a-half republic. By then the countryside of Liberia was oozing blood, and Monrovia had begun to bleed.
It finally became clear to all that Taylor’s continued stay at the presidential mansion in Monrovia was the peace-spoiler in Liberia. And so he had to be eased out of office through an agreement brokered by the then Nigeria Olusegun Obasanjo, leading him to a three-year sojourn in Nigeria. The rest is history.
Though out of the scene, the Taylor’s ominous shadow seemed to loom over the sub-region. Even after his capture and handing over to the International war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone, there were still fears that his presence in that country, even as a prisoner, could bode ill for security.
A Charles Taylor on the loose foisted on the minds of the governments and peoples of the countries of the Mano River Union the type of chilling fear a the jolly roger strikes in the hearts of sailors of merchants ships sailing the seven seas in bygone ages. The fear and alarm his escape generated when it was announced that he escaped from his Calabar abode in 2006 was a sheer revelation of his brigand reputation. The reason is clear: Many countries in West Africa do not really possess the military capability to respond decisively to any Charles Taylor-inspired insurgency.
The fact that there are over a 100 000 ex-combatants in Liberia alone, many of them Charles Taylor loyalists, justifies this fear. Most of these ex-fighters in Liberia are unemployed, restless and disenchanted with the prevailing economic state of affairs in their country, and thus could have easily been tempted to once again fall back into the forest to join their former leader. Thankfully, the ex-warlord is now safely tucked away in a prison cell in The Hague, where he is facing charges on war crimes and crimes against humanity.
That Charles Taylor appeared on the scene to became a catalyst for the most brutal wars ever fought in the sub-region could rightly be regarded as one of the low points in West African history. Some school of thought posits that whatever exists is the property of an act. That is why it is sometimes argued that West Africa merely played into the hands of Taylor. Grim socio-economic circumstances, and the charged political climate prevalent in Liberia, which was then also a phenomenon in many other countries in West Africa, conspired to make and provide a fertile arena for the former warlord and his ilk to operate.
Taylor’s power mongering antics, both as a rebel leader, and as president of Liberia, was in no way a departure from a malaise that has always plagued African politics - leaders building around themselves a cult of personality, and by their very unpopular acts and policies make their countries breeding grounds for dissent.
There is also the collusion theory. Ego politics and personality clashes among African leaders had played a part in many wars that ravaged the continent. How could it be explained that Taylor was given free space to start his rebellion from neighbouring Cote d’Ivoire? Why was it easy for Taylor himself to export war into Sierra Leone? Imagine the ease with which Saikou Konneh’s LURD forces invaded Liberia from Guinea Conakry in 2002/2003. Why was it possible for some Casamance rebels to operate from Guinea Bissau at the height of the insurgency? Was it not an open secret that Burkina Faso channeled lots of support to rebels in the north of Cote d’Ivoire? In the light of the above, it could be deduced that West African leadership was largely responsible for conflicts that brought untold suffering to millions in the sub-region.
However, with the threat of another Charles Taylor-inspired war now over for good, many believe that the prospects for lasting peace in West Africa remain bright. But the challenges are many, and must be addressed by all those concerned for peace and stability to become a permanent feature of the West African polity.
Tending olive plants: democracy and stability
Democracy is the peace capital of the global polity. Jack Snyder and Edward D. Mansfield, in their article in the id21 insights bulletin asserted: “Mature, stable democracies have not fought wars against each other, and they rarely experience civil wars.” West Africa’s ruling elite ought to take note.
The West African leadership, which, as had already been mentioned, was largely responsible for the slide into chaos in the sub-region, must know that building peace without solid democratic institutions in place might eventually become an exercise in futility. Genuine democracy results in good governance, and encourages the inflow of foreign aid and investment, which leads to economic growth and prosperity. These are essential building blocks for peace and stability.
Perhaps, Africa can take a cue from what happened in post-World War II Europe, especially Germany, where, in the aftermath of a tragic war, the evolution of strong democratic institutions became the impetus for peace and prosperity. Describing the rapid socio-economic and political transformation that took place in Western Europe decades after the destruction and despair wrought by the war, Lance Morrow of Time Magazine wrote: “Civilizations, as well as forests, may be swept by devastating fires. But sometimes in the aftermath, the very ashes nourish the soil, and gradually a vigorous new growth rises. It is an inspiring but terrible kind of reforestation – historical progress by way of an apocalypse. Phoenix industries arise from the stubble, cities recrystallize. The forest obviously forgives the fire. In 50 years the new order may become so lush that hardly anyone remembers the shock and despair…A population that had descended from Bach to barbarism may find its way, sadder but wiser, toward Bach again.”
A paper presented a participant at an Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) conference held February 2009 in Banjul, The Gambia, depicted a bleak picture of the state of affairs in West Africa when it lamented: “Violent conflicts have greatly retarded the social, economic and political development of the West African sub-region especially in the past one-and-half decades. The destruction of human and material resources has been enormous. Efforts at creating the lofty goals of economic development for which Ecowas was created in 1975 have greatly been compromised by internal wars and conflicts, mass population movements and major economic downturns.”
It could be seen from the above extracts that it is not difficult to draw political parallels between pre-World War 11 Europe and Post-independence Africa. Europe went to war in 1939 due largely to a phenomenal rise of undemocratic forces on the continent. The conflicts that rocked Africa after independence directly and indirectly were a result of the truncation of democracy by post-independent leaders.
A great lesson post-conflict West Africa can learn from the European experience is that countries in the western part of Europe embraced democracy after 1945. This enabled them to put their economic acts together and get their development equation right, while the Eastern European countries that toed the line of totalitarianism got trapped inside the poverty cesspit. Eastern Europe is gradually finding its way towards Bach again, only after a taking a courageous decision of breaking with communism, and opting for democracy.
While the bad news is that democracy and good governance in West Africa is still a far cry from internationally accepted standards, the good news is that democracy is gradually taking root in countries like Ghana, Mali, Republic of Benin, and interestingly, the two countries that had been worst affected by conflicts in the sub-region - Liberia and Sierra Leone. Senegal and Cape Verde have had uninterrupted democratic governance since independence.
In Liberia, free and fair elections were held in 2005, though the initial mood after the exit of Taylor was that of apprehension and concern that the new-founded peace could prove to be phoney. The elections ushered in Mrs. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf as Africa’s first female president. Mrs. Sirleaf has set about the task of national reconciliation and reconstruction with vigour. She has made transparency and accountability, hallowed ethics in governance, in a bid to root out corruption. Adding strength to Sirleaf’s determination is the unspoken resolve of the Liberian people to never again allow their country be turned into a war zone. This can only be made possible if there is a responsible leadership whose power is derived from the people.
Sierra Leone also scored an important point for democracy in West Africa when an opposition party candidate, Earnest Bai Koroma won the presidential elections held in that country in 2007. That an opposition party was able to dislodge the ruling party from power through the ballot box proves that democracy is coming of age in Sierra Leone.
Snyder and Mansfield also noted that there is always the danger that states emerging from conflicts that are unable to complete successful transitions to democracy might be plunged back into war. This is also true of authoritarian and repressive states. They maintain that, “the most fundamental cause of war in transitional states is the gap between demands for political participation and the political institutions and organizations necessary to meet those demands”. Liberia fell into this trap in 1997 when Taylor assumed the presidency of the country. Liberians and the international community thought erroneously that the conflict was over for good. Though the war was presumed to be over, there were no strong democratic institutions in place. And since there were no institutional means to address grievances or concerns, another rebellion soon broke out in 1999.
Liberia and Sierra Leone seem to be getting it right presently because of the political will of their leaders and peoples to follow what Snyder and Mansfield called “democracy in the right sequence: state building first, then free and fair elections”. The same cannot be said of other post-conflict countries in the sub-region, like Guinea Bissau and Cote d’Ivoire, or some countries that emerged from long years of totalitarian or repressive rule, like Nigeria, Guinea Conakry, Togo and Mauritania. The future stability of these countries remains uncertain because true democracy is yet to take root.
The existence of strong democratic structures in a country will insulate it from instability, as prevailing circumstances will hit home to would-be coup makers and other adventurers that they will not be welcome. Many Guineans welcomed with unprecedented enthusiasm, Captain Musa Dadis Camara and other junior army officers who seized power after the death of Lansana Conte in December 2008, because of the sham democracy that operated in the country, as well as the cancerous corruption, inefficiency and widespread poverty that left the populace completely disenchanted. However, recent events in that country have proven that Captain Camara is yet another power mongering military adventurer who intends to stay for a long, long time.
Building bridges of understanding
Building understanding among the population by getting ex-fighters fully re-integrated into the mainstream of the society has been part of ongoing efforts to consolidate peace in West Africa. This has been a big problem for the post-conflict countries, especially Liberia and Sierra Leone, as programmes tailored in that direction are constrained by factors such as deep-seated animosity haboured by people who were severely abused by rebels during the war. Relatives of those who were murdered by rebels are also averse to any form of association with people who they feel were members of a horde responsible for the death of their loved ones. The recent outrage voiced by many people in Sierra Leone when it was discovered that ex-combatants were among men recruited and trained to serve in the presidential guard clearly attests to the distrust people in that country still have for ex-rebels.
The establishment of a peace and reconciliation commission and war crimes tribunals in Liberia and Sierra Leone respectively have been part of attempts to reconcile former combatants and give people a sense of justice. That notwithstanding, the problem still remains largely unsolved, and is compounded by the weak economy of the countries, which makes it difficult for them to provide employment for ex-combatants, or provide them loans to start their own businesses. It is not safe for many ex-combatants to remain unemployed. The likes of Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh found willing recruits among the mass of unemployed and impoverished youths in their countries.
Agriculture offers a lifeline for ex-fighters, and Liberia is doing fairly well in this regard. It is reported that many ex-combatants are now engaged in tidal rice cultivation in certain parts of the country. This is one of numerous opportunities available in Liberia and elsewhere in West Africa, which is blessed with a fertile soil and rich in natural resources. Expanding the scope of these opportunities and other positive alternatives is a challenge that faces the governments of Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cote d’Ivoire and the rest of West Africa, as well as the international community. Achieving this requires a partnership between the governments of West African countries and NGOs and the donor community. Many of these are working together in the area of massive re-orientation campaigns to channel minds and attitudes to dwell on positive peace building. This includes building bridges of understanding between surviving victims of conflict and ex-combatants. In this instance, empowerment could play a crucial role in diffusing tensions in post-Taylor West Africa.
Spurning culture of impunity: between passive complacency and tough choices
After the signing of the infamous 1939 Munich Pact that compelled a sovereign nation, Czechoslovakia to cede a third of its territory to Hitler’s Germany, Neville Chamberlain, the then British Prime Minister, who played a key role at the summit in Munich, returned to London triumphantly waving a piece of paper that contained the wordings of the cessation agreement and declared that “there will be peace in our time”.
It did not take the world long to realize that the Munich Pact was no peace at all. Rather, it encouraged Hitler, making him believe that he could get away with cross-border impunity. That gave him the leverage to drive on with his dream of a Pan-German Lebensraum with relentless vigour. The ‘peace in our time’ became the ominous prelude to a tragic war - the most destructive yet fought by mankind.
The moral of the Munich Pact story is a case for spurning culture of impunity in domestic and international politics. A lot has happened in African politics in the past – especially during the cold war years. In fact it can conceivably be argued that most of the wars that took place, and still ongoing in West Africa were the fallouts of the politics of the cold war.
In those days, the superpowers, seeking to win client states in Africa, often turned a blind eye to the misrule and abuses perpetrated by regimes that warmed to them. This encouraged a culture of impunity – and many African leaders took full advantage of it. Imagine the way a spare-educated Master Sergeant Doe of Liberia murdered the democratically elected Tolbert and dragged his body through the streets of Monrovia. The Master Sergeant coup-maker then flew on to Lagos, the then capital of Nigeria to attend an OAU summit. He went there in his capacity as the new Liberian head of state. Dressed in military fatigue, he cut the figure of a puss-in-boots presenting himself as the emissary of a fictitious Marquis of Carrabas. Doe’s misdemeanor was the prologue of the morbid drama of a war that engulfed his country a decade later.
Today the equation has changed in international power politics. Western attitudes and perceptions as regards to governance in Africa have also changed, and their mantra about democracy and good governance resonates everywhere.
But impunity has many faces in Africa, where it is a hydra-headed monster.
It goes beyond a leader oppressing his people. It includes such misdemeanors as brazen looting of the national treasury, rigging elections and flagrant disregard for international conventions and protocols. The last act was clearly demonstrated through the actions of Charles Taylor and some others. Taylor, through the time he was a warlord and when he assumed the presidency of Liberia, was an impediment to peace efforts. He launched attacks on ECOMOG, the regional peace keeping force and exported war to Sierra Leone, yet he ended up as the President of Liberia. Little wonder he was able to kick out the sub-regional peace keeping force, ECOMOG, after he came he assumed leadership. That was a violation of an agreement that preceded the elections that brought him into office.
Also disturbing is the fact that the late President Boigny of Cote d’Ivoire, itching to settle a personal score with Doe, had allowed Taylor to use his country as a base to launch the war. Thus a personal acrimony between Doe and Boigny became one of the factors leading to a 15-year war that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. It should be noted that no West African Head of State, individually or under the umbrella of ECOWAS, came up with a verbal condemnation of Boigny’s action.
Taking stock of the grim consequences of the Taylor-inspired conflicts in West Africa, and in a bid to guard against re-occurrence of such conflicts, Ecowas institutionalized a comprehensive strategy for conflict prevention and management through the Protocol relating to the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peacekeeping and Security signed on 10th December 1999; and the Supplementary Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance signed on December 21st 2001 by the Heads of State and Government of Member States. But such steps have never seemed to be enough. In most cases, they turn out to mere paper works. Ecowas is most often a blind umpire reluctant to gamble with the tough choice of reining in perverse fellows. Herein lies the danger.
Building peace and stability in the sub-region requires a critical reassessment of peer roles in triggering off, and stoking conflicts. This means shirking off passive complacency in the face of any glaring impunity and calling the bluff of West African leaders who, through their domestic policies and style of governance are likely to create situations that would breed dissent among their people and engender future conflict. Erring leaders usually fashion means of spurning the searchlight on their activities - they are always quick to take umbrage when their perverse acts are frowned at by the international community - with their spokespersons forcefully expressing the righteous indignation of their bosses. They invoke all necessary clauses in international laws and conventions about sovereignty and undue interference in a country’s internal affairs. Reacting to a communiqué expressing concern over the atmosphere of repression, insecurity, witch-hunting and gangsterism in Liberia issued in 2001in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso by some West African politicians, the minister of information in Charles Taylor’s government, Reginald Goodridge said: “Liberia has never interfered in the internal affairs of other countries, particularly our neighbours and how they pursue their democratic principles. So, I’m surprised that anyone …in West Africa would meddle in the internal affairs of Liberia by challenging what we do and how we do it.”
If genuine democracy, good governance and respect for human rights and economic prosperity were the hallmarks of the polity in Liberia and Sierra Leone, Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh would have found it extremely difficult to win recruits into their rebel armies. Tyranny breeds dissent.
However, there have been some positive developments in this area in recent years, like the arrest and trial of Charles Taylor, and the arrest of former Chadian leader, Hissene Habre. The latter has been in the news in the past few years. The issue was putting him on trial in Senegal, where he lives in exile, for gross human rights abuses he committed while in power.
After a lengthy diplomatic wrangling involving the Senegalese government, the European Union and African Union, Dakar eventually passed legislation that made it possible for Habre to be brought to trial. Though the trial is yet to commence due to financial constraints, his fate is a clear signal to serving African leaders that there is always a dear price to pay for impunity
Kimberley Process: dimming the shine of conflict diamonds
The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for rough diamonds, formally adopted in November 2002 by over 50 nations that dominated the production, processing and consumption of diamonds was essentially aimed at preventing the use of proceeds from sale of diamonds to fund conflicts, especially in Africa.
West Africa is very rich in mineral resources. Countries like Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea Conakry, Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire and Nigeria are richly endowed with easy-to-mine precious stones, semi-precious stones, precious metals and other solid minerals.
Gemstones and other natural resources were decisive factors in many wars in Africa – Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Angola, Sierra Leone and Liberia. The longevity and intensity of the conflicts in these countries were largely determined by the presence of precious stones.
Whenever a conflict sparks off a warlord is able to get rich quick and sustain his depredations through plundering of diamonds and other gemstones that are easy to sell in the international market. It is also easy to attract more fighters who are lured by prospects of making big fortunes from mining and sale of the minerals.
In many cases, soldiers of fortune without any idea of what an ongoing war is all about come from different countries far and near, attracted by diamonds and other precious stones. The glitz of gems also accounts for rapid proliferation of rebel groups in some of the conflict zones, as competing warlords fight over mining territories. The two bloodiest civil conflicts in West Africa, in Liberia and Sierra Leone, were largely fueled by precious stones especially diamonds. It is believed that the war in Casamance did not assume the ferocity and scale of the former two simply because there were no precious stones booty to attract adventurous fighters within and outside Senegal.
The activities of Dutchman Guus Van Kouwenhoven, is a good example of the active role foreign businessmen and cartels play in conflicts in Africa. Guus was notorious for colluding with Charles Taylor to illegally export diamonds and forest (timber) resources from Liberia. He actively collaborated with Taylor, with his (Guus’s) Oriental Timber Company participating in the ‘blood diamonds’ trade, and supplying weapons to the the Liberian warlord. In 2006 a court in Guus’s native country found him guilty of breaking a United Nations embargo on Liberia and sentenced him to eight years imprisonment.
The success of the Kimberley Process in West Africa depends on the effectiveness of government monitoring regulations within West Africa; and the prevailing character and direction of the international diamond trade.
In West Africa, diamonds are known to exist four countries – Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Cote d’Ivoire. While Ghana has a long tradition of strict government control of mining and sale of all solid minerals in its territory, post-conflict governments in Liberia and Sierra Leone are making efforts to ensure that all trading in diamonds are in line with international regulations. The Liberian Government went as far as setting up a diamond house in Monrovia, and ten diamond certification centres in ten other towns all over the country to supervise the trade in diamonds. It was in recognition of this that the UN lifted a six-year ban in export of Liberian diamonds in April 2007.
However, there are concerns about the mining and export of precious stones in a country like Cote’ d’Ivoire, where the central government is yet to fully assume total authority in the north of the country, despite making peace with the Forces Nouvelles. It is believed that illegal trade in precious stones takes place at the country’s porous northern border with Burkina Faso.
Forces outside West Africa greatly determine the diamond trade, and so long as powerful, informal cartels based mainly in Europe, Middle East and Asia continue to operate, trade in uncertified diamonds will continue to flourish. Recently, global conflict watchdog organizations like the International Crisis Group (ICG) have raised alarm that the KP is in danger of failing completely, as conflict diamonds are still very much in full shine. In this instance, the onus is on global bodies like the UN to fashion means of checkmating those who are bent on circumventing the purpose the KP sets out to achieve.
The media and peace building in West Africa
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) Media in Democracy journal spells out the role the media plays in the democratic process, and defines the correlation between successful democracy and stability when it stated: “The text of democracy is the quality of public debate, transparency and tolerance in society. It is the media that the people look to for the cultural richness and opinion, ideas, and thoughts which exist in every community and which provide the raw material for democratic debate. Journalism can be a catalyst for social change…if democracy fails, the results as recent events in Europe and Africa have shown, can be tragic and devastating.”
There are different perceptions as to the media’s role in Africa. While the journalists see themselves as societal watchdogs and communicators for democracy, good governance, citizenship and peace, the political elite largely regards them as nosey parkers.
The former president of Cote d’Ivoire, Henri Konan Bedie, once delivered a stinging indictment of his country’s media when he said: “there is a gutter press in Cote d’Ivoire which threatens stability because it thrives on provocation and defamation”. Bedie’s outburst against the fourth estate was understandable. He was of the old species of African leaders infected with the sit-tight bug. To them, the fourth estate is always in an unspoken alliance with opposition politicians. Thus, journalists are usually classified among those threatening national security.
However, it is sad to admit that history later proved Bedie right. Sections of the Ivorian press brought the profession into disrepute for the role they played during the civil war in that country. When the war broke out in September 2002, the media stoked, rather than help to put out the fire. Media channels openly took sides in the conflict, like the Ivorian Radio and Television Services (RTI) which simply became a propaganda arm of the government, and TOMPI FM, that supported the cause of the Forces Nouvelles. Much has also been said and written about the negative role some sections of the media played during the Rwandan genocide of 1994.
The media in West Africa are learning from such past mistakes, and are make sure it never happens again. The media’s role in peace building and during conflict situations is very important, and sensitive. This role is captured clearly by Agnes Adama Campbell of ActionAid Gambia: “There are always many parts to a conflict. There are those who are active combatants and there are those who are influential and the media and the media is in that category. They have a voice in terms of reaching out, disseminating information, and for me the non-violent means of resolving conflict should be sold by the media as an alternative strategy by which people can come together, discuss and dialogue in a forum where multi-voices could be heard and solutions sought. Such process just doesn’t come from the political leaders.”
True. Much as the onus is politicians to ensure peace, there is a limit to what they can do, especially when it comes to reaching out to the people. This is where the media comes in. The fourth estate must play the part of informing the people, and effecting positive changes for peace to reign in Africa.
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) Viewpoint
Is it the job of the journalist to promote peace?
Many people come into journalism because they want to change the world, for the better, but this is not the only motivation. Some seek influence and power, others to gratify their vanity by seeing their name in print. There is no compulsory requirement for journalists of the Hippocratic oath taken by doctors binding them to observe a code of ethics. Many journalists do adopt their own code of ethics drawn up by their own journalists’ unions or adopted by the IFJ Code of Conduct. Clause seven of the IFJ Code says: “The journalist shall be aware of the danger of discrimination being furthered by the media, and shall do the utmost to avoid facilitating such discrimination based on, among other things, race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, and national and social origins.
These codes focus on the need to avoid bad practice; they are not generally forthcoming about what constitutes good practice. We should be clear, however, that it is not the job of the journalist to resolve conflict or to create peace. This would be over-ambitious for a profession which has no special training in conflict resolution and which often fails to act independently. Before and during national wars, national media play the major role in justifying that war to the population – focusing on the merits of the national interest, the evils of the enemy and the courage, dignity and justice of their own forces. Independent voices are usually in a minority and find it difficult to make themselves heard. When journalism does play a part in bringing conflict between nations to an end it is usually after the killing has started, and the images of death start to overshadow the rhetoric of war. This is true of journalism in wealthy countries with advanced journalism and liberal press laws. African journalists who often have access to little technology, face restricted freedom to travel, and work under constrictive press laws have an even more difficult task.
Even doctors, with their years of training and their knowledge of medicines are not expected to cure the problems of society. Indeed the first duty of the doctor is to do the patient no harm, and the original Hippocratic oath contains the promise ‘To please no-one will I prescribe a deadly drug, nor give advice which may cause his death.’
Journalists too have a duty not to prescribe deadly drugs to local populations, but this is not the same as a duty to be responsible for promoting peace. Such an obligation could lead journalists to fret about the things they cannot control, and to control what they report, based on a series of self-inflicted prohibitions.
Good journalism does play a crucial role in helping to prevent ethnic conflict and the healing process after conflict, by focusing on what journalists do best, which is to communicate. Journalists who focus on developing skills, an inclusive approach to their jobs, building networks of good contacts and the self-confidence to listen to people from every ethnic group, will be better placed to give information and insight they need to make judgements, and play a role in building understanding between communities. In this sense journalists are likely to become peacemakers, but only if they keep their sights clearly fixed on the demands of the job, investigating what is happening and reporting it honestly and clearly. The good intentions of journalists can only be realized when they have developed the skills and the tools to do their jobs well. Which would you rather? Get into a bus where the driver has a passionate belief in the right to travel and the burning desire to cross continents, or a bus where the driver can work the controls, knows the role of the road and is committed to making progress while avoiding accidents? (Well, both, you might hope.)
Accurate and honest reporting is not a short cut to peace – it may reveal injustice, conflict or killings – but it is less dangerous than rumour, and is an essential building block for understanding. The journalist may not know how to resolve conflict – that is the job for the conciliator or politician – but the journalist should know how to explain one person’s life and point of view to another person, and in doing this the journalist can build bridges between people who see each other as less than human.
If conflict is in the air then it does not take much skill or expertise to act as cheer leader to those who are fanning the flames. Encouraging people to hate their enemy is not journalism – we can leave that to people who design posters for army recruitment centres. Encouraging people to understand and express their own feelings and to recognize and acknowledge those of opposing groups is journalism of the highest order. Such journalism inevitably shows the similarities between people who are opposed to each other, because no-one has yet discovered an ethnic group which does not love its’ children, want to live in security or feel afraid when threatened.
Roots of Conflict
Nigeria: This House Must Stand
Nigeria is a state of many nations crying out to be released from the strait jacket of an oppressive and suffocating unitary system, with a leviathan of a federal government in the driving seat. In other words, Nigeria is a unitary state masquerading as a federal state. What then is federalism? Or to put it in another way, how is a unitary constitution different from a federal constitution? Obafemi Awolowo (premier of the defunct Western Region) has noted that in the case of a unitary constitution, the supreme legislative authority in the state is vested in one government. Whereas in the case of a federal constitution, the supreme legislative authority is shared between between the general or central government and the regional, provincial or state governments, all of which are coordinate with and independent of one another in regard to the powers and functions expressly or by necessary implication vested in them by the constitution.
As K.C. Wheare put it, “the fundamental and distinguishing characteristics of a federal system is that neither the federal nor the regional governments are subordinate to each other, but rather, the two are coordinate and independent.” In short, in a federal system, there is no hierarchy of authorities, with the central government sitting on top of the others. All governments have a horizontal relationship with each other.
But Nigerian federalism contradicts all known criteria for federations. According to Professor Ben Nwabueze, a unitary constitution for a federal system of government exposes a fundamental contradiction in our constitutional system. Nwabueze, who has identified five main areas and aspects in which the 1979 and 1 999 constitutions have altered power relations in Nigeria in favour of the federal government and at the expense of the states, also points out that the accumulation of political power has also been accompanied by the transfer of the overwhelming bulk of state resources to the centre, resulting in the political and financial atrophy of the states.
The regional constitutions in the 1960 and 1963 constitutions described each region as “a self-governing region of the federal republic of Nigeria.” To buttress the self-governing status of each region, adequate provisions were made to guarantee their economic independence, thus avoiding the hollowness of a declaration of self-governing status totally undermined by economic dependence. Moreover, consistent with the federal character of the country, i.e. a country of many nations, the basis of revenue allocation was strictly derivative.
Section 140 which made provision for the sharing of the proceeds of minerals, including mineral oil, stated that “there shall be paid by the federal government to a region, a sum equal to 50 per cent of the proceeds of any royalty received by the federation in respect of any minerals extracted in that region and any mining rents derived by the federal government from within any region.” For the purpose of this section, the continental shelf of a region was deemed part of that region.
By Section 136(1), 30 per cent of general import duties was paid into a distributable pool for the benefit of the regions. With regard to import duties on petrol, diesel oil and tobacco, the total sum of import duty collected, less administrative expenses, was fully payable to the region which the petrol or diesel oil or tobacco was destined. A similar provision was made for excise duty on tobacco.
With regard to produce i.e. cocoa, groundnut, rubber and hides and skin, the proceeds of export duty were shared on the basis of the allocation of revenue and the proportionate share of such proceeds that went to the region it originated from, clearly buttressed the operating base of true federalism. As a direct consequence of the concentration of powers and resources in the federal government under the 1999 constitution, Nigeria has been plunged into an unending series of crises since the commencement of the so-called Fourth Republic on May 29, 1999. The country is concurrently confronted with:-
1. Fierce competition for the capture of power at the centre leading to tension and instability of the polity.
2. Mutual suspicion and fears of domination and marginalization between ethnic nationalities leading to the rise of ethnic militias and violent conflicts.
3. The denial of the oil producing areas any right of control and management of their resources, resulting in gross environmental pollution, poverty and wretchedness, again, giving rise to militancy of the local populations, violent disruption of oil production and total disenchantment of the Niger Delta with the Nigerian State.
It has thus become clear that until Nigeria returns to true federalism, there can be no real growth, progress, development, and harmony amongst the ethnic nationalities that make up the country. There is a clear consensus that absence of good leadership is another major source of Nigeria’s problems. The persistence of poor human materials at the control of the levers of power has proved very expensive for the country. Fola Arthur-Worrey in his book, retells a very expensive joke on Nigeria which has made its rounds in many national and international circles. According to this story, when God in his infinite wisdom was creating the states in the world, he made sure that every single state in the world got a fair share of resources. Thus states X; Y; and Z may get resources A, B and C, BUT will be passed by God when he is sharing resources D, E, and F between states R, S, and T. This fair distribution system was applied to every state in the world, with the singular exception of Nigeria. Nigeria received all the resources that God distributed. Other states became envious and angry. When God noted the restiveness of the other states he silenced them with this statement: “Do you seek to reveal your thoughts for which I myself am responsible? You worry about my seeming bias towards the land called Nigeria. And so you might under normal circumstances, but this are not normal circumstances. Yes, I appear to have given this land an unfair advantage over the others…He paused and turned to stare contemplatively at the map. “But wait until you see the type of people I will put there.”
Yes, it may be considered an expensive joke. But if we examine our conduct as a state and society since 1960, don’t you think we deserve it? My only modification is to substitute leaders and rulers for people. It is our leaders and rulers who have put us where we are.
Virtually every ruler is controlled by the inordinate greed for power and wealth. The interests of the people in this country have been consigned to the devil. Looting and plundering the treasury, cheating, rigging elections, oppressing the weak and the masses, gross indiscipline insensitivity and irresponsibility, chaotic mentality, and, therefore, a chaotic polity. These are the legacies of Nigerian rulers.
Nigerians must have observed the recent hysterical clamour of our rulers from the north and the East about 2007. Each zone is claiming that it must produce the president in 2007 and must rule Nigeria. They are almost going to war with themselves over these selfish and thoughtless claims. And you get the impression that Nigeria is a predatory cow that must be milked in turn by predatory cabals.
Not one of them has said anything about the interest of Nigerians, not to mention the wishes of Nigerians. Nothing is being done about our welfare and development. That of course is irrelevant. We must all lie down prostrate and be ruled without our consent. It is in the midst of this shame, disgrace and embarrassment that the insensitive and callous are screaming themselves hoarse in staking their claims to milk Nigeria to death. Part of the grave problem facing us today is our stubborn and consistent refusal to practice and culture of democracy. And so we have civilian governments, but no democracy. Democracy, which is the indispensable twin of the rule of law, is based on two key elements: (i) Popular control over collective decision-making and decision-makers (ii) an equal right to share in such control, i.e. personal equality.
It is not, therefore clear why democracy cannot thrive in Nigeria, in view of the massively rigged 2003 elections? With the electoral travesty of 2003, Nigeria is now stuck at the threshold of democracy and cannot gain entrance.
There is a total absence of the proper orientation and attitude for operating a multi-national country. No government can successfully operate a multi-national state without applying a full dose of autonomy, solidarity, cooperation among the federating units inter se and between them the federal government or centre. Tragically, Nigerian federalism is bereft of democracy, is bereft of the rule of law, is bereft of solidarity, is bereft of cooperation and is bereft of the tolerance. What we have is seizure of funds of fellow governments, and aggressive and warlike claims to trunk roads.
Unquestionably, corruption, which is an aspect of indiscipline, is the greatest impediment to development in Nigeria.
Starting with the beginning of the Second Republic, also known as the Shagari era, Nigeria has been acknowledged as the headquarters of corruption worldwide. Those old enough will recall the military tribunals set up by the Buhari/Idiagbon regime and how it was revealed to a stunned populace that the inimitable creativity of Nigerians was able to milk millions of naira from the youth service ‘stone’ as we all thought the service was. Names like Obasa and Kila became household synonyms for the looting and plundering of an obscure agency. Imagine what must have happened in the mainstream agencies.
We thought that was the worst and jokingly retold stories about a civilian governor who on being caught with about N4 000 000 [then, in 1983, worth about $8000 000] state funds in his bedroom, retorted unrepentantly that there was nothing wrong in keeping government money in government house!
Alas, that was the era of perinatal innocence. The Babangida era saw the practice of looting of the treasury become an accepted national culture. And so when queried for the missing $12.4 billion Gulf War windfall, which the Financial Times of London first revealed, and which the Okigbo panel of eminent Nigerians confirmed, Babangida’s response was simply an updated version of the Barkin Zuwo reaction.
Whilst we are still reeling under this shock, the post-Abacha era revealations hit the country. Mind-boggling sums in dollar and pounds had been crudely carted away from the Central Bank. Sums like $600 000 000 and 280 000 000 were regarded as tips of the icebergs. ‘Gifts’ of 30 million Duetschmark and millions of dollars were casually tossed at ministers and all persons close to Aso Rock became dollar multi-millionaires.
The Abubakar transition programme did not spare the country either. Vast blocks of oil fields were given to ‘friends’, country villas surpassing Roman edifices were brazenly built, and our foreign reserves dipped from $8 billion to just over $3 billion.
The Nigerian tribune of Sunday August 1 reported in blazing headlines that 14 top looters in the federal government circles stole N11 trillion in the Babangida/Abacha era. The topmost looter allegedly has more than 6.5 billion pounds sterling, 7.1 billion Swiss Franc, $2billion and 9 billion Deutschemark, in his foreign accounts.
What has been stated so far is a summary of some of our problems. If we do not tackle them with vigour and determination, we cannot long survive as a state.
(Excerpted from a keynote address delivered by professor Itse Sagay, SAN, eminent Nigerian jurist and academician, at an annual conference of the Nigerian Bar Association in Abuja)
Niger: blowing dusts of conflict
The president of Niger, Mahmud Tandja’s tenure elongation antics has been the focus of international attention on West African for most of 2009. The ex-army colonel, who was elected into office in 1999 and 2004, has succumbed to the temptation of what is generally regarded as the besetting sin of many African leaders – overstaying their welcome. And the way he has set about achieving his term extension is a sad reminder that some African leaders have learnt nothing, and are unwilling to break with the old unfashionable post-colonial African system that gave rise to political dinosaurs. Worse still, Tandja is so consumed in his lust for power that he seems not to ponder at all on the likely consequences of his actions on his vast desert country. So far, all entreaties from the international community, including Ecowas (which he was once chairman) to reconsider his decision have fallen on deaf ears.
The way he dissolved his country’s parliament when the members refused to support his plan to hold a referendum that would pave the way for him to change the clause in the constitution limiting a president to two-terms, and the manner in which he dissolved the constitutional court when it ruled that it was illegal to organize the referendum, reveals Tandja as the consummate power monger who will stop at nothing to remain in office.
Niger is richly endowed with uranium, and seismic surveys carried out in the country have confirmed the existence of oil. A leading French company has signed a multi-million dollar contract with the Nigerien government to mine the uranium. Oil companies are also queuing for a slice of the investment pie. Added to these are the country’s agricultural potentials, including livestock. These developments, and the fact that the Nigerien economy has been registering a positive growth rate in recent years, seem to indicate that the country under Tandja, is making progress economically.
And so Tandja claims he has set Niger on the path towards prosperity, and that he needs more time to complete the good work he has started. But his words and actions run counter to what the president of the United States, Barack Obama emphasised in Ghana during his first visit to Africa. Mr Obama had said: “Africa doesn’t need strong men, it needs strong institutions.” That message is yet to sink into the heads of Tandja and some other African leaders who arrogate to themselves knowledge of the act of governance. A country with strong democratic and good governance structures in place doesn’t accommodate life presidents. A president, even if he rules all his life, cannot live forever. We’ve seen too many instances of countries in Africa plunging into a succession crisis after the death of a long-serving president. But a strong democratic and good governance culture lasts for generations. Tandja’s argument sounds completely hollow. The latest UNDP country development index rated Niger as the poorest in the world, not a good score for a president bragging about his development credentials. Adding to the country’s woes is a recent projection that due to poor rains, three million people might be threatened by famine this year.
The present near-political impasse he is led his country into is not Tandja’s first misdemeanor. In October 2006 he had stirred the hornet’s nest when he decided to expel about 150 000 Muhammedian Arabs from Niger. The nomadic Muhammedian Arabs migrated to Niger from Sudan and Chad as far back as 1840 and as recent as 1984 in search of water, for tens of thousands of cattle, camels and other livestock they own. The migrants also intermarried with other Nigeriens – Hausas, Fulanis and Tuaregs. Tandja’s government claimed that the expulsion order was necessary because traditional rulers of other communities accused the Arabs of rape, theft and killings. But Aishatu Musa of the BBC Hausa service in an interview with BBC Focus on Africa suggested that the expulsion order was politically motivated, as rich Mohammed Arabs were known to be supporting the political ambitions of Hama Ahmadu, the then prime minister of Niger.
It was reported that some of the Arabs were actually deported by the Nigerien authorities, though the majority vowed to resist any attempt to deport them. The government eventually decided to repatriate only those that were not properly documented. Nevertheless the seed of future conflict was sown, as the Arabs were made to feel insecure by the actions of the government and could easily pander to the mischievous dictates of anyone intent on causing chaos in Niger.
Mamadou Tandja is supposed to be a respected figure in West African politics, and knew that xenophobia or mass expulsion of a particular people is against the African Union Charter on Human and People’s Rights. Xenophobia and the attempts by Bedie to edge out a political rival, Allasane Quattarra, through application of ill-defined citizenship laws were the root causes of a civil war that almost tore Cote d’Ivoire apart. The problem between the Mohammedian Arabs and the Niger government was particularly dangerous, considering the inferno next door in Chad and Sudan. The conflict between Arabs and Black Africans in the latter shows how deadly a racial strife can become, especially for a country like Niger, which already has one - the Tuareg rebellion in the north of the country.
Coming again to the present. Tandja has organized his referendum, which was overwhelmingly in his favour. He has now changed the constitution to extend his stay. Not without some strong-arm tactics, though. Opposition politicians who opposed him were picked up and detained by security forces. The parliamentarians he rendered jobless were also slammed with corruption charges. That was a way of further punishing them for daring to oppose him.
Meanwhile, opposition politicians and democracy activists in the country have vowed to continue their campaign against this rape of democracy. The future of democracy in the country remains uncertain.
Niger is a very hot country, and the political temperature is rising. We pray it does not get to a boiling point. That depends to a large extent, on Tandja.
Conflict Watch
Niger Delta: good governance is the key to peace
(Part One)
Events in the Niger Delta dominate news from Nigeria these days, and like most other information filtering from that country, stories about these events are at best, discouraging and at worst, gruesome. Media close-ups on the oil-rich region beam to the world images of environmental degradation, militant attacks on pipelines and oil installations, and kidnapping of foreign and local workers in the oil industry.
While a war of attrition is being fought out in the swampy zone, the causes of the conflict itself have become the subject of contrasting claims by the protagonists acting out the muddy drama – the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that wants the world to believe that the security problem in the Niger Delta is nothing more than the actions of some irresponsible brigands, criminal elements motivated by selfish greed. Not so, say the militants, who maintain that theirs is a legitimate struggle to address the injustices their area, which provides the resources that is the economic lifeline of the Nigerian state, has been subjected to for many years. Their grievances centre on three pressing issues: environmental degradation; economic deprivation; and marginalization. They’ve not had a slice of the national cake, notwithstanding the fact that the ingredients for the sumptuous cake were taken from their own land. The claims and counter-claims of the parties embroiled in the Niger Delta conflict leaves the international community confounded as to the crux of the conflict. Meanwhile, the plot thickens, with no denouement in sight.
A honest, rational thinking Nigerian from any of the geopolitical zones in the country can maintain in all fairness, that none of the parties in the conflict is completely right or completely wrong in its’ assertions. The Nigerian government is simply trying to downplay the seriousness of the festering conflict. And trying to distinguish between the militants genuinely fighting for the socio-economic emancipation of the Niger Delta from those who are common bandits is as difficult and confusing as the maze of waterways and creeks crisscrossing the region.
The Niger Delta, which is also known as the South-South, one of Nigeria’s six geo-political zones, is made up of six states – Delta, Rivers, Bayelsa, Cross River, Akwa Ibom and Edo. The insurgency has largely been concentrated on the first three states, which are homes to the fourth largest ethnic group in Nigeria, the Ijaws. All the minority ethnic groups in southern Nigeria are also in the region.
The Niger Delta is located in the Guinea Coast, and onshore and offshore lie one of the largest reserves of oil in the world.
While the once dirt-poor Arabian peninsular now glitters in the glory of economic development and high standard of living brought about by petro-dollars, it is a gory paradox that the land and peoples in the Niger Delta are suffocating under a petro-peril. A visit to the area confirms the claim by the militants that some parts of their once arable land has been rendered worthless and waters polluted, killing off marine life. Unable to farm or fish for economic sustenance, it is rational for one to expect that the returns from the sale of oil, the drilling which brought about the degradation in the first place, would be used to provide succour for the economically and socially beleaguered populace. But, alas the paradigm of morality never features in the socio-economic scheme of successive leaders in Africa’s most populous nation. Also, the fact that the South-South is the only geopolitical zone yet to produce a head of state or government in the country lends credence to the claim by the militants that the region is politically marginalized.
A critical and objective analysis of the conflict raging in the Delta will reveal that it sprung up out of bad governance. Many people within and outside Nigeria point accusing fingers at successive federal governments for neglecting the Niger Delta. Nigeria has a notorious reputation for breeding leaders with kleptomaniac tendencies, and past leaders could largely be blamed for the deplorable state of the Niger Delta. However, care should be taken in apportioning blame.
While the federal government should take the blame for not putting in place the right policies for development, or not setting strict environmental guidelines for the oil companies operating in the area, we should not discount the role other internal forces played in impoverishing the land and peoples of the Niger Delta.
It should be remembered that Nigeria is a federal state with three tiers of government – federal, state and local government. The latter two receive monthly allocations from the federal government, and in line with the derivation clause in the country’s constitution, the oil producing states, comprising the six Niger Delta States and three others – Imo, Abia and Ondo receive 13 percent of the revenue from oil and gas drilled from their land. The oil producing local government areas also receive additional revenue from the federation account.
While the 13 percent might sound small, in reality, it is a relatively large amount that could make a lot of difference in the lives of the people in any of the oil producing states. Long before militant activities started, states like Rivers, Delta, and Bayelsa, every month received, and are still receiving huge sums from the federation account, far more than many African countries manage to generate and get as development aid in any month. In addition, many of the local government areas receive more than half a million US dollars monthly. The states and local governments also generate revenue from rates and taxes, as well as occasional generous donations from resident oil companies.
In an interview with BBC Network Africa sometime in 2009, the governor of the Northern Nigerian state of Jigawa, Sule Lamido, claimed that “the state and local government authorities in the oil producing states are largely to blame for the underdevelopment in the area”. According to him, the derivation money the oil producing states and local government areas are getting is being mismanaged to the detriment of the people. Some Nigerians tend to write such assertions off as the misguided view of a northern politician. But there are elements of truth in what the governor said. Lamido is among the leading personalities in Nigerian politics (he served as foreign minister in Obasanjo’s government), and knows very well that as it is at the federal level, the money doesn’t go where the mouth is in the states and local government areas.
Professor Ade Adefuye, Ecowas adviser on good governance, and a Nigerian himself, once said: “Corruption has undermined democracy, resulting in the emergence of unpopular leaders, legitimacy crisis for political leadership, … state fragility, destructive conflicts and weak institutional capacity to effectively perform the task of governance.” The professor’s words quietly capture the sordid scenario in the Niger Delta. Over there, as in other parts of Nigeria, graft defines politics.
Unsurprisingly, five out of six former governors from the Niger Delta states are under investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Nigeria’s anti-graft agency. One of them, Diepreye Alamiyeseigha, a former governor of Bayelsa State, actually served time in prison, after being convicted of corruption charges. Prior to that he was arrested in the United Kingdom for money laundering, but managed to jump bail. Two others James Ibori and Lucky Igbinedion, former governors of Delta and Edo states respectively, are currently facing corruption charges at the courts.
In Nigeria, corruption at the state and local government level is as pervasive as at the federal level. The states and local governments are supposed to be nearer to the people, but sadly, poor governance happens to be the norm. State and local government officials are only adept at awarding phoney contracts, conduits through which they siphon money that belongs to the people, and meant to improve their lives.
Because state governors and local government chairmen in the Niger Delta, as in other parts of Nigeria, are completely bereft of ideas about good governance, and busy looting the oil money, they lose sight of the vast non-oil economic potentials that abound in their areas. The Niger Delta is rich in renewable agricultural resources, and has great potentials for massive production in palm produce, fisheries, aquaculture, timber, rubber, fruits, cassava (which Nigeria is now the leading world producer and exporter), and many food and cash crops.
The world sees the Niger Delta as an important oil-producing zone, but one thing most of the world isn’t aware of is that before anyone knew about the existence of petroleum on the bowels of the earth, the Niger Delta was part of an area in Southern Nigeria which the British referred to as the “Oil Rivers” in the 19th Century. This was because the area, like most of Southern Nigeria, was littered with the most economically viable of plants – the palm tree.
Periscope
Ghana: stable for Africa
Ghana celebrated 50 years of nationhood in style in March 2007. The country can boast of being one of the most stable in West Africa. It must have had its share of military coups in the past, but Ghana today seems to have rediscovered itself and reinvented the Nkrumah spirit.
The 2008 presidential election was tight, and happy enough, transparent. That an opposition candidate – John Atta Mills defeated the candidate of the ruling party, the second time a ruling party is losing out in pools in Ghana, shows that democracy has come of age in the country. The country is home to solid mineral resources – gold, diamonds, bauxite and manganese, and yet has never been the lure for importunate warlords. For its peace and political stability, good governance, respect for human rights, and sustained economic growth, Ghana qualifies as the beacon of hope for West Africa. Unsurprisingly, the first African American president of the United States, Barack Obama, included Ghana in his itinerary on his first visit to Africa in 2009.
Benin: another peaceful transition
Benin is regarded as one of the success stories in the nascent African democratic project. Successful elections held in March 2006 lent credence to this view. Veteran international banker Yaya Boni – considered an outsider by many, emerged the surprise winner at polls that was given a clean bill by international observers. More encouraging was the fact that voting was largely free of ethnic bias, and this is a great hope for peace and stability. That old-timer Mathieu Kerekou bowed out gracefully in deference to his country’s constitution debunks the notion that all African leaders are hybrid life-presidents. Aside from crippling economic problems, Benin has largely been a very peaceful country, and free from the type of ethnic and religious conflicts that plagues its’ giant eastern neighbour Nigeria or the succession bickering of western neighbour Togo.
Cape Verde: island of hope
Cape Verde has a reputation as a real dove in West Africa. This Portuguese-speaking Island nation has maintained a peace culture typical of small island nations. The stability the country enjoys could be said to account for its’ relative economic growth and stability in a sub-region where poverty is rampant. The racial mix in the country has in no way affected its’ political fortunes. Elections held in 2006 passed off peacefully. It is no surprise that Cape Verde has progressed economically to become a middle-income country, the first in West Africa to achieve that status. Little wonder the country was among the six African countries the US secretary of state, Mrs. Hilary Clinton visited during her recent trip to Africa.
Togo: hope after the dinosaur
For most of the 1990s Togo was treated as a pariah nation by the West. That was as a result of the late President Eyadema’s perceived poor human rights record. Selective sanctions were imposed on the country, and because of that, the tiny country’s economy suffered. That notwithstanding, Eyadema, who ruled Togo for 38 years, somehow cut his edge as a regional peacemaker by hosting peace conferences and acting as mediator in some of West Africa’s conflicts.
At home many Togolese hailed Eyadema as a unifying force and commended him for the peace and stability the country enjoyed. After his death in 2005 the Togolese army defied the constitution and quickly handed over power to his son, Faure. This action was branded a constitutional coup by both the African Union and ECOWAS. The Togolese authorities balked and organized elections which Faure won. This led to serious riots in the country. ‘Togo is no one’s personal fiefdom’ was the battle cry of the dissenters who had hoped for a completely new political dispensation in the country after the death of Eyadema. The security forces moved in to quell the riot and Togo tottered on the brink of conflict. However, the situation was brought under control – not without loss of lives and displacement, though, and many Togolese fled to nearby Ghana and Benin. However, the tension has worn off and Faure Eyadema is now doing his best to maintain the peace in his country.
Comment
Welcome to
iPeace.us
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by David Califa. Managed by Eyal Raviv.
Powered by
You need to be a member of iPeace.us to add comments!
Join iPeace.us