sould nigeria send a troops to mali
REPORTS that the Federal Government is planning to send Nigerian troops to help battle Islamist insurgents in Mali is unsettling. The idea is totally misguided, considering that the country is facing unprecedented insecurity challenge from Boko Haram insurgents.
We have not been able to handle our own problem here; how can the country be thinking of sending troops to Mali to face the same challenge we have here? Equity demands that we solve our problem first and then be in a better position to help others.
The right thing to do, considering the critical security situation we are facing, is to give moral support to any effort to restore peace in Mali, but not to send soldiers. We need the soldiers at home to deal with our escalating insecurity problem. And, even at that, whatever support Nigeria would give should depend on her ability to foot the bill. This battered economy is ill prepared to foot huge bills arising from external combat mission.
Whereas it had been mooted earlier that Nigeria was planning to deploy troops to Mali to help in restoring peace to that country, but this was not taken serious. However, the statements by Reuben Abati and Ogbole Ahmed-Ode, spokespersons at the presidency and Ministry of Foreign Affairs have confirmed our fears.
Reports say the spokespersons for President Goodluck Jonathan, Reuben Abati and that of the Foreign Affairs Ministry, Ogbole Ahmedu-Ode had separately confirmed that “Nigeria has responsibility to return peace to Mali”.
While Abati was quoted as saying that, “Nigeria is committed to resolving the crisis in Mali, especially as President Jonathan is a co-mediator in the crisis”, Ogbole-Ode on his part, reportedly said that, “it was mandatory for the country to salvage the situation in Mali where Islamic fundamentalists are unleashing attacks on the country’s monuments and people”.
The statements betray the expectation of Nigerians on the escalating insurgence in the country. Does it mean that government is committed in restoring peace in Mali and probably not in Nigeria, which explains why this crisis is getting worse. If Nigeria is committed to resolving the crisis in Mali, how committed is the government to resolving the worsening crisis in Nigeria?
Is the government committed in dealing with the insecurity in the country or not? If yes, why is it proving extremely difficult to deal with this situation and restore peace? I don’t want to imagine that government is not committed to the cause of restoring peace in Nigeria, but how committed is it? Is the commitment as strong as its avowed commitment in Mali as emphasized by Abati? We are yet to see the kind of commitment that Nigeria wants to showcase in Mali.
Ogbole-Ode’s statement went the same direction as Abati’s, using different language. He said Nigeria’s involvement in Mali is mandatory, meaning that even if Nigeria is in a state of war, it must double it with the Malian conflict whether or not it is in our national interest.
But no nation, not even the super powers, would take such blind position on a conflict outside its territory without first considering its national interest. Mali is not part of Nigeria. Even at that, Nigeria had the other day ceded oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun without giving a hoot. What makes the internal crisis in Mali so important that Nigeria should stake her neck to fight at a most inauspicious time?
Furthermore, the Islamic fundamentalists staging crisis in Mali are very much here with us. Nigeria is facing the same unabated attacks from Boko Haram rebellion. Practically, no day passes without people being killed in one state or the other. The entire north is like a war zone. State of emergency has been declared in some states and yet there is no respite. Why should we leave the log in our eyes and want to remove the speck in another man’s eyes? Can we afford to give what we don’t have?
No one gives what he does not have. If peace is what Nigeria wants to give Mali, do we have peace here? It is hypocritical for us to pretend to be purveyor of peace that is lacking in our domain. We should work to achieve peace and stability at home first to have the moral justification to preach peace to other countries.
In the course of the anti Gaddafi campaign in Libya recently, the United States merely extended logistics support to NATO that executed the United Nations Resolution 1973. This is despite the fact that the United States is a major stakeholder in NATO and the action was sanctioned by the United Nations. It didn’t say because of her strategic position in global affairs, it must join forces with NATO to fight in Libya. Its country’s interest supersedes every other thing, including that of NATO where she is a major stakeholder.
The U.S. took that wise decision not to have its soldiers involved in the Libyan campaign because they were engaged in other wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opening another war front for the soldiers in Libya would have been burdensome. Nigeria should learn from the U.S. example. The super powers don’t fight wars outside when there is no peace in their countries.
Therefore, the mere fact that President Jonathan is a “mediator” in the Malian crisis is not enough reason to plunge Nigeria into another crisis that would cost men and material resources.
The U.S., Russia and China mediated in the Libyan crisis without putting their soldiers on the war front. The same goes with the ongoing Syrian war, where the same super powers are mediating without sending troops to Syria.
The Federal Government should act wisely to save Nigeria from unnecessary conflict. Nigeria’s interest must come first. Nobody is saying that Nigeria should not be involved in matters concerning sub-regional peace and security in West Africa. But to be involved in such assignment, the interest of the country must be uppermost.
It is on record that Nigeria has played prominent role in peace missions in West Africa in particular and Africa in general. Nigeria’s unflinching commitment in the Liberian and Sierra Leonean wars was instrumental to the return of peace to those countries.
But Nigeria was not facing internal rebellion when she took the responsibility to restore peace to those countries at huge human and material cost. There is nothing wrong if Nigeria should say she could not be involved in the Mali operation this time around because of threatening internal rebellion.
No one would reprimand Nigeria if she excuses herself because of Boko Haram she is facing. As a matter of fact, the other countries would sympathise with Nigeria’s predicament. But it won’t be strange if the other countries see Nigeria as being foolish to leave her own internal crisis to salvage another country.
It is unpardonable that we should have a daunting security challenge at home and leave it to chase peace in another country. A person whose house is burning does not chase rats. It is foolish to do that. Self-preservation is the first law of nature. If we have soldiers to spare, why not deploy them across the country to provide security?
As far as I know, the job of the military is to protect the country from internal and external aggression. It is unbecoming, therefore, for the military to be there while the internal security system collapses. And, instead of engaging the soldiers to do the job, they are being reserved for another mission abroad.
It is unimaginable that a country facing a historic threat of disintegration as us could be thinking of sending her troops out to help others fight their own problem when she is finding it difficult to contain the problem at home. There are implications in sending Nigerian troops to Mali. Nigerians were killed and maimed in thousands in Liberia and Sierra Leon as a result of Nigeria’s involvement in the conflict in those countries.
No one should rule out the repeat of that in Mali. Earlier, the insurgents in Mali had threatened to attack Nigeria should it venture to get involved in the conflict there. The fact that the insurgents in Nigeria and Mali are fighting the same cause should give government concern.
It needs to be emphasised that the Malian case is different from Liberia and Sierra Leone. The Mali case is not limited to Mali as a country. It is more of a sub-regional uprising cutting across the entire Sahel region by Islamists seeking to carve out territory for themselves. Some have identified them as Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb. It is on this note that Nigeria should be wary before plunging into the Malian crisis, in order not to attract avoidable enemies that will make what we are seeing now a child’s play.
Next >
We have not been able to handle our own problem here; how can the country be thinking of sending troops to Mali to face the same challenge we have here? Equity demands that we solve our problem first and then be in a better position to help others.
The right thing to do, considering the critical security situation we are facing, is to give moral support to any effort to restore peace in Mali, but not to send soldiers. We need the soldiers at home to deal with our escalating insecurity problem. And, even at that, whatever support Nigeria would give should depend on her ability to foot the bill. This battered economy is ill prepared to foot huge bills arising from external combat mission.
Whereas it had been mooted earlier that Nigeria was planning to deploy troops to Mali to help in restoring peace to that country, but this was not taken serious. However, the statements by Reuben Abati and Ogbole Ahmed-Ode, spokespersons at the presidency and Ministry of Foreign Affairs have confirmed our fears.
Reports say the spokespersons for President Goodluck Jonathan, Reuben Abati and that of the Foreign Affairs Ministry, Ogbole Ahmedu-Ode had separately confirmed that “Nigeria has responsibility to return peace to Mali”.
While Abati was quoted as saying that, “Nigeria is committed to resolving the crisis in Mali, especially as President Jonathan is a co-mediator in the crisis”, Ogbole-Ode on his part, reportedly said that, “it was mandatory for the country to salvage the situation in Mali where Islamic fundamentalists are unleashing attacks on the country’s monuments and people”.
The statements betray the expectation of Nigerians on the escalating insurgence in the country. Does it mean that government is committed in restoring peace in Mali and probably not in Nigeria, which explains why this crisis is getting worse. If Nigeria is committed to resolving the crisis in Mali, how committed is the government to resolving the worsening crisis in Nigeria?
Is the government committed in dealing with the insecurity in the country or not? If yes, why is it proving extremely difficult to deal with this situation and restore peace? I don’t want to imagine that government is not committed to the cause of restoring peace in Nigeria, but how committed is it? Is the commitment as strong as its avowed commitment in Mali as emphasized by Abati? We are yet to see the kind of commitment that Nigeria wants to showcase in Mali.
Ogbole-Ode’s statement went the same direction as Abati’s, using different language. He said Nigeria’s involvement in Mali is mandatory, meaning that even if Nigeria is in a state of war, it must double it with the Malian conflict whether or not it is in our national interest.
But no nation, not even the super powers, would take such blind position on a conflict outside its territory without first considering its national interest. Mali is not part of Nigeria. Even at that, Nigeria had the other day ceded oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun without giving a hoot. What makes the internal crisis in Mali so important that Nigeria should stake her neck to fight at a most inauspicious time?
Furthermore, the Islamic fundamentalists staging crisis in Mali are very much here with us. Nigeria is facing the same unabated attacks from Boko Haram rebellion. Practically, no day passes without people being killed in one state or the other. The entire north is like a war zone. State of emergency has been declared in some states and yet there is no respite. Why should we leave the log in our eyes and want to remove the speck in another man’s eyes? Can we afford to give what we don’t have?
No one gives what he does not have. If peace is what Nigeria wants to give Mali, do we have peace here? It is hypocritical for us to pretend to be purveyor of peace that is lacking in our domain. We should work to achieve peace and stability at home first to have the moral justification to preach peace to other countries.
In the course of the anti Gaddafi campaign in Libya recently, the United States merely extended logistics support to NATO that executed the United Nations Resolution 1973. This is despite the fact that the United States is a major stakeholder in NATO and the action was sanctioned by the United Nations. It didn’t say because of her strategic position in global affairs, it must join forces with NATO to fight in Libya. Its country’s interest supersedes every other thing, including that of NATO where she is a major stakeholder.
The U.S. took that wise decision not to have its soldiers involved in the Libyan campaign because they were engaged in other wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opening another war front for the soldiers in Libya would have been burdensome. Nigeria should learn from the U.S. example. The super powers don’t fight wars outside when there is no peace in their countries.
Therefore, the mere fact that President Jonathan is a “mediator” in the Malian crisis is not enough reason to plunge Nigeria into another crisis that would cost men and material resources.
The U.S., Russia and China mediated in the Libyan crisis without putting their soldiers on the war front. The same goes with the ongoing Syrian war, where the same super powers are mediating without sending troops to Syria.
The Federal Government should act wisely to save Nigeria from unnecessary conflict. Nigeria’s interest must come first. Nobody is saying that Nigeria should not be involved in matters concerning sub-regional peace and security in West Africa. But to be involved in such assignment, the interest of the country must be uppermost.
It is on record that Nigeria has played prominent role in peace missions in West Africa in particular and Africa in general. Nigeria’s unflinching commitment in the Liberian and Sierra Leonean wars was instrumental to the return of peace to those countries.
But Nigeria was not facing internal rebellion when she took the responsibility to restore peace to those countries at huge human and material cost. There is nothing wrong if Nigeria should say she could not be involved in the Mali operation this time around because of threatening internal rebellion.
No one would reprimand Nigeria if she excuses herself because of Boko Haram she is facing. As a matter of fact, the other countries would sympathise with Nigeria’s predicament. But it won’t be strange if the other countries see Nigeria as being foolish to leave her own internal crisis to salvage another country.
It is unpardonable that we should have a daunting security challenge at home and leave it to chase peace in another country. A person whose house is burning does not chase rats. It is foolish to do that. Self-preservation is the first law of nature. If we have soldiers to spare, why not deploy them across the country to provide security?
As far as I know, the job of the military is to protect the country from internal and external aggression. It is unbecoming, therefore, for the military to be there while the internal security system collapses. And, instead of engaging the soldiers to do the job, they are being reserved for another mission abroad.
It is unimaginable that a country facing a historic threat of disintegration as us could be thinking of sending her troops out to help others fight their own problem when she is finding it difficult to contain the problem at home. There are implications in sending Nigerian troops to Mali. Nigerians were killed and maimed in thousands in Liberia and Sierra Leon as a result of Nigeria’s involvement in the conflict in those countries.
No one should rule out the repeat of that in Mali. Earlier, the insurgents in Mali had threatened to attack Nigeria should it venture to get involved in the conflict there. The fact that the insurgents in Nigeria and Mali are fighting the same cause should give government concern.
It needs to be emphasised that the Malian case is different from Liberia and Sierra Leone. The Mali case is not limited to Mali as a country. It is more of a sub-regional uprising cutting across the entire Sahel region by Islamists seeking to carve out territory for themselves. Some have identified them as Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb. It is on this note that Nigeria should be wary before plunging into the Malian crisis, in order not to attract avoidable enemies that will make what we are seeing now a child’s play.
Comments