People2People...with Oke Epia

After 165 days, the ‘bring back our girls’ campaign continues. But the battle to free over 200 girls abducted in Chibok, Borno State by Boko Haram since April 2014 is basically Nigeria’s business. Or so it seems. At least, this is the take-out from recent events regarding promises of assistance from other nations particularly from the West to help free the girls and ultimately defeat the insurgency raging the North-eastern part of the country.

1. A recent onslaught by the insurgents which saw the militants seize towns and villages in Borno and Adamawa States and established self-styled caliphates has been substantially rolled back by the Nigerian military through significant defeat on the enemy camp. This heart-warming development has given rise to renewed hopes that the battle against insurgency in Nigeria can indeed be won if all hands are on deck. The fear however, is that all hands are not. Especially those which were quick to pop up in support of Nigeria in the immediate aftermath of the Chibok kidnap episode.
   Obviously appalled by the audacity of bestiality demonstrated in the kidnap of 200 plus teenage girls in one fell swoop, the United States, Britain, France, Australia and other nations had expressed outrage and promised to assist Nigeria to free the girls. The Nigerian media was awash with stories of how intelligence and logistics support from abroad was coming to help boost the operations of the military. In the enthusiasm of the moment, Australia even got into some kind of media tango with Nigeria about how an offer of its special forces to help in search of the girls was denied by Abuja. These stories of help from abroad provided a moral fillip for a nonplussed citizenry traumatized and taken aback by the ugly prospects innocent school girls faced in the hands of their evil captors. But given the flurry of external support professed at the time, it is inconceivable that six months after their abduction the girls are still stuck in captivity and possibly being subjected to heinous violations that can shock and awe the mind.
   The narrative from abroad soon began to change as reasons why the promises could not be fulfilled suddenly surfaced. The US and its western allies promptly identified the Nigerian military they are supposed to collaborate with in the rescue of the girls as the problem. Nigerians were told that their armed forces fell short of the standards of human rights observance in prosecuting war. They were also told that the same military forces whose records in peace-keeping have been commendably noted by even the United Nations are not professional enough. And that the fear of internal saboteurs in the military could jeopardise promised collaborations. And with these caveats, the promises of help soon evaporated into the air. To be fair, some help actually did come especially within the framework of existing bilateral relations. For example, the US few weeks ago donated some bomb disposal robots and equipment to the Nigeria Police in addition to some heavy duty logistics for military operations shipped in earlier. While aids like this from the US and some other countries are commendable, they have generally fallen short of expectations and the promises made earlier. Even intelligence support when seldom provided reportedly came in late when the value had depreciated and became of little complement to the boots on ground in the battle zones.
   This scenario has elicited some frustrations from Nigerian military and intelligence sources and they have recently taken to the media to express same although in anonymous fashion. The lead story on the September 23 edition of ThisDay newspaper (http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/us-blocks-nigeria-s-purchase-of-chinook-helicopters-from-israel/189710/) for instance reported how the US allegedly blocked attempts by Nigeria to procure Chinook helicopters for military operations against Boko Haram from Israel after it had denied direct purchase from it and other western countries. An unnamed official was quoted by the report thus: “The US government has frustrated Nigeria all the way in our war against terrorism despite its public statements in support of Nigeria as it fights the Boko Haram insurgents in the North-east. They want us to fight Boko Haram with our arms tied to our backs. They have refused to sell us arms and equipment and even our recent attempt to buy Chinook helicopters which are manufactured in the US from the Israelis was blocked based on unfounded allegations of human rights violations by our troops. This belies their stance (that) they want to help us to defeat the terrorists and help to rescue the Chibok girls.” It is noteworthy that the newspaper said it contacted the US authorities for comments on the story but did not receive any and up till when this piece was submitted for publication, there is no reported rejoinder either from Washington or the US Embassy in Nigeria to the ThisDay story. If silence is not always golden especially at times like these and on matters of huge global interest as this, then those who harbour concerns about true US motives on the insurgency in Nigeria cannot entirely be blamed.
   Moreso, when charges of double standards are brought into the mix. It is same US Government which does not condone human rights abuses in military operations of countries it wishes to support that turned a blind eye when the military in Egypt toppled a democratically elected government in July 2013 and its top Army General eventually transmuted into a civilian leader a year later. Given the democratic credentials of the US and its much touted commitment to the same, it is ironical that it condoned a forceful subversion of the political will of the people duly expressed through the ballot after the fall of late Hosni Mubarak. Worse still, it is on record that the US failed to condemn the coup and in fact, only temporarily froze strategic military aid to that country in spite of widespread unease over Washington’s prevarication on the Egyptian crisis. In another often cited instance of alleged US double standard, the recent Israeli operation in Gaza which some have described as war crimes, the US has looked the other way and continued to offer support to Israel.
   The question therefore is why has it become convenient for the US to highlight alleged human rights abuses by the Nigerian military as a reason to deny assistance even after it has publicly professed same to the delight of Nigerians across the country and to the relief of observers of the Boko Haram menace threatening Africa’s biggest black population? Clearly, this suggests that what is sauce for the goose is no longer sauce for the gander. Nigerians can take this in their strides but it certainly does little good if at all to the public perception rating of the US in the West African country.
   The quest for nations to look good in the eyes of citizens of other nations is a chief cornerstone of public diplomacy. But the way a state actually relates with others is a function of foreign policy interests. This is a reason why words do not always match expectations or actions in international affairs. This is the reality of the situation with the Chibok girls and the Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria. But it is good enough consolation at this time that Nigeria can rise up to the challenge as demonstrated by the string of successes recorded by the armed forces in the North-east in recent days.
   Follow writer on Twitter @resourceme

Sourse: Thisday