Hello Minister Menelik:
I have read a good number of your mails where you
think Nigeria feel short of that
mark and implicitly betrayed
Africa. I am sure you bring competitive advantages in the understanding
of global geopolitics. So far from it, I cannot question your expertise.
Rather, I believe the context in which these dynamics take place
should be considered.
Let us take, for example, your insistence that
Nigeria, with South Africa and Gabon, contributed to a ruinous Libya. When you
read the text of the "No Fly Zone," it is plausible enough for
the gullible to state that the impact objective was to prevent
Gaddafi from bombing his own people. His utterances, calling citizens
rats and all, in the media did not help matters. He dared in
exemplary plunder in public diplomacy.
We cannot also dismiss the context that Gaddafi
had befriended the West and became a good guy, a model of sort.
He dined with Condi Rice (USA); partied with the then Prime Minister
Silvio Berlusconi, (Italy); he was also pals with
Nicolas Sarkozy of France; and Blair of UK.
That his friends became
antagonists and the stunning ease with which Tripoli fell make for a
riveting Military Manual and a dire lesson in Realpolitik -
no permanent friend, just permanent
interests. Meanwhile, Congressman Emanuel Cleaver 11, a Minister of the Gospel
and the then Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus had endorsed the
US' position in Libya. So who exactly was supporting the African Union
that barely escaped bombs on its head when it sued for peaceful resolution
but was never given a chance? The representatives tailed it out of
there.
When the bombs started falling, the veto wielding
and abstaining Russia and China revisited their understanding of No Fly
Zone, cried foul and called it a mission creep that
deviated from the letter of the text.
The lesson on Libya has direct bearing on Syria
as both China and Russia vetoed the same tract and tact, the first time both
powers exercised the veto since they did on Zimbabwe. Perhaps, the lesson for African countries is to obtain or
vote African interest as a matter of self-respect. No hell will break
loose...Africa has oil and other desirables, etc. Look at the tantrum of
Saudi Arabia....hahaha....that wanted to use the UN as a proxy to fight
Syria.
My point: Libya
was fraught with too many complications and hindsight to lay it on the feet of
Nigeria and Gaddafi was no small catalyst of his own demise. Did he know better
or could he?
His sometimes operatic conduct extended to
the Africa he sought to champion. Left to be wondered is why
a supposed champion of Africa's unity morphed expediently into an
agent of intra- national polemics by telling a group of young students
that Nigeria should be split in two on religious grounds. "Saint" or "craze man"
is a flavor of choice. The verdict is understandably split.
When opportune, Nigeria, coming out of a bloody
civil war with strings of military rulers, has nevertheless shouldered its
fair share toward Africa's development. The successful ECOMOG
model, which contained the debacles in Liberia and Sierra Leone is a
reference for citations on how Africa can do it. The leader was
General Victor Malu. When Sierra Leone was stabilized, I believe a UN
peacekeeping force led by an Indian replaced ECOMOG. I would stand corrected if
not.
I was a live radio host on WPFW
Pacifica Radio. I remember arguing that the US should send no ground forces to
Liberia (just logistical support to help the ECOMOG). I interviewed the
staff in charge of foreign relation in the late Congressman Donald
Payne's office (her name is Nicole) and discussed this essence with the
Congressman who was the Chair of the US House Subcommittee on Africa or the
ranking member.
Minister Minelik, I am not debunking your
views. I just think a more holistic picture
should not only state the facts
but also factor in the dynamics - otherwise it may be bereft of
the knowledge we need in order to understand what happened and why....or
how do we prevent the same misdirection.
Not to make light of anything, African Presidents
can be unschooled in the politics of it and alarmingly
impressionable - and the Western
press has a way of coloring the picture. A vivid example was when the
late President Yar'adua visited Bush in the White House. The White
House issued a statement that Nigeria has agreed on the core goal of
Africom. Nobody knows whether both Bush and Yar'adua spoke in
Texan-ics and Ebon-ics respectively and the resulting translation in English
meant Nigeria endorsed Africom for Africa. It took some fitful
members of the Nigerian House and Senate and a vigilant African press, which
went wild, for Yar'adua to be sufficiently informed, whereby
he declared himself misquoted by the White House.
Here is a latest position:
My closing point: Let us have informed dialogues.
A blame frame is not quite helpful.
MsJoe