The
debate whether the Nigerian government is weak if it negotiates with the
dreaded Islamist sect, Boko Haram is out again. This was as a result of the
statement credited to the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Publicity,
Mr. Femi Adesina. During an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation
(BBC), he was quoted to have said: if “Boko
Haram is willing to negotiate, why not?”. Following that, a press
release was issued from his Abuja office to clarify the government`s position
on the matter. Part of the press release reads thus: Most wars, however furious or
vicious, often end around the negotiation table. So, if Boko Haram opts for
negotiation, the government will not be averse to it. Government will, however,
not be negotiating from a position of weakness, but that of strength.
This
statement has generated a lot of controversies as it has been widely believed
that, it is only a weak government with less military might and poor
intelligent gathering mechanisms that negotiates with terrorist. You see, in
reality this is almost completely false.
The argument against negotiating with terrorists is
simple: Democracies must never give in to violence, and terrorists must never
be rewarded for using it. Negotiations give legitimacy to terrorists and their
methods and undermine actors who have pursued political change through peaceful
means. Negotiations can destabilize the political systems of a government,
undercut international efforts to outlaw terrorism, and set a dangerous
precedent.
However,
history has shown that it is almost impossible to defeat an organisation
composed of individual people with guns and bombs without unbearable
infringements on the human rights of the innocent. In the case of prolonged
internal campaigns of terrorism, the promise of negotiations can be used as a
bargaining tool to end violence, and will almost always lead to a ceasefire.
This has been seen in almost every case where terrorist groups have been
brought to the negotiating table. In the case of more isolated incidents, such
as hostage-taking, it is worth making concessions in order to save the lives of
the people who the government has no right to sacrifice for any reason
whatsoever.
Meanwhile, in practice, democratic governments around
the world secretly often negotiate with terrorists either directly or
indirectly but deny doing that publicly. The lists of negotiations between democratic
governments and terrorists are numerous, some are: In 1991, the British
government maintained a secret back channel to the Irish Republican Army (IRA)
even after the IRA had launched a mortar attack on 10, Downing Street, which
nearly eliminated the entire British cabinet.
In
1988, the Spanish government sat down with the separatist group Basque Homeland
and Freedom (known by its Basque acronym ETA) only six months after the group
had killed 21 shoppers in a supermarket bombing.
In
2011, contrary to their principle, The Isreali Prime Minister, Benjamin
Netanyahu approved the release of 1,027 prisoners that were responsible for the
deaths of 569 Israeli civilians to meet the demands of Hamas in order to secure
the release of the kidnapped Corporal Gilad Shalit.
Even
the U.S. that often brags of its non negotiation policy with terrorists also
has a long list of negotiations with terrorists throughout history. Some of
which are:
1979: Iran
Hostage Crisis – Iranian revolutionaries take more than 60 Americans hostage
from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, prompting a substantial response from
President Jimmy Carter. After several strategies including embargoes and
economic sanctions fail, Carter’s negotiations with the revolutionaries led to
the unfreezing of over $8 billion in Iranian assets. The hostages were freed
after 444 days of imprisonment, just after Carter left office and Ronald Reagan
was sworn in.
1985: The
Iran-Contra Affair – In direct opposition to an arms embargo, President Reagan
authorizes the selling of arms to Iran, in exchange for seven American hostages
held by Iranian terrorists in Lebanon. Amid heated backlash, Reagan denies any
wrongdoing, only to later admit his knowledge of the affair.
1995: Bill
Clinton met with Gerry Adams, the political leader of the Irish Republican
Army, ignoring not only requests from Britain not to meet with Adams, but also
the IRAs position on the State Department terror list. The IRA remained on the
list until 1998.
2002: The
George W. Bush administration paid a large sum $300,000 ransom to Abu Sayyaf,
an Islamist extremist group in the southern Philippines, to secure the return
of two American missionaries, Martin and Gracia Burnham. Efforts by the
Philippine military to rescue the missionaries results in Martin’s death, and
Gracia’s return to the United States.
2009: Tom
Pickering and Robert Malley, former U.S. government officials, met with leaders
of the Palestinian terrorist group, Hamas. The meeting, held in Zurich, is just
one of a long string of meetings between Hamas and U.S. officials with ties to
both the Clinton and Obama administrations.
2010: British
hostage Peter Moore is released in Iraq, in exchange for the release of Qais
al-Khazali, a prisoner being held by the U.S. military. Khazali, the leader of
the Shia military group League of the Righteous, was suspected to be involved
not only in Moore’s kidnapping, but also in the killings of five American
soldiers.
2014:
Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, an American soldier was released by the Taliban in
exchange for five Taliban fighters held at the Guantanamo Bay prison by the US.
Through all the noise and controversy surrounding the return of Army Sgt. Bowe
Bergdahl, one thing has remained clear, President Obama is not apologizing for
his decision to bring Bergdahl home. “We do not leave anybody wearing the American
uniform behind,” he said.
The
point is, one may choose to agree or disagree with the policy of not negotiating
with terrorists, there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate. But suggesting
that the practice is unprecedented and anything other than routine in
international affairs is misleading.
Should
Boko Haram care for negotiation, the Nigerian government should negotiate with
them. However, the government should negotiate from the point of strength and
not from that of weakness. Negotiations with people like Abubakar Shekau can
lead to an outcome that is better than the status quo and avoids more loss of
lives and damage of properties. Boko Haram in the past few years of its
existence have been responsible for the loss of thousands of lives, damage of thousands of properties, displacement of
millions of people and the abduction of groups and individuals.
It
is the primary responsibility of any government in the world to save the lives
and protect the properties of her citizens. It doesn`t matter the way it goes
about it, so long it is for the good of the people and the nation, it must be
done!
Those
that have in one way or another been victims of one form of terror or the other
either by loss of loved ones or properties know better. They careless about the
tactics the government chose to employ in putting an end to the Boko Haram
insurgency. The only thing they care about is living in a society where their
lives and properties are safe.
Negotiations
with terrorists are not an easy task. However, it is worth trying to reach a
peace agreement.
Personally,
I really wish that the military can completely root out the deadliest terrorist
sect and stop them from committing further harm. But now that this is not
coming through and the terror spree continues, if negotiation becomes an option
the government should debate
We
have tried to use our force and the combined forces of our allies and yet the
desired results are not coming forth, perhaps now it`s the time to start
thinking of really bringing negotiation to the table.
God
Bless Nigeria
Ogundana
Michael Rotimi is a Nigerian Biochemist, Socio-economic & Political
Commentator, and Public Speaker. He tweets @MickeySunny.
longchamp handbags
ReplyDeleteadidas stan smith
timberland online shop
cheap nfl jerseys
cheap nfl jerseys
skechers go walk
cheap air jordan
michael kors outlet online
air max thea
yeezy boost 350
michael kors handbags outlet the
ReplyDeletetoms shoes at
eagles jerseys could
cheap jordans The
bills jerseys go
gucci borse for
the north face outlet and
michael kors outlet link-up
nike roshe how
cleveland cavaliers jersey the
cheap jordans for sale
ReplyDeletechristian louboutin uk
timberland boots outlet
birkenstocks
louis vuitton outlet online
louboutin shoes
red bottom shoes for women
canada goose outlet
christian louboutin shoes
fit flops
2017112yuanyuan
20170116meiqing
ReplyDeletecoach outlet
cheap oakley sunglasses
canada goose uk
michael kors outlet
versace shoes
toms outlet
nike free run flyknit
michael kors handbags
lebron james shoes
moncler jackets
chicago bulls
ReplyDeletemichael kors outlet online
bengals jersey
ray ban sunglasses
jets jersey
adidas nmd r1
abercrombie and fitch kids
cheap mlb jerseys
fitflops sale clearance
houston texans jerseys