FEATURE ARTICLE


Stan Chu IloThursday, October 17, 2002
[email protected]
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada


THE BAKASSI VERDICT: MATTERS ARISING


advertisement
ccording to the foremost African political thinker Ali Mazrui, in this present century, France like most European colonial lords will withdraw her influence in her African territories. This is because in the face of the socio-political and economic problems created by the unification of Europe at the end of the Cold War, most European countries will be turning their attention to Eastern Europe. The result according to Mazrui is that France's West African influence would be filled by Nigeria- a more natural hegemonic power. In the light of these emerging realities, Nigeria's own boundaries are likely to expand to incorporate the Republic of Niger with an Hausa link, the Republic of Benin with the Yoruba link and then Cameroon with historical links.

This kind of thinking was no doubt predicated on the Post-Cold war euphoria in the entire world in the early 90's especially the democratic wind that was latching on the political shores of most of Africa. There was also the feeling at that time that African nations were moving towards a more united continent, with the consequent crumbling of artificial boarders imposed by the colonial powers, who disregarded political, tribal and economic affinities of the indigenous peoples in their division of the land and peoples of Africa into different nations. Indeed, as the borders of African nations were expected to collapse, there was also the hope, that the new calligraphy of poverty and disease which was being drawn as the new map of our land by wars, drought, neo-colonialism, political instability and the debt burden would be redrawn by the joint effort of all Africans in the reinvention of the continent.

Close watchers of the African condition see this vision as a farfetched reality. There is increasing tension in Africa as the present situation in Cote d'Ivoire and Kenya has shown. The reconstruction of the economies of Nigeria and South Africa the potentially strongest economies in the continent and perhaps the linchpin of the economy of their respective sub-regions looks a dim prospect. African countries, instead of the unity sought for in the proposed African Union, are far apart than ever; regional co-operation is giving way to regional betrayal and most African nations still look up to their colonial and Western allies for the resolution of their national and regional conflicts. For example, the Ivorian government would prefer the French to protect them from the present rebellion of a frustrated and restive group.

When Samuel Doe was on the brink of political extinction, he had to appeal to the US for military assistance in stead of his African sister nations; the same was the case with Gowon's government during the Nigerian civil war. Our continent is today separated from the rest of the world by the wall of poverty and disease exacerbated by political tension, ethnic conflicts, corrupt and planless government and religious fundamentalism pioneered by radical Moslem fundamentalists in places like Nigeria, Algeria, Sudan and Egypt.

The weakening of the link between African nations is perhaps the greatest threat to economic and political growth of the continent. Perhaps, one of the imminent threats to the peace and security of the continent is the crisis that would be generated by the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), to grant the disputed Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon. That decision has struck a thudding blow on the fragile arch of unity between the two sister countries and have sent violent ripples which could polarise the continent along the old colonial identities, that have remained with the continent since the post- Independence era. Nigeria must act with caution in the way she responds to this verdict, given her strategic position in the continent. In the final analysis, what should be of primary importance in the entire conflict should be the greatest good of the people of Bakassi, and not the economic fortune of France, Cameroon or Nigeria.

In the first place, let me admit that like most Nigerians, what I know about the Bakassi peninsular has largely been from press report. I managed to read the defence prepared by the respected Richard Akinjide, which to my mind was a formidable and credible document, which should be re-read by every patriotic Nigerian to fully appreciate the position of the country on the disputed land. Nigeria lost the case at The Hague not because our defence was poor, not because we do not have a credible claim on Bakassi, but because Cameroon beat us in the diplomatic wheeling and dealing which characterise international disputes.

What pressure did Nigeria bring to bear at the preliminary stages of the case especially in the choice of the judges at the court and at the latter stage of the international adjudication? What shuttle diplomacy did Nigeria undertake to bring the international community to appreciate her position on the disputed Bakassi? It is instructive to note for example that whereas the Cameroonians in Netherlands and elsewhere mobilised to be physically present on judgement day at The Hague and made prior arrangement to protest the verdict immediately if it did not favour their country, there was only an inconsequential Nigeria presence on judgement day.

Many Nigerians I spoke with in Amsterdam two days to the Day of Judgment did not even know that something that could change the geography of their country was going to happen in their backyards. The judgement of the ICJ, to my mind does not meet the requirement of justice because it does not take into consideration the good of the people of Bakassi; it has in it the colouration of French colonial territorial hunger propelled by economic considerations and should be rejected by Nigeria and all Africans around the world. It is necessary that we address the three factors that led to our loss at The Hague so as to seek the ways and means of redressing this judgement.

To begin with, the verdict of the ICJ was a verdict on our foreign policy dating from the IBB-Abacha dark days, when Nigeria was regarded as a pariah nation, to the present government when the President's constant foreign shuttles have been bereft of any clear-cut diplomatic initiatives. It is also a verdict on our standing in the comity of nations. Since the end of the cold war, Nigeria has made Africa the centrepiece of her foreign policy, but Nigeria has failed to find out whether this policy strikes a reciprocal chord in the hearts of other African nations. What for example did Nigeria gain from her fight for the liberation of South Africa? When one thinks of the human and economic loss of this country in the ECOMOG peace-keeping initiative in Liberia and Sierra Leone, one cannot but bemoan the way the governments of that country treated Nigeria after the return of peace.

Many people have argued that Nigeria's peace initiatives in these West African nations was far from being altruistic as the country's military personnel exploited the war situation to loot these nations. However, even if there was a shred of truth in this accusation, it is undeniable that the country committed so much money and human lives to save those nations from national extinction and sacrificed her national interest because of the war of attrition in those countries. One cannot then wonder why we must maintain such economically wasteful foreign policy, when it does not enhance our image nor promote our economic interest.

There was a shift in the country's foreign policy towards non-alignment, but after the Cold War there was the need for the nation to develop into a medium power and involve in South-South co-operation without sundering the bond of interests with the Western powers who have genuine interest in our national development. Why is it that our country has failed to use her oil wealth, a huge chunk of which goes to France, Britain and US conglomerates to get these nations to respect our national interest? One cannot forget so quickly those foreign policies of the Murtala regime especially on indigenisation and the liberation movement in Southern Africa, which brought some measure of respect to the country from the super-powers.

If the Western nations feel so threatened by Iraq, which exports 1.950million barrels of oil per day, because Iraq uses her oil not only for her technological progress but also as a bargaining cheep, why wouldn't Nigeria that exports about 1.950 million barrels per day do the same? The Bakassi blunder should call our nation to stand up and be counted in the international community and not to presume that our influence is worth anything when we do not let it bear when it matters. A nation' s foreign policy is determined by her interest and our president must realise that his foreign trips are not ego-journey campaign, but an integral step in the promotion of our national interest. After Obasanjo's loss of the top job at the UN to a less fancied Ghalli, he should have become wiser in the complex art of international diplomacy.

The Bakassi loss is also an indictment of our lack of patriotism. The outrage about this judgment would fizzle out like other things in the country. We do not love our nation and many of us are not prepared to promote her honour and glory. This explains why Gowon could give away a valuable national monument and a sizeable part of our national territory without consulting with anybody. The Bakassi loss should not be seen as a nemesis for the senseless killing of the Easterners as some people have wrongly argued; on the contrary it should call us to a greater love of our fatherland.

It would be recalled that we totally forgot the Bakassi issue soon after the controversy began. This is typically a Nigerian characteristic way of treating national issues. We leave everything to chance and once it is not a matter that affects our immediate parochial interest, it does not really count. This is why the cries for marginalisation by many people in the country have not been addressed. We should spare a thought for the people of Bakassi not just for Mama Bakassi (Senator Ita-Giwa) whose tears may not reverse the ICJ decision. What does it feel to be without nationality and to be exposed to the type of military presence that has been their sad lot for more than a decade?

It is also significant that Bakassi became a thing of derision and a metaphor for the violent and unlawful Gestapo-like group that rides roughshod on the backs of both criminals and law-abiding people in Eastern Nigeria. How do we react to the fact that there are many Nigerians who live in the kind of situation that the Bakassi people find themselves? Is it not possible that Cameroon by killing some of our soldiers in Bakassi reminded us that there were some Nigerians whose fortune did not matter to this country? How much care do we take about documentation and history?

It is because Gowon like many Nigerian leaders did not care about the overall interest of the Bakassi people that he gave them away without their consent. This reality is replicated daily in our land where there are numerous selling out of the national interest for the selfish agenda of one leader or one ethnic group. The truth is however that with the constant squandering of the good will of the people by successive governments, the citizens do not see their loyalty as tied to the good of the nation represented by the government. Citizens are patriotic to the extent that they feel that their future is inextricably tied to the fate of the country as represented by the government of the day.

Perhaps the loss of Bakassi may presage the balkanisation of the country which has already begun with the depletion of the national treasury by many government officials; the sequestering of our oil wells by foreign companies such that the NNPC acts as agents for these countries; the denial of their nationalities by many Nigerians abroad, the selling of our national corporations to foreign companies and the abuse of our constitution by the executive at national and state levels. The country as at today is badly divided and patriotism has been at an all time low. If we are to go to war with Cameroon, how many Nigerians believe that the country is worth fighting for?

The present threat to our territorial integrity and the palpable neglect of the Bakassi people should call us to greater patriotism and national unity whereby every person, every nationality and every parcel of land counts, not because it matters to a few but because it is consequential to all. Looking at the fate of many oil-producing communities in Nigeria, will the Bakassi people entrust their fate to an insensitive Nigerian government that has not prioritised grassroots development? This is a fundamental consideration in this dispute because at the end of the day, it is not the ICJ that would decide the fate of the Bakassi people, since the people and not the court have the right to decide their nationality. Since the Peace of Westphalia that set national boundaries for most European countries in 1648, there is a consensus among the Europeans and through them to other peoples and races all over the world that national boundaries are not enough to determine nationality of people, but the freely expressed wish of the people. Thus effective occupation of Bakassi by Nigeria may not legitimatise our possession, but rather the effective acceptance of Nigerian nationality by the Bakassi people. This means that the people have freely accepted the territory and sovereignty of Nigeria and have freely chosen to be citizens of it.

It is left for the United Nation to argue that they should move away or stay in the land of their ancestors which its agency; the ICJ, gave to Cameroon. Thus nationality may be tied to border, but historical occupation and attachment is decisive in the consideration of this border: since the fact of migration opens the way for people especially before the emergence of national borders to change their locus. If a people did not make the change at that time, a colonial power or a court cannot do that without doing violence to the right of the people to survival and self-determination. However, given the arbitrary nature of the division of our land among the colonial powers and the often half-hearted attention of the West in matters that concern Africa, one is not surprised that this kind of crime is allowed against the Bakassi people.

The question that has troubled me is the stand of our former colonial master in this conflict since her treaty with France is one of the underlying factors in the judgement of the ICJ. Why is the British government silent in this dispute? Is the British government not concerned about the loss of a portion of the Commonwealth? Was there a conspiracy of silence on the part of the British because it prefers to respect the political interest of France? Is the British thinking that Nigeria's case holds no water? Who are our allies when our national interest is in jeopardy like in this case? It is often too difficult to answer questions like these, but time has come for the country to take a second look at her membership of the Commonwealth vis-�-vis our national interest.

Time there was when Nigerians did not need a visa to enter the UK and when Britain supported the development of our country through the empowerment of our human capital by way of scholarship and direct involvement in community development. Those were the oil boom days when many Western powers courted the friendship of Nigeria. However, the fall of Gowon led to a gradual change in the complexion of our relationship with Britain. Perhaps, the Queen did not like the idea that the generous Jack who freely gave out to her one of our greatest national treasures should be out of office. Indeed, when Murtala was assassinated Britain and Gowon was fingered in the plot-though this was not proved in the course of time.

In the hellish days of IBB and Abacha, the British only acted when her oil interest was affected in the face of the killing of the Ogoni 9. The point at issue is that our membership of the Commonwealth has not brought us much cultural, economic and political benefit and ought to be reviewed in the face of the disappointing stance of the Commonwealth in moments of our need. All these however point to one fact, which many African nations fail to accept: Africa must look within her bosom for solutions to her problems, since the response given to African problems in the Western world are meant to serve the interest of the West, while creating more problems for the African nations. It is against this background that Nigeria and Cameroon must work out away of resolving the Bakassi conflict.

It was ill advised for our President to have committed himself to the decision of the court as if to say that the ICJ has an absolute claim on any nation. Obasanjo ignored the fact that whatever judgement the court gives would still need interpretation and implementation, which might still need a lot of negotiation and some quid pro quo. He was driven more by his thirst to appear as an international statesman than the good of his fatherland.

Nigeria must adopt the stance of Argentina, which rejected the judgement of ICJ in her boarder dispute with Chile. These two Latin American countries nearly went to war over the Beagle islands, which lie just off the southern tip of Latin America. This island was named after the British ship in which Charles Darwin explored the area between 1831and 1836. The argument over which country owned these small islands (named Picton, Lennox and Nueva), like in the case between Nigeria and Cameroon dates to the colonial times.

At stake here also was control of the thirty thousand square miles of fishing and mineral rights. The case ended up before the International Court of Justice in 1971. The case lingered for six years after which the court ruled in favour of Chile on May 2, 1977. Argentina disputed the decision and sought a new round of negotiations. Preparations for war began in July, an alarming development since military dictators ruled both nations then. General Pinochet had seized power from the socialist Salvadolr Allende in Chile in 1973 and a military junta had taken control in Argentina in 1977. On December 9 1978, Argentina sent a naval squadron to the Beagle Island in preparation for war and actually drafted a declaration of war to legitimise the occupation. At this point, there was a lot of call from the international community for the peaceful resolution of the conflict. Both countries being Catholic accepted the mediation of the Pope who sent personal letters to their respective presidents calling for truce. Consequently, both countries signed an Act of Montevideo pledging a peaceful solution to the problem in 1979.

After five years of intense negotiation and fraternally open consideration, both countries entered into a Treaty of Friendship and Peace on January 23, 1984 at the Vatican. It specified maritime boundaries called for increased physical integration and economic co-operation and established a binational commission to promote these goals. It set up conflict resolution procedures to deal with future disputes and addressed navigational issues. Both sides ended up with rights of access to the islands and the adjacent territorial waters. Both countries ratified this protocol of agreement a year later. The experience of these two countries shows that the verdict of the ICJ is not always the best for feuding nations and so should not be accepted as final in this case of Bakassi. There are many matters arising from this verdict, which summons Nigeria to reach out to Cameroon not with guns and bombs, but with a hand of friendship so as to seek a just resolution on the future of this troubled peninsula.