Boko Haram:How Negotiations with Terrorists legitimize their activities by Blessing Maduagwu
The existential threat of Boko Haram has evoked protracted debates and discussions on either to fight them to submission with every conceivable state power as a deterrent to other emerging terrorist groups or submit to tyranny by negotiating with them in order to end this bloodshed that is threatening to cut across Nigeria. The proponents of this ''Negotiation theory'' clearly understand Boko Haram's intransigence in giving up their demand on the introduction and institutionalization of Sharia law in Nigeria, as well as, the implications of such daring exploit on millions of other Nigerians who are not Muslims. Their desperation to Islamize Nigeria by force or coercion and create an Islamic hegemony over non-Muslims, lurk stealthily behind us to push Nigeria to the edge of the precipice. The fact is that a negotiation with Boko Haram legitimizes their nefarious activities and undermines the efforts of peaceful Activists.
However, the proponents of this ''negotiation theory'' want the federal government to dialogue with Boko Haram and explore the possibilities of a financial settlements and general Amnesty as a replication of what transpired in the Niger Delta under late President Yar'Adua. These cliques of individuals, who are desperately coercing the President to blink, are indeed covert sponsors of terrorism. They meet the President in the day and dine with Boko Haram in the night. They are the desperate politicians that personify terrorism in government and devitalize the President's position to remain resolute. It is difficult to fathom how a terrorist group could infiltrate a government and neutralize all security formations without intelligence from those in it. As observed, government is therefore under intense pressure to negotiate and stop shoveling the ashes of those so fated, even though Boko Haram has consistently declined this offer. The question is: If Boko Haram decides to negotiate with the Federal government, will this bring a lasting peace?
My argument against any form of negotiation is hinged on the fact that we need a local solution that involves every Nigerian and this is what we refer to as ''Sovereign National Conference''. Besides, Negotiations with terrorists in other parts of the world simply achieved temporary success. History shows that negotiations do not end the existence of threats because it's often used as a bargaining chip to achieve political and economic objectives. Government's position is that other countries have broken international honor codes to negotiate with terrorists but my responses clearly offer an insight into how negotiations with terrorists legitimize their activities and accord them sympathy and transnational recognition. For instance:
The Hijacking of TWA flight 847 led to a ''17 day'' negotiation that ended a hostage crisis on June 30, 1985. In this situation, Syria and Iran worked with Hezbollah to release US hostages as a quid pro qui for the release of 300 Atlit prisoners. Hezbollah terrorists continued a show of force in Beirut and were eventually appeased with a veto power in Lebanon.
In 1991, the British Government and the Irish Republican Army (IRA) entered into negotiations soon after the IRA bombed Downing Street, an event that threatened the life of all cabinet members. Today, members of IRA are power brokers in Northern Ireland Politics.
In 1993, Israel covertly negotiated the Oslo accord with Palestinians Liberation Movement (PLO) and has since continued negotiations with Hamas. Right now, Hamas is in full control of Gaza because they became part of a political process and won an election.
In 1998, the Spanish Government negotiated with the Basque Homeland and Freedom (ETA), just six months after the group massacred 25 people in a shopping mall. Despite these negotiations and promises of a ceasefire, ETA bombed a train in Madrid in 2004 and killed 191 passengers. Last year, France and Spain offered to negotiate with ETA and bring them into mainstream politics.
In 2008, the US government in Iraq entered into negotiations with the powerful Mahdi Army of Moktada Al-Sadr in order to gain access to Basra and Sadr City. Today, Moktada has sympathizers in the present Iraqi Parliament.
Presently, the US is covertly negotiating with the Taliban, even though the Taliban insurgents ignore these negotiations to carry out attacks in Afghanistan. Last year, Taliban was given an approval to open a Liaison office in Doha, Qatar.
The list is endless but these few examples above drive home the point that Negotiating with terrorists simply legitimizes their activities and I will not be surprised if Boko Haram transforms into a Political Party and begins to overtly challenge government policies constitutionally. One writer classified terrorists into two:
Contingent Terrorists: These are kidnappers, hostage takers and political assassins. They can easily be paid to give up arms and embrace amnesty. This is the reason behind the withdrawal of Niger Delta Militants from the creeks.
Absolute Terrorists: These are suicide bombers that are difficult to negotiate with. They consider negotiations as a risky compromise and a betrayal of their belief. This is where Boko Haram belongs.
Therefore, persuading Boko Haram to sell their belief in Sharia and receive a Federal government financial settlement is only tactical but not strategic. In my understanding, this is an approach to entice Boko Haram to suspend further attack until 2015 when the ''People's Democratic Party'' is expected to cede power to a Northern President. If this is what the present government is considering, they should at the same time negotiate with other diehard Nigerians to give up their ambition of producing a President in 2015 because there is no wisdom in transferring crisis from one zone to another. Considering the present nature of our country, I am therefore compelled to believe that negotiations with a terrorist group that should in fact, be prosecuted for wanton destruction of lives and properties highlight a travesty of justice, that most Nigerians are unwilling to accept. A situation where Boko Haram members are likely to be embraced with Pardon and Amnesty, whilst their victims rot in morgues and graveyards without justice is not only a political aberration, but a morally reprehensible act of insensitivity to the value of human life. This flagrant violation of the constitution has the potential to blight and halt further progress in Nigeria.
Boko Haram and their sponsors understand the dynamics of negotiations far more than the present government. As a transnational terrorist organization, it will be improper for the government to negotiate with a branch of a group in Bornu State. This is a transnational terrorist organization that requires a conference of Nigerians at home and Diaspora in order to discuss and extirpate all circumstances that fuel terrorism and other criminal activities that shape modern Nigeria. However, many political pundits have suggested different ways of dealing with this anomaly. Suggestions such as ''infiltrating their network, putting CCTVs and hacking their computers'' do not work in Nigeria. Nigeria does not have constant electricity and adequate resources to embark on a full scale ''Hi-tech war'' with Boko Haram, unless it wants to abandon every other project and embark on a fruitless military engagement. There could also be a backlash, should external forces be engaged to attack these insurgents, bearing in mind that this alone could lead to a ''Northern revolution'' against President Jonathan's Government. Therefore, the most reasonable platform to deal with countless challenges that confront our democracy is the Sovereign National Conference.
A sovereign national conference of all nationalities will restore hope to every Nigerian that has already despaired. The federal government should make the most of this period and call all Nigerians for a national civil discourse on the way forward. It will engineer a complete overhaul of our system and impugn the relevance of corruption in a country where more than 90% of its citizens live on less than $2 a day. A rebirth of Nigeria and a strengthened union of nationalities are only achievable if the President can ignore these sycophants in Aso Rock and go back to the electorates for help and gravitas. This is the only victory that is both meaningful and sustainable. In my conclusion, I implore the President to re-consider his willingness to negotiate and immediately convene a Sovereign National Conference. In the words of George Santayana: ''Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it''.
Blessing Maduagwu is an alumnus of Hult International Business School London (Formally Huron University USA in London).He holds degrees in History and International Relations and writes from New York.