USA Africa Dialogue Series - More On Designating Boko Haram as a Terrorist Organization

Thanks Pastor Akande for this.  I think you sum up some of the errors in the pro-FTO position well, and I am glad we are continuing the debate, although as a long-time fan of your Guardian articles I am sad that you have to fall to personal barbs to make your point, rather than evidence or research.

But let me address some of those quickly.  As a Catholic, I do in fact take the attacks on Catholic and other Christian churches very seriously and personally.  And as someone with many close friends who are Muslims in Nigeria, I take those attacks very personally and seriously as well.  And as someone who lost friends to Al Qaeda on 9/11 and to the misguided US intervention in Iraq thereafter, I know the importance of trying to think before we act out of anger or fear.

Which is why I am interested in seeing an end to the killing on all sides, not just an end to the killing of Christians.  We need to find alternatives that bring the killers to justice -- including the financiers in any level of government, as you rightly point out.  But we need to do so in a way that does not make matters worse by fueling religious differences even further.

If you had been to Maiduguri with me recently to do research on Boko Haram, rather than in New York (although I hope you weathered the hurricane well), you would have found important evidence that the BH movement is much bigger than just the hardliner network at its core (which does indeed appear to have links within the state and federal governments), and that it has a great deal of part-time followers and a broader array of possible supporters that could move further toward its camp if Boko Haram succeeds in turning its insurgency into a religious war.  Many of these pockets of possible or part-time support already have antipathy or wariness toward the (Christian-majority) United States, and it is highly likely that the FTO designation could be seen as the US taking the Christian side, which will push these groups closer to Boko Haram and escalate the violence.  If Boko Haram succeeds in becoming a major popular organization beyond just its hardline network, the disaster of that would far outweigh any gains of asset seizures now.  In addition, any of the "moderates" within the BH movement who have been trying to find a negotiated solution to the crisis would, after the FTO designation, be easily seen as siding with the Americans and so be silenced even more.  Religious leaders and peace NGOs risking their lives to keep the fire from spreading would be whipsawed by being seen as pro-American on the one hand (since Boko Haram will be able to frame opposition to their tactics as effectively siding with the US), and yet be ineligible for US funding on the other (and as you say, if other funders follow suit on FTO, their resource pool will dry up).  The basic test of good policy is to ask if it will actually achieve the ends it promises, but also to try to foresee any unintended consequences.  As you mentioned, a long list of many American scholars of Nigerian politics, including me, warned the US government that an FTO designation at this time would not achieve the ends it seeks.  In fact, it would likely backfire and make matters worse.  The battle over public opinion is terribly important at this stage, and since that is the only tangible area of impact of FTO at this point, we have to judge it along those lines.

You rightly point out that the FBI, Justice, and Homeland Security are pushing for this, which make sense, since it would put some additional tools in their hands.  Some of the Republicans in the House and Senate, particularly on the House Africa subcommittee, are also pushing for FTO (and notably, invited the President of CAN but did not invite anyone to represent a Nigerian Muslim point of view to the hearings last July).  But the only tangible benefit for the present would be the ability to seize Boko Haram assets in the US, which are likely nonexistent.

Note that I am definitely not saying that Boko Haram should never get FTO designation.  All I am saying is that we should take it off the table for the time being to see if NSA Dasuki's efforts gain any traction.  If you look in the responses I sent to the subcommittee, I suggest some possible future conditions for them to consider that would merit FTO designation for Boko Haram.  It is possible, as you suggest, that some of the Nigerian politicians who are likely financing Boko Haram in part may have assets in the US, and they should be brought to justice.  This is certainly the strongest argument for FTO, but at this point no one appears to have provided any substantial evidence that any Boko Haram-connected politicians have assets in the US or Europe.  If your organization has or can obtain such evidence, then that would be a different situation, and I hope you are looking for it -- that would change the debate dramatically.  For the present, however, neither I or the other traveling academics, or Saharareporters or the New York Times, I believe, have found much evidence yet.  So far, it seems unlikely that such politicians have much here, and if they do, it would make more sense to track them for now -- and seize them later once more of the network has been rooted out, and after the Nigerian government's efforts play out more fully.

Your fears of foreigners' "hegemonic interests in the Nigerian federation" and the "historical mess created by the British" are representative of the larger political dynamics that I mentioned are engaged in this decision as well.  It is clear that Boko Haram's efforts to ignite the religious divide are gaining traction and shaking many older and deeper grievances across the federation, such as the Hausa-Middle Belt minority tensions that Dr. Jibo Ibrahim discussed in his posting yesterday, as well as influencing the current politics surrounding President Jonathan's 2015 ambitions versus those of key Northern elites.  Although I do personally believe that most Nigerians would prefer and would benefit more from a single Nigeria that democratizes enough to provide decent governance, I believe that if Nigerians vote to end the federation through a peaceful process, that is their right.  But I don't think that the United States or Nigerians themselves have anything to gain by violently breaking the country apart across religious and/or ethnic lines, such as Boko Haram appears to want.  And since the only real impacts of an FTO designation at this time are in the very important realm of public relations and debate, the fact that it could sour the views of the Islamic periphery groups I mentioned would, in effect, have the United States inadvertently strengthening the trends tearing the country apart.  We have other, more effective ways to show that we stand with Nigeria's Christians and Muslims that would be far more effective at this time, and I think the Obama administration has largely employed those for the present, although there are a couple minor changes I advocate in the testimony.

The "preposterous argument" you outline below is indeed that, and it has little resemblance to the thrust of my comments.  You are certainly right, however, that I am an outsider to Nigeria and frequently a traveling academic there since 1993, although I lived there for extended periods as well.  You have been living in New York since at least the 1990s when I was an avid reader of your Guardian columns, and I was always eager to hear your perspective on US politics as well as the UN, since an outsider's view is often helpful.  I hope you can see my work in a similar light.

Are the hardliners in Boko Haram terrorists?  Yes, of course.  Do Christians deserve justice for Boko Haram's crimes?  Absolutely, and so do the Muslim victims of their attacks.  Are Nigeria's corrupt politicians responsible for letting the country get to this point?  Absolutely.  Will the FTO designation help address any of this?  Not really, at this time.  Could I be wrong that NSA Dasuki's efforts deserve more time?  Certainly, but I don't see any better alternatives at this point on the table.  Let's take a realistic look at the tools and options we have, weigh them on the merits, and try to craft the best solution possible, based on evidence and research where possible.  We don't have the luxury to do otherwise when so many lives are at stake.

I look forward to your further comments, and I hope others will weigh in on this debate as well.

Darren

On Nov 17, 2012, at 10:10 PM, Olaolu Akande wrote:

Dr Kew:

Thank you for your response and for 're-providing' the details of your testimony to the House Sub-committee.

I am also aware of the joint statement issued by you and other US scholars on the issue of the FTO designation for the Boko Haram - a designation which groups like ours advocate and would continue to support.

The reasons are very simple and clear. 

It is clear not just to us, but to the FBI, Homeland Security Department and the Justice Department of the US government. 

All these agencies have already recommended the designation of Boko Haram as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, according to western newswires.

We know that when the designation is put in place, a clear signal would be delivered to the fat pockets financing Boko Haram. They simply understand no other language.

And by the way, those financiers are well ensconced in their Nigerian government gift of impunity.

When the US designates the group an FTO, the international community starts to build a groundswell of opinion against the group and makes the movement of their financing much harder since other countries are likely to implement similar measures.

Only people like you understand this fantasy of handing them a public relations victory. I hope we are not taking this public relations logic too far!

But I also understand the motivation of scholars like yourself, and some International NGO activists, which include all or some of these: 

(i) a fundamental commitment to protect the spaces of your research upon which your professional accomplishments, including promotion, depend, 

(ii) a concern for ensuring that your funding (for research and "development assistance") sources are not closed up by such designation, 

(iii) a long-term fidelity to protecting and projecting "a particular hegemonic interest" in the Nigerian federation (there are "intellectual progenitors" of this "cause" in both Britain and the US), 

(iv) an ultimately futile, and undoubtedly superficial, pretension to engaging the "larger picture" in a "complex" country such as Nigeria, a "complexity" which is, partly, both a product of the historical mess created by the British, and the continuing perverse actions by local and international actors, including international scholars who regularly misadvise important countries such as the United States,

 (v) and, an obstinate fascination with the "exotic" politics of a "distant" country. 

However, as a Christian, I am not persuaded that such motives are more important than the commitment to our Christian community and our common humanity, both of which are now being threatened by Boko Haram.

Some of the elements of these motivations are evident in your testimony, as well as the regrettable statement earlier issued by you and others. 

Can you imagine if some Nigerians were to issue a statement urging the United States not to designate Al-Qaeda as an FTO, because, as you stated, this will "play right into its objectives of trying to further ignite religious tensions [in say Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Libya], attract more disaffected youths to the movement, and also lump the moderates in the [Al-Qaeda] movement -- who have been trying to make peace overtures to the government -- alongside the hardliners." 

Can you imagine how such a preposterous argument would sound, Prof Kew?

Let us even imagine that such a terrorist group exist within the United States, for instance in the New England region of the US, say, specifically in the State of Massachusetts. 

Imagine if such a group announces a mission to Islamize the US. 

Imagine that such a group regularly detonates bombs in some churches in the Boston area and elsewhere, targeting Christians. 

Imagine if 10,000 people have died at the last count in the hands of this group. [Recall that 3, 000 people were killed by Al-Qaeda during 9/11]. 

Would you write that such a terrorist group ought not to be designated as one because subsequently "Any [US] peace NGOs trying to work with anyone remotely connected to [Al-Qaeda] would not be eligible for funding." 

Seriously, would you? 

Would you advise the US Government about "trying to talk with the moderates while going after the hardliners, which opens the possibility of breaking the movement apart against itself," while adding that "It is better to give these efforts more time to see if they gain any traction over the next year." 

Would you ask that more American lives be sacrificed so that scholars and "peace NGOs" could have research access and be eligible for funding?

By AP's count way more than 700 innocent Nigerians have been killed this year alone by Boko Haram, and we are supposed to be bothered about some research fancies?

Dr. Kew, these are some of the questions that could be raised even within the logic of your own position. 

There are more fundamental issues beyond the points you raised and the obfuscation which you presented to the Subcommittee of the House. 

Boko Haram's links with other FTO in the post-9/11 age may be unique, but this is not the first time that Nigeria would face and face down such Islamist groups. 

Tying the phenomenon to disaffection with the geopolitics of power in Nigeria is neither illuminating nor useful in the context of the terrorism that Boko Haram is involved in. 

We are persuaded that the United States should not wait until we experience a repeat of  what happened in Bengazi before designating the Boko Haram as an FTO, while joining the Nigerian government to haunt down these atavistic elements whose ambitions of imposing a pre-historic age on Nigeria is real. 

For you and others, Nigeria maybe a research site, for 160 million people, it is home. The humanity of the victims and potentials victims of Boko Haram cannot be surrendered to the sophistry of traveling academics. 

I am sorry Dr. Kew, but the Boko Haram menace and terror, is no longer just an academic debate! And for sure, we no longer have such luxuries! 

Laolu Akande

Empowered Newswire

&

Executive Director

Christian Association of Nigerian-Americans, CANAN

P. O. Box 1041

Bay Shore, New York 11706

CANANUSA.ORG

On Nov 17, 2012, at 3:59 PM, Darren Kew <darren.kew@umb.edu> wrote:

Friends --

Many thanks to Pastor Akande for this important posting.  In the spirit of debate, please find my testimony before the House Subcommittee on Africa last July, in which I argue the opposite -- that it would NOT be helpful to designate Boko Haram a terrorist organization at this time.

The reason is that designating Boko Haram as an FTO puts little additional tools in the hands of the US government that it does not already have.  The only tangible benefit is that the Justice Department could seize Boko Haram assets in the US, of which it likely has none.

Meanwhile, giving Boko Haram the FTO designation will hand it a public relations victory, and play right into its objectives of trying to further ignite religious tensions in Nigeria, attract more disaffected youths to the movement, and also lump the moderates in the Boko Haram movement -- who have been trying to make peace overtures to the government -- alongside the hardliners.  Any Nigerian peace NGOs trying to work with anyone remotely connected to Boko Haram would not be eligible for funding.

The Obama administration has a smarter policy:  designate the individual hardliners as terrorists, like Shekau, and so try to divide them from the broader movement and its part-timers.  This has strengthened the hand of NSA Dasuki's response to the crisis:  trying to talk with the moderates while going after the hardliners, which opens the possibility of breaking the movement apart against itself.  It is better to give these efforts more time to see if they gain any traction over the next year.  If they fail, and if Boko Haram shows increasing involvement in regional anti-state movements as in Mali, then FTO might be worth the cost.

The Nigerian government must, however, absolutely investigate all attacks and provide compensation to the Christian communities that have been attacked -- and to the Muslim ones as well.  In addition to Boko Haram, other Islamist and Christian militias have committed atrocities that must be brought to justice.

Best,

Darren

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
  For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
  For previous archives, visit  http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
  To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-     
  unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

<Kew -- Africa Subcommittee Testimony 7-10-12.pdf>

<Nigeria - QFRs - Kew answers 8-14-12.pdf>

--

Darren Kew, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Center for Peace, Democracy, and Development
-&-
Associate Professor
Department of Conflict Resolution, Human Security, and Global Governance
McCormack Graduate School of Policy and Global Studies
University of Massachusetts, Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd.
Boston, MA  02125-3393   USA
phone:  1-617-287-7428
fax:   1-617-287-7412

http://www.umb.edu/academics/mgs/crhsgg/

On Nov 16, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Pastor Laolu Akande wrote:

CANAN, IN MEETING WITH ENVOY, INSISTS ON US DESIGNATING BOKO HARAM TERRORISTS

 

CANANUSA.ORG- New York, Nov. 16, 2012- Nigerian Ambassador to the United States, Prof Adebowale Adefuye and the Christian Association of Nigerian-Americans, CANAN have both agreed to work together towards the elimination of terrorism in Nigeria, even if through different approaches. While CANAN continues to actively advocate for the designation of Boko Haram as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the US government, the Nigerian government opposes the designation, but says it is working hard to end terror attacks in the country.

The message CANAN took to the meeting was a simple one: the federal government of Nigeria by itself alone cannot solve the menace of Boko Haram violence. 

In effect, the Nigerian government and people will need and benefit from drastic international assistance, including a proper designation of the terror group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, FTO, by the US government.

At a meeting with leaders of the group on Thursday afternoon at the Nigerian Embassy in Washington DC, Adefuye disclosed that the incidence of terrorism attacks in Nigeria would have been greater than what it currently is, if not for the government's onslaught against Boko Haram.

CANAN leaders at the meeting included leader of the delegation, Archbishop Joseph Alexander, the group's Executive Director, Pastor Laolu Akande, Washington DC Representative, Emmanuel Ogebe, CANAN's Maryland State Associate Coordinator, Dr, Mercy Obamogie, Pastors Joseph Akiyode, Tony Ojoibukun and Deacon Ralph Osamor, CANAN's Security Coordinator. 

The Nigerian Ambassador to the US, Prof. Adefuye who identified with the fact that many innocent Nigerians have been unjustifiably killed in the terror attacks, especially Christians, noted that "we are no less repulsed by this violence, our revulsion is not less than yours."

He added that "preventive measures which have been put in place by the federal government has reduced the incidence of the attacks."

According to Nigeria's Ambassador the US government has also been actively backing the federal government in quelling the activities of the terror group.

"The rapidity, frequency of Boko Haram violence has been prevented by our forces and Americans backing us," he disclosed, adding that President Goodluck Jonathan, himself, the federal government and CANAN are united in terminating the activities of Boko Haram.

But the Ambassador objected however to the call for the designation of the group by the US government as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, FTO, which the Christian Association of Nigerian-Americans, CANAN have been actively clamouring for in the US since the group's inception in September this year.

In his own remarks the leader of the CANAN delegation to the Ambassador Archbishop Joseph Alexander, a trustee of the group, (representing Pastor James Fadele, the Chairman of the association,)  stated that concerted international efforts are needed to end the Boko Haram attacks. 

The Archbishop who is also the Founding Bishop of the New Covenant Ministries based in New York and with churches around the world said "on our minds is the peace of the Nigerian nation, we need to get other nations to help Nigeria end the terrorism of Boko Haram."

 

Alexander said the killings of Christians and innocent Nigerians must stop and the reign of fear, which he said has become rather troubling especially in the north of Nigeria.

 

While thanking the Nigerian Ambassador for his openness and active engagement with the Nigerian Diaspora in the US, the leader of the CANAN delegation added that the designation of Boko Haram will enable the US government go after the resources that is financing and maintaining the Boko Haram violence.

 

Speaking in a similar vein, CANAN Executive Director, Pastor Laolu Akande explained that based on academic researches and studies conducted on the connection between terrorism and foreign direct investment, including one by the Asia Development Bank, the designation of Boko Haram as an FTO by the US will not necessarily influence investors from coming to Nigeria.

 

Quoting a UN report on the subject, Akande said terrorism was number 7 concern of foreign investors generally, adding that "investors will go for profit wherever they can find it, even if it is in the mouth of a lion."

 

Also at the meeting, CANAN's Representative in Washington DC, Lawyer Emmanuel Ogebe said the federal government has not considered compensation to Nigerians killed and attacked by terrorists, but there are active plans to help and support Islamic education.

 

According to him, after President Jonathan was elected president last year, wide violence in northern Nigeria killed Christians and 700 churches were burnt because the president won. But he lamented that no compensation has been paid to anyone since then.

 

At the end of the meeting, Prof. Adefuye expressed understanding and promised to report the views of CANAN back to the federal government, adding that "we are all committed to the same goal, except that we have different approaches."

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com