Opinion: Nigerian troops and The Malian crisis: Matters arising

Posted by admin Africa & World Politics, Headlines Tuesday, January 22nd, 2013

By Theophilus Ilevbare

The Nigerian Senate gave constitutional approval to the deployment
of 1,200 troops for combat mission as part of the Africa International
Support Mission to Mali (AFISMA) – an Economic Community of
West African States (ECOWAS) organized military mission sent to
support the government of ECOWAS member nation Mali against
Islamist rebels in the Northern Mali conflict. The mission was
authorized with UN Security Council Resolution 2085, passed on 20
December 2012, which “authorizes the deployment of an African-led
International Support Mission in Mali (AFISMA) for an initial period of
one year. Nigerian troops had already been deployed by President
Goodluck Jonathan before a letter was transferred to the Senate for
approval. This action in itself raises serious constitutional questions.

The swift dispatch of troops belie the security challenges at home. It
is now habitual and priority for Nigerian government to solve crisis in
neighbouring African countries faster than the insurgency at home.
If the federal government had responded in similar manner to the
Boko Haram menace during its formative years, their activities would
have been nipped in the bud. Security challenges now seem
insuperable, extrajudicial killings and human rights abuses are now
the hallmark of the Joint Task Force (JTF) on duty in the troubled
northern states of Nigeria.

The “brilliant record” of Nigeria’s participation in peace mission in
neighbouring African countries count for nothing when compared to
the insurmountable security challenges at home. There is nothing
‘responsible’ about being proactive in regional conflicts when the
Boko Haram menace has claimed over 3,000 lives and counting.
The present security challenges at home does not warrant any form
of peace-keeping outside the shores of the country.

The conflict in Mali birthed by the emergence of three Islamist
groups now active in northern Mali – Ansar Dine, al-Qa’ida in the
Islamic Maghreb, and the Movement for Oneness and Jihad all
beefed up by an influx of mercenary fighters from Libya about a year
ago. Defeats by Tuareg separatist aided by Islamist fighters coming
back to Mali after the fall of Gaddafi triggered a military coup, in the
confusion that ensued, the army were forced to retreat from the vast
deserts of the north, with the secular Tuaregs swiftly pushed aside
by their former allies, extremist militants took control of a vast area,
big as France. For a country fettered with poverty, its citizens in
perpetual pangs of hunger and most Malians practicing a temperate
form of Islam, the insurgents in Mali were able to operate in shadow
manner their presence undetected for years in the forests and
deserts with strong ties and financial backing from al-Qaeda in the
Middle East (AQIM). These Islamist rebels were also engendered by
the subsequent destabilization of northern Africa after the war in
Libya leading to the proliferation of arms and ammunition to groups
masquerading as Libyan freedom fighters.

Nigerian government should take a cue from the reluctance of some
European countries, particularly Britain whose Ministers were
ordered to the Commons to stress that UK troops would not
‘undertake a combat role’ in the crisis in Africa, amid fears they
could be sucked into a long, bloody conflict opting for logistical air
assistance to France. The US played an active role in ousting
Muammar Gaddafi during the Libyan uprising with air strikes without
putting boots on the ground. Nigeria could have explored similar
possibilities and should begin to think along such direction for future
invitation to combat missions.

The suggestion by some senators that it is high time Nigeria
considered her economic interest in foreign policies like the world
super powers, US in particular, was instructive. We need not go on
foreign missions without reaping the maximum benefits of our
sacrifices. “It is no longer uhuru for the country to continue to play
Father Christmas in its foreign policies” quipped a Senator.
The remark by the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Azubuike Ihejirika,
that Mali trained terrorists have crossed the border into Nigeria is
rather preposterous as he gave no evidence of their presence.
Actually, Nigeria does not share its border with Mali. In-between
there is Burkina Faso, Niger republic and Togo. If all these nations
did not report terrorist immigrants, then on what basis did the COAS
raise alarm that Mali trained terrorist had landed Nigeria shores? A
ruse it turned out to justify the deployment of troops to Mali.

There are real threats of retaliatory strikes of western targets across
Africa and beyond, countries whose troops are part of the combined
effort to flush out the terrorists. Mali may not play a significant role in
world economy but it is surrounded, on far and near sides, by
countries that do. Nigeria and Algeria with the largest and second
largest gas reserves respectively in Africa, suppliers of
petrochemical/minerals, make them potential targets of reprisals.
Recently, al-Moulathamine, a group affiliated to AQIM has since
claimed responsibility for the attack on a gas field in southern
Algeria run by BP, Statoil and the Algerian state oil company
Sonatrach.

The Algerian government said 38 workers and 29 militants died in
an attack during a three-day military operation to end the hostage
crisis. After a special forces operation crushed the last holdout of
the fighters at the Amenas plant. Considering that Algeria have
been co-operating with the French military operations by allowing
the use of its airspace and committing about 900 troops to the UN
mission in Mali, the Islamists fighters vowed to avenge what they
called the country’s support for French military action in
neighbouring Mali. With Nigerian troops too in Mali, we may fear the
worst.

There is a school of thought who believe the Malian crisis can be
resolved with a bit of political persuasion rather than military
intervention. Aside this, there lies a serious fear of Islamist
fundamentalist taking over Mali and the country’s northern desert
already held by insurgents and could become a breeding haven for
terrorists to plan and launch international strikes. Already the
fighters have taken control of major towns in the north. In the
Taliban-Afghan style, they flog women for not covering up and
amputate in public squares. The turban fighters have taken
advantage of the political instability to capture territories hitherto
used to stockpile weapons and train
forces.

Few weeks ago, rebels seized control of a town called Konna, and
gained entrance to Mopti, Mali’s second city which by extension
means there capture of the whole south in addition to the already
controlled northern part of Mali. Their aim is to topple the
government in the capital, Bamako. French troops have provided
effective shield for the capital. Reports say French and Malian
forces reclaimed the key towns of Konna and Diabaly from militants
after days of intense fighting.

Now here is the big question; what is the strategy of the Nigerian
troops nay the AFISMA in Mali? Is it to crush the terrorist or chase
them out? Whichever of the tactics they deploy, reprisals from
splinter and allied terrorist networks in Nigeria, like the Kogi state
attack, are a cinch. But if their strategy is to push them out which is
the obvious tactics from days of fighting in Mali, border countries
should be prepare against the influx of fleeing Islamist
rebels.

To stay ahead of the game in the fight against terrorism, Nigeria
needs to be proactive on the home front. Have we deployed troops
to protect or fortify, if any form of security already existed, Nigeria’s
porous borders? Did we count the cost of an economic spill over of
a full blown war in Mali, or of a military impasse or
casualty?

From the foregoing, the deployment of Nigerian troops to Mali has
raised more questions than answers.
theophilus@ilevbare.com
wp_posts