Nigeria: Beyond the 2015 elections

The year 2015 was approached with much trepidation in the hearts of Nigerians. It seemed doomsday loomed following forecasts by a United States diplomat in 2011 that the Country will cease to exist as a unified Nation by the end of the year 2015. This forecast was made more sinister as Boko Haram Islamist insurgents began seizing and holding territory in the North East for the first time since the beginning of their five year insurrective activity; as the Nigerian army melted into defensive positions, retreating in tactical manoeuvres, the ragtag Boko Haram movement evinced invincibility and defiance against the Nigerian government.

Omininous description of a disintegrated National insignia
Source: Unknown

More ominous still was the impending 2015 general elections which hung as a Sword of Damocles on the continuous existentence of the corporate entity of Nigeria’s nationhood. With ethnic and religious sentiments whipped to the heights, it was thought the 2015 elections would begin the defoliation process of Nigeria’s nationhood.

The elections though postponed came and went alongside its attendant mudslinging calumnous lavish campaigns, and what seemed an April’s fool’s joke turned to be a National reality as the major Opposition All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate Muhammadu Buhari was declared winner of the March 28th presidential elections in the early hours of 1st April 2015. This was a rude shock to the governing People’s Democratic Party (PDP) who had until this time never lost at the presidential polls since its founding in 1998. It had once declared that it will continue to govern the centre for 60years.

In the face of this new trend, all was calm and the acceptance of defeat by the incumbent PDP candidate Goodluck Jonathan in a congratulatory call to the major opposition candidate assuaged all threats of instability by muscling political gladiators.

A comic relief to the change of the baton of governance

By attendant fate, the victory of Muhammadu Buhari at the presidential polls has charted a new course in Nigeria’s journey to Nationalistic Eldorado. Whilst the opposition bask in the euphoria of its thumping victory over the governing PDP, current issues bedevilling the Nation will spank thoughts for immediate action once the government settles into power come 29th May. Over the last week of the Jonathan regime these issues have been brought to bear such as:

1.     A seeming resurgent Boko Haram: though the army in series of territorial control reverses claimed to have nipped the insurgents, not even the clearance of their Sambisa forest camps have evacuated their threat. The insurgents have recently begun another round of murderous rampage and seizing towns and villages around the Lake Chad. With the whereabouts of its leader Abubakar Shekau still unclear, the incoming government will have to seal the fate of the insurgency as soon as possible, once and for all.

2.     Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of the North East: the suave of the Boko Haram insurgency has taken a toll on normal life in Bornu, Yobe and Adamawa States. Over a million people have been rendered homeless and hundreds of thousands are still camped in internal displaced camps. Schools remained shut, government infrastructure in those areas are destroyed. The onus lies on the incoming government to rehabilitate the peoples and infrastructure of this zone in order to avert a humanitarian generational disaster.

3.     Curbing the menace of Fulani herdsmen: The rife murderous menace of nomadic Fulani herdsmen especially across the middle belt States of Nassarrawa, Taraba, Benue and Plateau is giving a cause for alarm. Perhaps, it was because of this sinister trepidation peoples of this area overwhelmingly voted for the PDP candidate Goodluck Jonathan against Muhammadu Buhari who himself a Fulani was seen as a protagonist for their murderous nomadic Fulani visitors. The incoming president should wield his ethnic influence in settling this matter once and for all. In this day and age of technological advancement, ranching should be the in thing and not nomadic herding.

4.     Energy Crises: this is another harsh reality the incoming government should be awakened to. Just in the last week of the Jonathan government, power generation dropped to its lowest ebb of just over 1000MW! This was made more sinister by the scarcity of petrol and diesel. Though past regimes have tried and failed woefully in this respect, the new regime will have to buoy and brace itself for tangible action in this regard. Harnessing gas reserves, making local refineries functional are germane issues in this regard.

5.     Corruption: So much has been said as to what defines corruption during the Jonathan regime. Stealing is not corruption has been the hallucinating remonstrance. In any case, both stealing and corruption are vices to be curbed in governance, but how it will be fought is an issue for the new regime to decide. Nevertheless, a pragmatic approach devoid of vendetta which will clog the wheels of governance should be avoided.

6.     Electoral Campaign reforms: The last elections went down as the costliest ever Africa wide. Whilst campaigns don’t come cheap, it is heart rendering to note the millions of Naira that go into purchase of nomination forms and buying over of delegates. This has in no doubt carved a niche for political business as elected officials will seek to embezzle to recoup for their campaign expenditure. Whilst the Jonathan regime must be applauded for electoral reforms, the Buhari regime should seek to be applauded for electoral campaign reforms. Cutting down on the cost of governance and making salaries and allowances of government officials unattractive is also an issue to be tackled in this regard.

In all, the Nigerian problem is a hydra headed plethoric monster that requires wisdom to take on. Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts. May the new regime find such to advance the cause of the Nigerian project.

Wishing the incoming Buhari regime Goodluck!
 Long live the Federal republic of Nigeria!

THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE QUESTION

In an address to a group of Nazi leaders and Wehrmacht Generals in 1939, the German Führer, Adolf Hitler was reported to have said:

“Who, after all, speaks today about the annihilation of the Armenians.......?”

The Armenian question was one of the infamous civilian butcher hallmarks of the First World War. Ever since that inglorious incident, an adequate description begs the question for that incident, as the Turkish government insists it was never genocide; whilst the Armenian government thinks otherwise. In any case, grammatical historical credence might be lent to the Turkish government claims, as the word ‘genocide’ never existed in grammatical parlance during the First World War.

The word ‘Genocide’ was coined by Raphael Lemkin (a Polish-Jew criminal and international law specialist), in 1944.  He being a survivor of the Nazi instigated Jewish Holocaust, Lemkin coined the word to describe the Nazi policy of systematic murder and targeted annihilation committed by the German government during the Second World War.

The word ‘Genocide’ is a conglomeration of the Greek word ‘geno,’ meaning race or tribe and the Latin word ‘cide,’ meaning killing.

On December 9, 1948 the United Nations adopted the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, thus defining Genocide as an international crime. Signatory states were obliged to prevent and punish the perpetrators 

According to the Convention, genocide is can be insinuated when

• There are mass murders of a target group(s) of people
• There is serious bodily or mental harm to the members of a group
• There is deliberate creation of such living conditions for a group that brings about its complete or partial physical extermination
• There are implementation of measures aimed at preventing birth rates within the group
• There are forcible transfers of children from one group to another 

Though long subjugated under Ottoman rule since the Middle Ages, Armenians made up the chunk of the Christian population of Ottoman administered Anatolia and the Caucasus alongside the Greeks. Ever since the Ottoman conquest of Anatolia from the Byzantines and consequent fall of Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) to the Ottomans in 1453, the Ottomans who then assumed the torch bearers of the Islamic Caliphate or Sultanate sought a mutual cohesive governance of its subjugated populations who where majorly distinctively Christian and Muslim by religion. This nevertheless came with some restrictions to the once dominant Christian population as some Churches (e.g Hagia Sophia) were converted to Mosques and the dhimmi contract (taxable restrictive protection) was imposed on non-Muslim subjects (Jews and Christians) living within the Ottoman domain.

Following the Crimean war (1853-1856) in which Western European powers (Great Britain and France) sought to contain Russian expansionist aims in the Danube, Caucasus and around the Black Sea, the European powers advocated for the abolition of the dhimmi contract on Christians and called for equality of all religious groups in the Ottoman empire in return for their support for the Ottomans against the Russians. The Russian war effort in itself had a religious clout under the auspices of its expansionist aims. Seen as the protector and custodian of the Christian Orthodox religion (a successor and relic of the Byzantine Empire), the Russians had intent to liberate Christian minorities (most of whom were of the Orthodox faith) from Ottoman rule. This intent seen as fiat compli by the Ottomans and Russians fuelled mutual mistrust and ultimately war between both sides during the Russo-Turkish war (1877-1878) and World War One (1914-1918). Following initial gains by the Russians against the Ottomans in the Caucasus from Russo-Turkish War and Ottoman loss of territory in the Balkans which forced series of population exchanges of Muslims and Greeks (most of the Muslim population Thrace and the Balkans were forced to migrate into Anatolia whilst Greeks and other Christian minorities in Anatolia moved in the opposite direction); there was a growing simmering mistrust of the Christian population of Anatolia (who at this time were majorly Armenians). It was alluded by the Ottomans that though the Armenians (who lacked a homeland) but granted equality status (though being Christians) under the ‘Tanzimat’ programme will still be sympathetic to the cause of the Russian enemy who where their religious brethren.

The Armenian question within the Ottoman empire was first lime lighted in a speech by Ottoman Sultan, Abul Hamid II in 1890 where he was referred to have talked about resolving the ‘Armenian question’ once and for all:

 “I will soon settle those Armenians.....”

“I will give them a box on the ear which will make them…relinquish their revolutionary ambitions.”

Upon the freedom of the Slavs and Greeks from Ottoman rule in the late 19th century, the Armenians agitated for greater freedom (or possible independence) from Ottoman rule. This resulted in killings targeting the Armenians within the Ottoman Empire during that period. Following the start of the First World War, the Ottomans who allied with the Central powers (Germany and Austro-Hungary) sought to reclaim lost territory especially in the Caucasus from the Russians who were fighting on the side of the Allies (Great Britain, France and later the United States). Clicking on the hint of the failure of the 1915 Gallipoli campaign of the allies and heavy Russian loses and subsequent capitulation in the hand of the Germans, the Ottomans moved in a sweep to settle old scores with the Russians and other dissident groups within their already crumbling empire in a bid to bring about a volte face to the dwindling fortunes of the waning empire.

On April 24, 1915 several hundred Armenian intellectuals and representatives of national elite (mainly in the capital of the Ottoman Empire, Constantinople) were arrested and later killed. As such, Armenians regard this act as the beginning of the ‘Armenian Genocide’; hereinafter, Armenians worldwide commemorate the ‘Armenian Genocide’ on April 24 of every year. In a military onslaught against Russian territory in Caucasus (which also is the Armenian homeland), hundreds of thousands of Armenians and other non-Turkish minorities in East Anatolia (the Caucasus) where deported to ‘safe zones’ in the Syrian desert and Mesopotamia in series of forced marches. As a result of this several deaths occurred in wilful murders by the Ottoman army, heat stroke, disease and other resultant deaths. It is estimated that about 1.5million people were deported in this exercise; a chunk of them being Armenian. 

Deportation routes by the Ottoman army
Source: en.wikipedia.org

As such, this form the basis of the ‘Armenian Genocide’ question claims by both parties alongside tagetted killings of Armenian Soldiers serving with the Ottoman army at that period (60000 were reported killed). The Turkish government (successor of the Ottoman Empire) claim that not only Armenians were deported in this military exercise though it took place in the Armenian heartland which substantiates the Armenian claims of genocide.

Armenian forced deportation marches by the Ottoman Army
Source: www.thinglink.com

After the First World War in 1918, new national borders were drawn by the Allies, and the Ottoman Empire (which was now powered by a group of army officers by the mantra of the ‘Young Turks’) scavenged for territory to salvage the glories of the Ottoman Empire. Midwifed by Ataturk Kemal, a new nation known as Turkey was born in 1922 from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire. With borders redrawn, Anatolia (modern day Turkey) was emptied of its Christian population (Greeks had already moved out in population exchanges in the late 19th century and now Armenians most of whom were deported to their deaths had its survival residue racing across the borders to Russia and other Countries). Not until 1991 after the collapse of the USSR did Armenia attain sovereignty once again after millennia of subjugation.

A hundred years on from that incident we can still ask:

was the Ottoman-Armenian question genocide?

Every man with knowledge can be a judge in this matter.