Abimbola Adelakun: Buhari reminds me of Jesus Christ
Now
he has rejected the poisoned chalice, there are commentaries that he is
sore that he lost last year’s Presidential election and would rather
sit back and watch Nigerians bombed than offer his goodwill.
Maj.-Gen.
Muhammadu Buhari (retd.) reminds me of Jesus Christ. Not that I think
he’s a Messiah but how you can be webbed in a double-bind trap. Jesus
was asked if the Jews should pay taxes to their Roman overlords. Had he
replied in the affirmative, he would be labelled a state apologist; a
position antithetical to what a Messiah should be. If he replied
otherwise, he would be risking treason. So he gave what Ibadan indigenes
call Mesiogo answer – a witty response to idiocy.
Boko
Haram’s choice of Buhari as a mediator appears like even a triple-bind.
If he accepts the role, he would fall into the hands of those who would
say, in local parlance, something like, “We no talk am? He has been
their sponsor all along!”
And
if he succeeds in brokering peace, he becomes the proverbial hunter who
killed a notorious elephant with just his cap. He would have proved he
had Boko Haram’s remote control all along.
If,
still, he mediates and fails, he would be demystified because his
famous influence among northern youths would seem mere exaggeration.
Now
he has rejected the poisoned chalice, there are commentaries that he is
sore that he lost last year’s Presidential election and would rather
sit back and watch Nigerians bombed than offer his goodwill.
There is, clearly, no way he can win.
He has given a not-so Mesiogo response, and I think it is sensible.
Nigeria
should not waste time negotiating with Boko Haram. One, up till now,
nobody knows precisely what the angst of its members is. Sometimes, they
claim they want a religious state. Other times, they are
anti-corruption and, infrequently, they are just as confused as
everybody else. I doubt if the members themselves can point to their
grouse. So, how do you talk with nebulous anarchists?
Certain
mischievous commentators have made a case for negotiations by comparing
them to the IRA. This is quite disingenuous. The IRA had a valid basis,
however faulty methods, for their uprising. The fact that Britain
eventually capitulated via the Good Friday Agreement is not the same
here.
Nigeria
does not owe Boko Haram what Britain owed Ireland; neither does Nigeria
owe Boko Haram what it owes even the Niger Delta. What Nigeria owes
Boko Haram is not different from what it owes millions of Nigerians.
Two,
which of the sect’s factions is ‘mandating’ a negotiation? They are not
a single group whose manifesto is pasted on a plaque at their
Headquarters’ reception. It has splinter groups and factions. So, how
does Nigeria deal with the politics of which to meet?
Three,
where does Saudi Arabia stand in this? Personally, I have always found
Saudi Arabia’s stance on Islamic terrorism worldwide curious. I wonder
why they do not actively denounce it since such a move might burst the
bubble of people who believe they are killing for God (although I also
understand they’ll like to avoid meddling in local politics). Yet, using
their country as a meeting place between Nigeria and Boko Haram is bad
diplomacy.
Four,
I think it is time Nigeria stopped talking about this balderdash of
negotiating with Boko Haram. I know how it is to wake up to news of
people dying in the hands of these killers. It might be wearying dealing
with them and might even be taxing on the Nigerian Army but after
mindlessly killing an estimated 3,000 Nigerians, they should be made to
pay, not compensated.
No comments:
Post a Comment