1: ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT THE MOST POLITICALLY AGGRESSIVE AMONGST THEM ARE WILLING TO KILL/DIE FOR.

Implication:
- Northern Nigeria is turned over to the persons currently sponsoring Fulani 'militants' and Boko Haram.
- The Niger Delta is turned over to militants-for-oil.
- The rest of Nigeria turned over to whichever group is most capable of imposing its will over the populace.

2: ALLOW THE MOST AGGRESSIVE A FREE HAND TO IMPOSE THEIR WILL.

Requirements:
- Come out of all human rights conventions.
- Abrogate the jurisdiction of the international criminal court.

3: SIT BACK AND WATCH AS EVOLUTION WORKS ITS MAGIC.


What has been proposed above will probably be judged as an affront to all tenets of 'humanism'. Frankly, I myself do not recognise any part of what I was taught to recognise as the set of rules (written and unwritten) that delineate the civilised ways for humanity to order its affairs in any of the three points above. However, reality is not always pretty (nor will it always conform our cultivated reason).

The States that dominate the world today operate outside of the moral codes that they themselves have defined as 'universal'. They do this because these 'universal codes' are like restrictions that adults place in front of children. In other words, while children having sex, drinking or, taking certain legalised narcotics are frowned upon by all civilised persons, all of these practices are permitted to adults.

And so it is in the comity of nations where those who have seized adulthood are permitted to do as they will to secure their realms while those who refuse to advance beyond childhood and dependence upon others for guidance and approval will consequently operate under restrictions. Ask Paul Kagame of Rwanda for the secret of his country's relative success and he may begin by telling you that in the real world, freedom is not for the faint-hearted.

Kagame does not give a damn about the International Criminal Court. And why should he? After all, neither do the leaders of Britain, China, France, or the USA.  

In Africa today, Rwanda stands out as a beacon for progress not because its citizens bask in a most unAfrican atmosphere of zero corruption. Nor is Rwanda punching far above its weight by successfully projecting power beyond its borders (in a structured manner) because it has an abundance of natural resources that are well-marshalled by technocrats who operate within a system that upholds meritocracy. No, Rwanda has moved past the stage that most African countries are still stuck in because it's leadership have freed themselves from the restraints that prevent countries from achieving real liberation.

The leaders of the ruling cabal in the RPF overstand, as do the leaders of so-called global powers, that there are two types of entities in the world. Those that act because they define the terms of their existence on this planet and those that are acted upon because they repeatedly allow others to define the terms of their existence.

We desire peace because with peace comes real development - which is the opening up of spaces in which people can fully exploit talents and opportunities to bring beauty and happiness into their lives either through the acquisition of material goods (which come about through the profitable enterprise of others) or, by simply having chances to consistently enjoy the good things that nature provides (i.e. family, friends, and products of the natural environment).

But a great contradiction of the human world is that peace only comes after man is exhausted by and disgusted with war; lasting peace follows the realisation that the prosecution of war will only result in more misery for all involved - meaning that if at end, there is still one side able to stand erect for long enough to declare itself victor, all it will have as a prize will be the word "winner".

The reality of our world does not always conform to reason...

Most would judge as madness the idea that a collective could throw itself into a conflict that concludes with such an ethereal prize. However, a maxim tells us that only those who are prepared to lose all stand a chance of gaining all. So, if only one out of two parties engage in conflict is prepared to fight until the only options of an end are either death or ashes, that one will be the winner.

And throughout history, ever since humanity started to organise itself into States, the States that have survived and thrived in their time have always been the ones who were founded upon and, who maintained an uncompromising all or nothing principle.

But we might ask, what the point is in being a winner if all you gain from your victory is the right to use a label. Well, if we are talking in terms of the liberation of a people - a right to self-determination in their own country - then to be called "winner" is everything. Beside which, the earth regenerates. So, what was ashes will in time be covered in green again and when that happens, even if the ones who fought over the ashes do not live to see their land's rebirth, their descendants will be free men and women who decide the courses of their own lives without let or hinderance from alien overlords.