Anglo-Nigerian Relations: An Oily Romance
President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s first official visit to the United Kingdom came without aplomb. It was as though the Nigerian President was secretly welcomed by his hosts into their dark back garden, rather than the lighted living room. The British press was as silent about this visit as a broken trumpet. Perhaps, this suits Alhaji Yar’Adua’s self-effacing nature. Yet, the uncomfortable truth is that despite almost five decades after the lowering of the Union Jack, the colony-metropole relationship is still at work. The joint statement issued after a brief meeting confirms that nothing earthshaking was discussed, except the undue and foreboding emphasis on Niger-Delta oil and the promise of British military support against the insurgency. Nigerians in the United Kingdom were not afforded the opportunity to discuss with the President issues that mean more to them as citizens in Diaspora, especially in the light of the fact that the government’s most touted foreign policy objective is the idea of Citizens Diplomacy.
Indeed, Yar’Adua had an opportunity to showcase this idea when he discussed immigration with his hosts. Medical Justice, the British organization that provides medical advice to deportees has just released a report detailing abuses to deportees and asylum-seekers in the UK in the last four years. The abuses include racial abuse and infliction of injuries “ranging from handcuffs-bruised wrists to swollen faces, and fractured wrists and ankles” (The UK Guardian, Monday 14 July, 2008). The report says 75 percent of the assaults occurred at the airports or in the planes supposedly taking these people back to their countries, pointing out further that Nigerians comprise the second largest group of Africans who suffer these horrific and illegal assaults that even the Nigeria-bashing British Labour MP, Diane Abbott described as “frightening state sponsored violence”.
It is in the above context we must also view the case of Mr Ayodeji Omotade who, though isn’t a deportee, was beaten, dehumanized, arrested, had his money confiscated, his luggage damaged and was banned by British Airways from travelling for his brother’s wedding in Nigeria, all because he dared to plead with barbarous British immigration and security officials torturing a Nigerian in the plane in the name of deportation. Indeed, the President is very much aware of this case, because he has put his personal and presidential weight behind the call for British Airways to treat Nigerians with respect following the incident and the subsequent offloading of 136 Nigerians from the plane in question. Yet, British Airways has reacted with contempt to the attempts by the President, his ministers and Nigerians to make it see the virtues of being a good corporate citizen, despite the fact that it has a long history of doing business in Nigeria. In fact, the Nigerian routes are amongst its most lucrative. In spite of the pretensions of the British High Commissioner, Mr Robert Dewar in the form of a pretend apology to the Federal Government over the incident (after the Foreign Minister, Chief Ojo Maduekwe expressed our national outrage) and his indication that the whole issue will be settled at bilateral level, the Crown Prosecution Service still went ahead to arraign Ayodeji Omotade in court on a trumped-up charge, just so they can collar him with a criminal record and protect a corporate flag-bearer notorious for poor customers service and bad attitude, at a time the President was paying his first state visit to the United Kingdom. Frankly, the President should have told his hosts that they are prosecuting a Nigerian citizen in bad faith. Citizens Diplomacy means nothing if it cannot protect an innocent citizen abroad.
Indeed, it is sad that Respect Nigerians Coalition (RNC), the citizens’ organization mobilizing Nigerians and well-wishers of Nigeria to press the message home to British Airways and the British government is now left with the task of putting teeth to this government’s policy of Citizens Diplomacy. The least Nigerians expect from Yar’Adua is to suspend BA in the meantime until the outcome of Ayodeji Omotade’s trial is finally determined. That way they would know we mean business. Indeed, foreign policy actions need not be huge. Simple symbolic gestures do go a long way to build confidence in the citizenry if well deployed. Firm government action against British Airways will do just that.
Now, it is one thing that the President did not raise the above-mentioned issues in his discussion with his hosts over immigration, but it’s quite another to be asked to agree to a policy of Prisoners Transfer that possibly would not take into cognisance foreign prisoners’ rights under the laws of United Kingdom, including the fact that due to the nature of the issue it could most likely be open to abuse. He’s being asked to agree to a proposal from Britain that could possibly see Nigerian prisoners, who ordinarily would have a right to remain in the United Kingdom, shipped down to Nigerian prisons. The President should know that Nigerian citizens have the right to live and work anywhere they choose in the world as far as they have valid immigration statuses in those places, just like Britons have the right to live and work in Nigeria if they have same. If Nigerians commit crimes that warrant custodial sentences (and no legal basis or judicial recommendation for deportation), let them remain and serve their time in those places and exercise their right to live there thereafter (if they so choose), rather than being bundled back to Nigeria on conviction (or while serving their sentences) with the attendant losses in family life and investments in a society they’ve made their homes just to satisfy the inordinate need for British politicians to score cheap points in the politically-driven asylum debate by presenting figures to their publics that indicate they’re “tough“ on immigration.
The President must not agree to a Prison Transfer programme that is effectively a cost-cutting measure for Britain, but which will turn out a huge economic and social burden for us. Everyone knows how notorious Nigerian prisons are with their intense overcrowding, starvation, lack of proper rehabilitation programmes, disease and incredibly high death rates. If he must sign this, both countries must first get a neutral body like the United Nations to ascertain that the standard of prisons in Nigeria meets the minimum international standards in international law. A body like Howard League for Penal Reforms may also be useful in this regard. Indeed, the United Kingdom must know that signing such an agreement with Nigeria will possibly be in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibits torture, inhuman and degrading treatment amongst other international human rights legislations.
Having said the above, we need to remind ourselves that Nigeria’s relationship with Britain goes back a long way, considering that they were our former colonial overlords in a period dating from the annexation of Lagos in 1861 to the grant of flag independence in 1960. The pervasive influence of British life can still be seen everywhere - in the country’s western-styled politics, British-trained military, capitalist economy, western-adulterated culture, British educational system, common law legal system, English language as national lingua franca and generally in established and time-tested habits, conventions and policies in virtually all spheres of national life. Indeed, what today can be described, for want of a better term, as modern Nigeria was shaped mostly by British ideology and influences. Thus, those who claim the country’s post-independence profile is nothing but a neo-colonial one may actually not be far from the truth, especially considering how much Nigeria has suffered and lost to Britain in all the years of this uneasy romance. Of course, there is no doubt that this state of affairs was instituted and perpetuated by British enterprise, but they necessarily did so in collaboration with their Nigerian foot soldiers masquerading as the elite. This explains why Nigeria would seem eternally tied to the apron strings of its colonial masters. Indeed, it is easy, against this background, to assume that President Yar’Adua is just another in a long line of Nigerian leaders running to John Bull, cap in hand, asking the Big Massa for help, rather than show that they themselves have put the country on a footing that deserves respect by virtue of our own positive originality.
From the British perspective, in real terms, as opposed to public posturing, Nigeria is only as useful to the United Kingdom as its oil and abundant raw material. For a resource-hungry economy like Britain, its foreign policy objectives, as pursued by the Cabinet, Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, are aimed at securing for it unrestricted access to these resources, irrespective of the effect of the exploitation on the producer-nation and its people. Shell BP was the first to discover oil in Nigeria at Oloibiri in the delta and from that day in 1956 has remained at the forefront of what is evidently a heartless exploitation of this resource. When during the Nigerian Civil War, this exploitation was threatened, British policy in support of the federal side became solely governed by its attempt to keep its oil interests intact, despite its then Foreign Secretary, Michael Stewart’s claim on the floor of the House of Commons on June 12, 1968 that it was doing so to stop Nigeria from disintegrating into ‘tribal’ enclaves.
Nothing confirms the above fact more than confidential background notes relied on by Prime Minister Harold Wilson to support the federal side during the war. These notes plainly directed the Prime Minister and ministers not to say publicly before the House of Commons the real reasons for the support, which was that Shell and British Petroleum had invested nothing less than £250 million in Nigeria and with Britain expecting “large and increasing return of great importance to the British balance of payments”, it would be inadvisable not to support the federal side as other powers would be quick to cash in. At a time Britain was reeling from the effect of devaluation and serious economic downturn, starved of Middle Eastern oil and forced to withdraw its military from the Suez Canal and with the Soviets getting chummy with the Nigerian military boys at the height of the Cold War, Nigeria’s oil took on a more strategic and economic importance for Britain. Thus, swarming the federal side with the arms and military experts needed to decisively win the war was a task that must be done. And it was done.
Exactly 40 years after, Nigeria is not involved in a full-blown Civil War, but there is more than low-level warfare in the Niger-Delta region as the criminally negligent Nigerian state engages the oil militants. Over the course of half a decade, the militancy has established itself as a source of real irritation and an economic incubus to the West, purely by their disruptive activities, which include kidnapping of oil workers and foreigners and a general policy of making the delta ungovernable through various forms of armed activities. When they strike, the oil price hits the stratosphere and the western public glares menacingly at their governments. But now, it would seem after years of hand-wringing and head-scratching, and in the face of chaos in the Middle East, they have hit upon the idea of ‘helping’ Nigeria to take tougher military action to ensure the flow of crude and force down the price. Indeed, during the Wednesday, 16 July, 2008 Prime Minister’s Questions Time at the House of Commons, the only mention of Nigeria and the Nigerian President was made by way of the Prime Minister’s answer to a question about the price of oil. Mark Harper, the Conservative Shadow Minister for Works and Pensions had asked the Prime Minister if he thought the price of oil was too high or too low. Mr Brown responded matter-of-factly that it is too high and that this was why he was meeting with the Nigerian President that afternoon “because there are 1.5 million barrels of oil that could be produced from Nigeria but that, as a result of violence, are not being produced”. It is a tragic irony that while our President is being made to sweat to reduce the price of petrol for British citizens, Nigerian citizens at home are being told to expect increases in the pump price of petroleum products in a few months, typically without any corresponding consideration of relative economic factors.
The rather euphemistic presentation of military support as for “training” and “advice”, as stated in the joint statement, hides the crucial truth that no one is really interested in addressing the underlying issues driving the delta wars. Britain is not asking Yar’Adua why the Niger-Delta Master Plan is still a paper affair, in spite of his well-touted election campaign promise of declaring Niger-Delta his priority. Rather, his government has spent the past few weeks shadowboxing over who to chair a supposed Niger-Delta Summit or, as it now wants to call it “a dialogue”, which from all indications, is shaping up to be an engagement with themselves, rather than with the real issues or the real stakeholders. It is therefore not surprising that Yar’Adua’s lecture at Chatham House was titled, “Energy, Security, the Food Crisis and the Niger Delta.” It is a script that could well have been written for him from Whitehall and certainly must have been well received by those who think Nigeria is still a vassalage whose tribute to the Empire must be in oil and blood.
No doubt, there had been several flashpoints in the Anglo-Nigerian relationship over the years. A carryover of the colonial-era distrust reared its head in 1961 in the form of the Anglo-Nigerian Defence Pact which was interpreted by Nigerian popular opinion of the day as an attempt to recolonize the country through establishment of British military bases in Kano. A robust Nigerian students’ union movement saw off the idea when they led a popular demonstration that marched on the National Assembly and demanded its abrogation. Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa duly complied. In 1975, the eyeball to eyeball foreign policy stance of the Murtala Muhammed regime went toe to toe against the British and Western policy of what is effectively support for apartheid South Africa by taking the leadership of the Frontline States and massively supporting the African National Congress (ANC) and the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) against UNITA, backed by the West and apartheid South Africa. When Muhammed was cut down in a hail of bullets as part of an aborted coup in 1976, Britain was fingered as the source of the coup in an attempt to restore to power its favourite Nigerian ‘son‘, General Yakubu ’Jack’ Gowon who, at the time, was in exile in the United Kingdom. The refusal of the British government to extradite Gowon for trial further exacerbated the tension. Olusegun Obasanjo, who succeeded Murtala Muhammed nationalized the assets of British Petroleum in 1979, partly because the company supplied oil to apartheid South Africa and also to put pressure on Britain over the then Rhodesia. In 1984, the Muhammadu Buhari regime was fingered in a failed attempt to kidnap Umaru Dikko, a former Nigerian minister in the Second Republic who was then in exile in London. Both governments engaged in a shouting match that witnessed the recall of their respective High Commissioners.
In all the above, the Nigerian people were solidly behind their governments in their reaction to British role in our national affairs. Though Anglo-Nigerian relationship during the Ibrahim Babangida era was much more stable, Nigerians were quick to see the British hands of Esau in some of the most anti-people economic policies of the regime, especially with British role in the Bretton Woods institutions that championed the nation-stripping Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) that killed off the naira, crippled the manufacturing sector, bastardized education and crushed agriculture. British oil concerns led by Shell were also seen as being in cahoots with corrupt government agents, especially as the oil windfall of that period was never accounted for.
The rogue regime of General Sani Abacha was another thorn in British flesh. For reasons purely selfish, having resolved to hang on to power at all cost after the debacle of the annulled June 12, 1993 elections, Abacha began to antagonize the West, including Britain for what he considered to be their support for the pro-democracy movement in Nigeria, including opening their doors to political opponents of his government. But the irony is that on the matter of oil, the British government and Shell BP seemed to see eye to eye with Abacha and his tough stance to eliminate every opposition that stood in the way of the environmentally-destructive exploitation of the resource. It is instructive that when Abacha ordered the judicial murder of the Ogoni writer and environmental activist, Kenule Saro-Wiwa along with eight others in 1995, it took an uproar of worldwide proportions to suspend Nigeria from the Commonwealth. Another irony is that British banks became some of the most important havens for Abacha’s stolen stash.
Since Nigeria’s return to civil rule, Britain has tried to play a much more positive role in the relationship, especially under the premiership of Tony Blair. Though Blair’s vision was a wider one encompassing the whole of Africa as signposted by his huge support for the establishment of the Commission for Africa and NEPAD, he tried as much as possible to encourage Nigeria and South Africa to act as beacons to drive the idea of African development. Specifically with Nigeria, he was also very keen in helping with the fight against corruption by encouraging British banks to do more stringent checks on funds from Nigeria and supporting them with government litigations and legislations. He also instituted active cooperation between the British Police and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in order to discourage the transfer of looted funds to Britain. Blair was also very instrumental to the deal that saw the Paris Club write off two-thirds of Nigeria’s $30 billion foreign debt.
However, the relative good work of Mr Blair is now in danger of being undone by Mr Brown in his first foray into the Nigerian crucible. First, the fact that he is reacting to the high price of oil with military solution says enough about his lack of understanding of the impulses driving the problem in the Niger-Delta. Secondly, if he is a student of history, he would know that Britain shares a huge blame in what is considered Nigeria’s negative ethnic politics because of its role in institutionalizing this during the colonial era and thereafter. The fact that Mr Brown now shares the same pro-military platform with the Northern-interest newspaper, Daily Trust and Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) will certainly not be lost on those Nigerians who rightly see the solution to the Niger-Delta crisis in a properly implemented infrastructural and human development agenda. Equally worrying is the fact that David Cameron, the Tory leader and the vast majority of the British press are now looking the other way. It’s a pipe dream to think British military presence or help in any form is a solution to high oil prices, because Gunboat Diplomacy will certainly not cut it in the 21st century and offering military help just as Shell suffered its biggest loss to the insurgency sends the wrong message.
The solution is in reaching out to the ordinary Niger-Deltan in this terrain with a message of hope and clear and immediate action to back it up. Let the owners of the resource share in the oil wealth in the form of better schools, roads, hospitals, pipe-borne water and basic infrastructure. Yar’Adua should stop speaking the language of war, because it will never create the atmosphere for any kind of development. What Britain needs to do is to help facilitate the talks and, more importantly, chaperon a more humane exploitation and environmental clean-up of the area. To this end, it should consult with other members of the international community to bring pressure to bear on the Yar’Adua government to begin a fast and sincere implementation of the Niger-Delta Master Plan, even if it means creating an international peacekeeping force as a confidence-building measure to get the work started.
When all is said and done, let’s not forget that these militants are Nigerians who live amongst Nigerians and are supported by Nigerians. Experience has showed that they do listen. They have showed severally that they can control themselves, observe a unilateral ceasefire and evaluate government proposals. The criminal ones amongst them are making hay because people have lost hope in government and, as Mr Brown and Alhaji Yar’Adua aptly observed, a lucrative black economy has been created in the vacuum which runs on blood. Further militarization will certainly not stem the flow of such blood and fighting against an amorphous enemy that understands the terrain like the back of their hands will only prolong the pain. We are at a critical juncture in our national history now where this injustice needs no longer be sidestepped. If we do, oil exploration will always remain at risk even from a single sniper in the creeks.
Kennedy Emetulu,
London
|
RSS Feeds | Podcasts
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.