31 Mar 2006 |
|
THE humiliation, embarrassment and near-disgrace that President Olusegun Obasanjo and Nigeria suffered on account of the politics of the removal of Charles Taylor from this country would seem to have overshadowed Nigeria's altruism in the matter. Nigeria deserves more praise than condemnation, in addition to an apology from Mrs. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, President of Liberia, who with American backing, appears to have treated Nigeria rather unkindly. The Liberian authorities had demanded Charles Taylor's release from the asylum in Nigeria in a manner that seemed as if Nigeria had stolen Taylor away, and was unduly protecting him. Perhaps, if Nigeria had not helped to take Taylor out of Liberia, and offered him asylum for three years, Mrs. Sirleaf who once escaped Taylor's guillotine would not be where she is today. In 2003, in the face of tension, acrimony and anomie in Liberia, Nigeria played a leading role, and negotiated peaceful exit for the then President Charles Taylor. The Obasanjo government had taken this decision completely against the grain of public opinion. Ordinarily Nigerians saw no reason why Nigeria should conduct its foreign policy in the manner of a Father Christmas. They also did not understand why President Obasanjo would offer asylum to Charles Taylor - a known hater of Nigeria, the killer of Nigerians including two journalists, who had also shown ingratitude towards the country. President Obasanjo ignored all objections and brought Charles Taylor to Nigeria; kept him and his family at public expense in a Villa in Calabar, Cross River State, and initially allowed him to roam about, and speak openly as if he were on a frolic on Nigerian soil. Taylor came to Nigeria as a free man. The asylum that he enjoyed was granted with the consent of other countries in the West African sub-region, the African Union, and the United States. Whatever may be said, international relations has been one of the strongest points of the Obasanjo administration. In seven years, President Obasanjo has invested energy and time in building linkages and goodwill with other countries; his government continues to regard Africa as the centre-piece of Nigeria's foreign policy and in many respects, President Obasanjo has helped to raise the country's profile in the international arena. While Liberia, Charles Taylor and Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf have benefitted from Nigeria's commitment to Africa, Nigerians at home have often criticised President Obasanjo on the grounds that charity should begin at home. For more than 10 years, Liberian refugees have lived in a camp in Oru, Ogun State of Nigeria, as guests of the Nigerian government. Taylor's exit from Nigeria may constitute a kind of closure to the phase that his presence in Nigeria represented but the Sirleaf government in Liberia owes Nigeria a debt of gratitude. President Obasanjo alluded to this diplomatically when he declared in Washington, that Taylor is neither his friend nor of the Nigerian people. In other words, Nigeria was merely doing Liberia a favour. This is one clear point that has been underplayed in the event of the drama of Taylor's escape, "arrest", and repatriation. For example, The New York Times in an editorial: "A war criminal escapes" (March 29), almost stopped short of calling Obasanjo a criminal. "The man responsible for this catastrophe, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo has an appointment at the White House today with President Bush. If the meeting goes forward, he deserves the frostiest of receptions." The catastrophe that is spoken of, is Taylor's so-called escape. Could this be more catastrophic than the escape of Osama Bin Laden? The New York Times added: "Mr. Bush...should tell Mr. Obasanjo that the United States will hold him personally accountable for Mr. Taylor's recapture." And now the clincher: "Even if Mr. Taylor is soon captured, Mr. Obasanjo will merit re-evaluation". And: "...if Mr. Taylor's escape leads to the murder, rape and dismemberment of more innocent Africans, their blood will be on Mr. Obasanjo's hands." The New York Times can easily be accused of weeping more than the bereaved. In the Taylor affair and the crisis in Liberia, there is no blood on Obasanjo's hands. The destiny of Liberia lies in the hands of Liberians, not in the hands of Mr. Obasanjo. The Washington Post in its own editorial titled "The least surprising jailbreak ever" accused President Obasanjo of "carelessness", even if the editorial writer offered a kind sentence that is however subsumed under the condemnatory tone of the entire piece: "Mr. Obasanjo", says The Washington Post "did West Africa a favour in 2003 when he took in Mr. Taylor, ending Liberia's civil war." This is correct; but The Washington Post misses the point when it refers to "the least surprising jailbreak." Charles Taylor was not in Nigeria's jail. For two days, the CNN also warned that Nigeria would face "serious consequences" for allowing Taylor to escape. The BBC accused Nigeria of being "irresponsible and incompetent". Where was the BBC when Diepreye Alamieyesiegha walked out on British security? The United Nations and the Special Court in Sierra Leone also had harsh words for Nigeria. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said: "It would be extremely worrying if indeed he had disappeared...." If President Obasanjo was playing any diplomatic game in the Taylor affair, these orchestrated attacks on him and Nigeria forced him to place his own interest before Taylor's in the circumstance. President Obasanjo enjoys international attention. He likes to be regarded as an international statesman, and the Big Man of Africa. To be condemned so roundly by the White House, and the Western press was obviously too much for him to bear. Unpopular at home, Obasanjo wields enormous influence in the international arena. Before now, President Obasanjo had resisted pressures that he should end Charles Taylor's asylum in Nigeria. At the time he had spoken of honour and obligations. And he duly kept his word that if a democratically elected Liberian government asked for Taylor, his stay in Nigeria will expire. But the Americans still chose to intimidate President Obasanjo. The sudden arrest of Taylor in a border town between Nigeria and Cameroon in the North, is the product of a panic response in Abuja. Could Nigeria afford to damage its relationship with the United States because of Taylor? Involved in that 48-hour drama over the escape and the capture of Taylor is America's display of its influence as the most powerful nation on earth, and Nigeria's somewhat humiliating embrace of reality and resort to expediency. Nigeria in freeing Taylor from its asylum had told Liberia that it was free to take him into its custody. Not long after, Nigeria announced that Taylor had "disappeared". America wouldn't take that. President Obasanjo had to save his own neck by giving up Taylor. Whatever our President said thereafter, he was merely saving his face. It is an unfair world, nonetheless. The American government and press have been very loud in insisting that Charles Taylor should be tried by the United Nations. He has been charged with 11 counts of crimes against humanity by the UN Special Court in Sierra Leone. There are plans to send him to the International Court at the Hague. The promotion of international human rights, and democracy is central to the American foreign policy process. America seeks a free world, where justice and humanity can be guaranteed, so that trade may prosper. The only irony is that the same America is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court Convention. It would also not allow any of its citizens not even a junior officer, to be tried by any Special Court anywhere in the world. This is a special privilege, which America enjoys as the world's hyper-power. It is a contradiction which underlines the inequality in international politics, a source of much threat to world peace. All these notwithstanding, the arrest and coming trial of Charles Taylor mark yet another high point in international law and politics, and most especially in African politics. With the existence of an international court of justice, there is no hiding place anymore for despots. If Charles Taylor is eventually taken to the Hague for trial, it is a pity he would not meet Slobodan Milosevic, the butcher of Europe, who died before the conclusion of his trial. The travails of Charles Taylor should also provide useful lesson for African leaders who are often tempted to abuse power. One day, they will be held accountable for their deeds. Taylor was the mastermind of rape, enslavement, banditry and the murder of children and adults in his native Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea and Ivory Coast resulting in the 1990s in the death of over 200,000 persons. He ordered the murder of many Nigerians as well, including two journalists - Krees Imodibie of The Guardian and Tayo Awotusin of The Champion. When he arrived in Sierra Leone on Wednesday, he wore a bullet-proof vest, and he was in handcuffs, looking haggard and crest-fallen. From being President, Taylor became a fugitive and now he is a prisoner. He is the first African Head of State to face an international war crimes tribunal. He who used to be the dreaded man of Liberia was captured in circumstances that were at best ridiculous. He was reportedly arrested in a village called Gamboru Ngala, a Nigerian-Cameroonian border town. If Charles Taylor was heading towards Cameroun, did he have to travel from Calabar to Borno, about 600 miles away when Cross River State is less than 100 miles away from Cameroon? He was said to have been travelling in a diplomatic convoy, accompanied by soldiers, his wife and son? Why would he travel with his wife and son under those circumstances? Who assigned those soldiers to him? Who are those soldiers? And he did not wear any disguise. This is a badly written script, by an amateur playwright. If indeed Charles Taylor was escaping, he could have used the professional services of Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, former Governor of Bayelsa state, who escaped from British custody in a most spectacular manner, without detection. Taylor's trial would be long and dramatic. But it is doubtful whether his handover to the Special Court in Sierra Leone would translate into any advantages for the Johnson-Sirleaf government in Liberia. Mrs. Sirleaf had promised to address the nation on the Taylor affair. Her address was postponed twice, and was then cancelled, without any explanations. The trial of Charles Taylor either in Sierra Leone or the Hague may well be the biggest challenge that Mrs. Sirleaf would have to deal with, in addition to poverty and despair among Liberians and the burden of running a failed state. In the meantime, both President Obasanjo and Nigeria await the expression of gratitude that the world owes us, for more than 15 years of selfless service to the people of Liberia and the entire sub-region. The people of Nigeria should also be told how much was spent on Taylor and his family. And what will now happen to the rest of his family and aides still roaming the streets of Calabar?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
# 
# 
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.