Insurgency and Nigeria-US face-off

An indication that all is not well between Nigeria and the United States in relation to the war against terror was dropped last month by our Ambassador to that country, Amb. Adebowale Adefuye. The envoy had accused the United States of refusing to sell arms and equipment to Nigeria in the fight against the Boko Haram insurgents. In response, the United States reportedly accused Nigerian security operatives of human rights violations, stating that its laws prevent it from selling arms to countries with such human rights records.

Another dimension was added to the strained relations last week when the Nigerian government was said to have discontinued the existing military cooperation with the United States in building the capacity of Nigerian military personnel to fight the insurgency that has been ravaging the North-east axis of the country for close to five years now.
Reacting to the development, the United States last week issued a statement, saying “At the request of the Nigerian government, the United States will discontinue its training of a Nigerian Army battalion. The first two phases of training were conducted between April and August, 2014, and had provided previously untrained civilian personnel with basic soldiering skills. Based on mutual assessment of the Nigerian Army and the US trainers, a third iteration of training was agreed upon with the intent of developing the battalion into a unit with advanced infantry skills.

Much earlier, the spokeswoman of the state department, Jen Psaki, weighed in, revealing that Washington’s refusal to sell cobra Helicopters and other weapons to Nigeria was predicated on its concerns about the ability of our military to use and maintain them in the battle against Boko Haram.  This is an apparent allusion to the recent crashes of military jets in the North-east axis and weapon seizure from fleeing troops by the insurgents. She noted that Nigeria “has purchased helicopters that originated from other countries than the US and nothing in our decision prevents Nigeria from obtaining weapons from other sources.”

Psaki also revealed that over the past six months, the United States has started sharing intelligence with Nigeria and held numerous high-level discussions with the Nigerian authorities on additional measures on how best to address the Boko Haram threat. It is this desperation that pushed the country into patronising the black market for acquisition of weapons to fight the insurgency and the international embarrassment that followed the seizure of about $15m by the South African authorities on two occasions in recent months.

The dilemma facing Nigeria is a direct consequence of inept leaderships resulting in the failure to develop the critical capabilty at the country’s disposal. For instance, the Defence Industry Corporation (DIC) was set up in Kaduna some decades ago with the mandate to produce weapons. Its counterpart in Brazil established about the same time has blossomed into manufacturing light and heavy military equipment including fighter jets that Nigeria is begging the US to acquire. The DIC has slipped from the sublime to the ridiculous and is today reputed for churning out furniture instead of military hardware.

Nigeria cannot afford to be whining like a kid deprived of his cookies. It should look elsewhere for the appropriate weaponry to fight the terror war. Critical as the weapon acquisition is to the successful prosecution of the war, there is need to motivate our troops and the Civilian-JTF by providing adequately for their well-being at the war front. The political class should also find a common ground in the fight against terrorism. The lack of full commitment on the part of the federal government and the politicisation of the war are counterproductive, a situation the insurgents have exploited to their own advantage. The Jonathan government has a duty to take on the insurgents with the same zeal that it is approaching the 2015 polls. Security of lives and property of the people should be a cardinal preoccupation of any responsible and responsive government.