Turmoil in Nigeria

by Peter Henne

I wanted to highlight the excellent (if depressing) piece by John Campbell in Foreign Affairs. Campbell discusses the upcoming January election in Nigeria, which may threaten the country's stability due to a shaky power-sharing agreement between the Muslim North and Christian South. In the past, religio-ethnic tensions have been inflamed by elites' political maneuvering, and--as Campbell points out--there is an unfortunately high chance of this occurring again.

I'd like to add another reason to worry: terrorism. As most will remember, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab--the failed "Christmas Day bomber"--is from Nigeria, indicating some al-Qaeda ties in the country. Of more concern, though, is Boko Haram (also known as the "Nigerian Taliban") a hard-line Islamic militant group that left hundreds dead in an offensive last year. The government disrupted the group's activities, but remaining members launched a raid on a prison in Bauchi yesterday, resulting in the release of numerous Boko Haram members. If violence breaks out again in Nigeria, this group will likely be either causing or exploiting it.

There are some ways the United States can hold off turmoil in the country; Campbell mentions support for civil-society and election assistance. The United States could also tie its official assistance programs with Nigeria to a power-sharing deal among elites, giving them an incentive to cooperate. Or we could try to resolve the environmental and social problems connected to the country's oil production, which would minimize the threat of renewed violence from terrorist groups motivated by oil-related grievances.

Whatever US officials do, they need to act quickly; January is only a few months away.

Nigeria upset over new U.S. security measures

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to the AFP, Nigeria has "branded new security measures for passengers flying to the United States unfair and said they amounted to discrimination against its 150 million people." Nigeria, home of failed underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, is one of 14 countries from which all air travellers to the U.S. will be "subjected to extra checks including body pat-downs."

I tend to agree with Nigerian Information Minister Dora Akunyili that "Abdulmutallab's behaviour is not reflective of Nigerians and should therefore not be used as a yardstick to judge all Nigerians." After all, "[h]e was not influenced in Nigeria. He was not recruited or trained in Nigeria. He was not supported whatsoever in Nigeria."

Besides, if terrorists want to enter the U.S. by air, they just won't try to do so from one of those 14 countries. So, yes, this seems like fairly arbitrary discrimination. I understand that Nigeria is one of those "countries of interest" identified by the Transport Security Administration (TSA) -- as it isn't a state-sponsor of terrorism -- but whether it actually deserves to be is another matter, and it probably shouldn't be, unless the U.S. wants to broaden its definition of "countries of interest" to pretty much any non-western country. Although, again, given that Islamic terrorists have been active in countries like Spain and the U.K., where should the line be drawn? It seems to be that a more nuanced approach to fighting terrorism is preferable to broad vilifications of entire countries.

Then again, maybe the Nigerians should stop sending all those "you've won a billion dollars, send all your personal information" spam e-mails if they want to win some goodwill from Americans (and the rest of us).

And, while they're at it, maybe they should stop selling cat food to the prawns in exchange for weapons. That's really not helping.