In the run-up to President Buhari’s recent official visit to the United States, there were palpable fears amongst Nigerians that the visit was structured for President Barack Obama to arm-twist the Nigerian president into reversing the anti-same sex marriage law in Nigeria. The spirited argument by Linda Thomas Green-Field, US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, that the fight for the rights of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders (LGBT) is an integral part of US foreign policy which must be enforced globally only helped to fuel the suspicion and put Nigerians on edge.
Thankfully, contrary to the fears, President Buhari did not buckle under the pressure of American legislators. Going to the USA on 19 July, Buhari certainly knew exactly what to give away and what to take away, which is what international relations is all about. Perhaps Emeka Anyaoku, former Commonwealth secretary-general, who visited the president before he embarked on the US trip, refreshed Buhari’s memory.
Pressed by the US Congress to reverse the anti-same sex law in Nigeria, Buhari reportedly told his hosts that sodomy is a taboo in Africa and outlawed in Nigeria because over 80 percent of Nigerians are against it (Pew Report actually puts the figure at 98 percent). By so doing, he smartly and commendably justified his objection to their demand. Not done, he reportedly turned the table against the USA by reminding them that by refusing to sell to Nigeria arms and ammunition required to combat terrorism based on unsubstantiated claims of human rights abuse – based on the Leahy law which forbids US from selling arms to countries whose armies have poor human rights records – America may have inadvertently been helping foster Boko Haram terrorism in Nigeria, and indeed the Gulf of Guinea, and therefore vicariously guilty of the avoidable human carnage.
The frustration expressed by President Buhari was supposed to prick the conscience of US lawmakers and it has done exactly that. Senator Patrick Leahy, the promoter of the law, has responded that “President Buhari ignored the undisputed fact that most Nigerian army units have been approved, under the Leahy law, for US training and equipment. Only those particular units against which there is credible evidence of the most heinous crimes are ineligible for US aid. And even those units can again become eligible if the Nigerian government takes effective steps to bring the responsible individuals to justice.” He further said, “I strongly agree with President Buhari about the need to defeat Boko Haram, and I have supported tens of millions of dollars in US aid to Nigeria for that purpose.”
The above clarification, in my view, is good news because it reveals that, at last, a Nigerian leader’s voice is being heard and discussed in the top echelon of the US political establishment. This suggests that the window for negotiation is still wide open and Nigeria only needs to push harder by doing the needful – like sanctioning officers found guilty and instituting internal monitoring and control system to track human rights abuse in the armed forces – to get the much-needed military hardware from the US.
For sure, Nigeria is not the first nation to be denied access to weapons by the US under Leahy amendment to the law. Pakistan, Turkey, Mexico, Indonesia and Bangladesh as well as Bolivia and Colombia are some of the countries that fell short of the Leahy law threshold and were denied sale of weapons. Curiously, close US allies in the Middle East such as Israel and Egypt whose armies have abysmal human rights records appear to be exempted from strict application of the Leahy law as the US appears to look the other way when human rights organizations point fingers at them. Why can’t Nigeria strive to be in the league of the privileged US allies?
In any case, I have always argued that the failure of former President Goodluck Jonathan’s government to convince the US to sell the required military armaments to Nigeria was a failure of diplomacy. While amorphous lobby groups supporting terrorism have been very active in Washington, D.C. with the sole aim of convincing lawmakers that Nigeria was guilty of human rights abuses and therefore ineligible for arms purchase from US, our diplomats were flat-footed, hence they were outflanked and, as it were, caught pants down. This also explains why it was only in 2013 that Boko Haram (which has been on rampage since 2009) was declared a terrorist group by the US Congress. I have no idea if attempts were made to convince previous Nigerian government authorities to procure the services of powerful lobby groups in Washington, D.C., such as Black Congressional Caucus or Corporate Council on Africa, to counter the unsubstantiated claim of human rights abuse by Nigerian soldiers. However, the singular effort of nipping such negative sentiments in the bud through counter efforts of lobbyists would have saved Nigeria, the sub-region and, indeed, the entire world the current avoidable human catastrophe created by Boko Haram terrorists.
I need to reiterate that the power of lobby in Washington is not a myth. This is why Israel with manifest evidence of human rights abuse in Palestine still receives military support from the US, in spite of the much-vaunted Leahy law, and enjoys estimated $3 billion ‘aids and support’ from the US annually. Such is the power of Jewish lobby. Similarly, Egypt whose current military leadership under General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi recently arbitrarily toppled the democratically elected government of Mohamed Morsi has been accused of massive human rights abuse by Amnesty International, the same agency that made similar allegations against Nigerian Army, yet Egypt still enjoys American patronage reflected in annual ‘aids and support’ to the tune of about $1 billion annually. Just as there are Jewish and Arab Americans in Congress, there are many African-American congressmen and women to fight Africa’s and, indeed, Nigeria’s cause if Nigeria solicits their support.
It may be argued that both Israel and Egypt are enjoying US special privileges because they are their strategic partners in the Middle East that have helped to facilitate and maintain the relative peace in the zone. Nigeria could also form a similar strategic alliance with the US. Given its role as the foremost peace-keeper in Africa and by virtue of the size of its economy and population, Nigeria qualifies for such special privilege.
Similarly, the concept of allowing the US station its proposed military base for Africa (AFRICOM), now temporarily located in Germany, in Nigeria could also be a beneficial trade-off that could permanently hinge Nigeria to the US as it is with Germany, Japan and South Korea where there are several American military bases with enormous social and economic benefits. Relying on the conventional wisdom in Nigeria that when your residence is located close to a police or army barracks, there is less tendency for armed robbers to invade, it could be argued that situating AFRICOM in Nigeria may have its downsides, but the potential gains could be manifold.
Over all, it is my view that President Buhari’s performance in the Oval Office on 20th July complements his performance on 26 February at Chatham House, Britain, where he made a presentation to the British intelligentsia. As a seasoned farmer, President Buhari has sown the seed of friendship and cooperation between Nigeria and the industrialized world represented by the US, the UK and the other members of the G7. It is now left to Nigeria to patiently and diligently nurture and harness the seed of goodwill derivable from President Buhari’s historic trips abroad in the spirit of shuttle diplomacy.
Magnus Onyibe
