VONENHACH
Ambassador John Campbell’s widely-publicized comments on Nigeria captioned Nigeria: ‘Dancing on the brink’ are based on four main assumptions. John Campbell’s first assumption is that Nigerian politics is a straight fight between the ‘Muslim North’ and the ‘Christian South’. John Campbell’s second assumption is that Nigeria’s politics is dominated by religious and ethnic allegiances. John Campbell’s third assumption is that at the strategic level, the policy dilemma that the USA faces is how to either please or not displease both the Niger Delta militants and the Northern power brokers. John Campbell’s fourth assumption is that Nigeria is so politically-static that its political dynamics will always be shaped and controlled by what he calls ‘elites and their patronage networks’ and its political outcomes will always be decided on the basis of ‘elite consensus’.
Based on these four assumptions, Ambassador John Campbell reached the damning conclusion that the 2011 presidential election is bound to threaten Nigeria’s political stability because it’s not supported by ‘elite consensus’ and therefore most likely to trigger ‘sectarian violence, the paralysis of the executive branch and possibly a coup’! In view of the weight and implications of Ambassador Campbell’s comments and conclusions, his assumptions need to be tested for their historical and logical accuracy. John Campbell’s first assumption that Nigerian politics is a straight fight between the ‘Muslim North’ and the ‘Christian South’ is totally wrong because the North has dominated the leadership of the Nigerian nation for as much as thirty-seven of its fifty years of independence! Take the following chain of North-North succession between 1975 and 1993. In 1975, a Northerner in the person of late General Murtala Mohammed overthrew another northerner in the person of General Yakubu Gowon. In 1976, General Murtala Mohammed was assassinated in a failed coup attempt that was led by Northern Army officers. Though a southerner in the person of General Obasanjo who succeeded late General Murtala Mohammed handed power to a democratically elected northerner in the person of Alhaji Shehu Shagari in 1979, it was another Northener in the person of General Mohammadu Buhari who toppled Alhaji Shehu Shagari in 1983.
Read Also: COVID-19: Nigerian military begins mass production of ventilators, PPE kits
General Buhari was also overthrown by another military general in the person of Ibrahim Babangida in 1985! John Campbell’s assumption that Nigeria’s politics is dominated by religious and ethnic allegiances is patently wrong because the Government of Muhammadu Buhari was both North/North and Muslim/Muslim as both Buhari and his deputy (late General Tunde Idiagbon) were Northrners and Muslims. This second assumption is also patently wrong because after Babangida had ruled for eight years, the presidential election he conducted in 1993 was resoundingly won by late Chief MKO Abiola a southern Muslim with a Northern Muslim in the person of Ambassador Babagana Kingibe as his Vice Presidential candidate! John Campbell’s assumption that at the strategic level, the policy dilemma that the USA faces is how to either please or not displease both the Niger Delta militants and the Northern power brokers is also patently wrong for many reasons. How and when did the Niger Delta militants become political players who are taking on the Northern power brokers? Is Ambassador John Campbell suggesting that the Niger Delta region which is the economic nerve-center of the nation is so bereft of political leaders and strategic players on the national stage that its political aspirations can only be championed by militants? What a gratuitous insult! Like his first three assumptions, John Campbell’s fourth assumption that Nigeria is so politically-static that its political dynamics will always be shaped and controlled by what he calls ‘elites and their patronage networks’ and its political outcomes will always be decided on the basis of ‘elite consensus’ is patently-wrong because when the ill health of late President Yar’Adua was politicized with the aim of ensuring that then Vice President Goodluck Jonathan never assumed the status of Acting President in his absence, it didn’t take the intervention of either the Nigerian military or the United Nations to ensure that Goodluck Jonathan eventually became Nigeria’s Acting President in line with relevant sections of the Nigerian Constitution. When late President Yar’Adua who was a Northerner died, it didn’t take the intervention of either the Nigerian Military or the United Nations to ensure that Goodluck Jonathan who is a Southern minority was sworn in as the new President-the Nigerian Constitution simply took its course!
Without mincing words, it’s most baffling that an American of John Campbell’s stature will comment on Nigeria’s politics to the extent of writing a book based on assumptions that are clearly tangential to the self-evident facts of Nigeria’s political history which are easily verifiable from multiple local and international sources! John Campbell sounds like an Ambassador whose diplomacy is based on pre-conceived notions that are so deeply-entrenched that he just can’t think out of a certain box. There are so many questions begging for answers. What informed Ambassador John Campbell’s posting to Nigeria in 2004? What kind of debriefing was Ambassador John Campbell given by the US State Department preparatory to his assumption of duty in Nigeria in 2004? Did Ambassador John Campbell have the benefit of reading the handover notes of his predecessors like Dr.Walter Carrington who made such a strategic contribution to Nigeria’s quest for democratic governance? What kind of diplomatic briefs was Ambassador John Campbell sending back to his bosses in the State department throughout his tour of duty in Nigeria between 2004 and 2007? I shudder to think that Ambassador John Campbell’s recent comments on Nigeria reflect the kind of advice he gave his home government on Nigeria throughout his tour of duty between 2004 and 2007! What kind of handing- over notes did he pass on to his predecessor at the end of his tour of duty in 2007?
Even if Ambassador John Campbell chooses to specialize in transactional diplomacy (and he’s free to do so), does such a choice discharge him of the responsibility for ensuring the historical, factual and logical accuracy of his diplomatic briefs? Are national policies that are influenced by transactional diplomacy that is historically, factually and logically inaccurate not bound to fail? Finally, what specific diplomatic or policy objective does Ambassador John Campbell hope to accomplish through his misleading commentary on Nigeria?
