THE decision by the United Nations to suspend all official travels to Nigeria 'until further notice', is a major collateral damage the country is bound to suffer over the bombings and killings unleashed on it by the Boko Haram sect. The climax of the attacks perhaps was the one on the United Nations (UN) building in Abuja on August 26, 2011, in which 23 persons were confirmed dead and many more badly injured.Government is certainly under pressure over the spate of terrorist attacks, but the damage emanating from them is largely the result of failure to get to grips with the issue. This much can be gleaned not just from the UN action, but the seeming confusion that has trailed the attacks.The incessant form of the onslaught is a cause for serious concern. Even more so is the seeming helplessness of the security authorities. If they are at grip with the situation, they certainly have not displayed it.For now, the country has to contend with the loss of right to host global food security meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), which was moved to Senegal. The reason, stated in the letter written by the agency, is due to the UN suspension of all official travels to Nigeria 'until further notice'.The 'punishment,' as the action may be interpreted, is unlikely to be a one-off for the country, not unless it can overcome its confusion, and show a practical sense of purpose in addressing killings and attacks by any person or group. The writing had been on the wall that the UN House bombing would cost Nigeria indirect loss of revenue through decline in the patronage of its hospitality industry and other services.The FAO cited security threats and the activities of terrorist groups, as reasons for its decision to move the meeting elsewhere. The UN action constitutes a major statement of negative impact on Nigeria, signifying that the country is an insecure place. Already, the country is classified in the low to medium security threat category. The UN action may well be the beginning of a harsher verdict on the country, an event that will most certainly deal a big blow to current governmental efforts to attract foreign investors and entrepreneurs.The crucial question is whether Nigeria is doing enough to counter these undesirable international perceptions of its entity. Several years after the advent of Boko Haram's threat in the country, the authorities are yet to identify who and what are behind the organisation. How can anyone solve a problem that he has not identified or isolated'The panic, dislocation and growing climate of fear in the country are attributable directly to the inept official showing over the terror attacks. Thus, there is danger that unofficial groups, whether recognised or not, might seize the initiative from government, thereby compounding the problem. It is on record for instance that groups such as the Bakassi Boys in the Niger Delta, Ijaw militants, Ohaneze Ndigbo have threatened a possible retaliation to the Boko Haram threat. If that happens, it will exacerbate the current situation.As if buoyed by government's seeming incapacity, the sect reportedly rejected peace suggestion by government investigation committee; including the proposed involvement of the Sultan of Sokoto. It is instructive that the presidential committee on the security challenges posed by the Boko Haram threat hinged its report on dialogue with the sect, and a call for its disarmament.Government needs to show sufficient and clear sign of its preparedness for any negotiation. In real terms, such an indication cannot be merely expressed. It should be preceded by concrete measures to identify the other party and the subject of negotiation. These are tasks for intelligence agencies, none of which has publicly signposted its competence or capacity in the matter; other than to point out that Boko Haram is foreign-driven.The point is that whoever is behind the group cannot be faceless; and two years are more than enough for government to identify a leader. Considering that terrorism and other social vices plaguing the nation are borne out of diverse and multifarious reasons, a negotiating process should not be ruled out as an option of resolution. Government will not lose anything in talking, if only to be reminded of the country's fundamental problems, of which Boko Haram is just a part. The aim should be to find long term solution to the Nigerian problem.It is tempting to blame the UN for its obviously hard-line decision on Nigeria. After all, terrorism is a feature also of other countries, including the United States and Britain; and the UN has not inflicted such decisions that have wide consequences on any of them. The World body ought not just to isolate Nigeria; it should be at the forefront of practical anti-terrorism campaigns. But the Nigerian authorities must take the first initiative.
Click here to read full news..
