Bakassi Peninsula: No Justice from The Hague
Bakassi Peninsula: No Justice from The Hague
This article was first
written in January 2008 as contribution to
the debate on ceding of the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula. It is edited today and
republished for today’s discussions.
Without joining in the macabre dance of the
self-styled nationalist jingoists – who have suddenly become advocates of
territorial integrity but hypocritically defending neo-liberal deregulation and
trade liberalization, which ceded the economic territory of not only the
country but that of the working poor – one is tempted to ask those defending
the current capitalist world relation: Where is thy democracy? The ceding of
Bakassi peninsula – a seemingly mineral-endowed border community between
Nigeria and Cameroon – has clearly demonstrated the hypocrisy of the
international justice system, and the pro-imperialist nature of many African
rulers – most of whom aside emerging from questionable civilian process are
nothing but pawns in the chessboard of imperialism.
The issue of territorial conflicts in the
world and Africa in particular is not new, and will not recede until the
selfish profit system that drives them is thrown overboard. History records
many wars, including First World War, fought by European nations to not only
defend their immediate territories but also colonies in Africa, Asia and Latin
America. A careful study of these conflicts and wars reveals the underlining interests,
which, aside the need for sovereignty and monarchical assertions, included the
need to protect the markets of the emerging big businesses and multinational
corporations – a big source of privilege for the aristocracies. Territorial and
ethnic crises that have and are facing the African continent are as much a
product of colonial partitioning of the continent by colonialism as well as
product of degenerate neo-liberal capitalist system.
Bakassi is one of the children of the above
situation. The Peninsula was contested over by German, French and English imperialism
until after the independence by Nigeria and Cameroun. As a result of
colonialist partitioning after First World War, which is meant to make Africa
the territorial dependent of the imperialist European ruling classes, many
territories were grouped together undemocratically. This presupposes that they
were grouped together without the adequate consent of the inhabitants of such
areas to determine where and how they want to live and how they want their
resources to be used. This anarchical boundary partitioning has been a major
source of conflicts and has led to economic, social and political dislocations
of countries, whose many ethnic tribes are not allowed to determine how they
want to live before being gagged together. The handing over of territories to
local elites by the colonialists only generate more crises as it fueled ethnic
jingoism by other sections of the local ruling class, who feel disengaged from
national patrimony, mobilizing ethnic sentiments to instigate crises.
Therefore, collective decision of the poor
and working people on how they want to live and where they want to belong
should be a cardinal part of international diplomacy and justice system that
claims to be democratic. Thus, rather than making a archaic and ridiculous documents
– drawn up by the imperialists, who themselves have no legitimate rights in the
affairs of Africa, that claim to hand over the fate of hundreds of thousands of
Bakassi people of several generations, plebiscite should have been conducted by
the international justice system for the people of the Bakassi. This is
necessary not only to determine where they want to belong – including right of
having a separate and independent nation, but how their resources (mineral,
material, human, land, water, etc) will be used and for which purposes.
Although a kind of plebiscite was organized
for people of southern Cameroon on whether they want to belong to
Nigeria or Cameroon in the early 1960's, this by any standard could not
be termed
democratic going by the nature and interest of the European imperialism.
Indeed, the fact that such was not organized now is a reflection of the
fact
that international capitalist relation has not purged itself of old
bestial
colonialist tendencies, despite wearing the toga of modernism. This
clearly
reveals the true nature of international justice system in the present
neo-liberal capitalist era.
But one cannot expect justice to come from a
judicial system that is structured to legitimize an unequal profit system that
put public resources in the pockets of a handful of big fat-cats, whose
interest determine the fate and future of the majority. The history of the
post-World War 2 international political system shows the hypocrisy of
imperialism to abide by its own self-defined ideals – democracy, social
justice, etc. For instance, records of the many violations of international
treaties and judgment by major imperialist nations like the US, Britain, etc
and their satellites like Israel are well documented. Wars have been waged by
imperialist countries against the international rules and regulations, using
the excuse of national interests, which in the real sense are selfish interests
of the big multinational corporations. The Iraqi war, that has cost hundreds of
billions of dollars not only to the American public but also to the world
economy, was waged not on behalf of the working people – who protested in their
millions against this monstrosity throughout the world, but for the profit
interests of big multinational big business sharks. Today, while the war has
led to deteriorating living conditions for the over two billion poor no thanks
to the spiraling of oil prices, the big speculators (who have been gambling on
oil future) and oil majors have had unprecedented profits – along with their
turbaned sheiks in the Arabian peninsula and big time looters in Africa. The
war has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq today, with serious
sectarian violence hoping to tear the country apart. In this scenario, international justice
system is only a barking dog, which only grows teeth when it becomes a willing
tool in the hands of imperialism, especially US imperialism. Therefore, the
fate of the poor people cannot be put in this kind of justice system. Despite the illegality of Israel’s annexing
of East Jerusalem and West Bank since 1967, the so-called super-powers that lay
claim to rule of law have not deemed it fit to stop this illegality but rather
spend billions of dollars in military aid to Israel’s government to bully Arab
states. When any justice comes in favours the of the working and poor
people, they (the working people) will still have to exact mass pressure in
order to sustain it on a long-term basis.
But, international justice system can also
serve the diversionary interests of local rulers. The current Bakassi issue has
played this role, no thanks to the blind position of many so-called
intellectuals. The Yar'Adua government and the succeeding Jonathan government
have used the Bakassi handover to proclaim itself as a defender of rule of law
both at home and beyond. Biya regime, which is facing a popular revolt at home,
will use this as a sign of government's responsiveness to national integrity.
Both regimes will use these certificates to boost their resume in the comity of
their imperialist masters. However, some things are more common to both. They
emerged from fraudulent processes. While the elections that brought in Yar'Adua
could be classified as electoral madness of the new millennium, Biya's stay
onto power since 1982 is a product of continuous repressive and undemocratic
process. Both regimes also preside over economic decay that has seen millions
of people going hungry, not because there are no resources to make everybody
happy, but because the neo-liberal economic policies of privatization,
commercialization and retrenchment coupled with brazen corruption are opposed
to this.
The Bakassi area over which these ruthless
rulers are claiming success is a cesspool of unprecedented poverty, with
majority not having basic means of sustenance, in spite of huge oil reserve and
other natural resources in the area. In fact, a newspaper had reported in 2008 that
the rank-and-file of Nigerian military men were happy that they were pulling
out of the extremely poverty-stricken Bakassi. Definitely, going by the untamable
corruption in Nigeria, billions of naira
allocated (by both federal and Cross Rivers State government) since 2008 for
resettlement had end in private pockets as several protests have been held by
the poor people in Bakassi who have been left in the lurch by a government that
claims to be protecting national territorial integrity. It is the same way
billions of dollars allocated to the poverty- stricken Niger Delta were looted
by government officials, and multinational moneybags. In fact, the
corruption-ridden Obasanjo and Cross River State governments in conjunction
with the Bakassi Local government had earlier allocated billions of naira (over
N3 billion) for security and settlements which has not been accounted for.
Furthermore, the more fact that the current Nigerian government, which claims
to be fighting corruption, has continued to allocate a larger chunk of the
nation's wealth to politicians in power, in the name of rule of law, shows that
the future for the Bakassi people is foredoomed based on the current
arrangement. On the other side, the corruption-ridden Cameroonian government
and the rapacious oil majors will be salivating over the huge source of profit
in Bakassi while the poor people of not only Bakassi but the whole of Cameroon
will be licking the wound inflicted by capitalism. Thousands of Bakassi people
are being ejected from their homes and made to face unsure future so that
multinational oil companies and their financial collaborators continue to smile
to their bank accounts while neo-colonial governments of Nigeria and Cameroon
use the special opportunity to fortify their looting regimes.
Assertions by some pro-government
commentators that handing over Bakassi will avoid confrontation are at unsound.
The reality is that the handling of the Bakassi region by Nigerian government
will further morally embolden the secessionists and militants to wage more
violent attacks on Nigeria as they will have excuse that Nigeria which is just
a contraption of unresolved interests, cannot protect them. This, given the
expected economic stagnation in the country, especially in the South-South
Nigeria, can gain mass supports, which can generate military frictions between
Nigeria and Cameroun in the coming period, while also exacerbating militant
activities in Nigeria. In addition, a Nigerian or Camerounian government faced
with serious credibility cum political problems can used vague nationalism to
resuscitate this dispute. This is precisely what the despotic Sani Abacha
regime – out of crazed frenzy, mobilized military force to the poverty-stricken
area – did when faced with mounting anti-military movement at home just to
divert attention and bargain with imperialism. Moreover, the problem the movement
of the Bakassi people to other parts of the country will pose without adequate
provision (a thing that is normal with Nigerian state) for the
government-induced refugees will one way or the other lead to social, political
and security dislocation of the host communities many of whose populations are already
living in abject penury. At periods of serious economic problems, this can lead
to communal or ethnic clashes. While socialists will oppose unprincipled and
senseless war and conflict over the issue, which will in reality favours either
or both sections of the ruling classes in both countries, they will support the
mass movements of the Bakassi people to assert their self-determination rights.
This will be linked with the need to build a socialist collectivization, not
only in the Bakassi region but with the people of Nigeria and Cameroon, who are
suffering from the decadent capitalism. This has nothing to do with the vague
and ridiculous declaration of some people or ‘militants’ claiming to be
declaring a separate state for Bakassi without the democratic involvement of
the rank-and-file of poor Bakassi people.
The Bakassi issue has again shown the
pro-imperialist and reactionary character of African rulers. Despite the fact
that self-determination is part of international treaties, none of the two
African regimes was even ready to explore this on behalf of the poor people of
Bakassi. This again show that Nigeria, and indeed Africa need a working class
political platform that will galvanize the forces of the poor and working
people together in a political battle, not only to overthrow the
pro-imperialism rulers but to also throw overboard, the capitalist system they
defend. Such platform will work for the enthronement of a democratic socialist
system where collective resources of Africa will be harnessed for the
development and betterment of the working and poor people, rather than being
used for the interest of the big moneybags. Working class solidarity across
Africa is a vital tool in this direction. A call for plebiscite to determine
not only where the people of Bakassi want to live but to also determine how
they want their resources to be used, should have been the central demand of the
labour movement in both Nigeria and Cameroon. This coupled with a call for
democratic public control of the mineral, natural and monetary resources
of both Nigeria and Cameroon by the
working people's themselves and use of such resources to provide the immediate
need of the people would have united the working and poor people of these
countries. But alas, the local labour leaders, especially of Nigeria, were seen
supporting the government's action, even without criticism. This is a great
blow to the working people's aspiration for better future.
Kola
Ibrahim
P.O.Box 1319, GPO, Enuwa, Ile-Ife,
Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria
kmarx4life@gmail.com, 08059399178
Comments
Post a Comment