Boko Haram, the Government and Peace Negotiation by Prof. James

Boko Haram, the Government and Peace Negotiation By Prof. James B. Kantiok, Ph.D,; MDY Introduction Both scholars and non-scholars alike define peace variously. Depending on one’s knowledge and understanding of the concept, one may define it in simple layman/woman’s language as the “absence of violence” or the “absence of the fear of violence.” It can be associated with a multitude of factors and phenomena that reinforce one another, including gender equality, justice, relevant education and employment opportunities, the sound management of natural resources, human rights protection, political inclusion, and low levels of corruption. However, most of these factors are culturally coded and hence are only definable contextually. Understanding the central role played by culture in identifying the roots of a given conflict and the related specific path towards reconciliation is thus an essential, if not determining, step in achieving lasting peace and security. Peace has been and remains a permanent ideal and aspiration, as well as a right and a duty. However, in our fast-paced, interconnected world, peace is at risk. Understanding the issues involved in the Boko Haram insurgency could help the government decide whether or not to negotiate with the group, thus ensuring the security of life and property in the country. The resurgence of religious conflict on a global scale from the late 1970's onward has been one of the great surprises of the modern era. Some analysts portray the rise of religiously motivated violence as a barbaric "throwback" fated to disappear as capitalism and democracy become worldwide and therefore may not be resolved. While others, yielding to pessimism, portray it as a feature of an essentially irresolvable "clash of civilizations." In contrast to both views, I believe that violent religious conflicts are the linked to so many factors that reinforce each other and may be resolved, but the assumption that such resolution lies in western models is untenable. By reconstructing our relationships with those subjected to our power, the poor and downtrodden, ensuring justice and contextualizing our problems, we may find solutions to the incessant religious conflicts in our country as well as globally. At one extreme, religious identification can function as a mere badge of ethnicity, class, or caste as in Northern Ireland. The war between the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland was not the result of differing interpretations of the Eucharist or disagreements about Papal infallibility. Their struggle was rooted in bitter social inequalities and political insecurities afflicting their communities over the course of three centuries. The salient issues were jobs, dignity, and group identity, not religious beliefs. On the other hand religious extremism could be the result of a clash in civilization, a feeling that modernization is encroaching on the ultraconservative views being held by religious extremists who find themselves on the fringes of in a postmodern society. The colossal loss of human lives, destruction of property suffered by people in the northern part of the country, and the crumbling effect that the Boko Haram insurgence has on Nigeria’s economy is peaking and all hands must be put on deck to arrest the situation. As challenging as life is in this country, it is more so, especially for those who live within the Boko Haram operational zone, who no longer live a normal life. That church services and other related activities, especially in the Northeast zone now hold at police and military guards and patrols for fear of being attacked by Boko Haram can no longer be accepted as normal life or even be 1 tolerated. A responsible government cannot fold its arms and watch helplessly when a very important resource, human life, is being cut short and destroyed on a daily basis. The President Goodluck Jonathan Government has its hands full and is almost at a loss as to how to handle this menace. The Government, in its attempt to find a lasting solution to the problem is using a two- prong approach; one is its attempt to pursue the terrorists where they are and the other is through persuasion, negotiations or what has been deemed dialogue, which the latter is a more recent approach. This symposium is an attempt to explore the way out of this quagmire in the best possible way. There have been opinions and counter opinions on why government should or should not negotiate with Boko Haram. The goal this paper is to relay the facts so that Nigerians and others in the international community can come to terms with a real problem, and, thus pursue the best way to resolving the problem. The objective is to create awareness on the way forward with the menace of the Boko Haram insurgency among Nigerians, the Government and the international community. It is also to help us understand the gravity of this problem and propose reasons why the Nigerian governments must avoid the purely hardline approach, which had earlier been dominant, but rather seek an alternative engagement. This paper examines the importance of engagement as a process of peace negotiation and conflict management. It sets out first with an examination of the philosophy of peace negotiation as a panacea to peace engagement or dialogue with the Boko Haram insurgency and proposes the way forward in Nigeria to resolve the conflict. Developing a philosophy for expedient/a generic peace negotiations The Preamble to the UNESCO Constitution states that, "Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed" (UNESCO). Peace is the most expensive commodity in the global market today and has been described as the Summum Bonum or supreme ideal for human progress and enjoyment of life on this part of the divide. To understand the exact meaning and real nature of peace, as well as the means to realizing it, we must first of all rectify the prevailing tendency that thinks of peace in terms negative peace, which is the absence of conflict or war. This line of thinking only encourages a pacifist understanding of the term, but denounces conflict or war owing to the shallow understanding of what actually causes those wars. Global overviews now confirm the presence of ethnic, religious, sectarian, economic as well as cultural strives that lead to civil and international wars. Therefore, our definition of peace should include the elimination wars and strives. While it is true that peace would be achieved by removing all kinds of violence, such as war, environmental destruction, violation of human rights, cruelty against women and children, exploitation and oppression of the weak, poor and illiterate and the powerless, it will amount to grandstanding to believe that peace is merely a state of non-violence or absence of wars. We must understand peace in all its dimensions. First, we must understand it theoretically at the personal or mental level, that is, the inner state of calm or tranquility. Second, we must also understand it as social in terms of the state of social justice and development. Third, peace should be understood at the national level in terms of nation-state stability, progress and freedom from civil disorder. Fourth, at the international level, peace or peaceful relation is needed among all nations for global security and prosperity. Global peace, that is, peaceful co-existence is therefore necessary for the continued existence of the human race. Therefore, peace has a global phenomena and no nation can survive without others. Relationships must be global, because it is the foundation of the survival of humankind. 2 Peace negotiation a duty for all Issues relating to peaceful co-existence are not solely the property of politicians, moralists, religionists, national leaders and social scientists, but of everyone. Every citizen must be aware of his/her responsibility by adopting an essentially new and intrinsic way of thinking for peace. The duty of philosophers and ethical thinkers is to make men and women free from their deep-rooted superstitions, dogmas and also from illogical, irrational and outdated way of thinking. We need to evaluate and reevaluate the relevance of traditional politico-national goals such as patriotism, nationalism, as well as the spiritual ideals of personal salvation and self-realization. This has become necessary because the recent global situations that require a review and reassessment of traditional ideas and values from the global perspective to the decision-maker, the voters, the executives, parents, national leaders, national bodies and international organizations. The greatest responsibility of thinkers and philosophers alike is to see that humanity is upheld as supreme. Hence it is necessary to awake the human conscience at personal, national and even at international level. This is needed because "the seeds of peace do not lie in lofty ideas, but in human understanding and empathy of ordinary people" (Rai, nd). That the futility of philosophies and ideologies, which declare "conflict" or "strife" as a necessary condition for progress, has been proved is no longer debatable. What is needed therefore is to replace such philosophies, which accept peace as a factor contributory to progress. The interpretation of progress in terms of conflict and competition, advanced by Malts, Darwin, Marx and industrial civilization, must be replaced by interpretations that promote cooperation or peaceful relation, because peace within and without is not only a preferable condition for progress, but an essential one. The road to a peaceful future can only be traversed through cooperation based on the recognition of equality among nations and peoples respect for the sovereignty of humanity. For peace to reign in this country, we must educate each other and ourselves in ideals of human conduct. It is unquestionable and ultimately true that humankind itself is the insurmountable barrier in the accomplishment of peace, since alternatives of war and peace, of progress and regress, of construction and destruction are matters of human choice and not historical processes.

Load more