Opinion

By Aminu Rabiu Kano

The history of Afghanistan is one characterized by epic tragedy. The narrative of the “Afghan problem” has been diverse, with each actor telling their side of the story in a bid to justify their action or inaction as the case may be. A poor, landlocked Afghanistan is one of the few countries in the world which events happening in and around it have been dominating the headlines for decades. Both the mainstream and social media are obsessed with happenings in the country. Indeed, even the layman on the street is more or less interested in the Afghan problem to the extent that virtually everyone can say one or two things about it. The question that follows, therefore, is, why is the world interested in happenings in Afghanistan? In other words, why are developments in Afghanistan capable of generating reactions around the world? Also, why have the superpowers in history found it necessary to invade Afghanistan?

To answer the above questions, we must begin by establishing the geopolitical relevance of Afghanistan on the world map. Afghanistan is doubtlessly strategically located. It is at the crossroads of Central and South Asia. It borders Pakistan, China, Iran, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It is predominantly mountainous and inhabited by approximately 32 million people – nearly 45% of whom speak the Pashtun language. Moreover, the Afghan population is primarily Muslim. This reason, coupled with the fact that it borders Iran, Afghanistan is sometimes seen as a part of the “Wider Middle East.”

From the list of the countries bordering Afghanistan, one will realize the geographical importance of Afghanistan in the international political environment. Of the five countries that bordered it, Iran and China stand out. However, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan had been part of the former Soviet Union that fell apart in the 1990s. This implies that Afghanistan has been a neighbour to glorious powers both in the past and present.

Therefore, it was invaded severally by several empires across ages due to its essential, strategic location. For example, Alexander The Great of the Macedonian empire invaded Afghanistan in 330 BC as part of the war against Persia. Alexander saw that he could only get the Persian empire subdued by invading Afghanistan. Similarly, foreign powers such as the Persian Empires, the Mongol Empire led by Khan Ghengis, the Mughal Empire, the Timurid Empire, the Rashidun Caliphate, and the Sikh Empire conquered Afghanistan.

Little wonder, Afghanistan, even in the modern era, grappled with yet other rounds of invasions, but this time around by the “superpowers”. The superpowers being the USA and the USSR. During the cold war, these superpowers used Afghanistan, among other countries, to test their military, economic and political powers. It all started when, in April 1978, the People Democratic Party of Afghanistan overthrew the Afghanistan government. Nur Muhammad Taraki, secretary of the PDPA, became president of Afghanistan. But Taraki’s government was communist in orientation and enacted some policies that were not well received by the masses. Thus, the masses hated government, and, as a result, Taraki was overthrown by Hafizullah Amin in September 1979. Despite the change of government from Taraki to Amin, opposition to communist rule continued even under Amin. In December 1979, Amin was shot and replaced by Babrak Kamal, who was in exile in Moscow. Kamal’s government heavily relied on the Soviet military for support and protection against his vast opponents.

Opposition to the communist government continued, which prompted the USSR to invade Afghanistan, deploying more than 50,000 soldiers. This occupation was even met by fierce resistance by Afghans, who have joined the Mujahedeen – a guerilla movement that proclaimed to be fighting anti-Islamic forces in Muslim lands. The Mujahedeen would later be referred to as the “Taliban”. The Taliban was formed by Mullah Muhammad Umar, who recruited young Muslim students from Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan to fight the Soviet Military. Over the next ten years, hundreds of thousands of lives were lost. In the end, the Soviet military was forced to withdraw from Afghanistan.

However, the mujahedeen (or the Taliban, if you like) did not fight the war alone: they were heavily supported, armed and financed by the USA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. USA was mainly instrumental in its support to the Taliban because it feared that if the USSR succeeded in occupying Afghanistan, its national interests would be threatened. In fact, the US’s intervention was informed by the need to resist the advance of what former President Reagan called the “evil vampire”. Then, the two superpowers – the USA and USSR – were in the heat of the cold war. Therefore, the US saw that if the Soviet Union succeeded in implanting communist rule in Afghanistan, the domino theory would materialize. This means that the USSR would also succeed in spreading communist ideology into those countries neighbouring Afghanistan. Most Fundamentally, by gaining the control of the Middle East, the USSR would determine oil and gas supply to the US and its allies in the West. This meant that the Soviets could do great harm to the US economy and those of its allies by cutting off the oil supply since oil was a vital product so crucial that military and industrial operations heavily depended on it.

After the withdrawal of the Soviet military from Afghanistan, the Taliban formed an Islamic government. Osama Bin Laden – a Saudi citizen – was instrumental in fighting the Soviet army. As the son of a rich and influential citizen in Saudi Arabia, Osama contributed substantial financial resources to the Afghanistan war that lasted for ten years. He later formed Al-Qaeda, which was said to be a terrorist movement determined to liberate the Muslim land from Western influence. On 11 September 2001, 4 aeroplanes were hijacked by, allegedly, the Al-Qaeda. Two were flown to the Twin Towers housing the World Trade Centre, one flown to the Pentagon and the other to Pennsylvania. As a result, more than 5000 people lost their lives, and critical government infrastructures were destroyed.

The US was quick to blame Osama’s Al-Qaeda for the tragic 9/11 event. The US President George Bush soon declared war on terror. The war was first on Afghanistan, which led to the overthrow of the Taliban government. After that, the American forces established a democratic government with its foundation in and allegiance to American imperialism. However, after 20 years of occupation, the Taliban expediently returned to power when the US forces willingly decided to withdraw from Afghanistan.

From the foregoing, three lessons can be learned. One, Afghans have a genetic history of resistance to foreign domination. Second, Afghanistan is a strategic country that played an important part in the Great Game power struggles for centuries. Finally, it is evident from the above that Afghanistan’s series of invasions was no end in itself, but a means to an end. Put it more succinctly, Afghanistan is a gateway for foreign powers. Its invasion would allow the superpowers to dominate the Asian continent, including the oil-rich Arab world. Overall, Afghanistan, despite its myriad of aggression by foreign superpowers, is still in existence. It survives!

Aminu Rabiu Kano is a political and public affairs analyst. He can be reached via 08062669232.

By Aliyu Nuhu

Northern leaders are expressing their position on 2023 election. The North wants to retain power. They rely on the Constitution and tenets of democracy to reach their conclusion. Nigerian constitution does not recognize power rotation or zoning. They said democracy is a game of numbers, and that since the North has the numbers it can rule forever.

For North to actualize its “day”dream, it should also field both presidential and vice presidential candidates from the North. That will ensure they keep power even if the president dies or suffers from infirmity.

Well let us just say our laws are flawed given our peculiar plural nature. Leadership of Nigeria cannot follow the law and still keep Nigeria in one piece and we are entirely to blame.

In every election win, Nigerians know how to bask on ethnic triumphalism and use power to alienate other tribes. Nepotism defines Nigerian leadership. If the North has been treating Nigeria as a one entity in fairness, the complain from the South will not be much. But look at Buhari presidency and tell me why a Southerner will want to remain under the northern rule, where both the Northerners and Southerners suffer greatly!

Fortunately APC does not think like northern elders. The party will pass its ticket to South West. APC has what it takes to win 2023 election. PDP will field a northern candidate, and surely that will be its funeral.

So far Nigeria is not matured for democracy. We are still learning the ropes. One day we shall get to that point where the origin and religion of leaders don’t matter. That will only happen if we eschew tribalism, nepotism and bigotry and appoint people to position based on competence.

Aliyu Nuhu is a socio-political analyst, from Abuja, Nigeria

By Ahmadu Shehu, PhD.

It is no longer debatable that Nigeria, despite its crippling challenges, may never disintegrate, at least geographically. Of course, the animosities, hatred and distrust between the ethnic and regional nationalities might worsen, but Nigeria’s elasticity is exemplary and uncommon. However, I still do not accept the convenient folktale deployed by politicians that our country’s unity is non-negotiable. By now, our experience as a nation should have liberated our minds to begin a conversation on any topic of national interest, no matter the controversy or emotional delicacy.

As we approach the 61^st birthday of our beloved country, I find it imperative to discuss this controversial but important issue. From the outset, let me clarify that this article is not about the Igbo as an ethnic group or the southeast as a region. Given the rise in pro-Biafra sentiments and agitations at the moment, this article is only meant to provide an outsider view of some arguments espoused by the secessionists in their attempt to generate sympathy and popularity.

When you think of Nigeria’s disintegration, the first thing that comes to mind is Biafra – a defunct Igbo separatist nation in the country’s southeastern part. The attempt to curve this region from Nigeria in 1967 remains one of the most gruelling experiences of our country. A barely six-year-old nation was thrown into chaos by a set of greedy politicians and unscrupulous military officers who wanted power at the centre. Within those thirty months, millions of innocent citizens lost their lives, got injured or lost their possessions. In addition, Nigeria lost a large chunk of its national treasury meant to set the country on the right footing. The rest, as they say, is history.

Instead of learning from our past mistakes to avoid the recurrence of this destructive, reckless and unnecessary event, Nigerians of this generation seem to be oblivious of the necessary truth. As with most factual historical events in the Nigerian psyche, this painful experience, its true causes, and damning consequences are not well-known to the younger generations. The biased narratives in various country sections ensure that our population only hear the stories that suit their mindsets without alternative facts that would open their minds to self-criticism.

In the case of Biafra, most of the young Igbo folks have a pretty false image of their fate as a people if Biafra had happened. This skewed imagination is not unconnected with the biased, often imaginative stories these young Nigerians were told about their defunct “nation”. The Igbo popular culture and the intelligentsia depict a fictional image of Biafra as a dream-nation where the Igbos shall live in peace and prosperity devoid of challenges.

They imagine, albeit naively, that Biafra will be unlike Nigeria and that their lot would have been better than it is today. These unsuspecting chaps are led into believing a mirage of living in a nation flowing with honey and milk. They are also told that other ethnic and geopolitical sections of Nigeria are responsible for all their woes. They argue, albeit ignorantly, that if not for the North, the West, Hausa, Fulani, Yoruba, etc., theirs would have been a heaven on earth. These ignorant tales conclude that a united Nigeria does not help their course as a people.

Well, I think that these views are simplistic. I also believe that it is our responsibility to tell our brethren the truth that they need to hear. Firstly, the creation, proclamation of Biafra was not in the interest of the ordinary Igbo people. It was the last-ditch by Igbo politicians to hide their faces from problems they caused and ensure they stayed in power. Secondly, our brethren are mischievously told that the Igbo were so rich that the Igboland was the largest economic contributor to the federation. Unfortunately, the falsity of this assertion is not far-fetched, as the southeast was and is still the least contributor to the Nigerian GDP. Moreover, during the attempted secession, Nigeria’s GDP was mainly from the agricultural sector, predominantly from the North.

Thirdly, it seems that many people are misled into believing that Biafra would be an oil-rich country even though none of the Southeastern states is truly oil-producing. The Niger Delta, Nigeria’s oil pot, was not and will never be part of Biafra.

Fourthly, young Igbo people tend to believe that the southeast was Nigeria’s cash-cow at independence. The bitter truth is that even in the ’60s, the perceived strong Igbo economy depended entirely on other regions. This scenario is worse today as there are probably more Igbo people and Igbo businesses in other parts of the country than in Igboland. Worse still, the Igboland is closed and unfriendly to Nigerians, making external investments impossible.

The most supposedly intelligent argument advanced by the secessionists hinges on the current centralized federal system. They claim that the centre is too powerful and that Igbo states are marginalized. This is an argument of convenience, at best. Nigerians are not oblivious that the current unitary system was the handwork of Igbo politicians who saw a unitary arrangement as the answer to their political agenda. Today, the tides have turned, and these very people are calling for the system they abolished. Restructuring this country – whatever that means – might be a good idea, but only after a genuine debate that will ensure we do not return to the same vicious circle.

People with secessionist tendencies have used the challenges in northern Nigeria as reasons for disintegration. However, Biafra will by no means be a safer or better place. Currently, some of the most terrible crimes bedevilling this country are not unconnected with the southeast. From drugs to internet fraud, armed robbery and kidnapping to arms smuggling, if not worse, the southeast is not holier than other parts of this country.

Another commonplace argument is that the industrious nature of the Igbo people is enough evidence that Biafra will be a great country. But this argument, too, has failed to account for the fact that the wealthiest and most successful Igbo people and their businesses owe their success significantly to Nigeria and not Igboland. The Igbo people are traders, and the economic success of trading lies in the customer market, not the number of sellers. What do the Igbo people actually produce or sell that does not rely on the larger Nigerian population?

On the one hand, there is nothing that the southeast offers that cannot be produced or sold by other Nigerians. But, on the other hand, everything from food to livestock, energy, and the market for everything sold depend on the other regions. The southeast is asking to leave under this situation is the most absurd strategic blunder of the century.

Similarly, Igbo politicians and administrators have not distinguished themselves from the rotten Nigerian public servants. We do not see a difference between southeastern institutions or southeasterners in Nigerian public offices and their counterparts in other regions or ethnic groups. The same crop of people will lead Biafra. So, nobody should be enthusiastic.

Therefore, it is evident from the preceding that the viability of Biafra as an independent state is not assured. For one, it will be a landlocked, forty-one thousand kilometres square piece of land, which is just a half of Niger state and less than the size of Kaduna state. Worse still, it will be circled on all four corners by its biggest adversary, the Nigerian state. Secondly, it will depend on its biggest adversary for nearly everything except air, including waterways, food, and labour. Third, it would be one of the most overpopulated countries vis-à-vis its landmass and population.

The bitter truth is that these ecological, geographical, demographic and economic factors do not support the presupposition that the Igboland is better off as a separate entity than it is within the Nigerian federation. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that even if Biafra was to happen on a platter of gold, it is not going to be the rose garden these populists have configured our brothers to believe. Thus, we should all look before we leap!

Dr Ahmadu Shehu is a nomad cum herdsman, an Assistant Professor at the American University of Nigeria, Yola, and is passionate about the Nigerian project. You can reach him at ahmadsheehu@yahoo.com.

By Mukhtar Garba Maigamo

The trending video that surfaced after President Buhari attended the UNGA in New York, showing an unprovoked assault on some people that are considered “Hausa-Fulani” or “Northern Muslims” by their provocateurs on account of their facial countenance and, or the apparels in them, is a perfect example of the deep-rooted hatred, obsessions and insecurities bedevilling many people in some parts of this country which translated into this dismissive ‘othering’.

It is even very possible that these two or three people in the video who are being verbally assaulted with a barrage of racist abuses and the most opprobrious language, share no cultural or ethnolinguistic affinities with Fulani, but because of the fact the racialization of the Buhari/APC government has taken a firm root, the entire people of the North are lumped together as either Fulani or Hausa-Fulani (whatever that means) and demonized by many people in the South, including even the most educated ones. What a profoundly ignorant mischaracterization!

This sort of ignorance has historically also manifested in the ‘Aboki’ and ‘Gambari’ ethnic slurs these people used with profound contempt.

But the striking irony is that there are many people here in the North or even residents of Daura (hometown of Mr President) who might have felt disillusioned with the Buhari’s administration, who could also share cultural, ethnic and religious affiliations with him. Still, they are worst-off today, and there are those also who do not share these features with the president. Still, by their circumstances or by way of geography, they are lumped together and mischaracterized as Fulani or Hausa Fulani.

But the danger of this otherization and the racialization of APC is that it could provoke ethnic and religious sentiments during elections and make people rally around a maligned candidate- whether he is the right choice or not, in terms of capacity and ability to deliver.

When, because of your pathological hatred of a single person, his party or associations, you pigeonhole an entire stock of his ethnic nationality and derogate as dregs of the country, you are invoking his people’s consciousness to rise against you whether or not they love him.

This same thing happened during GEJ when some clannish zealots otherized the entire country, but south-south. Under GEJ watchful eyes, Edwin Clerk and his passengers went about with rhetorics and threatened fire and brimstone against anyone who raised eyebrows against their posturing.

His wife also went about demonizing the North as the habitat of almajiri (the almajiri that are menacing the North too, and whom many people in the North were campaigning against).

Her infamous diatribe, “our people no dey born shildren wey dem no dey count. Our men no dey born shildren throway for street. We no dey like the people from that side” was the final straw that galvanized the anger of people to rise and rally around ethnic solidarities to defeat GEJ.

The victory of APC in 2015 and 2019 was, therefore, a combination of many factors, including the idealization and evocation of sentiments for candidates put forward by the party.

And this will continue to play out if the antipathy like the one we’ve seen in this video continues.

Mukhtar Maigamo writes from Kaduna. He can be reached via mgmaigamo@gmail.com.

By Abubakar Ibrahim

Those looking for devolution of powers to make the states more powerful than the centre had forgotten about history.

The Soviet Union (USSSR) collapsed when it gave more powers to its states.

Nigeria government has given Governors’ clubs (governors forum; southern governors forum, northern Governors forum, etc.) leverage to the extent that they are now flaunting executive orders.

No governor obeyed the executive order to give monthly allocation directly to local government councils, legislature and judiciary in their respective states.

The antics of southern governors, especially of Rivers, Lagos and Ogun, will send Nigeria to its waterloo.

Governors forums have made them act as devils instead of angels. They have frustrated the inflow of funds to LGAs, state legislatures and judiciary. They have refused to pay the correct minimum wage.

Governors forums have done more harm than good. They are only good at wasting state resources in crisis, crossing the skies in charted flights attending their meetings at various locations. The worst scenario is they will leave their states at the mercy of nobody. Hence, this stagnates work until they are back.

It is time for these unproductive governors forums to be abolished. We like to see state governors behaving like former governors with integrity, people like late Governor Jakande, who had never travelled outside Nigeria and never run away from his state responsibilities throughout his tenure.

Governors like Audu Bako, through under a military regime, would only travel out to bring back goodies for the ordinary person, such as “irrigation schemes” that Kano people are still benefiting from after all these long years. It is a legacy he left behind.

Nigerians should come back from supporting politicians who are only good at building themselves and championing the course of disintegration.

Abubakar Ibrahim can be contacted via ai869802@gmail.com.

By Abdulhaleem Ishaq Ringim