A world without borders

“When a problem visits, it arrives with its own bed and table.” African Proverb

It seems such a long, long time ago when we had a world made up of nations. These were territorially-defined, legally recognized entities where sovereignty was located in the people and exercised by governments. They had rights, privileges and obligations in the manner they related with other members of the international community. They were also bound by international laws, conventions and institutions to conduct their internal affairs, particularly the manner in which basic government-citizen relations were conducted. It was an unequal world, with a few powerful and dominant nations changing the rules as they suited them, or as they were compelled to do when strategic interests clashed. Small and weak nations jostled for some space mostly taken up by big nations or clusters of nations, and the dynamism of the system guaranteed some global peace and limited inevitable conflicts between and within nations.

Then things changed dramatically. The collapse of a bi-polar world which allowed a few weak nations to find succor and relief around powerful clusters of nations and interests exposed all and sundry to the realities of the dominance of the US and its allies, and the emergence of new powers on the global stage, such as China. Rapid changes in military technology rendered territories and sovereignty of weak nations merely academic. Aggressive assaults on global pluralism converted international institutions such as the United Nations into instruments for achieving hegemony by the few over many. Emergence of regional economic and security bodies rendered old boundaries, markets and military structures obsolete. The world became a confederation of groups, with one or two, such as NATO and EU asserting their world view as global standards. Value systems, economic production and distribution on a global scale and security issues came to be defined by the strong and the rich. The weak and poor nations suffered as they must, while the rich and powerful did as they willed.

From the late 1970s, militant governments and groups began to challenge US role in the global order. Flashpoints such as Israel, oil and gas supplies from the middle east, and rising frustrations among millions in Muslim countries began to create tensions and hostility between the US and its allies (the West) on the one hand, and the Muslim world on the other. The collapse of the bi-polar global structure and the vulnerability of international organizations such as the United Nations to manipulation by strong nations, particularly NATO countries which robbed them of capacities to mediate relations, and set basic, legal benchmarks for conduct, heightened and prolonged many crises which could have been more easily contained or solved in the older system. The US emerged as the enforcer of a world order in which territorial integrity and sovereignty of other nations became virtually irrelevant to the degree that they threatened vital and strategic interests of the US and its allies. These interests were extensive and profound, and every world citizen was part of the strategy for achieving them, or subverting them.

As the US and its allies became targets of weaker nations and groups that espoused different value systems, the world became one massive battle front. The West improved its military technology to ensure that every inch of the globe is within striking reach; created alliances and reinforced relationships to enforce regional compliance with its interests, and transformed international institutions and re-wrote international laws, conventions and protocols in a way that allowed it to act as it wished at the global stage. After the 9/11 attacks, the US government introduced its most drastic legislation against its own citizens, inhibiting their basic rights for what it saw as a prelude to an effective fight against global terror.

The world duly took notice. The fight against terror provided the excuse for near total US and allies’ dominance and action at every nook and cranny of the globe. It gave the cover for the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. It was the reason for the ouster and murder of Ghaddafi. It was the motivation behind the establishment of the US African High Command (AFRICOM); the determination to stop Iran developing a nuclear capability, and the radical improvements in military technology and deployments such as the drone, spy satellites, military bases in far-flung territories, and the aggressive subversion of regional organizations which could resist the muscle of the West.

The new frontier in the fight against terror is the Sahel and the Maghreb. Decades of local grievances, a hostile and difficult terrain which gave cover for large scale crimes of trafficking in humans, drugs, small arms and militant ideas and tendencies combined with the spreading influence of militant Islamic groups to threaten fragile democracies like Mali; large nations with perennially corrupt governments like Nigeria; and Muslim nations with decades of history of repression against citizens like Algeria.

It is an indicator of the failure of regional organizations like ECOWAS and the dominance of the US and its NATO allies, that the assault on the threat in Mali and the Sahel is being spearheaded by France. Two decades ago, Nigeria successfully led the resistance against rebels in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Now ECOWAS countries are foot soldiers behind France’s blitz into Mali, and its allies are lending technical support and intelligence, while African troops and nations will be used to legitimize its involvement. The US alone will be spending about $95m in Mali. Members of the African Union and their friends (the West) just raised over $400m in support of the Mali campaign.

You have to ask what are the short and long term strategic interests of France, US and NATO in Mali. The short-term goal has virtually been accomplished. Most of northern Mali has been cleared of rebels. Is France likely to maintain a presence in northern Mali, and for how long? If African nations take over security and the fight against the possible resurgence of rebel activities in the north, what will be their mandate? Are there plans against possible emergence of hostile groups in Mauritania, southern Algeria, northern Niger and even other parts of northern Mali?

It is quite probable that the thinking in the US, France and NATO is that they should have an extensive and prolonged presence in the entire Sahel. This will explain the plans by the US government to deploy bases for use by drone aircraft, which, reports say, have been approved by the government of Niger. Drones are relatively easy to deploy, serve multiple purposes, and can be used to obviate mundane concerns such as violations of territorial integrity and airspace. They are active in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and have been the single most unpopular symbol of US presence in the region. For every suspected life they took, they have taken ten innocent lives. The public hate them. Governments complain over them, but are powerless to stop them. They are popular with US government because they kill, maim and destroy foreign suspects without putting a single American life at risk. A single man can decide to direct a drone operation from the comfort of his chair in the US, and a wedding party or a gathering of young people will register casualties within a few hours in a country thousands of miles away.

If the government of Niger Republic is contemplating approving a request by the US government for bases for drones, it should be told very strongly by the Nigerian government that it should not approve it. Drones in Niger will heighten tensions in the entire region, and jeopardize relations in the ECOWAS subregion. It will endanger every citizen in the region. Nigerien citizens will resent it. What happens in Niger will affect Nigeria. US drones will threaten security of Niger, Nigeria and the entire West African sub-region. They must not be allowed in any country in Africa.  

If the government of Niger Republic has taken the decision to allow US drone activity from its soil, Nigerian government should take every step to show its displeasure. Niger cannot, and should not contemplate a souring of relations with Nigeria. If the Nigerian government has been consulted by the government of Niger Republic, and as expressed no objection to the stationing of US drones in Niger, Nigerians should condemn the action of our government. We have made many mistakes in the manner we reacted to the threats to our lives and our nation. Allowing US drones in Niger Republic will be one of the worst mistakes we will make.