Although Nigerian government officials have denied any diplomatic ruckus, a babel of angry and dissenting voices trailed the recent visit by John Kerry, the United States Secretary of State to Nigeria, with Rev. Supo Ayokunle, President of the Christian Association of Nigerian (CAN), accusing Kerry of disrespecting the heterogeneous nature of Nigeria and showing monumental discourtesy in favoring northern Muslims, to the detriment of the Christian community. During the two-day trip, Kerry met with President Buhari, and visited the Sultan of Sokoto, Sa’ad Abubakar III, in his palace, before meeting with the 19 northern governors. He did not meet with any southern Christians. By this act of self-vilification; Kerry committed a diplomatic blunder to the point of impudence.
The utterly reckless behavior of America’s top diplomat has reopened religious fault lines in Nigeria between the Muslim north and the Christian south and Secretary Kerry has come under fire for acting as cannon fodder to what is widely perceived as the current administration’s “Islamization” of Nigeria. CAN in a strongly-worded statement, said Kerry’s visit was divisive and it sent the wrong message to Nigerian Christians, who are under siege as the government has remained indifferent to repeated attacks on Christians who have been slaughtered as they worship; and churches razed by the murderous Islamist terrorist sect, Boko Haram.
“Kerry’s actions speak volume. His actions and body language were very divisive. Why did he meet with 19 northern state governors, without southern governors? Is Nigeria north alone? Why did he go to the north alone? If the US Secretary of State is coming for an official visit, it is understandable. But we demand an explanation on why he was selective. Has the Sultan’s palace become another State House? Was Kerry invited by the Sultan? We have 36 states in Nigeria. He only selected northern governors. It was a visit to the north, not to Nigeria. It was surely a very divisive visit. With it, Kerry has heightened fear and tension among Christians in the country. If they cannot bring us together, they should not interfere in our affairs,” the statement read in part.
In the statement, CAN accused Kerry of tacitly endorsing the sinister agenda of the current Muslim-led administration to persecute Nigerian Christians, saying Kerry’s actions vindicate and reinforce public perception that Obama administration officials openly supported the main opposition All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 2015 general elections. On his third visit to Nigeria in less than two years, Kerry faced a diplomatic dilemma: how, exactly, should the top US diplomat handle an important regional partner whose security forces have been accused by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch of excessive force and extra-judicial killings of suspected insurgents, hundreds of Shiite Muslims and pro-Biafra protestors? It was a tight diplomatic rope to walk, but Kerry made a bad situation worse.
The flap came down after Kerry failed to publicly condemn the killings of Christians in northern Nigeria; and he made not even a passing reference to the incident involving Muslim youths who burnt down a Catholic Church in Niger State because they were worshiping on Friday. And come to think of it: Kerry arrived Nigeria a day after police reported that a Muslim mob in northern Nigeria killed eight people after torching the house of a Muslim man who stood up for a Christian student accused of blasphemy.
As if that was not enough provocation, Kerry adopted the “un-American” posture of refusing to speak to the State House press corps after his bilateral meeting with President Buhari and also shun the press after his meetings with the 19 Northern governors. It would be recalled that the official information released by the Information Office of the US Embassy in Nigeria had confirmed that Kerry would meet with Buhari, and would also deliver a speech on countering violent extremism. The information did not state that Kerry would deliver his address only to the 19 northern governors.
During the visit, Kerry congratulated Nigeria on its recent military successes against Boko Haram, but warned the country will face a blowback if it “cracks down” on the Islamists with excessive force. Speaking at a press conference in the northern city of Sokoto, Kerry praised Nigeria for reclaiming swathes of territory from Boko Haram and releasing thousands of hostages over the past year. But Kerry cautioned against a heavy-handed response and emphasized respect for human rights. He appealed to Nigerians to practice equality and tolerance to “overcome deep-seated ethnic and religious divisions.” For someone who snubbed southern Christians, Kerry spoke from both sides of his mouth. His pontifications fell far short of acceptable diplomatic norms, and constituted interference in the internal affairs of Nigeria contrary to Article 41(1) of the Vienna Convention. They also do not promote friendly relations that are one of the functions of adroit diplomacy.
With renewed agitations for independence by the pro-Biafra activists and violent acts of sabotage by the Niger Delta Avengers, Kerry’s comments inadvertently cast doubt on the intention of the government and impugn its capability to handle the low-intensity conflicts in a manner deemed appropriate to Nigeria’s national interests. So, fundamentally, Nigerians, or just Muslims are the reason for the disrespect and disdain in which the country and southerners were treated. Building Nigeria is work in progress and far more citizens are sufficiently unhappy with the state of things to welcome and support any and every effort to this end – including from abroad.
A friendly country like the United States is rightly expected to help improve quality of governance in all aspects. However, this must be done within the bounds of reciprocal respect, with due sensitivity to the sovereignty of this country, and without adopting a teacher-on- responsible-management posture of John Kerry, given that American support for the fight against Boko Haram has been hamstrung by its own self-interest. As one of America’s most strategic regional partner, Nigeria has not gained anything, from the Obama administration because Obama never visited Nigeria. He visited Kenya and other African countries, but not Nigeria. All the promises he made to Nigeria have not been fulfilled, especially on the issue of combating terrorism, training the military on intelligence gathering, as well as finding the Chibok girls. Above all, the US has done nothing, helping resettle the internally displaced persons (IDPs) from the Boko Haram conflict. Rather, only the UNHRC has rendered any meaningful assistance. Besides, no one should conveniently forget that the US has impounded over $458 million in cash and assets of the Abacha loot, and has refused to return the money to Nigeria. Nations that allow, by acts of omission or commission, inflow of stolen money bear at least, moral liability for the crime.
The point must be made with all emphasis that every jurisdiction that respects international laws and conventions as well as seeks, in its very own interest, the economic stability of other nations, has a duty to avoid meddling into the internal affairs of other states. The Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs should watch more closely the manner in which representatives of foreign countries have lately gone about their assignments. Too many visits to persons and places for not-so-clearly-purposeful reasons, uncalled for utterances that make Nigeria look bad and its people look less than responsible; these are not acceptable and must stop. The institution to enforce this is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In so far as the ministry is “dedicated to the vigorous pursuit of the vital national interests” of this country, it can be reasonably construed that these interests necessarily include that Nigeria and its people are treated with respect within and outside its shores. Nigerians deserve a full explanation for the embarrassment caused by John Kerry’s undiplomatic visit to Nigeria.
