There is a tendency for high-ranking former government officials
traveling around the world as honored and highly paid guests to
give simple solutions to complex problems. Former President Bill
Clinton recently stunned politicians and journalists in Nigeria by
stating that the terrorism problems in the north of that country
could be overcome by the government investing more in developing
agriculture in that region.
Clinton’s intent clearly was to suggest that the Islamist groups
such as Boko Haram were not terrorizing the northern
Nigerian communities for religious reasons. He went on to state
that Nigeria’s violence may appear to be rooted in religious
differences, “…but the truth is the poverty rate in the North is
three times what it is in Lagos” — as if that explained
everything.
The suggestion that Lagos, the historical commercial and banking
center, was disproportionately better off than the rest of the
country — particularly the traditionally impoverished North — was
as irrelevant as comparing the richness of the Nile River valley
from Cairo to Alexandria to the rest of a vast and mostly barren
Egypt, and then blaming that on the Egyptian government.
Clinton must have known that his statement was a direct attack
on Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan who had earlier responded
sharply to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour when she suggested poverty and
corruption were behind the rise in Nigerian terrorism. President
Jonathan had vigorously replied that Boko Haram was “definitely not
a result of poverty.…Boko Haram is a local terrorist group.”
The Associated Press chose to ignore the implied challenge to
President Jonathan while emphasizing Bill Clinton’s insistence that
the murder of innocents, bombing of public buildings, and numerous
kidnappings can only be stopped “in the nation’s predominantly
Muslim North” by alleviating the widespread poverty. Clinton’s
simplistic solution called for greater cooperation between local,
state, and federal governments — a more equitable division of the
profits from Nigeria’s substantial petroleum resources — and a
greater emphasis on rural development projects. Of course, none of
these steps could find disagreement. In fact these are the themes
of every political campaign at all levels in Nigeria, and have been
for years.
The inequities between the development in the North and South
Nigeria have existed since even before the beginning of British
colonial rule in West Africa. The religious divide of Moslems in
the north and Christian/animist in the south tended to mirror the
fertility of the tropical and moderate climates of the south and
central regions and the parched savannah to desert areas of the
north. During colonial days — if Clinton had cared to find out —
the Royal West African Frontier Force was strongly tilted among
their Nigerian units toward northern Moslem recruiting. The Hausa
and Fulani tribal communities of Moslems appeared to the British as
more amenable to military organization. A tough people from a tough
land. That contemporary anti-government, anti-Christian
organization centers about the northern provinces is hardly a
surprise.
The question exists as to why former President Clinton would go
to the trouble to ignore historical lessons while doling out his
not-so-free advice to his host government. The answer appears to be
linked to the Obama Administration’s desire to seek explanations of
Islamist terrorist behavior as not linked to ethno-religious
beliefs. While such a theme may have an arguable validity within
the Islamic community residing in the U.S. or Europe, it is clearly
not the case in the Middle East or Africa.
As Prof. Bernard Lewis and other scholars of Islam have written,
the Muslim world has never forgotten that it was once the greatest
military power on earth. For the adherents of Islam this is a
memory for many of them along with a longing for the return of the
caliphate and shariah law. This objective continues to be the
principal driving force behind Islamic terrorism that many Muslims
view in contemporary terms as “justified” military action. Wishing
this matter were not so, as Clinton and Obama appear to desire to
do, just does not change the facts of history.
Bill Clinton, with his own history of moral and ethical
shortcomings, too numerous to list, has the potential of creating
considerable trouble around the world where he has found many
politically active billionaires eager to host the Clinton traveling
circus. Perhaps Bill is preparing the way for his wife’s second run
for the American presidency. Perhaps he just enjoys the applause
and money. Whatever the reason, he would do well to put extra
effort into hiring more knowledgeable researchers before he makes
his pronouncements on foreign affairs.
Nigeria always has had trouble with using its oil wealth to
launch itself as a nation beyond the collection of privileged
tribal interests that have for centuries controlled life in that
part of West Africa. Buying, selling and renting political and
business favors are a way of life — not unlike many other areas
around the globe. That’s how former-president Clinton received his
invitation to come to Nigeria in the first place. Yes, some could
refer to this vast African nation as “corrupt.” But what other
nation or its representative wants to “throw the first
stone”? Certainly it should not have been William Jefferson
Clinton!
