The international media has continuously beamed its searchlight on Nigeria. It is not surprising. Even before Boko Haram began its terror campaign, there has never been a shortage of news coming out of the most populous black nation on earth. Indeed, Nigeria has attracted global attention due to its tempestuous socio-political history. From the violent political era of the 1960s to the three-year bloody civil war and a series of coups, counter-coups and sectarian violence that have claimed millions of lives, our country has attracted global media attention as honey would attract bees. As they say, in media parlance, bad news will always be good news.
And it will amount to living in denial not to acknowledge our country’s violent history. At the turn of the millennium, there has been renewed interest in the socio-political affairs of Nigeria by the international media and the global community. There are reasons for this: Nigeria is an important country in Africa, our (dwindling and mismanaged) oil wealth, population and size have brought us global attention. The coming of democracy has also brought violent elections and sectarian violence, extreme poverty and massive corruption.
Both the local and international media have been there to report the Nigerian conundrum. But the emergence of Boko Haram has changed the equation. As the group intensified its reign of terror in the north east, its six-year brutality has put Nigeria on the global radar. The kidnap of the Chibok girls in April 2014 saw an upsurge in international media attention on Nigeria. While the sect’s brutal campaign has caught the attention of the world, the lacklustre response of the government to insecurity occasioned by Boko Haram and other sectarian violence has made the government a subject of ridicule at home and abroad. The perception that the Nigerian government has been incompetent in addressing insecurity and corruption is known to Nigerians. The international media reports are therefore a reflection of these perceptions.
Another widely held opinion among Nigerians is how the incompetence of the military and allegations of corruption are variously cited as the reason why soldiers lack the morale and equipment to prosecute the war against Boko Haram. For example, it is an open secret that Nigerian soldiers are badly kitted with inferior fire power and poorly motivated to confront the insurgents. Even the media in Nigeria has reported how soldiers have fled to neighbouring countries during confrontations with insurgents. We do not need any investigative journalist from the CNN or Al Jazeera to report what we already know. Even when they do, they only help to globalise the fact we are all familiar with.
What beats me is why the Nigerian Army is angry that the international media exposes to the world what is already an open truth. Do they think that Nigerians or the international media are not aware of the present state of our military? Has even the Nigerian media not reported the dilapidated state of the military institution? This is why I find it strange when the military authorities took offence at the report by the CNN last week. For those who are not aware, the CNN correspondent, Nic Robertson, travelled to Northern Nigeria to cover the Boko Haram insurgency. In the report, he interviewed someone who claimed to be a Nigerian soldier and also investigated the plight of orphans whose parents have been killed by Boko Haram. Readers of this column will recall that I had also done a piece about my encounter with children orphaned by Boko Haram recently. It is not that the issues addressed by the CNN are new.
Reporting from Jos, the Plateau State capital, he interviewed an anonymous Nigerian soldier who spoke candidly about the pains and frustrations of Nigerian soldiers at the frontline. In the interview, he said soldiers are made to pay hospital bills for injuries sustained in the battlefield. He also revealed the lack of battle gears, poor remuneration and lack of superior weapons to fight Boko Haram. The soldier spoke of how difficult it is to identify colleagues because of different shades of uniform worn by our military.
He said that, though, fighting for his country is a call to duty, in the battle with Boko Haram, Nigerian soldiers are sent to commit suicide for lack of superior fire power. The interview by the CNN has provoked outrage by the Nigerian military. A Nigerian military has labelled the CNN as “satanic” (whatever that means). I find the military response disingenuous coming from a professional institution. What does being “satanic” mean? The choice of word is pedestrian and unfortunate. What I had expected was for the military to either ignore the interview or refute the allegations with facts. But I am not surprised, in recent times, the Nigerian Army has been behaving like a political party.
Every response it makes to criticism has been to attack the messenger rather than respond to the message. When Amnesty International called the Nigerian military’s attention to human rights violations in its fight against Boko Haram, it ignored the facts. In response, it hurled vituperation at the body, branding the report political. When the Human Rights Watch exposed extrajudicial killings by our armed forces, the authorities accused it of witch-hunt. During the Baga massacre in the first week of January, the Nigerian military’s response to the killings was suspect. The same thing has always been the case in the fight against Boko Haram. For example, the military has claimed many times that Abubakar Shekau had died. It turned out to be false. The military had once also claimed it knew where the Chibok girls are located. It turned out to be a hoax.
Sequel to the recent Baga massacre, the Nigerian military put the figures of the dead at 150 even in the face of satellite images that revealed the extent of destruction. The military did not give any empirical facts about its findings. How does the military expect the world to believe or take it seriously? Now, the same narrative has been playing out with the CNN report on the state of the Nigerian military. Did the soldier interviewed by the CNN lie about the welfare of soldiers?
Why in recent months have soldiers been reportedly running away from the battlefront? Why have their wives protested their welfare? Why have there been countless trials for mutiny? It is true that the military may feel hurt by these allegations. But the truth must be told. The media is only doing its job. The Nigerian military must ask itself hard questions. It does not exist in isolation. Rather than engage in propaganda, it has become imperative for the military to address all the issues. Boko Haram insurgents are not ghosts.
How have they defied the military said to have gulped trillions of budgetary allocation? Rather than become defensive, the military must address the allegations. Are wounded soldiers made to pay for hospital bills for injuries sustained at the warfront? Do soldiers wear different shades of uniform? Are they made to pay for uniforms? Is it true that insurgents are better armed when defence has grossed substantial parts of budgetary allocations in the last six years? Is corruption responsible for lack of military hardware? These are questions the Nigerian military must provide answers to instead of castigating the CNN for doing its job.
Source; CNN
No comments:
Post a Comment