UN decries killings in Nigeria, sends envoy


Nigeria recalls ambassador to Libya

From Laolu Akande (New York), Isa Abdulsalami (Jos) and Oghogho Obayuwana (Abuja)
AMIDST recurring incidents of senseless killings in Nigeria, which the United Nations has already described as "a massacre," the world body's Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, has now dispatched a special envoy to the country to gather information on potential causes of genocide and help identify how the international community can prevent such a scourge in Nigeria.

The development comes as the country recalled its ambassador in Libya over comments by the country's leader, Muammar Gaddafi, that Nigeria be split into two.

The UN Secretary-General said the mandate given to the UN envoy is "to collect information on serious violations of human rights that could lead to genocide and to bring potential genocidal situations to the attention of the Security Council."

If the envoy determines that there is troubling information on the Jos crisis that may lead to genocide, the UN Security Council will then formally take up the Jos crisis as one of its concerns around the world, with possible severe international actions, including sanctions or the imposition of a UN force on the area.

On Wednesday, the world was shocked for the third time this year, by another round of killings in two Jos villages. The UN and the United States have spoken out against this, calling on the Federal Government to enforce the law and prevent further violence.

The sending of a special envoy by the UN to Nigeria is said to be part of the determination of the United Nations to begin to gather information in order to activate the UN General Assembly resolution on the UN's "Responsibility to Protect" mandate.

A UN statement earlier in the week said its envoy, who is the Special Adviser on the prevention of genocide, Mr. Francis Deng, is already in the West African region having arrived on Wednesday, March 17 and will from there be visiting Nigeria on how "to identify how national and sub-regional bodies can help prevent the scourge."

Apart from Nigeria, the envoy will also visit Guinea and Ghana, "where he will discuss his mandate with government officials, UN officials on the ground and representatives from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)."

Deng, a Sudanese scholar and advocate, was named to the post by Ban in 2007 "to collect information on serious violations of human rights that could lead to genocide and to bring potential genocidal situations to the attention of the Security Council."

World leaders started considering this UN mandate in 2005. Nigeria's President then, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, played an active role in the negotiations to mobilise support for such mandate so that the international community will not just sit by and see the abuse and violation of people's fundamental human rights by their governments.

Some opposing leaders from developing countries had expressed fear that the mandate would give developed countries a right to militarily invade developing nations under the guise of the UN's "responsibility to protect."

Up till the 2009 General Assembly summit of world leaders, the issue of the UN's Responsibility to Protect was still being debated as the Assembly adopted by consensus its first resolution on protection, agreeing to hold further discussions on the international understanding to intervene to stop atrocities in sovereign nations.

Ban had called on the UN General Assembly "to turn the promise of the responsibility to protect into practice."

The Responsibility to Protect principle was agreed to at a summit of world leaders in 2005. Also known as R2P', it holds states responsible for shielding their own populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and related crimes against humanity and requires the international community to step in if this obligation is not met.

After the adoption of the principle by consensus last year, Ban asked his Special Adviser, Edward Luck and Deng, to continue their wide-ranging consultations with member states, relevant departments and agencies, regional and sub-regional organisations, and civil society on the many implementation questions still outstanding.

"In all our efforts, we should be guided and united by the ultimate purpose of the responsibility to protect: to save lives by preventing the most egregious mass violations of human rights," Ban added.

However, in a related development, the Federal Government has recalled its Ambassador to Libya, Alhaji Isa Aliyu Mohammed, over comments made by that country's leader, Col. Muammar Gaddafi that the country be split.

In what suggests a diplomatic row, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said yesterday that the envoy is being recalled for consultations. But Nigeria yesterday formally conveyed its "strong reservations and disappointment" on the recommendation by Gaddafi that Nigeria be divided into two.

Gaddafi had suggested on Tuesday that Nigeria be split into two for lasting peace and development to reign.

A Tuesday afternoon British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) bulletin quoted the Libyan Leader as saying in the country's state-owned news agency, Jana, that Nigeria should be divided into two nations to avoid further bloodshed between Moslems and Christians!

His speech, according to the BBC, was made to students. The former AU chairman extolled the example of India and Pakistan, where he said partition saved many lives.

"Splitting Nigeria would stop the bloodshed and burning of places of worship," state news agency Jana quoted him as saying. But already, the BBC has quoted a senior Nigerian diplomat as saying that he was not taking the suggestion seriously.

Meanwhile, a statement yesterday by the Secretary, Widows and Economic Empowerment Foundation, Ngufan Uku, said the ease with which the latest attacks took place, even with military and security personnel in strategic positions leaves Nigerians wondering if they were not officially sponsored.

"We need to be proved wrong with the apprehension and prosecution of the actors. Furthermore, we will not be tired of asking the questions:


How serious is the military Task Force established under the command of the GOC to ensure that peace returns to the state? Has the military been infiltrated and subsequently compromised? If it is, how do you sort out the enemy?

Who are we to trust of the same people we see in the uniform around us? That is, how real are the security agents around us? and

Under what auspices are the Fulani herdsmen operating?"
The statement called on all well-meaning Nigerians to demand an explanation from the Chief of Defence Staff why insecurity and banditry is growing by the day in Jos; "suspects are arrested and instead of prosecuting them as deterrent to any person contemplating on embarking on similar senseless mission, they are released and celebrated. Is the Chief of Defence incapacitated? If the state cannot protect lives and property, is it not a message to citizens to help themselves?"

According to the statement, since the military security task force can no longer be trusted, "should the military go and the people left to fend for themselves? The ugly truth is that the people can no longer rely on the government for basic amenities, good governance, true leadership, honesty and security any more. We have gone past the point of forming communities, bringing up theories while singing word of peace on the Plateau."

Also speaking yesterday, the Muslim Community in Jos has called on government and the security agencies to move further and protect all Moslems residing and carrying out legitimate businesses in the state.

A statement by the community's Head, Information and Media Committee, Muhammad Sani Mudi, said that the community is particularly interested in the safety of Moslem journalists from harassment and intimidation.

The statement added that Moslems now live in fear in their homes, on the streets and in their places of businesses. The statement described those arrested last Saturday as "innocent."

"We are equally appealing to the authorities to guarantee safety of travellers on the highways and protect them from wanton attacks. Similarly, those arrested, like the 42 innocent persons arrested last Saturday should be subjected to fair investigations, the outcome of which should be made public to remove any suspicion.

"While appealing for calm from all those who may have been affected, we urge that efforts should be intensified by the authorities to locate missing persons and identify the flash-points, provide adequate security and bring all those arrested in connection with these crimes to justice", the statement added.
http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/news/article01//indexn2_html?pdate=190310&ptitle=UN%20decries%20killings%20in%20Nigeria,%20sends%20envoy


Tools

And they keep telling us that we are not a failed state.

They should send troops to facilitate in the break up of this country - We cannot progress in our current form.

The 'Parasites' (Northern Nigeria) must be cut loose from the host (East,South and West Nigeria),

troops=amicable break-up

nigeria really needs to be divided moreso the aid of UN is required there should be imidiate action and not just talk talk talk people are dying !!!

i find it really interesting that the americans are so interested in the current killings going on in nigeria, what i want to know is this, why is it that they did nothing in rwanda where 1million tutsi's were slaughtered by hutu militias in a space of 100 days  - in fact their UN troops were specifically instructed to stand down and evacuate only expatriate nationals from the country, according to recently declassified national security archive documents on US foreign policy during the Rwanda crisis, america's position was described as follows:

"Despite overwhelming evidence of genocide and knowledge as to its perpetrators, United States officials decided against taking a leading role in confronting the slaughter in Rwanda.  Rather, US officials confined themselves to public statements, diplomatic demarches, initiatives for a ceasefire, and attempts to contact both the interim government perpetrating the killing and the RPF.  The US did use its influence, however, at the United Nations, but did so to discourage a robust UN response (Document 4 and Document 13).  In late July, however, with the evidence of genocide littering the ground in Rwanda, the US did launch substantial operations—again, in a supporting role—to assist humanitarian relief efforts for those displaced by the genocide."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/index.html

why did they again do nothing in liberia where dangerous thugs and militia were rampaging through liberian towns r.a.p.i.n.g, maiming and killing innocent civilians - again all they did there was to evacuate their own people and remain on standby by the seashore in their ships,

what is so special about nigeria (oil?) now that they want to intervene to prevent genocide, this so called talk of responsibility to protect (R2P) seems to only apply where america has long terms plans of occupying the country in question, or where they intend to topple a govt which is not on side with them - i cant see them intervening in order to facilitate the break up of nigeria for the good of the country, what would they benefit from such a situation?

Cap28 even when the UN are trying to do something, you still dey criticize. Next time, I think they should only act once your family and everyone you know is wiped out in Nigeria. That way your criticism will be justified.

The US do get things wrong, but to use that as a ruse and claim something sinister is going on is just flawed.

Now more of the world is seeing Nigeria for what it really is. Even the UN is trying to get involved now. And people still have the foolish idea of "One Nigeria." Delusional, clearly delusional people. It actually saddens me.

Thank God, the Igbo were wise enough to understand that this union would not work. I know Ojukwu is smiling right now. The millions of Igbos who were slaughtered voices still cry out. People actually, think their blood will be washed from this land.

O mighty God, destroy this wicked nation called Nigeria. In your name I pray, AMEN!

OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL. HOW MANY TIMES DID I CALL YOU?

SEE WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO NIGERIA.

The UN cant split Nigeria amicably but as Obasanjo suggested International military can be brought into Nigeria and keep peace and order. Like colonisers.

If anyone thinks that Nigeria will be split within a couple of years, and the United states and co . . . wont be in that whole region for atleast adecade controling everyone, Oil, Gas like they do in Iraq and Kuwait- he or she is very senseless.

How long have the UN been in Sudan?- 20 years
How long have Americans been controlling IRAQ? going on 10 years
How long have Americans been in kuwait? about 20 years

So if anything we will have colonial master who will control everything. through most likely Africom/UN which is indirectly controlled by America, with a puppet president (most likely IBB)

ElRazur:

Cap28 even when the UN are trying to do something, you still dey criticize. Next time, I think they should only act once your family and everyone you know is wiped out in Nigeria. That way your criticism will be justified.

The US do get things wrong, but to use that as a ruse and claim something sinister is going on is just flawed.

@El razur are you unhinged?  whatever negative thing you wish on me will bounce back on you and your family tenfold!!!!

do you have difficulty with comprehension?  did you read the link that i posted? did you understand it? The UN have a track record of DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN CRITICAL SITUATIONS IN AFRICA, i have quoted on of their own govt documents - a NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVED DOCUMENT which set out how the UN (america's) failed to intervene during the Rwandan crisis in 1994 , why is this such a problem for you to accept. I know you regard them as your gods but the truth is they couldnt give a Poo about us , get used to it!!!!

^^^ they wont even split naija sef they will control it .

So because of the mistakes in Rwanda(16 years ago), and many other mistakes of the PAST, the UN should continue to DO NOTHING then? The UN ought to continue sitting on the sidelines while more and more Africans get hacked to death in an age where pictures of these attrocities are transmitted into millions of households in seconds for people to see and cry out in outrage?

cap28:

@El razur are you unhinged?  whatever negative thing you wish on me will bounce back on you and your family tenfold!!!!

do you have difficulty with comprehension?  did you read the link that i posted? did you understand it? The UN have a track record of DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN CRITICAL SITUATIONS IN AFRICA, i have quoted on of their own govt documents - a NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVED DOCUMENT which set out how the UN (america's) failed to intervene during the Rwandan crisis in 1994 , why is this such a problem for you to accept. I know you regard them as your gods but the truth is they couldnt give a Poo about us , get used to it!!!!

I am not denying their bad record nor am I defending it. You have a point. However, that should not be a basis at this stage. I think it is a good thing they are even discussing it. Nigeria will be a bigger disaster if nothing is done

Apologies for my first post. That was necessary.

ElRazur:


I am not denying their bad record nor am I defending it. You have a point. However, that should not be a basis at this stage. I think it is a good thing they are even discussing it. Nigeria will be a bigger disaster if nothing is done

Apologies for my first post. That was necessary.

@apology accepted - what im trying to demonstrate is that they have a hidden agenda, if they didnt intervene in Rwanda where the situation was so critical why are they talking about intervention in nigeria now when things havent escalated to the Rwandan scale (god forbid that happening).  If you want to understand a country's  foreign policy you should always look at their past activities in similar situations, the UN is a toothless bulldog which is controlled by the US govt, it uses its veto power to block or derail any position that it doesnt agree with usually in a very undemocratic manner.  all im saying is we should not be fooled into taking what america says on face value - there is a hidden agenda at play here.

Wow this is really  coincidentall, I think it was on nairaland that I was reading a thread about UN and American soldiers preparing for the possible break up in Nigeriaa, I s this realy coming to passs?,

cap28:

@apology accepted - what im trying to demonstrate is that they have a hidden agenda, if they didnt intervene in Rwanda where the situation was so critical why are they talking about intervention in nigeria now when things havent escalated to the Rwandan scale (god forbid that happening).  If you want to understand a country's  foreign policy you should always look at their past activities in similar situations, the UN is a toothless bulldog which is controlled by the US govt, it uses its veto power to block or derail any position that it doesnt agree with usually in a very undemocratic manner.  all im saying is we should not be fooled into taking what america says on face value - there is a hidden agenda at play here.

There really isn't a hidden agenda, if memory serves me right, the Rwanda case was more or less a case of mismanagement and displaced priorities with countries like France, Belgium et al playing a part.

I think, they are trying to make sure the issue is discussed early and any necessary provisional plan is made. If they started acting when things are too late, it may not be a good idea.

As for veto powers, other nations - in fact all the 5 permanent members of the Security council are guilty of using there power to veto and over-ride votes. So, it isn't exclusive to US alone.

Deep suspicion is only what you have, it is not a good enough reason in my opinion.

[size=13pt]US State Department denies preparing troops to intervene in Nigeria [/size]

Mar 20, 2010 (BBC Monitoring via COMTEX) -- The US State Department has flatly denied a newspaper report that alleged President Barrack Obama is preparing American troops for a "special intervention" in Nigeria.

In a statement issued by the State Department, it said "we have done nothing to suggest that our concerns are only based on our desire to retain it as a source of dependable oil production."

Making reference to the said publication, the State Department press officer of African Affairs, Russel Brooks, added: "The Nigerian Compass newspaper says it bases its story on comments by the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) chief, General William Ward.

"The compass says Mr Obama would send troops to Nigeria if the country broke up and widespread chaos threatened oil production."

But Brooks described the story "In a word, flabbergasted. This story is a complete fabrication.

"There are no US troops being prepared to intervene in Nigeria. We have checked with AFRICOM and General Ward has made no such statement," he said.

Brooks said had the Compass reporter checked his facts, "he would have learned that, in fact, there are no troops assigned to AFRICOM for them to put on alert."

The press officer said the "fabrication, is made up from speculation about concerns that the US may have about the situation in Nigeria."


[size=13pt]On the record[/size]

The United States has publicly addressed its concerns about Nigeria’s political situation and the recent violence in and around Jos.

“Yes, the U.S. does have legitimate concerns about the political situation there.  And we have expressed those on the record.  And we are doing what we can to encourage Nigeria to remain on a democratic path, to retain its constitutional values.  And we have done nothing to suggest that our concerns are only based on our desire to retain it as a source of dependable oil production or that we are only concerned about the potential for terrorism coming from Nigeria,” he says.

Russell says the United States is concerned that the creation of AFRICOM will be misinterpreted as an attempt to “bring the war on terrorism to the African continent, so the U.S. could more easily intervene into conflicts.”

Instead, he says, AFRICOM aims to “increase the capacity of African militaries to conduct legitimate external and internal defense, for instance, to combat terrorism, to protect…borders, to respond in a case of humanitarian disasters.”

The U.S. has not contacted Acting President Goodluck Jonathan about the Nigerian Compass report.

“At this stage, I would not believe that is necessary.  We have frequent contact with Nigerian government….  If they were to believe there was any basis, I’m sure they would contact the appropriate individuals and ascertain the truth of the matter,” he says.

Brooks says he wants to reassure average Nigerians, who don’t have ready access to U.S. officials.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/africa/decapua-nigeria-us-19mar10-88600407.html

topic- https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-416547.0.html

Kobojunkie:

So because of the mistakes in Rwanda(16 years ago), and many other mistakes of the PAST, the UN should continue to DO NOTHING then? The UN ought to continue sitting on the sidelines while more and more Africans get hacked to death in an age where pictures of these attrocities are transmitted into millions of households in seconds for people to see and cry out in outrage?

@kobojunkie of course not - but the question here is why is it that they pick and choose when to intervene, i used Rwanda as an example because it was such an extreme case - innocent men women and children were being massacred in full view of UN troops and yet they stood by and watched as they were under instructions by their respective govts not to intervene, it was only 3 months after 1 million innocent people had been brutally massacred -some even killed inside churches that the UN reluctantly sent 5,000 troops - compare that to the number of troops that they sent to wage war in  Iraq,  which as at nov 2009 was  115,000.  what im saying is that the US picks and chooses when it feels it should intervene and this is usually only when they have economic interests to protect, based on their previous track record in other african countries i cant see them intervening in order to stop mass killings of innocent civilians in nigeria , therefore i think we as a nation need to prevent the shedding of innocent blood as much as possible.

cap28:

@kobojunkie of course not - but the question here is why is it that they pick and choose when to intervene, i used Rwanda as an example because it was such an extreme case - innocent men women and children were being massacred in full view of UN troops and yet they stood by and watched as they were under instructions by their respective govts not to intervene, it was only 3 months after 1 million innocent people had been brutally massacred -some even killed inside churches that the UN reluctantly sent 5,000 troops - compare that to the number of troops that they sent to wage war in  Iraq,  which as at nov 2009 was  115,000.

I don’t think the question you are asking here is a valid one considering you are of the knowledge that the UN is comprised of different bodies that VOTE on most every mission/issue. That the UN voted against going into Rwanda 16 years ago, and allowed the massacre of hundreds of thousands as a result is no valid reason to state it should not DO BETTER by learning from those mistakes.  The war in Iraq did not happen in 1994, it happened AFTER THE MISTAKES of the past were made.  Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US made serious mistakes and has worked to correct those mistakes in the last couple of months. Remember sudan? Remember all the mistakes made by GOING IN to some of the volatile areas in Africa.

 

cap28:

what im saying is that the US picks and chooses when it feels it should intervene and this is usually only when they have economic interests to protect, based on their previous track record in other african countries i cant see them intervening in order to stop mass killings of innocent civilians in nigeria , therefore i think we as a nation need to prevent the shedding of innocent blood as much as possible. 

The US of course WILL pick and choose where it will go. It will assess the situation BEFORE it decides to move. I actually expected you would ask something along the lines of why the US or even the UN didn’t choose to come in to the JOS issue BEFORE this more recent one. I mean we have witnessed the killing of hundreds so many times before now. Why aren’t you asking why now? I suspect you probably have guessed it is likely that the UN believes it is probably time it intervened.

You speak of track records, what is our own track record? Has our track record shown we even care to prevent these killings let alone protect our own territory?  I say again, we sat by watching the nation dragged in the mud by OUR OWN LEADERS for decades; no talk of track records. Now we suddenly want to speak of track records when we have an appalling one to show the world? Give me a break please!

We don't need any fuking troops, what we need is for them to fish out all the criminals stealing our money (keeping these monies in their various countries), they should make their names public, bring them to book and then help with fishing out more who are in the habit of money laundry, try them in their various countries and make sure they serve their sentences there.

These helps are needed if they truly have the interest of this country at heart.

honeric01:

We don't need any fuking troops, what we need is for them to fish out all the criminals stealing our money (keeping these monies in their various countries), they should make their names public, bring them to book and then help with fishing out more who are in the habit of money laundry, trial them in their various countries and make sure they serve their sentences there.

These helps are needed if they truly have the interest of this country at heart.

, And the many times you have been presented with lists, what we have done with those on the list? OfCourse they know of how we give chieftancy titles and political positions to these people after the fact. Why should they suddenly take it upon themselves to prosecute OUR criminals for us?

Kobojunkie:

,  And the many times you have been presented with lists, what we have done with those on the list? OfCourse they know of how we give chieftancy titles and political positions to these people after the fact. Why should they suddenly take it upon themselves to prosecute OUR criminals for us?

Because they gain from the loots, i said there should be a trial of all these criminals in their host countries, they have their list, they know them. UK, US are the major countries I'm talking about. alot of Nigerian criminals send money there, but how many of them have you seen the US/UK government expose? be sincere with yourself, how many have you seen? have you seen any of them trialed for money laundry?

honeric01:

Because they gain from the loots, i said there should be a trial of all these criminals in their host countries, they have their list, they know them. UK, US are the major countries I'm talking about. alot of Nigerian criminals send money there, but how many of them have you seen the US/UK government expose? be sincere with yourself, how many have you seen? have you seen any of them trialed for money laundry?

So you believe it is ok for you to steal from someone in Nigeria, Get a chieftancy title as a result, run abroad and have the law catch you and try you in the foreign country for stealing money that is in no way linked to the country you ran to? I mean where are the records of the crime? Abroad or in Nigeria? If the Nigerian system is NOT WILLING TO TRY YOU, or release these records for a trial, how can you be fairly tried? Did you think this one through? HUH!!!

A few Nigerians are wanted here for money laundering and other related charges. Can't remember their names. . .

ElRazur:

A few Nigerians are wanted here for money laundering and other related charges. Can't remember their names. . .

Thank you but what did they do to these accounts?

Kobojunkie:

So you believe it is ok for you to steal from someone in Nigeria, Get a chieftancy title as a result, run abroad and have the law catch you and try you in the foreign country for stealing money that is in no way linked to the country you ran to? I mean where are the records of the crime? Abroad or in Nigeria? If the Nigerian system is NOT WILLING TO TRY YOU, or release these records for a trial, how can you be fairly tried? Did you think this one through? HUH!!!

Typical Kobo, how many cases have you seen them raised? remember the Ibori case? alot of them like that, money laundry case is not limited by law to the primary country, the secondary countries have every right to try anyone suspected to be lauding money which is not hard to get. IBB and co whine and dine with these host countries and huge evidence of corruption against them both from home and abroad, what has been done to them?

How much lauded monies has the US/UK ever returned to Nigeria since you've been alive?

I cant remember the exact name, but in this case the properties where taken and account frozen. Also a big cheque was returned back to Nigeria. What more do you want? Oh proof? Here are a few example:

Money stolen by Abacha returned:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3244092.stm

Here is another one with UK returning 40 million pounds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7484022.stm

What is your point again?

honeric01:

Thank you but what did they do to these accounts?
Typical Kobo, how many cases have you seen them raised? remember the Ibori case? alot of them like that, money laundry case is not limited by law to the primary country, the secondary countries have every right to try anyone suspected to be lauding money which is not hard to get. IBB and co whine and dine with these host countries and huge evidence of corruption against them both from home and abroad, what has been done to them?
How much lauded monies has the US/UK ever returned to Nigeria since you've been alive?

Sigh!  Ibori was manipulated by Nigerian authorities and that was the reason why he was tried for corruption in the UK, and his assets IN the UK frozen as a result. The UK could not OVERNIGHT decide it wanted to target Ibori without evidence and most of that evidence came from where? NIGERIAN AUTHORITIES. Was IBB manipulated by Nigerian authorities? We know Abacha was but has EFCC or any other authority in Nigeria done the same with IBB? There are LAWS even across borders that need to be respected. A Trial can only proceed IF and ONLY if there is EVIDENCE presented to show there is a case. If NO EVIDENCE is made available by the necessary authorities, how can you TRY these looters?  

There are currently thousands of ordinary Nigerians living here in the US who are defrauding the Nigerian people.  Many of these people are GHOST WORKERS in many sectors of government in Nigeria. There checks come to them FROM within government and their existence is well known and celebrated. Why or How do you expect authorities out here to prosecute them for these crimes if the Nigerian system does not seem to consider them criminals? What exactly is the FBI or CIA or any other group going to do? Just walk up to these individuals and say we suspected you are involved in Fraud, and even though Nigeria is not really interested in prosecuting you or providing us evidence that we can use, we will do it anyway just cause we can? Can we start being objective for once?

Where is Honerico1?

Kobojunkie:

I don’t think the question you are asking here is a valid one considering you are of the knowledge that the UN is comprised of different bodies that VOTE on most every mission/issue. That the UN voted against going into Rwanda 16 years ago, and allowed the massacre of hundreds of thousands as a result is no valid reason to state it should not DO BETTER by learning from those mistakes.  The war in Iraq did not happen in 1994, it happened AFTER THE MISTAKES of the past were made.  Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US made serious mistakes and has worked to correct those mistakes in the last couple of months. Remember sudan? Remember all the mistakes made by GOING IN to some of the volatile areas in Africa.

i see that you are more than happy to give a nation who has never shown that it can be trusted, the benefit of the doubt, why is that?  maybe you need to check up on america's foreign policy in latin america and the rest of africa and then you will awake from your complacency.  the mistake you make is that you think that the failure to act on the part of the americans in the rwandan case was a mistake ie done unwittingly, in other words that the intention was honourable but due to poor judgement they failed to act, you are wrong - their failure to act was DELIBERATE, the americans are not s.t.u.p.i.d they know exactly what they are doing, every decision they make is carefully thought through it is not some spur of the moment act - they always look at the bigger picture and what is in it for them.  all those examples you used are incorrect - america's involvement in sudan was a carefully orchestrated policy to weaken the predominantly muslim north in favour of the south, why? because the north refused to play ball over the oil reserves and uranium but instead chose to trade with china, america then began to foment uprisings all over the country in order to destablisise the entire country and scupper china's trade arrangements with sudan.  

also despite the fact that five other countries are members of the security council with veto powers the US STILL dictates what goes, remember how they unilaterally refused to abide by the UN resolution which stipulated that they should not launch a preemptive strike against iraq?  did they abide by it? does that not tell you that they are a law unto themselves and are not bound by international treaties?  

 The US of course WILL pick and choose where it will go. It will assess the situation BEFORE it decides to move. I actually expected you would ask something along the lines of why the US or even the UN didn’t choose to come in to the JOS issue BEFORE this more recent one. I mean we have witnessed the killing of hundreds so many times before now. Why aren’t you asking why now? I suspect you probably have guessed it is likely that the UN believes it is probably time it intervened.

no i didnt ask that question because i already know the answer - they see no reason to involve themselves in conflicts which do not adversely affect their economic interests, they will intervene however if the violence spreads south and starts to affect the niger delta area, remember how concerned they were when MEND started sabotaging the oil installations in the delta region, at the height of this period a barrell of crude oil was going for $152 and the americans and british were going crazy, they desperately needed those MEND boys to be stopped in their tracks hence their increase in arms supplies to the nigerian govt with instructions to crush MEND during this period.  

You speak of track records, what is our own track record? Has our track record shown we even care to prevent these killings let alone protect our own territory?  I say again, we sat by watching the nation dragged in the mud by OUR OWN LEADERS for decades; no talk of track records. Now we suddenly want to speak of track records when we have an appalling one to show the world? Give me a break please!

you are right in saying that as a people we have done nothing, but i think you are unfair in your condemnation of nigerians, i hope you are aware of what the nigerian masses are up against - one of the most brutal and repressive regimes you will ever come across which is armed and supported by britain, the US and Israel.  for the nigerian populace to defeat this formidable opponent we need to overcome our ethnic differences and understand that we have a common enemy, then we can organise and face our common enemy - it took the north vietnamese even with backing from russia, north korea and china among others -16 years to defeat their imperialist aggressors and they lost 3 million people in the process, war is never an easy prospect.

cap28:


you are right in saying that as a people we have done nothing, but i think you are unfair in your condemnation of nigerians, [size=13pt]i hope you are aware of what the nigerian masses are up against - one of the most brutal and repressive regimes you will ever come across which is armed and supported by britain, the US and Israel[/size].  for the nigerian populace to defeat this formidable opponent we need to overcome our ethnic differences and understand that we have a common enemy, then we can organise and face our common enemy - it took the north vietnamese even with backing from russia, north korea and china among others -16 years to defeat their imperialist aggressors and they lost 3 million people in the process, war is never an easy prospect.

I had to sift through all YOU have created there for yourself to the bit above. What regime do you speak of? Yar adua? Jonathan? What FORMIDABLE opponent? The weak government we have now is FORMIDDABLE? Is Jonathan part of this FORMIDABLE government cause I heard he dissolved cabinet and the country did not collapse. Note: We used that EXCUSE during millitary rule, and it did not work for us. You still use it even when we have a frail/near death old man as president ?

Kobojunkie:

I had to sift through all YOU have created there for yourself to the bit above. What regime do you speak of? Yar adua? Jonathan? What FORMIDABLE opponent? The weak government we have now is FORMIDDABLE? Is Jonathan part of this FORMIDABLE government cause I heard he dissolved cabinet and the country did not collapse. Note: We used that EXCUSE during millitary rule, and it did not work for us. You still use it even when we have a frail/near death old man as president ?

are we talking about the same govt?  when we had the uprisings in the niger delta - did yaradua or jonathan go out personally to speak to the niger delta militants, didnt yarauda send troops to crush these people, what planet are you on, arent you aware that the nigerian military is an arm of the nigerian govt, who is sent to clamp down on dissident groups? do politicians go out to engage in talks with dissidents. 

go and ask the people of odi what happened to them when they started protesting - did obasanjo go out to meet with them personally and engage in dialogue.