MY QUESTIONS, DOUBTS AND RESERVATIONS ON FG AND BH CEASEFIRE DEAL. Can BH make good negotiating partners? Can BH be willing to compromise their ideological stand? From Shekau’s videos, one can say BH is a nihilistic terrorists group, who have absolute or even apocalyptic goals (often religiously inspired) and for whom violence has become a perverted form of self-realization. Shekau in his videos emphasised the achievement of his goals through the utility of violence. It is difficult to reach a lasting compromise with an ideologically driven terrorist group unless the struggle is also politically motivated. The question is, will BH be ready to change their conviction on “Jihad” or sift grounds? What is the level of BH’s internal cohesion? Although BH tend to portray themselves as belonging to tightly knit outfits, the conditions under which they operate -- in particular, secrecy -- make it nearly impossible for them to maintain a perfect chain of command. As a result, one of the difficulty is not whether BH leadership accepted the terms of a settlement but also whether it can control its rank and file. It is obvious that this difficulty can be seen from attacks on villages in southern Borno after the announcement of the ceasefire. Who is sponsoring BH? Another additional difficulties to a lasting and result oriented ceasefire arises when BH are sponsored, in which case they may have little authority to make commitments without their backers consent. Was BH on the verge of giving up or at a strategic juncture: questioning the utility of violence before the ceasefire talks? For lasting ceasefire, BH must be in a state of contemplating the utility of violence as an instrument to further their cause. A man that does not see the possibility of losing a struggle will not honour any deal reached from any peace negotiations. On the other hand the BATTLES for Konduga cast some doubts as to whether giving up is another clear- cut condition for successful talks because BH seems to be accustomed to continued, substantial personal sacrifice, and when threatened with defeat, some of them might decide to further escalate the violence, wagering that they have little to lose from one last push. Did BH declare any cease fire through any public media? My fears to the credibility of the ceasefire is the silence on the side of BH. As a litmus test of the ceasefire BH should declare a permanent cessation of violence, this will build trust that negotiations were meaningful. Declaration of permanent cease-fire represent a commitment to a deal which BH can be held and for whose breach they can be sanctioned. If there is a ceasefire, will both party keep to the terms of the ceasefire? Principally, BH will seek concession for the release of their top men in government custodies vis-a-vis the release of innocent citizens abducted by BH. The question is, would both party be sincere in keeping to this terms? Such deals shall of necessity allow for convicted murderers to go free a thing that could not be palatable for the public to hear. Had it not been for the public cry for the release of the Chibok School girls abducted and other hundreds of citizens that are still under the custody of BH the public will never subscribe to the release of captured terrorist with their hit-men that are in government custody. Whatsoever the case may be, I hope it is inappropriate to allow my fears and doubts to invalidate my faith, I’d rather hinge my hope in God for the release of our girls (#BringBackOurGirls) and other abductees than to be sceptical about the political wrangling of the ceasefire. For those who have hijacked the plight of the poor, helpless and innocent citizens for the furtherance of their political dreams, there is God in Heaven who will one day bring to light all the secret works men. If we fail to be accountable in our stewardship to those that elected us, it is obvious that we cannot escape accountability to God.
Posted on: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:52:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015