It is difficult to imagine the consequences of a mutually agreed-upon break-up that would return Nigeria to its pre-1966 situation, where six regional governments held near-absolute sway within their areas. But it is a maxim of geopolitical life that it is far harder to unify a nation than to divide it. And in the past, however, partition has always meant a civil war, whether in India, Ireland, Vietnam or the former Palestine.
What is novel about the Nigerian discussion of separation, however, is that parties may pulling for a peaceful separation on both sides. When it comes to dividing the lucrative natural resources possessed by Nigerian in abundance, though and the various infrastructure elements devoted to it, it is problematic to an extreme degree. If wars are fought about moeny, Nigerians bent on division would have plenty to fight about. The only certainty about such an outcome is that it would leave each of the states far less able to defend its interests, and far more vulnerable to manipulation from within and without.
A bloody and tragic civil war erupted in Nigeria in 1967 and only ended in 1970 with the surrender of Boafra and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Biafra ran from Nigeria's western border to less than 200 miles from the eastern border, and occupied parts of both the north and south of the present Nigeria.
But in terms of a national economy, Nigeria's place among oil-producing states, and as a place for foreign investments and joint ventures between multinationals and indigenous firms, the discussion of a divided Nigeria can only stir worries.
Nigerian newspapers have close ties to political parties, and the national "confab" on unity, as the papers call President Olusegun Obasanjo's attempt to bring opposing sides together in the nation's capital for a meaningful dialogue about their county's future, has been a rich target for exploitation by his political foes.
Here is the Sunday Independent story:
NATIONAL DIALOGUE: North may demand split into six countries
by Chuks Ehirim
ABUJA -- Nigerians, especially those with the notion that delegates of northern extraction to the National Political Reforms Conference would fight against any move to use the platform of the confab to balkanise the country, may be in for the shock of their lives.
Information available to Sunday Independent points to the contrary. According to a highly placed source, who is one of the leaders of the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), the younger elements in the north, are already clamouring for possible break-up of Nigeria into “six new countries” based on the existing six geo-political zones or to the path of supporting those championing the cause of returning the country to its pre-1966 regional structure, with states within each geo-political zone becoming provinces.
These views were said to have been strongly canvassed by the younger elements during the meeting of the ACF in Kaduna, to harmonise the position of the North at the confab.
During the meeting, the source said, leaders of ACF such as its Chairman, Chief Sunday Awoniyi, who tried to toe the moderate view of preserving Nigeria as a sole, indivisible entity, were almost beaten up by the younger ones.
The ACF is said to have dusted up a position paper prepared for it in 2001 by the trio of Alhaji Sule Yahaya Haruna, Alhaji Ibrahim M. Ida (CON) and Mallam Adamu Adamu.
The 19-page paper had traced the clamour for restructuring of the country, a clamour it said is mainly coming from the South, and concluded that the North would not be the worst loser if the country splits.
“As the North continues to cling to the withering dream of a united Nigeria, other parts of the country are calling for a Nigeria of a different kind,” said the paper.
It said that a wrong impression is given by agitators of restructuring that “proponents of a united Nigeria are its biggest beneficiaries, or else, are the lazy parasitic ones, living off the hard work and the resources of the rest.”
The paper added that, “to be candid, we have reached a point whereby it is not out of place to give a very serious thought to the consideration of an alternative political arrangement, which will not only create greater political breathing space for the two sections of the country (North and South), but will also give each of the two sections greater responsibility over its affairs.”
The paper was even more emphatic when it said, “let it be borne in mind that unpalatable as it may seem, a possible break-up of Nigeria into several entities may not necessarily be anathema to the North, nor should it be an unthinkable political proposition for that matter.”
It recommended two options which should be canvassed in the event of a National Conference. These, it called THE WAY FORWARD and THE WAY OUT.
Under the way forward, it said it entails a reappraisal of the current arrangements in terms of the (i) extent of economic agitation and free movement of people in and within the whole entity; Nature of the political union, residential rights,(ii) inventory valuation and ownership of historical investments. Co-ownership of certain assets, sharing of all assets of entity, tenancy-in-common of international assets.
Political arrangements: What sort of constitution, what federating unit, economic regime and inter-regional trade, revenue allocation, provision of and responsibility for infrastructure?
On the "way out" option, it said, “There are three levels for consideration in this regard.” The three levels are: the de-amalgamation of North and South, the negotiation for a new international arrangement and the establishment of six new countries.
On de-amalgamation of North and South, the paper posited that “with the benefit of hindsight, the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates and the Protectorate in Lagos in 1914 were probably Nigeria’s biggest political mistakes.”
It said that “a political problem needs a political solution. This solution may be found in de-amalgamating the North and South and creating two new independent states.”
It added that “as soon as the “de-amalgamation proclamation is made, the existing federal government should cease to exist.” It stated further that “all public officers will automatically revert to their side of the divide to fill positions made vacant due to the new arrangement.”
It also recommended that “all political office holders will act in a caretaker capacity until new internal arrangements are negotiated at a constitutional conference.”
This document, our source revealed, may likely form the fulcrum of the position of the Northern delegates at the National Conference. Even many of those who are not delegates to the conference are already canvassing views akin to those expressed by the three men who drafted the paper.
One of such men is an ex-officio member of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)’s National Executive, Alhaji Ahmed Hassan, who has strongly argued that if the resource control agitators continue with it at the confab, the North would move for the control of its own resources too.
3 comments:
The 3 men who wrote the proposal and four of their friends - there’s 7 votes already. I wonder when the UN will send observers to count the votes? LOL
(This is the post deleted above. We
discourage posting in capital letters as it is a violation of Internet etiquette and is considered to be akin to screaming.)
Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. LOL at you, my friend.
Post a Comment