FULANI VIOLENT CONFLICT OUR LONG TERM RESPONSE
FULANI VIOLENT CONFLICT OUR LONG TERM RESPONSE.
As we look at the violent attacks against our Peoples and wonder what to do; I am perplexed by the common opinion of many among our people and leaders that tend to look at the problem as a humanitarian problem that can be solved by the provision of security, putting a stop to the killings and kidnappings. My opinion is however different; the killings and kidnappings are only the symptoms of a much deeper malady. We are confronted by people who have a cultural, economic and religious agenda; violence is one of the instruments they are using to achieve this goal. Peace building experts aim at preventing the use of violence as a means of attaining political, economic, cultural or religious objectives or as a means of addressing injustices or even as a means of social change. The fact is that such a noble approach is not an option for a people under violent attacks or war, for such a people; peace becomes a goal and not a means (Peace is lost and must be regained). In other words, a people facing violence and war need an appropriate response which may be achieved by discussions/ peaceful settlement/ diplomacy or by means of protection, including the use of force or a violent response to the attack which is termed a defensive war ( in Christian theological parlance “a just war”). When such violent confrontations take place the parties in conflict are brought to a peace meeting to negotiate and resolve their difference; international intergovernmental bodies such as the AU and UN work to address conflicts before they become violent and try to negotiate peaceful settlement where violence erupts and lastly try to enforce peace including provision of protection for civilians during any ongoing violence. Within a national context violent conflicts are also approached using the three primary approaches, negotiation, law enforcement or protection.
In the past few years, Nigerian leaders in their attempt to address the violent attacks by the Fulani Terrorist have failed in all regards. The State have failed in negotiating a settlement between the attackers and our communities, it has failed in negotiating an acceptable solution to the conflict, it has failed in protecting its citizens and have failed in enforcing its will. It is possible that these failures stem from lack of capacity, from lack of sincerity, from lack of trust in the state as a neutral arbiter by the parties in conflict or from a lack of commitment to peace by one or both parties in the conflict. While a detailed presentation of the experience of our communities with regard to the conflict is beyond the scope of this short paper, let me mention a few conclusions reached by the so called farmers.
As for peace building, the state and its agencies posses the capacity to negotiate but there is currently no acceptable common ground. As far as our communities are concerned the Federal government under the present leadership lack sincerity in their approach as they are viewed as championing the course of the attackers rather than serving as neutral arbiters. As far as law enforcement and protection of citizens is concerned, the governments (States and Federal) do not only lack the capacity to protect or enforce their will but are not willing to put a stop to the violence or as others view it, the governments in some states and at the federal are complicit.
The question many are asking is; does the security situation fit into the description of a conflict or it is a one sided attack? In professional terms even a one sided attack may be termed as a conflict and as such the Fulani led violence need to be properly analysed for any meaningful recommendation of a solution. To avoid conspiracy theories let us focus our attention at Fulani claims and intelligence reports by governments and international security organizations and think tanks.
1. Fulani reasons for the violence
a. Lack of grazing land due to encroachment and rising population leading to farmer herder conflicts
b. Attack on Fulani leading to reprisals (activities of Ethnic militias and Fulani)
c. Cattle rustling and attempts at recovery leading to violence
d. Activities of Fulani and other Ethnic criminals (Rural banditry).
e. The role of vigilantes
2. Intelligence reports on reasons for the violence. In addition to the above reasons.
a. The involvement of terrorists such as DarulSalaam, Ansaru, ISWA and others in the attacks
b. The involvement of hired killers ( Mercenaries in the violence)
c. The existence of vested interest in Natural resources such as land, water and mineral resources.
The main reason for highlighting these issues is to ask a question; what are the real objectives of these attacks; who is responsible and what can we do?
It is obvious from the foregoing that the issue is multi faceted and requires a multifarious approach. Criminality should be handled as such, the transhumance culture of cattle nomadism need to be appropriately addressed, the aspect of religious induced terrorism need to be looked at as well as the issues of resource management.
Below is my simple recommendations; they are generic but I believe can be helpful.
1. We need to answer the question of how to provide efficient law enforcement and security in our communities.
2. We need to address the culture and system of Fulani cattle husbandry.
3. We need to address the problem of ethnocentrism and lack of trust
4. We need to address the problem of terrorism in Nigeria
5. We need to address the question of land and other resources management
The above issues are serious enough but when we add the conspiracy theories, the whole thing becomes scary. Why are the terrorists fighting Nigeria and what will their victory mean? What is the connection between terrorists and Fulani attackers? Many within and outside Nigeria believe that there is both an ethnic and a religious agenda in both the attacks and the Government’s approach towards addressing the problem. The middle belt is now the epicenter of a deliberate religious, cultural and economic war waged by locals and their international collaborators.
My opinion is that the people affected must work to address these problems; what we need is leadership, strategy and resources.
Strategy: what we need are visionary and responsive strategies. A visionary strategy is a strategy based on the type of society we want to see. Certainly our vision is not the same with many in this country as such we are and will remain in a state of perpetual conflict in Nigeria. The difference in vision with other components of the federation and the natural reality that change is permanent means we must have response strategies.
The foundation for a futuristic strategy is a vision for the future; a vision must have underlying values. It is only when we have a clear vision that we can develop the Institutions, People and Relationships needed to actualize our vision. What then is the Vision of the leaders of the Middle belt? Does such a Vision take into consideration the hopes and aspirations of our People? Response Strategies will naturally be the result of Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of our long term strategies and the reactions to it by other internal and external stakeholders. A major problem is that we lack the leadership that has a vision of the middle belt, a vision that capture the hope and aspiration of its people; or where such a vision exist the level of communication of such a vision to the people is very poor. (In my opinion there is both the absence of leadership and the lack of a common vision, in fact the common vision of must middle belt activists is private success). Professor Yusufu Turaki’s foundation motor has been adopted by the middle belt as a phrase or motor “My Self, My People, My land”. While CONAECDA has a vision statement which reads; “We envision Independent and United Nationalities whose communities consist of just, participatory and Sustainable Societies”.
From our vision has core focal areas that can easily be identified as follows:
1. Independent Nationalities as contained in the United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, the Human Right Declaration and the AU Declaration on the peoples and human rights.
2. United ethnic Nationalities to be achieved by changing ethnocentric values with Common Humanity and Collective/ Collaborative activities
3. Just communities: Social Justice and rule of law
4. Participatory communities: ensuring adequate participation through the democratization of society, government, economy etc.
5. Sustainable Societies: development and promotion of sustainable systems, values, institutions and relationships. These include environment, economy, security, education, industry, etc.
The responsibility for setting goals and designing projects and activities lies with various institutions of State, religious organisations, community institutions, traditional rulers, NGOs, CBOs and Businesses. We believe a fundamental institution needed for the liberation, development and sustainable development of our communities is the Indigenous Peoples’ Government. With the adoption of the UNDRIP the establishment of IPOs is vital to the independence and rights of Nations who through Colonialism or Occupation have lost their Statehood and are now components of modern States. Virtually all Nigeria Communities fall under these categories and are therefore at liberty to set up IPOs (Indigenous Peoples’ Organisations), which should be respected both by law and statutes and by way of Implementing the UNDRIP. The idea of IPOs is still young and as such is still faced with challenges but in the long run IPOs will have greater responsibility and say in the affairs of States and especially in Colonised states like Nigeria.
Suleman A.D. Sukukum
Secretary General of CONAECDA
As we look at the violent attacks against our Peoples and wonder what to do; I am perplexed by the common opinion of many among our people and leaders that tend to look at the problem as a humanitarian problem that can be solved by the provision of security, putting a stop to the killings and kidnappings. My opinion is however different; the killings and kidnappings are only the symptoms of a much deeper malady. We are confronted by people who have a cultural, economic and religious agenda; violence is one of the instruments they are using to achieve this goal. Peace building experts aim at preventing the use of violence as a means of attaining political, economic, cultural or religious objectives or as a means of addressing injustices or even as a means of social change. The fact is that such a noble approach is not an option for a people under violent attacks or war, for such a people; peace becomes a goal and not a means (Peace is lost and must be regained). In other words, a people facing violence and war need an appropriate response which may be achieved by discussions/ peaceful settlement/ diplomacy or by means of protection, including the use of force or a violent response to the attack which is termed a defensive war ( in Christian theological parlance “a just war”). When such violent confrontations take place the parties in conflict are brought to a peace meeting to negotiate and resolve their difference; international intergovernmental bodies such as the AU and UN work to address conflicts before they become violent and try to negotiate peaceful settlement where violence erupts and lastly try to enforce peace including provision of protection for civilians during any ongoing violence. Within a national context violent conflicts are also approached using the three primary approaches, negotiation, law enforcement or protection.
In the past few years, Nigerian leaders in their attempt to address the violent attacks by the Fulani Terrorist have failed in all regards. The State have failed in negotiating a settlement between the attackers and our communities, it has failed in negotiating an acceptable solution to the conflict, it has failed in protecting its citizens and have failed in enforcing its will. It is possible that these failures stem from lack of capacity, from lack of sincerity, from lack of trust in the state as a neutral arbiter by the parties in conflict or from a lack of commitment to peace by one or both parties in the conflict. While a detailed presentation of the experience of our communities with regard to the conflict is beyond the scope of this short paper, let me mention a few conclusions reached by the so called farmers.
As for peace building, the state and its agencies posses the capacity to negotiate but there is currently no acceptable common ground. As far as our communities are concerned the Federal government under the present leadership lack sincerity in their approach as they are viewed as championing the course of the attackers rather than serving as neutral arbiters. As far as law enforcement and protection of citizens is concerned, the governments (States and Federal) do not only lack the capacity to protect or enforce their will but are not willing to put a stop to the violence or as others view it, the governments in some states and at the federal are complicit.
The question many are asking is; does the security situation fit into the description of a conflict or it is a one sided attack? In professional terms even a one sided attack may be termed as a conflict and as such the Fulani led violence need to be properly analysed for any meaningful recommendation of a solution. To avoid conspiracy theories let us focus our attention at Fulani claims and intelligence reports by governments and international security organizations and think tanks.
1. Fulani reasons for the violence
a. Lack of grazing land due to encroachment and rising population leading to farmer herder conflicts
b. Attack on Fulani leading to reprisals (activities of Ethnic militias and Fulani)
c. Cattle rustling and attempts at recovery leading to violence
d. Activities of Fulani and other Ethnic criminals (Rural banditry).
e. The role of vigilantes
2. Intelligence reports on reasons for the violence. In addition to the above reasons.
a. The involvement of terrorists such as DarulSalaam, Ansaru, ISWA and others in the attacks
b. The involvement of hired killers ( Mercenaries in the violence)
c. The existence of vested interest in Natural resources such as land, water and mineral resources.
The main reason for highlighting these issues is to ask a question; what are the real objectives of these attacks; who is responsible and what can we do?
It is obvious from the foregoing that the issue is multi faceted and requires a multifarious approach. Criminality should be handled as such, the transhumance culture of cattle nomadism need to be appropriately addressed, the aspect of religious induced terrorism need to be looked at as well as the issues of resource management.
Below is my simple recommendations; they are generic but I believe can be helpful.
1. We need to answer the question of how to provide efficient law enforcement and security in our communities.
2. We need to address the culture and system of Fulani cattle husbandry.
3. We need to address the problem of ethnocentrism and lack of trust
4. We need to address the problem of terrorism in Nigeria
5. We need to address the question of land and other resources management
The above issues are serious enough but when we add the conspiracy theories, the whole thing becomes scary. Why are the terrorists fighting Nigeria and what will their victory mean? What is the connection between terrorists and Fulani attackers? Many within and outside Nigeria believe that there is both an ethnic and a religious agenda in both the attacks and the Government’s approach towards addressing the problem. The middle belt is now the epicenter of a deliberate religious, cultural and economic war waged by locals and their international collaborators.
My opinion is that the people affected must work to address these problems; what we need is leadership, strategy and resources.
Strategy: what we need are visionary and responsive strategies. A visionary strategy is a strategy based on the type of society we want to see. Certainly our vision is not the same with many in this country as such we are and will remain in a state of perpetual conflict in Nigeria. The difference in vision with other components of the federation and the natural reality that change is permanent means we must have response strategies.
The foundation for a futuristic strategy is a vision for the future; a vision must have underlying values. It is only when we have a clear vision that we can develop the Institutions, People and Relationships needed to actualize our vision. What then is the Vision of the leaders of the Middle belt? Does such a Vision take into consideration the hopes and aspirations of our People? Response Strategies will naturally be the result of Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of our long term strategies and the reactions to it by other internal and external stakeholders. A major problem is that we lack the leadership that has a vision of the middle belt, a vision that capture the hope and aspiration of its people; or where such a vision exist the level of communication of such a vision to the people is very poor. (In my opinion there is both the absence of leadership and the lack of a common vision, in fact the common vision of must middle belt activists is private success). Professor Yusufu Turaki’s foundation motor has been adopted by the middle belt as a phrase or motor “My Self, My People, My land”. While CONAECDA has a vision statement which reads; “We envision Independent and United Nationalities whose communities consist of just, participatory and Sustainable Societies”.
From our vision has core focal areas that can easily be identified as follows:
1. Independent Nationalities as contained in the United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, the Human Right Declaration and the AU Declaration on the peoples and human rights.
2. United ethnic Nationalities to be achieved by changing ethnocentric values with Common Humanity and Collective/ Collaborative activities
3. Just communities: Social Justice and rule of law
4. Participatory communities: ensuring adequate participation through the democratization of society, government, economy etc.
5. Sustainable Societies: development and promotion of sustainable systems, values, institutions and relationships. These include environment, economy, security, education, industry, etc.
The responsibility for setting goals and designing projects and activities lies with various institutions of State, religious organisations, community institutions, traditional rulers, NGOs, CBOs and Businesses. We believe a fundamental institution needed for the liberation, development and sustainable development of our communities is the Indigenous Peoples’ Government. With the adoption of the UNDRIP the establishment of IPOs is vital to the independence and rights of Nations who through Colonialism or Occupation have lost their Statehood and are now components of modern States. Virtually all Nigeria Communities fall under these categories and are therefore at liberty to set up IPOs (Indigenous Peoples’ Organisations), which should be respected both by law and statutes and by way of Implementing the UNDRIP. The idea of IPOs is still young and as such is still faced with challenges but in the long run IPOs will have greater responsibility and say in the affairs of States and especially in Colonised states like Nigeria.
Suleman A.D. Sukukum
Secretary General of CONAECDA
Comments
Post a Comment