Acknowledgment of this title goes substantially to former President Olusegun Obasanjo, as he describes one of his books. When he was putting his thoughts together, Obasanjo did not even have particular suicide missioners in mind or how do we describe the self-delusion of Libya’s late ruler Muammar Gadaffy and the currently faltering Syrian President Bashar Assad? In hindsight, Gadaffy may even be conceded some sympathy for the omnibus miscalculation, which led to his death. Facing the people’s revolt after 42 years of uninterrupted one man-rule, Gadaffy relied on megalomania, to defy the entire world and by the time he faced the consequences, even Gadaffy could not believe as he was being lynched by the same Libyans whose love and affection for him he flaunted all along. In fact, as his ignominy loomed, Gadaffy was interviewed by CNN’s Christian Amanpour who advised him to negotiate a peaceful solution to the crisis. In a misplaced confidence, Gadaffy responded that “My people are not against me, they love me.” The bewildered world-viewed television reporter, (unlike Gadaffy who was in the dark about the rapidly collapsing structures around him) rather pitifully asked the Libyan leader that “the same people you claim to love and support you are the ones revolting against you. Are you not bothered?” At that stage, Gadaffy could take no more. Without uttering a word, he looked down on Christian Amanpour with the contemptuous nuances of a provoked Nigerian that “you deh craze?” and entered his luxurious vehicle. Gadaffy rebuffed that last advice to, possibly quit and go into exile. Thus began the final phase of the Libyan leader’s journey to a disastrous end. Yet, in a way, Muammar Gadaffy might deserve some pity that he had no instant lesson from which to learn. That cannot be said of his fellow Arab leader, President Bashar Assad of Syria, opportuned with Gadaffy’s bloody end. The portents are similar with better luck for the Syrian leader. The Assad family has ruled Syria for some 40 years like Gadaffy in Libya. But when the end came for Gadaffy, the political earthquake lasted not more than seven months. The Syrian leader on his part, has been on the same road to self-destruction for the past eighteen months. What started as a minor disturbance has now grown into a full-scale civil war as acknowledged by the United Nations and the Arab League. Significantly, when the Libyan revolutionaries captured the state television/radio stations and cut off Gadaffy from means of communications with locals and the outside world, the late Libyan leader from a secret location, made intermittent broadcasts on a Syria-based television station. There are more ominous signs. To emphasise President Assad’s total isolation, only three countries – China, Russia and Iran – openly identify with the current Syrian leadership. In contrast, over one hundred other countries have formed a Friends of Syria group with the main agenda of total support for the Syrian dissidents goal of ending President Assad’s regime. The open compromise of the Friends of Syria group is for a transition government excluding President Assad. The compromise is, in effect, more for public consumption. Conspicuous among the Friends of Syria group are the essential nations namely United States, Britain, France, Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Switzerland, Holland, the Nordic countries etc. So far, the Friends of Syria group has held two major meetings in Paris, France and Ankara in Turkey. While President Assad seems to under-estimate the on-coming tragedy, key ones among his lieutenants have a clearer reading of the situation. Just like in the last days of Muammar Gadaffy, many Syrian government officials have abandoned President Assad to his fate. Ministers, high-ranking diplomats including ambassadors, senior military officials up to the ranks of four-star Generals have defected and declared support for the opposition Free Syrian Army and interim Free Syrian Council. France, Britain, United States, Germany and many European countries have either withdrawn their ambassadors or completely closed down their embassies in Syria. The course of the war in Syria has generated warnings (obviously for President Assad) of possible trial for crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court, a step which may eventually apply to both sides. The warnings of possible trial for crimes against humanity are on the assumption that President Assad is caught or indeed spared alive. After all, Gadaffy was caught alive while trying to escape in the last minutes and lynched on the spot. President Assad is even facing greater risks as the rebels have advanced from occasional military actions in Syria’s outskirts to the capital city of Damascus where three weeks ago, four of the topmost security chiefs died in a booby-trap at the highly fortified security headquarters while mapping out strategy for containing if not neutralizing the revolt against President Assad. Among those killed in this dare-devil operation were the Minister of Defence, the Interior Minister and a Vice-President. That particular incident, for its magnitude and location aptly conveys the day by day chance of President Bashar Assad’s survival. Unlike his arrogance in underestimating the revolt against him at the outbreak of hostilities eighteen months ago, even President Assad today admits that his country is at war. In that situation, Assad in his position has legitimate access to Russian and Chinese amoury. Quite significant also is that all efforts by Friends of Syria (a group of anti-Assad countries) to internationalise the conflict through the United Nations resolution to intervene have been vetoed three times by Russia and China. A major curiosity is over how the rebels have become stronger in weapons supply. There is the suspicion that Saudi Arabia and Quatar are topmost among nations supplying arms to the rebels. Much as supply of arms is essential, effective use of whatever weapons available is the determining factor. Here, the rebels have surprised the outside world. Last time, through United Nations resolutions, the Libyan Air Force was neutralized by the world-body’s sponsored air strikes. So secure from aerial bombings, the ground forces of the Libyan rebels sustained, consolidated and enhanced their advance against Colonel Muammar Gadaffy’s regime. In contrast, the Free Syrian Army has been facing the nuisance of especially the official Syrian Air Force. Latest reports are that the rebel forces have acquired anti-aircraft missiles from God knows where, and with which the Free Syrians hope to incapacitate President Assad’s Air Force. Despite the major handicap of being bombed in wrong places like schools, markets, mosques and residential quarters, the Free Syrian army has refused to be easily defeated. With limited supply of arms and ammunition from foreign backers, the Free Syrians either succeeded in destroying their opponent’s heavy weapons or in capturing such from surrendering and deserting soldiers of President Assad’s army. As it seems, the Syrian conflict is entering a decisive stage. American Ambassador to United Nations Susan Rice is on record that President Assad has lost his legitimacy. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton speaks in post-Bashar Assad terms. Defence Secretary Leon Paneta only this week said President Assad’s fall is not a question of if but when. With his record as the terminator of the world-dreaded Osama Bin Laden, Leon Paneta’s confidence should better be taken seriously by Syria’s President Assad. Neither are Americans the only adversaries of President Assad in this conflict. The Commander of United Nations military observer force in Syria and Secretary-General of Arab League have similarly dismissed all chances of President Assad’s survival. British Prime Minister David Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague have also nailed President Assad’s political coffin. Above all, the opposition Syrian National Council and Syrian Free Army envisage President Assad’s hopeless situation and have therefore openly indicated that any stage of negotiation or even peaceful settlement belongs to history. Only one man refuses to acknowledge that another monumental history in the Arab world is in the making. That lone figure is Syria’s Bashar Assad, personalising the story of the animal in Syria called man.
Bamanga Tukur by a hair’s breadth
When otherwise decent man Bamanga Tukur was elected national chairman of People’s Democratic Party (PDP), apprehension was expressed in this column that Tukur should watch out for two main reasons. He is not the usual PDP type and given Nigerian political history, many of his predecessors in that post were destroyed to make way for another. Bamanga Tukur has not been destroyed (yet) and at least for now, he is edging on by a hair’s breadth. Much as those involved in the fuel subsidy fraud are patrons, beneficiaries, friends of and donors to the PDP, Bamanga’s only crime is that he is the father of his son, Mahmud, one of those on trial. Otherwise, the PDP national chairman is not one of the suspects. Even then, opposition Action Congress of Nigeria demands the resignation of Bamanga Tukur as the national chairman of PDP. By now, ACN should have learnt the bitter lesson against rushing for the jugular of political opponents. Putting it in clear language, ACN today is fighting for its political life against the serious PDP allegation that a presiding judge in the Osun State gubernatorial election petition compromised himself by engaging in phone discussions with ACN stalwarts while the petition was being tried. Alleged details of the phone calls have been published. The first instant reaction is to express disgust at how far we unnecessarily stretch political disagreement especially to the extent of aiming to destroy a judge’s reputation and career. But then, the tactics was first employed by the ACN when it released to the public through the media what it (ACN) claimed to be phone calls and text messages between a PDP counsel in an election petition, Mr Kalejaiye, and another presiding judge in the election petition. Any public figure, cannot in all fairness be held criminally or even morally responsible for the action of his or her offspring, moreso, when such are adults. During the regime of former President Ibrahim Babangida, rogue bankers who destroyed the Structural Adjustment Programme by manipulating the exchange rate policy to become overnight billionaires were to be put on trial. But when the Ministry of Justice produced the draft of the Failed Bank Decree, the provisions were such that where a culprit banker absconded, his/her son, daughter, husband, wife, uncle, mother or father would stand trial instead. Nowhere in the world, even under a military regime, would such injustice/violation of human rights stand. General Babangida insisted on a review of the Failed Bank Decree to make only culprits liable. While the argument raged in government, the late General Sani Abacha assumed office, and not only signed the Failed Bank Decree into law but proceeded to implement the decree in its raw form. It was quite amusing to see the same Nigerians (who accused General Babangida of failing to deal with the rogue bankers) as they turned round to accuse General Sani Abacha of allegedly violating human rights by clamping the rogue bankers into detention for trial. If, therefore, under the military, family members were not made to pay for the sins of their relations, it is even more unfair to demand such obnoxious standard in a democracy. And when we claim to operate that system of government, we must sustain the standard as obtainable in advanced democracies. While in office, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair had to face the ordeal of his son, Euan who was arrested for being drunk and incapable. Opposition Tory Party did not, on account of that, demand the Prime Minister’s resignation. As British Home Secretary, Jack Straw’s schedule covered, among others, drug offences. Even, ordinarily as a member of parliament, everybody has the duty to join in the battle. In May 2010, Jack Straw’s son, William, joined more than one thousand protesters to sell cannabis to an undercover reporter. Even in 2010, the same Jack Straw, then as foreign secretary had to face another ordeal when his brother was convicted for indecent assault on a girl of sixteen. In all these personal agonies, no British political party demanded the resignation of Jack Straw either as a minister or member of parliament because a father cannot be punished for the offence of his son. Does PDP national chairman feel comfortable on the trial of his son, Mahmoud for the fuel subsidy fraud? It is doubtful or better still, any of us should wait until any of our offspring is so accused as Mahmud Tukur. It is not a crime to be the father of your son. Even if Bamanga Tukur committed the offence, once his son Mahmud owned up as a director of the company on trial for the fuel subsidy fraud, nobody can fault the father either in law or in fairness.
No comments:
Post a Comment