Creating a national security commission, as a policy response initiative to Nigeria’s various plaguing conflicts should nominally receive plaudit for implications are, even if succinct that government acknowledges the failure or lack of capacity of the current national security mechanism to sustain ably maintain peace and order and resolve conflict without acrimony.

My take on the national security commission is, even if the concept of a national security commission is noble. Expected challenges ranging from, non-coherency, non accountability, disrespect for due process, improper strategies, lack of planning, improper infrastructure and capacity to ensure positive operational effectiveness will ultimately subvert the commission’s capacity for usefulness.

Factually, Nigeria is challenged in every context by numerous conflicts, but in truth, creating a national security commission isn’t directionally an expedient policy response initiative. Especially when available multi-track options and conflict resolution strategies haven’t been exhausted except coercion.

In my lucid and candid opinion I’m thinking perhaps our policy strategist haven’t an inkling on how to resolve our challenges-conflicts and perhaps refuse to acknowledge we’re challenged.

That Nigeria has the strategic capacity to sustainably evolve and facilitate a conceptual framework for conflict resolution is not in doubt, however there seems to be a three-dimensional disconnect between government who acknowledges Nigeria’s challenges, our policy initiators who I suspect are dominated by minds I term "old think", policy initiators who refuse acknowledging their own shortcomings and failures and men at operational levels who lack initiative, competency or skills to properly manage conflict.

THE CONCEPT OF SECURITY

There are multi–track approaches and concepts to security sector issues. However, in my conception, well being or what I’ll nominally term security or its sense especially in a Nigerian context, is more psychological than physical.

Historically, because the concept of security is as proportionally psychological as physical peacebuilding and conflict management-resolution strategies i.e. dialoguing have been preferred options. So I’m thinking, developing a proper conflict resolution strategy will serve the Nigerian populace better than a commission whose tactics will again be based on the application of brute force-coercion and intimidation which we all know nominally is more a deterrent than a readily available leverage-tactic and historically has escalated situations more than de-escalated them.

Retrospectively, I’m thinking, If the need for a national security commission is triggered by current international security concerns then our policy initiators perhaps are motivated more by external institutional imperatives than by internal humanitarian imperatives. For even if nominal Americas counter terrorist response initiative is more strategic than tactical. America’s tactical response is at a very low end of its overall strategy. The late Col. John Boyd’s works will make a good read to any interested in strategic studies

For Nigeria, the need lies more in articulating a proper Conflict Resolution strategy and mechanism without condescending to rhetoric. There’s the strategic need for government response in issues to be informed to avoid provoking tensions that might exacerbate conflicts and possibly start new ones.

Having sought opinion about the security commission concept and Nigeria’s challenges with my former boss’s here-Pearson Peace Center and with my contemporaries in Nigeria, though some critique my standpoint arguing it rather self- preservative. There’s a consensus amongst those in the field that a commission isn’t a positive step.

So, I daresay that anyone arguing on the benefit of a national security commission fails to understand the intellectual and or cultural foundation of Conflict Resolution as a field and most importantly the psyche of today’s "ordinary" Nigerian-" the common man".

REAL TIME ISSUES

I’ve been opportune time and time to discourse issues relating to methodologies, frameworks and strategies in conflict management and resolution. Strategies dialectically different from those currently applied in resolving Nigeria’s current conflicts. However I’ll here briefly asses resolving Nigeria’s conflict from the perspective of cause.

In my estimation and I remain open to correction, most conflicts in Nigeria have roots in "Equity" or its lack and escalated socio-developmental issues.

Implying soft skills and more interactive law enforcement techniques and advocacy training for officers becomes imperative. In the article Ghani Adams: Between Politics and Law I had observed that "…even uneducated Nigerians approach legal or political issues with ideas about what justice should be, often seeking "justice" as defined by their own self concept…." Implying investing in interactive foras such as the Oputa panel becomes more expedient. The system should serve the people and not the people serve the system

By "Equity" as the cause of all conflicts plaguing Nigeria I’m linking "Equity" to issues such as economic-progress development and security, for without "Equity" skills and talents of the citizenry are ignored and stunted. The growth potential of the nation is reduced and a social burden is created.

Equity is not only linked to issues such as economic progress, concern for the environment, sound financial and social policies it means a decent minimum standard for all and equal chances for success. It doesn’t ensure equality of incomes, nor does it imply equality of outcomes. Simply put equity refers to a level playing field.

Finally, its important rulership-government give heed to comments by a division G.O.C regarding the Jos riots that government seek "political" options to national conflict resolution. By "political" in his assumption I’d decipher to imply non-coercive soft skill centered conflict resolution strategies and tactics

WAY FORWARD

As I’ve implied, the concept of a "National Security Commission" appears noble but in the Nigerian context its applicability and intended end-state as a response initiative is at best wrong and to be candid a waste of resources. Principally, government should be less reactionary, it should facilitate research and studies to enable informed decision-making. Also, Intended funds for the commission will better facilitate national security mechanisms today challenged by lack. These agencies need to develop proactive strategic frameworks, incorporating modern concepts of training, planning, tactics and development.

A lack of proper Conflict Management and Resolution strategy bar coercion remains at the center of government efforts to face challenges. Past governments have alternated between adhoc initiatives and use of brute force-coercion as Conflict Resolution tactics without understanding repercussive dynamics and effects. The resulting lack of foresight the Nigerian nation struggles with today. Plagued by numerous Conflicts without high escalation potentials.

A proper Conflict Resolution strategy response initiative than a shadowy national security commission with many more Ismaila Gwarzo’s waiting in the wings.

Finally, Government needs to consider facilitating a National Guard. A concept first muted during Gen. I. Babangida’s rule. The mobile police force should be transformed into a National Guard for homeland security. To act as a buffer between the armed force and the police force especially as government seeks to restrict the armed to its constitutional role of national defense.

CONCLUSION

Conclusively, even as the need for an articulate conflict resolution strategy becomes an apparent necessity, ensuring "Equity" will better facilitate and empower citizenry. "Marginalized" groups will feel empowered especially if such as the Oputa panel" acts as a forum to express grievances and vent. This will prove positive and escalation into actual acts of aggression would have been done away with.

A spin off effect of a proper conflict resolution strategy will be interactive communication between government and citizenry-dialogue. For even as at now, there’s a disconnect between governments need to ensure national security and government need to secure citizens and ensure civil obedience vis-à-vis the need for a national security commission.

Conclusively, I would say the uncertainties and concept of a national security commission are too many for trade-off. Its existence will make for many more questions than answers i.e. what becomes of the heirachy and structure of the armed forces and other security sector agencies and collaborations in view of "our" seeming penchant for delusive self importance? What if future incumbent president decides against a security commission like the former National Sports Commission?

William is an Associate of the Lester B. Pearson Canadian International Peace Center

October 2001