REACTING TO ASPECTS OF AIKHOMU'S INTEGRITY OF THE ARMED FORCES

By

William Etim Bassey

I’ve just been opportune to read Augustus Aikhomu’s articulate and suggestively scholarly article, "Integrity and the Armed Forces".

His article, a defense policy analysis of sort. Discourses history, aspects of strategic and tactical postures, doctrinal concepts/strategy, peacekeeping and the ongoing capacity building exercise for the Nigerian Armed Forces.

His article, understandably inexhaustive, is educative and makes interesting reading. Of particular interest to me is his comments on the United States sponsored (MPRI) led capacity building program, his assessment of peacekeeping vis-à-vis the Nigerian Armed Forces and the changing face of international peacekeeping.

Of particular interest to me is his comment, "I personally subscribe to the views currently being expressed and canvassed in certain layers of the military hierarchy about concerns over what appears to be undue exuberance around external assistance to the Nigerian Armed Forces…"

Conclusively in that paragraph Augustus Aikhomu suggest the need not to "sacrifice our "acquired homeland doctrines to the exposure and manipulation of external forces". Nationalistic words I must say, very nationalistic.

Logically, his words are true and if they reflect the thinking in the hierarchy of the Nigerian Armed Forces then further considerations be made before the next phase of president Obasanjo’s security sector reforms, especially the phase involving the Nigerian Armed Forces and the United Kingdom.

Augustus Aikhomus writing demonstrates understanding of issues and subject matter and his views are informed, I still maintain the strategic importance of the United States sponsored capacity building exercise under the African Response Initiative (ACRI).

Sometime in March 001, while working in the Programs Development department of the Pearson Canadian International Peacekeeping Center, my then supervising boss, Capt. Steve Thompson. Programs Development Manager, author, "Care to win: Military Doctrine in Support of Human Security Centered Foreign Policies-presented at the 13^th Annual meeting of the Academic Council of the United Nations System. Requested I develop a precis component for a module and simulation meant for the then upcoming course C03-The Legal Dimension of International Peacekeeping.

My primary reference was an article from a Canadian daily titled "Racism in Peacekeeping". He felt I examine under the context of International social responsibility-International Law, contemporary issues raised in the article.

The article, detailed substantiated instances and complaints about western peacekeepers involving in strategic level operations while making African-"third world" soldiers act as "cannon fodder’s" at the tactical levels in peacekeeping operation in Rwanda Congo, Angola Sierra Leone etc even when dealings simply involved humanitarian aid.

I initially refused writing the precis on the principle that the numerous conflicts plaguing Africa were senseless and ill advised. Substantiating my point with the fact that two of the world’s poorest countries, Ethiopia and Eritrea were engaged in a senseless conflict with no achievable strategic objective, financing their actions with donor aid, then calling for intentional aid and assistance in mediation.

My point being, dialogue is always an option, an option that we African’s detrimentally ignore because we over trivialize and personify issues. Issues sometimes merely requiring expedient reasoning to reach understanding.

Reading through the article "Racism in Peacekeeping?" I concluded the west had no legal moral obligation to intervene or mediate to resolve "Africa’s issues". My boss and I disagreed on a professional basis, he felt otherwise. He had been in Rwanda and Bosnia. I had no tactical level experience so perceivably couldn’t understand the magnitude of human suffering, he felt.

The precis component researched and written from my viewpoint was never used. Later I was requested to develop component precis simulations and visuals for a course on Refugees. Specifically on conflict resultant IDP’s (Internally Displaced Persons) in Sierra Leone, a course meant for the Albanian defense establishment for May.

Now, post completing the course component development my reasoning is changed. I I’m fully privy to the plight of internally displaced persons even if from a strategic perspective. My reasoning unwittingly influenced by the scary images of conflict victims once Intellectually faced with realities of conflict and its effect on lives. Robert D. Kaplans rather embellished but reflective article, "The Coming Anarchy", is a pointer to why countries must develop strong projectable defense capability to ensure world peace and security. An objective the MPRI led training for the Nigerian Armed Forces seeks to achieve.

The policy of the western states and strategic establishment is and always will be. "African solutions for Africa’s problems". From now intentions are to only facilitate countries like Nigeria without necessarily burden carrying? Those of you living in the west and involved in or interactive with happenings in international development or politics will have better understanding.

Policy shifts in most western states, as always dictated by strategic interest are continuous. The United States for one leans towards isolationism in a sense. Other liberal democracies like Canada are scaling down on "noble" causes such as peacekeeping, especially peacekeeping outside its sphere of geo-political and economic interest.

However, visionarily conscious of the multi-dimensional effects of the continuous shift towards a unified world economy and the transcending capacity of international law-globalization. The west seeks geo-strategic partnerships to facilitate tasks they are unwilling to concern themselves with anymore.

Implications are countries like Nigeria. Through capacity building initiatives and by happenstance of geo-eco-strategic positioning are increasingly being facilitated and encouraged into symbiotic strategic partnerships especially to encourage and ensue world peace.

For those of you conversant with the Brahimi report, the need to facilitate and capacity build the United Nations conflict resolution capacity and arising suggestions for a United Nations "Rapid Reactionary Force"-the plausibility we still contend with, the United States sponsored capacity building program should be a thing of joy as Nigeria’s strategic importance in enhanced.

Australia’s role in East Timor and NATO operations in the FMYR in a sense points to the future of peacekeeping operations.

Implications are, while the cumbersome United Nations Security Council mechanism deliberates on response initiatives. Capable and facilitated states or groupings react instantaneously, once mandated to de-escalate conflicts especially in their geo-political or geo-economic sphere of influence.

This way, the world hopes to avoid another Rwanda and Sierra Leone where slow international response meant hundreds of thousands of innocent lives were lost in genocidal orgies.

The by-product of this complex web leaves regional powers like Nigeria very influential, making them important to geo-strategic decision making. Study Egypt’s profile in international politics to understand.

I dare to argue again and again that uninformed and insistent views, without totally examining the ramification of process demonstrates a disconnect between knowledge of theory and tactical level practice of peacekeeping.

While Nigeria’s role particularly as a component force is initiatively commendable the peacekeeping operations in Sierra Leone or even Liberia were not successful operations. Anyone insistent on it’s success still has a mindset dominated by embellished myth. Myths generated by a system dominated by "old think", a system that refuses to acknowledge its own shortcomings and failures. See chapter 5 page 5 of 8, Abiodun Alao’s-Sierra Leone: Tracing the Genesis of A Controversy (briefing # 58 June 1998) to get a clearer understanding of the operational/inter-operational and projection capability of the Nigerian Armed Forces.

Internationally, the concept of peacekeeping is now based on the principles of the "New Peacekeeping Partnership". A concept developed by the Pearson Canadian International Peacekeeping Center.

The "New Peacekeeping Partnership", is a concert involving mission military, civilian, civil police, humanitarian agencies, policy makers diplomats etc. All, operational component partners working in concert to achieving mission mandate and end-state.

Peacekeeping, is now about peace negotiations, rebuilding state structures, providing humanitarian assistance, picking up garbage and a host of other activities aimed at helping people and citizenry.

Moral in the Nigerian Armed Forces is still low; officers are capable but poorly trained and polarized.

Doctrinally, the Nigerian Armed Forces is weak and the numerous coups counter coups a high non-literacy rate especially amongst members of the older senior officer corps and the witch hunting of the past has destroyed military ethos, command control and interoperability capacity and structure.

Inadequately trained and armed, illiterate and ill facilitated, its non-officer corps has little knowledge of the precepts of social-responsibility or law. Mediation to the recruit still is the gun butt to the belligerent party’s forehead in cases of civil dispute.

The principles and concepts of C-MOC and CI-MIC (Military-Civilian interface and cooperation), the mainstay of international peacekeeping operations if existent is lightly regarded or ignored in the Nigerian Armed Forces.

The new international environment Nigeria’s is being thrust requires a new and different approach to peacekeeping. This capability Nigerian Armed Forces must adopt, to become truly internationally ready and capable. This includes significant improvement in the way its general operations and in particular its peacekeeping operations are planned and conducted.

The changing face of international peacekeeping and how the United States facilitated training program can enable the Nigerian Armed Forces achieve a level whereby a selected battalion or brigade is primed to become an effective component force for future international peacekeeping duties is critical to world peace.

The MPRI led retraining process will amongst other things facilitate the creation of an effective mechanism for interdisciplinary cooperation and coordination between civilian and military components and how they support each other in operations.

Consequently the Nigerian Armed Forces must therefore achieve at least an average pre-deployment operationability status to be considered truly internationally capable. A status only western support and initiatives can achieve.

The US "military mechanism" can and will never be an impediment to Nigeria. Especially a "democratic Nigeria". The US military also are not a threat to Nigeria’s sovereignty in any strategic sense. Only a small component force of reserves are involved in the ongoing retraining and capacity building exercise.

I write with my patriotic sense intact but propelled by expediency. I read with justifiable fear the erudite Prof. Omoruyi’s comment on the US making funds available and spending the funds themselves on their favored ex-Generals by way of MPRI?

But at least we know the Nigerian Armed Forces is getting properly retrained rather than the supposed funds being chased around international financial circles as monies stolen.

The gains of these capacity building are quantitatively unquantifiable for now, only time will tell.

My fear remains, if Nigerian defense portfolio managers have an understanding of what’s transpiring internationally. Because the conceptual framework for this capacity building exercise should have included capacity and program evaluation and redevelopment for Nigeria’s defense and strategic institutions in Nigeria.

Another overlooked issue critical to the development of the Nigerian Armed Forces is that of law. Law and how it regulates interaction with the civil society, and international law and how its transcendently attempting to regulate the conduct of war. This is a capacity totally weak in the Nigeria Armed Forces requiring building.

Conclusively, while I understand and sympathize with Augustus Aikhomus fears for the identity of the Nigerian Armed Forces. I bid for the supremacy of matters of wider strategic interest.

The down of globalization is here, here to stay. As the WTO agreement in a sense seeks to facilitate issues of international trade. The changing face of International peacekeeping seeks to standardize component units of strategic partnership nations to arrive at an internationally acceptable operational and inter operational status.

The face of peacekeeping is dynamic in many ramifications. Internationally, the guiding principles of international law, enshrined in the principles of the Geneva Conventions, its additional protocols and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Charter seeks to enforce issues such as Rules of Engagement, strictly defining combatants status in conflict theaters. The applicability of these principles world over is continually challenged especially in conflicts in the "New South" regions. My hope in the future is for the Nigerian Armed Forces to become a truly internationally recognized force. A force disciplined capable and respected. For this Nigeria needs continuous international assistance where and when forthcoming.

William Etim-Bassey is Associate of the Lester B. Pearson Canadian International Peace Center.

He can be reached at or www.nigeriasecurityanalysis.org 

.