Nigeria Times

By Timothy Onwe

In the over a decade, I have contributed to the national discourse, there has never been a time like now that I am writing with so much pain in me. The anxiety stems not from bodily harm, but that of disappointment from an organization that is on the ground in over 90 countries and prides itself as neutral, impartial, and independent.

This same organization, for inexplicable reasons, has so decided to veer off its core mandate of helping people affected by conflict and armed violence to delving into propaganda, illogical conclusions, and outright insinuation at the detriment of peace and tranquillity.

That organization is the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and its recent report that over 22,000 people are missing in North-East Nigeria as a result of the counter-insurgency operations of the Nigerian Military. I was dazed and could not come to terms with such disservice to Nigeria and Nigerians.

In my opinion, the ICRC went overboard with its statement, and I think the relevant authorities in Nigeria should do well to refute its report for the sake of tomorrow because if this is allowed, then we might be creating a monster that would constitute a clog in the wheel of progress in Nigeria.

As a start, the report by the ICRC is false. There is not an element of truth in it, and this fact must be clearly stated for all and sundry to understand because as it stands, quite a number have been misled to believe that the Nigerian Military has not lived up to its billing in the fight against terrorism in Nigeria.

Secondly, I believe that something is amiss somewhere for the ICRC to condescend to the level of impartiality and lack of objectivity in its framing of issues. I say this because, as one conversant with the counter-insurgency operations of the Nigerian Military, the ICRC report is a disservice to the on-going efforts to bring to an end the activities of Boko Haram terrorists in Nigeria.

How the ICRC got to this level remains a topic of discourse. However, in the context of the counter-insurgency operations in North-East Nigeria, the ICRC got it wrong either by omission or commission. The tripod of neutrality, impartiality, and independence was missing in its entirety in the report by the ICRC.

This is on the heels that questions have been asked in certain quarters as regards the sincerity of purpose of international NGOs in the war against terrorism in Nigeria. And with this coming from the stable of the ICRC, that suspicion has been heightened. There is every reason to suspect that there is some interest working against the interest of Nigeria, and these interests come under various nomenclatures.

These interests look for willing tools to propagate half-truths and cause a distraction, especially where the Nigerian Military is making gains. Countless examples buttress this fact, and the recent outing by ICRC is an addition to that league of soldiers that want to see to the destabilization and disintegration of Nigeria.

The ICRC as an organization has failed woefully in this attempt because the attempt, as despicable as it is, is feeble and of poor taste. Unless they want to feign ignorance of the search and rescue operations of the Nigerian Military that has yielded tremendous results with the rescue of thousands of women and children that have been united with their families.

Like I stated earlier, I am in pain because I am still trying to figure the level of the conspiracy that has gone into the plot to discredit the counter-insurgency efforts in the country. I won’t say I am entirely disappointed, because in recent times there have been quite some revelations on the activities of some acclaimed NGOs such as Amnesty International and how they cut corners in return for pecuniary benefits.

I am therefore emboldened to state that the ICRC is no different from these groups that have deviated from their core mandate. For the ICRC, it is indeed a shame that should give critical stakeholders in Nigeria a cause to worry as to how these terrorist groups have been able to infiltrate the ranks of some credible international NGOs to actualize their nefarious agenda.

If this is not the case, how could one phantom that an organization such as the ICRC would be in the business of spreading outright falsehood without minding the implication of their actions? Some might want to argue that there is always a first time, but, no, because this is a wrong first time that dampens the morale of the military authorities and rubbishes all the gains made so far in the fight against terrorism in Nigeria.

The concept of psychological warfare, which is the planned tactical use of propaganda, threats, and other non-combat techniques during the war, should open our eyes to this stark reality that we are confronting and the angle the ICRC is coming from. They have been compromised, and this much is glaring; hence, the propaganda aimed towards giving the Boko Haram terrorist that advantage they could not gain in the battlefront due to the resilience and commitment of the military authorities in the fight against terrorism in Nigeria.

I could have fallen for the gimmick, but I didn’t because I am conversant with the happenings in North-East Nigeria, however, what about those out there not conversant and have been misled by this sheer propaganda?

This is my suggestion. The relevant authorities in Nigeria must rise to the occasion and nip this anomaly in the bud before it gets out of hand. They must begin the process of countering the narrative that is being pushed forward about the credibility of the military authorities in its counter-insurgency operations. And for the ICRC, this is a handshake beyond the elbow.

There is a need for retracing of steps in the interest of the sensibilities of Nigerians they have attempted to insult.

Onwe is a public affairs analyst based in Abuja

By Richard Murphy

As a first, Nigeria is not a banana republic where everything goes. There are laid down rules and regulations. There is a Constitution that also guides our actions and inactions, just like in the majority of the world where there is a democracy.
The piece by Bertrand Perrochet, the director of operations of Medecins sans Frontiers (Doctors without Borders) titled “Is Counter-Terrorism killing Humanitarian action in Nigeria,” portrays a picture of a deliberate attempt by the military authorities to deprive victims of the Boko Haram war in North-East Nigeria access to Medicare.
Could that be true? And if yes, what purpose would it serve? These are some of the questions that ran through my mind when I laid my hands on the article. However, after reading, I was genuinely disappointed that such contradictions and half-truths could emanate from the stable of such an organization that should know better about the great efforts that have gone into humanitarian efforts by the relevant authorities in Nigeria.
I can bet that Bertrand Perrochet was misled by his lieutenants supposedly on the ground in North-East Nigeria. And he acted erroneously too. Or just maybe he is acting out a script, with his French connection. Be that as it may, it is inexcusable for such half-truths to be peddled before the international community. This is my grouse with the write-up.
In counter-terrorism operations, the number one rule is restriction and access only for medical aids as when necessary. But again, such access could be denied when there is a propensity for harm to come the way of humanitarian workers. We are witnesses to instances where humanitarian workers are abducted and in some killed by belligerent members of terrorist groups. Nigeria has had its fair share of it. And this is in line with one of the pillars of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy that stipulates “addressing the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism.
You would agree with me that unhindered access is a conducive condition to the spread of terrorism. Back to Bertrand, the military authorities had denied access to towns outside their control called “Garrison,” and there are many children in those enclaves in dire need of medical attention. As a first, that is not a statement of fact as it was not backed with any empirical evidence. I thought that before such postulations could be made, there ought to be in the least, first-hand information, and not assumptions. They ought to know better that people could see through such propaganda easily.
Secondly, the military authorities would not endanger the lives of humanitarian workers by granting access to areas not safe by all ramifications. Don’t forget that the lives of these humanitarian workers are as well important. For example, it is common knowledge that the remnants of Boko Haram fighters are littered around the fringes of the Lake Chad region. So would it make sense for the military authorities to grant access to Bertrand and his lieutenants? They would be probably be killed or abducted for ransom.
Ironically, this much he alluded to. But he again contradicted himself by stating that “doctors should not be forced to make judgments on who is a good patient or bad patient.” I am not sure there is any such classification in the theatre of operations. Maybe he is talking about rendering medical services to wounded terrorists, who, in his words, do not want to have any form of interaction with humanitarian workers. “We are faced with fragmented armed groups that don’t want to talk to us, have indiscriminately assaulted civilians, attacked health structures, and kidnapped and killed aid workers.”
If this is the case, there is a justification for some of the actions taken by the military authorities to preserve human life because it is only the living that can render humanitarian services.
I am of the candid opinion that Bertrand wanted a situation where his team would go into the trenches and render humanitarian services like Father Christmas. If that is what he is canvassing, I am afraid that is the height of ignorance. And he must also understand that in counter-terrorism operations, and concerning Nigeria, humanitarian services have been one of the foundations on which the counter-terrorism strategy was built.
There are no forms of discrimination, as he claimed. Maybe he is unaware of the various search and rescue operations carried out by the military authorities in the region. And the result has seen to the rescue of hundreds of women and children, mostly malnourished and in dire need of medical attention. These women and children are attended to by military medical personnel and subsequently taken to safety where access to robust medical services can be availed. And this is where Doctors without Borders and other humanitarian organizations come in.
Lest I forget, this is a war situation and not a medical outreach. These are two different things and Bertrand, and his lieutenants must realize that taking back the “steering wheel of the ambulance” is a process and not an event because the ambulance had been hijacked by terrorist groups when they took up arms and killed and maimed unarmed innocent women and children. And that is why the military authorities are bent on reclaiming the hijacked ambulance so that Doctors can reach women and children without hinder.
Counter-terrorism cannot kill humanitarian action in Nigeria even though there have been established cases of international humanitarian organizations, mostly of French origin, providing covet logistic support to Boko Haram terrorists in North-East Nigeria. Bertrand and his lieutenants must understand the true meaning of humanitarianism in the context of a war situation. It is not a cinema where Doctors without Borders would be seen manoeuvring dangerous terrains in return for a standing ovation.
Tremendous successes are being recorded daily, and no amount of blackmail can deter the fighting troops. Like I said earlier, Nigeria is not a banana republic. There are laid down rules and regulations. And this French obsession with Nigeria’s counter-terrorism efforts must stop.

Murphy is a security expert and wrote this piece from Calabar.