Buhari, Boko Haram mediation and trust

Aliyu Musa

In a previous article I referred to Azar’s suggestion that the most effective means of resolving protracted conflict is a collaborative problem solving process that could be used to surmount deeply ingrained mistrust and hatred. Azar also argues that by this approach conflict is treated as a problem that requires an urgent solution and not something that must be won through an adversarial process.

It is on this basis that I argue that the Boko Haram insurgence will continue to defy every known prescription unless the right dosage is administered and in a proper manner.

When the Boko Haram sect reportedly named General Muhammadu Buhari as one of its trusted negotiators with the federal government I knew it would provoke further controversy on the person of the retired general, especially from those who have long concluded to robe him in the garment of unrepentant religious extremists. I was sure whether General Buhari accepted the role or not he would be castigated.

We fail to realise the fundamental role trust plays in finding an answer to this or similar conflict whether in Nigeria or other parts of the world. For Buhari to reach a decision on how to respond, I am certain, he took time to consider this issue. Without trust it is absolutely illogical to step into this responsibility and expect a positive outcome. We have the experience of Dr Ahmad Datti to cite as a reference.

As Azar has argued, negotiation only succeeds where both sides agree that resolving the problem is more important than their own interests; they both work towards achieving it. But the problem has remained insurmountable because both sides have not only shown unwillingness to resolve it but have fanatically held on to their positions.

The government, even while claiming readiness to negotiate, strikes at the group from behind. Often soldiers that try to crush the insurgence end up shoring support for the Boko Haram from people in the affected parts because of their utterly brutal handling of the situation. And the government does not think it’s essential to call them to order or penalise anyone for gross Human Rights violation.

The Boko Haram, in their case, had uncompromisingly held on to their position of non-negotiation that even this latest proposition cannot be fully trusted. In the past when similar offers were made it was always accompanied by refutation from the main group, suggesting a splinter group had made the proposal.

But my main concern is where all this leaves General Buhari as a mediator. Some commentators have argued that it was a major dilemma for him; while on the one hand it presented an opportunity for him to broker a peace deal that had been eagerly awaited, it also meant some serious risk. The negotiation could fail like a previous attempt and be blamed on anyone including him.

However, the most disturbing possibility is that he could be blackmailed whether it failed or succeeded. On a numbers of occasions the government, including the president, claimed there’s a political undertone to the conflict – which I don’t doubt. But what I find difficult to understand is how that undercurrent is cheaply linked to the president’s ‘electoral victory’ in 2011. What the proponents of this position try hard to deny is the existence of the group and, in indeed, the violence prior to President Goodluck Jonathan’s regime.

If Buhari had accepted and went ahead to broker a deal the same people would come out to say they were right when they suggested a connection between the group and the retired general. They would argue that it was that connection he used to put them back on leash after using them to perpetuate a reign of terror. They would further ague he used the negotiation as a means of resuscitating his political career in view of 2015.

And if after accepting he’s unable to succeed in brokering a deal the same people would claim his reputation has all along been exaggerated, pointing at the failure as a confirmation. Even now that he chose not to accept the president’s attack dog (actually a toothless one) Doyin Okupe has preposterously concluded that for Boko Haram to name General Buhari as one of its trusted negotiators there’s something amiss. “What amazes me here is the fact that they mentioned General Buhari to be one of the mediators. So things are beginning to fall into place,” he says.

Like every lover of peace I am fervently hoping for an end to the crisis. But I certainly don’t want any innocent man to be sacrificed in the process. In my opinion, therefore, General Buhari took the right decision.

Postscript:

This article appears in the Blueprint newspaper of 16/11/2012