By Rotimi Fasan
A COUNTRY that wants to be taken seriously by her counterparts must recognise when it’s being insulted and know how to reject such insult.

Such demand of respect from disrespectful counterparts, friends or foes, is not necessarily for the present but to prevent a repeat of such anti-social conduct. Nigeria, however, does not appear to appreciate this simple rule of interpersonal conduct well enough.

And if she does, she does not know how or what it means to defend her national interest. This much is clear from the way we have reacted to the importation into the country of 13 containers loaded with all manners of lethal weapons, including explosives and rocket launchers.

The containers were brought in through the Apapa port in Lagos. Initially nobody had a clue as to the origin of the lethal cargoes or the identity of those who brought them. All we heard from Owoye Azazi, the National Security Adviser to the President, was promise to unravel the mystery surrounding the containers.

Investigation, weeks after the discovery, has shown that the containers came from Iran. It would seem Iran is not content to show such offensive and clearly unfriendly attitude to a so-called friendly country like Nigeria, she must add the unnecessary insult to dictate how Nigeria reacts to her behaviour.

There can be no other way to explain the manner Iran, through her embassy in Nigeria and comments by her Foreign Minister, seeks to downplay the gravity of the questions thrown up by the arms shipment, including possible violation of a UN resolution prohibiting certain export of arms by Iran.

In his first reaction to the unravelling scandal all Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, had to say was that the entire matter arose from a misunderstanding that had been resolved. The shipment was, according to him, of conventional weapons ordered by a West African country.

Apparently the country of destination has no name, nor do we have a right to know why the shipment had to go through Nigerian ports in order to get to their final port. What right has Iran to tell us that an act potentially threatening to Nigeria’s security has been resolved without Nigeria’s say-so?

What does Iran mean by making light of the matter in this way? That Nigeria has no right to demand explanations for what has happened? When did an act threatening to national security become a matter of mere misunderstanding? How could the ‘misunderstanding’ have been resolved?  By Iran turning her embassy into a haven for one of the suspected importers of the weapon-laden cargoes and making it impossible for Nigerian investigators to interrogate him?

Could a matter serious enough to warrant a visit to Nigeria by the Iranian Foreign Minister have been caused by mere misunderstanding? In the unhealthy clouds generated by the shipment, the Iranian Ambassador to Nigeria has been called home.

The Nigerian national football team has had to call off a friendly with Iran for which the Iranian football association has the effrontery to demand compensations- all in the course of this slight misunderstanding.

Never mind that the Iranians want the world to believe that all these alike diplomatic and undiplomatic acts from both sides have nothing to do with the arms shipment and Tehran’s uncooperative attitude to investigations into it.

Iran may well act as she pleases, telling us to look away while she kicks dust in our face; she may seek to promote so-called bilateral issues of trade while hoping to increase the volume of trade between her and Nigeria; she may indeed issue a statement condemning, as she has done, the Independence Day terrorist attack in Abuja while offering Nigeria the poisoned drink of an invitation to a meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Countries, a polarising matter that had brought the country to the brink of disaster in decades past- Iran, I insist, may choose to make light of a potentially deadly issue in this manner.

That’s her prerogative. What’s of interest and concern to me is Nigeria’s seeming acquiescence in all this, even as she appears not to be enjoying Tehran’s antics in this regard. But Nigeria has not done enough to show she disapproves of the way Iran has so far handled the matter.

She is content to follow the lead suggested by Iran. But our national interest demands that we insist on full investigations and disclosure of all points patterning to the shipment.

In recent months the country has witnessed an alarming rise in terrorist activities across the states. Of particular concern are the activities of Henry Okah’s Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger-Delta and the Boko Haram, a fundamentalist sect of zealots that proclaim a fringe doctrine of Islam.

A sworn enemy of the State, the sect has lately taken to the use of rocket launchers, grenades and all sorts of explosives, in its asymmetrical war against Nigeria. In the light of the long-held suspicion that groups such as Boko Haram enjoy outside support in training, logistics and finances, what do we make of the Iranian shipment?

A mere misunderstanding as Mottaki urges? Certainly not! Iran can do with some form of image laundering in matters concerning sponsorship of religious fundamentalism around the world. It’s one reason she is not a favourite among Western countries, especially the United States of America.

Although there are security reports on the presence of foreign-sponsored terrorist training camps in parts of the country; although Iran has not been positively linked with sponsorship of such groups in Nigeria, but her attitude in this present matter is typical of the condescension that is always to be noticed in the manner some Arab countries treat their Black African counterparts.

This is especially true of Mohammar Gaddafi despite his pan-Africanist claims. These Arab countries tend to treat Black Africans as their impoverished relations.  Such attitude is not helpful. It’s what Nigeria must reject from Iran and others like her.