By Ochereome Nnanna
THE Nigerian government led by President Goodluck Jonathan appears to be leading the push for the forceful ousting of the government of President Laurent Gbagbo of Cote d’Ivoire.

As the current Chairman of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Jonathan has sent many envoys to persuade Gbagbo to cede power to his opponent, Dr Alassane Ouattara, whom the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) of Cote d’Ivoire had declared winner before the result was overturned by the Constitutional Court (CC) in favour of Gbagbo.

Over the past weekend, a new and heightened buzz was generated around the issue when Ouattara’s Prime Minister, Guilliame Soro, called on Jonathan in Abuja to urge him not to soften his stance that Gbagbo must go.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Hajiya Salamatu Suleiman, shortly after the meeting, assured that the President would remain firm on this issue equally supported by the African Union and the United Nations at large. Her “senior” colleague, Chief Odein Ajumogobia, went a step further to call on the United Nations to authorise the use of force to remove Gbagbo from power.

Like an Oliver North in full spate, the Nigerian Chief of Defence Staff, Oluseyi Petinrin, was quoted by The Guardian this week Monday as follows: “We are ready, although we continue to prepare. If anyone thinks we are bluffing, so much the better – it is better to be underestimated”.

On the other hand, the United Nations and France, as much as they sympathise with Ouattarra’s camp, over the past weekend announced they would not sanction military action against Gbagbo, insinuating they preferred other means of putting pressure, including economic sanctions. In the same vein, all of Cote d’Ivoire ’s neighbours (except perhaps, Burkina Faso , for the obvious reason that Ouattara’s family came originally from their country) have made it clear they would not encourage a military solution.

The question before Nigeria is this: What national interest will we be pursuing by going to war to flush out Gbagbo?

It is quite obvious to me that Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire’s other neighbours have deeply studied the situation as it concerns their national interests and came out with opposition to war.

An all-out war, for instance, will trigger mass movements of displaced persons across the borders, and Cote d’Ivoire’s over 21 million people will menace Ghana’s 23 million, thus threatening Ghana’s steady economic advancement. Liberia and Sierra Leone , which only recently came out of years of civil wars, would also be flooded by Ivoirien refugees, with the danger that new rebel groups could form and resume hostilities there.

After he was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ajumogobia told the nation that Nigeria ’s new strategic interests were no longer Africa as a centrepiece of foreign policy. According to him, Nigeria is now the centrepiece, meaning that every diplomatic pursuit of this country would be based on the advancement of the best interests of Nigeria.

The question comes up again: What national interest of Nigeria will we be gunning after in leading a war to force Gbagbo out of power? Beyond the romance of stamping democracy and upholding the inviolability of elections (which are international concerns), there is nothing more.

On the other hand, we have everything to lose as a nation by going to war. If thousands of Liberia refugees could flood Nigeria 20 years ago, Cote d’Ivoire is even closer and has even more population. They will come, and we will have no choice but to open our doors. There are hundreds of thousands of Nigerians in Cote d’Ivoire, mainly Igbos, Yorubas and Northern Nigerians. They will be targeted, permanently.

Our experiences in Liberia and Sierra Leone should be our teacher. We will lose soldiers to an unnecessary and foolish war and our tepid efforts to grow our economy will suffer setbacks. We need to conserve our money to invest in our power, education, health, and infrastructure sectors. Let us not be like George Herbert Walker Bush, the American president who sent his country to war in Iraq which triggered an economic recession and made his political party to lose power and face both at home and abroad.

Besides, we need to examine the true facts of the case between Gbagbo and Ouattara. The Ivoirien electoral law is akin to that of Nigeria . The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) can pronounce a candidate as the winner, while an election tribunal can come out while a different verdict. This was what happened in Cote d’Ivoire .

The IEC announced Ouattara as the winner. It was still left to the Constitutional Council (CC) to verify the result. Article 59 line 2 of the Ivoirien Electoral Code gives the IEC the power to declare the provisional results and turn over the figures to the CC, as the ultimate arbiter, to issue the final result. If we find this acceptable in Nigeria why must we go to war when it applies in another country?

The problems of Ivory Coast are more deeply rooted than Ouattara winning an election and Gbagbo refusing to step down. Ouattara can never lead a peaceful and prosperous Cote d’Ivoire until the deeper problems of north/south dichotomy and the place of foreigners/settlers are determined and agreed.

In the face of this stalemate, the only viable option is for the international community, with Nigeria at its vanguard, to initiate a dialogue and an interim power sharing arrangement, which may not include the two main actors, Gbagbo and Ouattara. These two have become part of the problem.

If in the final analysis it becomes clear that both sides cannot share and live together peacefully in one country, the United National should encourage a Sudan-type referendum to enable them part ways. Nigeria must not commit her soldiers and finances to another useless war in the sub-region. We are no war mongers.