*The letter that gave group breather
By Jide Ajani

It was one of those hypocritical engagements.

Nigeria’s battle against the terror group, Jama’atu Ahliss-Sunnah Lidda’awati Wal Jihad, otherwise known as Boko Haram, was at best shambolic in the early part of 2012 and disgusting to say the least.  It was as if there was no government in place and the mere fact that the terror group was beginning to dare more, and bomb more and kill more, became a serious matter of concern at international platforms.

Some Nigerians who called for the designation of the group as a Foreign Terror Organisation, FTO, rather than receive support from home, got a shocker.  The Nigerian government, their government, forcefully moved against the action.

Now, that is where mud was thrown in.

It is not yet established where a spurious document emanated from.

What has become clear, however, was the ends to which the document was meant to be put!
Some 25 scholars from reputable academic institutions in the United States of America, USA, wrote a passionate letter stating a position.
It is still debatable whose interests were being served and who may have funded such an exercise.

But with the very vociferous, sometimes embarrassing position of Nigeria’s government at that time, relieving it of culpability would be very difficult.
And whereas they claimed to be concerned for Nigeria and Nigerians in the event that the FTO designation is hung on Boko Haram, the time wasted in frontally confronting the terror group is partly responsible for its growth.

Worse, a certain Johnnie Carson, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, who took a more than official interest in Nigeria, appeared on the same wave length with the academics.  His warped logic, that poverty was the reason for the rise of Boko Haram, a comment described as an insult to poor people all over the world.  He suffers culpability.

Had the insurgents been dealt with in the manner of their activities as a terror group, perhaps the token successes recorded in recent time s against it could have long added up to foil and stop the groups advances.

The three page letter was sent to the then Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, on May 21, 2012.  Received at her State Department, 2201 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20520:

“Dear Secretary Clinton:

“As scholars with a special interest in Nigeria and broad expertise on African politics, we are writing to urge that you not designate Boko Haram a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). We are acutely aware of the horrific violence perpetrated by Boko Haram, including attacks on both Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, whether government officials or civilian targets. We share your concerns about the impact of extremist violence on Nigeria’s democratic progress and security in general.

“However an FTO designation would internationalize Boko Haram, legitimize abuses by Nigeria’s security services, limit the State Department’s latitude in shaping a long term strategy, and undermine the U.S. Government’s ability to receive effective independent analysis from the region.

“An FTO designation would internationalize Boko Haram’s standing and enhance its status among radical organizations elsewhere. Boko Haram’s recent tactics, including the use of suicide bombers and improvised explosive devices, raise questions about their foreign links. The network’s focus has been overwhelmingly domestic, despite an August 2011 attack on the United Nations office in Abuja. Rhetorically, some of Boko Haram’s critique of northern underdevelopment and elite corruption is within the realm of mainstream political discourse. But there are clear indications that their tactics and targets have turned most Nigerians against them, including local populations in the north.
“An FTO designation would potentially shift the organization’s posture towards the US and validate the more radical factions’ analysis of outsider influence in Nigeria. It would also undermine the Nigerian government’s ability to address the problem through law enforcement and thereby improve rule of law.

“An FTO designation would give disproportionate attention to counter-terrorism in our bilateral relations, and increase the risk that the US becomes linked – whether in reality or perception – to abuses by the security services. An FTO designation would effectively endorse excessive use of force at a time when the rule of law in Nigeria hangs in the balance.

There is already evidence that abuses by Nigeria’s security services have facilitated radical recruitment. This was made unequivocally clear in 2009 following the extrajudicial murder of Mohammed Yusuf, which was broadcast across the internet. That incident was immediately followed by Boko Haram’s radicalization, splintering, and increased propensity for large scale violence. Moreover, the routine use of the military for domestic law enforcement is a cause for alarm in a country with a deep history of military rule, and where formal declarations of states of emergency have historically led to broader political instability.

“In publicizing this letter, it is also our hope that the Department of Defense and other concerned agencies will reaffirm the limitations of their roles: informing or implementing policy rather than making it. Accurately understanding and properly addressing the issue of Boko Haram will require a diplomatic, developmental, and demilitarized framework. The State Department and its civilian developmental partners must be in the lead.

“The FTO list system has its origins in Executive Order 12947 in 1995, which was designed to prohibit transactions with organizations that interfere in the Middle East peace process. Congressional legislation the following year codified a process for making such decisions under the Effective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorism Act. Once the State Department makes an FTO designation and that entity is added to the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list managed by the Treasury Department, it is illegal for U.S. citizens to have any interactions with that entity unless they apply for a license. At least 1.1 million individuals and entities are also on secret lists, according to an audit by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Inspector General. Lack of information about the criteria for being listed makes it impossible to be removed and encourages selective enforcement.

“This cumbersome and arbitrary process has made it impossible for some humanitarian organizations to operate in the neediest areas of Africa. If economic development is to play a role in alleviating tensions in northern Nigeria, we should not hamper access by USAID or private NGOs in providing aid and assistance in the region.

“Should Boko Haram be designated an FTO through this regime, it would be illegal for non-governmental organizations to interact with members of Boko Haram – even if the purpose of such contact was to persuade them to renounce violence. The US Supreme Court upheld these restrictions in 2010, declaring that such contact would constitute providing “material support” to terrorist groups. Commenting on the threat this poses to the Carter Center, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said this legal restriction “threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence.” It would therefore be illegal for third party intermediaries to play a role in some future peace process or in the confidence building measures required to get there.

“Less attention has been brought to the damage that this system does to academic inquiry more generally. An FTO designation would prevent independent scholarly inquiry about Boko Haram, and increase suspicion in the future about researchers with no governmental ties. Public policy benefits from dialogue with public scholars, and an FTO designation would effectively criminalize broad categories of research.

“During a visit to Nigeria in February, former president Bill Clinton commented on the security crisis there by concluding that “it is almost impossible to cure a problem based on violence with violence.” A lasting solution to Boko Haram will require robust political and developmental components initiated by the Nigerian government and broadly endorsed by the Nigerian people  through democratic processes that enhance the rule of law. We believe that an FTO designation for Boko Haram would limit American policy options to those least likely to work, and would undermine the domestic political conditions necessary in Nigeria for an enduring solution.

“We thank you for taking our views into consideration. Our affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not constitute an institutional endorsement.
Sincerely,

A. Carl LeVan, Peter M. Lewis
American University Johns Hopkins University
Jean Herskovits, Daniel J. Smith
SUNY – Purchase Brown University
Adrienne LeBas, R. Kiki Edozie
American University Michigan State University
Brandon Kendhammer, Susan Shepler
Ohio University American University
John Campbell, David Dwyer
Council on Foreign Relations Michigan State University
Paul Lubeck, Pearl Robinson
University of California – Santa Cruz Tufts University
Darren Kew, Clarence Lusane
University of Massachusetts – Boston American University
Laura Thaut, Nicolas van de Walle
University of Minnesota – Minneapolis Cornell University
Judith Byfield, Susan M. O’Brien
Cornell University University of Florida
John Paden, Deborah Brautigam
George Mason University Johns Hopkins University
Michael Watts
University of California – Berkeley

Additional names added since May 21:
David Laitin, David Wiley
Stanford University Michigan State University
Shobana Shankar, Sandra T. Barnes
Georgetown University University of Pennsylvania
cc: Johnnie Carson, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs