Implications Of United States’ Declaration That IPOB Is Not A Terrorist Organisation

The media in Nigeria is awash with the story that the United States government does not recognize Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) as a terrorist organization.

This was coming on the heels of the Nigerian government’s declaration of the group as a terrorist organization, even as the IPOB leadership and the pan-Igbo socio-cultural organization, Ohanaeze kicked against the action of government. The IPOB has also gone to court to challenge its proscription and the terrorism tag.

The United States made its position known when a Punch Newspaper correspondence wanted to get the country’s reaction to the declaration of IPOB as a terrorist organization. The spokesman for the American Embassy in Nigeria, Russell Brooks, reportedly told the newspaper that the US government does not view IPOB as a terrorist group.

He said this in response to Punch correspondent’s email which asked if the United States sees IPOB as a terrorist organisation.

Brooks stated further that the US was committed to Nigeria’s unity and would support a peaceful resolution of any crisis in the country.

He said, “The United States Government is strongly committed to Nigeria’s unity.  Important political and economic issues affecting the Nigerian people, such as the allocation of resources, are worthwhile topics for respectful debate in a democracy.

“Within the context of unity, we encourage all Nigerians to support a de-escalation of tensions and peaceful resolution of grievances.  The Indigenous People of Biafra is not a terrorist organisation under US law.”

Now, what are the implications of US stance for the Nigerian government? One, the Nigerian government will find it difficult to mobilise international community against the group as it has successfully done in the case of Boko Haram which is internationally known as a terrorist group. In such a scenario the Nigerian government cannot stop the group’s financing from Western capitals including the United States and United Kingdom. Recall that recently the federal government declared through the minister of Information, Mr Lai Mohammed that they have discovered the sources of funding for the proscribed group, in which he named France among countries through which funds flow to IPOB. Similarly the minister has revealed the frustration that the government had faced in persuading the UK government to close down the IPOB radio known as Radio Biafra, that is domiciled in UK. While Nigerian government was telling the UK to close down the group’s radio because of its alleged subversive activities, the UK thinks otherwise, insisting that it cannot clamp down on free speech, which it said the radio station represents.

The number two implication, and perhaps the one that should be of serious concern to the Nigerian government is if United States Congress discovers that arms that the United States government sold to Nigerian government to fight Boko Haram in the North East are diverted to fight IPOB in the South East-the epicenter of IPOB agitation, the US government may be forced to impose arms embargo against Nigeria. This will worsen Nigeria’s ability to fight the insurgents in the North East whom a chieftain of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) Alhaji Buba Galadima claimed are still in control of seven local government areas in Borno State, a claim that has been denied by the federal government.

Recall that one of the reasons why Nigeria was initially handicapped in routing Boko Haram was the refusal of the United States government to sell arms to Nigeria. It did stop there, US also stopped other countries whose military equipment contain traces of American technology from selling to Nigeria. This accounted for the collapse of the arms deal with Brazil under the President Muhammadu Buhari administration. The United States had blocked the Federal Government from acquiring fighter ground attack aircraft considered crucial in the ongoing campaign against Boko Haram in the North-East.

US had prevented the military from acquiring the A-29 Super Tucano light attack aircraft from Brazil.

According to reports, Nigeria and Brazil were almost striking a deal on the acquisition of the light attack aircraft when the US, which produced the aircraft, prevented the deal. It was gathered that the leadership of the Armed Forces had taken a decision to replace the ailing Alpha jet platform of the Nigerian Air Force with the newer A-29 Super Tucano.

It was reported that the Brazilians, who were initially enthusiastic about the deal, suddenly became reluctant. US had told the Brazilians, who acquired 99 of the aircraft from the US firm, Embraer Defence System, that the aircraft deal be put on hold due to human rights issues involving the military. The US had also blocked the immediate past administration of Dr. Goodluck Jonathan from acquiring Boeing CH-47 Chinok helicopters from Israel in January 2015 purportedly due to human rights issues involving the military.

The US had always cited human rights violations in the North East as the main reason for withholding arms from Nigeria. You can then imagine what will happen if the US congress is to discover that human rights are being violated in South East Nigeria using American made arms meant to fight Boko Haram.

The difficulty that Nigeria face in purchasing ammunition from the United States to fight the Boko Haram terrorists was mainly because of the Leahy’s Law (named after the US Senator, Patrick Leahy, who sponsored the bill) which forbids the US government from selling arms to nations which violate human rights.

However, recently the United States appeared to have relaxed its stringent stand on Leahy’s Law as Reuters reported that the United States Department of Defence, the Pentagon, has informed the US Congress of the sale of 12 Super Tucano A-29 ground attack aircraft and weapons to Nigeria to fight the Boko Haram insurgency. This was despite the damning report by Amnesty International on violations of human rights by the military. But this window of opportunity may be blocked if the government continues to crack down on IPOB and treat them like terrorists when United States and the rest of the world see the group as mere agitators for better condition of living for their people who are marginalized.

Way Forward

The government should negotiate with IPOB to address some of the grievances of the group, which need political solution rather than military action. The IPOB should realize that it cannot get all that it wants in a negotiation. They will not get Biafra, but they can get a restructured Nigeria built on justice and equity. It is obvious that most Nigerians agreed with President Muhammadu Buhari, that Nigeria’s unity is non-negotiable. Buhari is not the first to say this. Former President Goodluck Jonathan made similar assertion while inaugurating the National Conference in 2014. It is therefore assumed that Nigeria’s unity is a settled matter.  The IPOB can see how they are isolated by the rest of Nigeria in its recent confrontation with the military. Many Nigerians agreed on marginalization of South East, but most disagreed on disintegration or Biafra!