GUARDIAN
Sunday, April 23 , 2000
Attack From Senegal
By Reuben Abati
WHEN 79-year-old Abdoulaye Wade became President of Senegal about a month
ago, his victory was hailed world-wide as yet another indication of the
continuing triumph of democracy in Africa. Abdou Diouf, Senegal's President
since 1981 graciously accepted defeat. Wade, himself, is the epitome of
perseverance and commitment. For 25 years, he had made every effort (1974,
1978, 1983, 1988, 1993) to become president of Senegal, and each time, he
failed. Always, he alleged electoral malpractice, and again another time.
Collectors of political tit-bits would easily find some parallels between
him and Abraham Lincoln, father of American democracy. Wade's victory is
occasioned largely by a certain fatigue among the Senegalese with the
Diouf's way of doing things. The people wanted change, and Wade has always
spoken of change arising from the possible death of midnight, and the rise
of a new dawn, which is to say that Senegal poses great challenges for a
post - Diouf Presidency: in terms of the achievement of change beyond the
soap-box.
However, Abdoulaye Wade, within one month, has shown that he does not intend
to focus only on the problems of Senegal. Like every Senegalese who
considers Senegal the melting pot of African civilisation and philosophy,
Wade has been waxing lyrical and poetic about what he calls "the United
States of Africa." Not a particularly new idea. Pan-Africanism is older than
Wade's political career. But like Senghor, Cheik Anta Dioup and Kwame
Nkrumah, Wade wants a stronger Africa, that is arranged along confederal
lines. Not in itself a bad response to the felt need to re-position,
re-energise and re-activate Africa if it must compete in an increasingly
competitive world. Africa contributes less than six per cent of global
trade. And yet, it has the highest prevalence rate of HIV/AIDS as well as
other diseases. It is in addition, the poorest continent in the world - the
only continent that still reminds the world of plague, disease and epidemic.
Every contribution to the re-orientation of the African reality is
necessarily welcome, and the strengthening of African states into economic
blocs may help remove the stigma, on the long run, that this is "a dark
continent," "a basket continent," "the last frontier."
What is controversial in Wade's recommendation is his Nigeria-phobia in two
different interviews granted Jeune Afrique and Newsweek. President Wade
speaks of a United States of West Africa, a United States of Central Africa
and a United States of East Africa with the caveat that Nigeria should stand
alone. His reasoning is that with its size and population, Nigeria will
create problems for other African states particularly in West Africa. In the
Newsweek interview, he suggested that 10 million Nigerians could take over
another West African country, and mess it up thoroughly. He says Nigeria is
"unbalanced and unjust:" It adds: "Nigeria itself is in the mind and its
government does not succeed in maintaining order in its territory, how much
more in community of states." In the same breadth, President Wade, perhaps
to illustrate his point at an individual level, singles out President
Olusegun Obasanjo whom he accuses of ingratitude. Wade is supposed to have
done a lot for President Obasanjo at the time of his imprisonment during the
Abacha years, but now that Obasanjo is president, he has maintained towards
Wade what the aggrieved Senegalese calls "a radio silence." The metaphor is
intelligent. A radio is not like telephone or the internet: it doesn't give
immediate feedback. Wade must have been seeking to connect with Obasanjo,
and our president apparently snubbed him. So, now that Wade is president in
Senegal, he is grabbing his pound of flesh. Obasanjo offends him, in return,
he attacks Nigeria.
Wade proves one point: you never know people until you give them power. For
25 years, Wade sought power. Now, he has it. May the Good Lord protect all
the likely victims of his power. If Obasanjo did not support his bid for the
Senegalese presidency, is that the reason why Nigeria is in the mud. Are we,
really, in the mud? At a lower depth than Senegal? If Wade wants a United
States of Africa, can he single-handedly impose his recommendation? His
attack on Nigeria is misplaced. It is undiplomatic. The truth is that a
United States of West Africa that excludes Nigeria would be a very strange
arrangement indeed. Wade talks as if he is still in the opposition. He
sounds as if he is still on the campaign rostrum. President Wade is
suffering a hang-over. He is now president: he needs to be reminded of that
fact. And the campaign ended a month ago. The president of Senegal should be
a statesman, a diplomat, not a loose canon in international diplomacy. Wade
and Obasanjo can sort out their personal problems whichever way suits them,
but President Wade owes this country an apology. His comments are racist,
unkind and tactless.
The only other point that needs to be made is that President Wade's comments
ought to be situated in the larger framework of relations between Nigerian
and other African countries. What we find is that the primary element of
Nigeria's foreign policy has been the maintenance of good relations with its
African neighbours, security, stability, and co-operation in Africa, and
assistance in any form to other African countries. Nigerians consider their
country, the giant of Africa. We like to see ourselves as the big brother.
One out of every five Africans is a Nigerian. But the truth is that other
Africans do not like us. A principal outcome of Nigeria's foreign
consideration is that our positive efforts at co-operation have only turned
other Africans against us. When President Wade speaks negatively about
Nigeria and Nigerians, he is not merely being unfair, rather, he expresses a
mind-set that is widespread in the continent.
In South Africa, Nigerians are generally considered criminals even if there
are more South Africans who are drunkards, rapists and crooks. There are
Nigerians in South Africa who are excelling in sports, business,
advertising, science and scholarship but these are not the ones who are used
to determine the South African conception of the Nigerian character. In
Ghana, Nigerians are held responsible for any crime at all. Even when there
is no Nigerian on the scene, a Nigerian name is invented to promote a
growing stereotype in the Ghanaian society. "God," Ghanaians usually insist,
"is not a Nigerian." When Ghanaians commit crimes, they simply supply a
Nigerian name. It is that bad. We had a football match with Senegal, the
other month, and the Eagles showed class and superiority. Angry Senegalese
fans in Dakar attacked the Nigerian Embassy, and Nigerian traders. The
situation in Gabon is not different. Between 1967 and 1970, many Nigerians,
mostly south-easterners ran away to Gabon, to escape the evil of the civil
war. For these Nigerians, and their children, Gabon is the the only real
home they have ever known. Today, the people of Gabon, like the Senegalese,
are complaining about Nigerians. In Equatorial Guinea, you only need to
mention that you are a Nigerian, and you watch: it is an attitude thing.
Cameroun is fighting us in Bakassi. Nigeria spent fortunes to stop the
carnage in Liberia, and to give Liberians an opportunity to enjoy peace. The
moment the war ended, and Charles Taylor became president, the first thing
Taylor did was to ask Nigeria to get off his back. The Murtala-Obasanjo
regime deployed resources in support of the liberation struggles in Central
and Southern Africa: what has Nigeria gained from all that? I once tried to
be friendly with an ECOWAS sister (that was long ago, mind you). The lady
was friendly until I disclosed my nationality. "You Nigerians are too fast,"
she declared. And she moved away. Other Africans blame us for being
talented. They detest our size and population. They blame us for their
poverty.
The lesson from all this is that we need to re-consider the content of
Nigeria's foreign policy as regards Africa. Foreign policy must be
constructed in terms of advantages. If Nigeria's constructive engagement
with Africa has brought only hate and resentment for the most part, then
something is wrong with the style, content and execution of Nigeria's
foreign policy in Africa. It is not enough, then to blame Wade. Nigeria's
foreign policy must begin at home: it must be anchored on a strong domestic
policy. Other African countries take us for granted because when we boast
about our greatness, they don't see it in the way we plan our lives. When
they had democracy, we didn't have. There is GSM in Republic of Benin, and
the telephones work in Ghana as well: The Nigerian communications system is
such a nightmare. There is constant power supply in Togo, here, we are in
darkness all the time. The Apapa Port in Lagos is so problematic that many
Nigerians prefer to use the Cotonou port in Benin Republic. Besides, the
kind of stories that come out of Nigeria are like stories from hell. Those
who seek respect from others must first respect themselves. If we Nigerians
do not love ourselves, how can we in good conscience, expect outsiders to
love us?
Arthur Nzeribe has been using the word, impeachment. Wade is also talking of
impeachment. As for Wade, he is lucky Nigeria is a different nation. If
Abacha or Babangida were still president, Wade's position as president of
Senegal would have been in jeopardy: a coup would have been organised
against him. But of course, these are happier times. That is why Wade, like
Nzeribe, can afford to leak from the mouth like a basket.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
