BY
ADELUSI OLUFEMI (Ph.D)
&
BIOLA LIPEDE (Ph.D)
ABSTRACT
This chapter sets out to examine
the importance of issues of Human Rights and Democratization in the United
States of America and Europeans Union’s policies towards Nigeria between 1986
and 1993.
The study reveals that there is a
linkage between the internal or domestic political economy of U.S, E.U and
Nigeria and their foreign policies or external relation during the indicated
period on issues of human Rights and Democratization. The ascendancy of the key
issues of human Right and Democratization in the internal affairs consideration
of the countries discussed was highlighted. The post cold war international
relations environment was observed to have encouraged the primordially of these
two issues.
Attempts are made to examine the
important responses of these countries to human and Democratic Rights responses
of these countries to human and Democratic Rights violations in Nigeria within
the designated period. The study concludes with the proposition that there is a
possibility of linkage between issues of human and Democratic Rights and
foreign policies of the selected countries and Nigeria. The internal demands of
open free enterprise economies of U.S and European Union could best find
counterparts in the economies governed by full human and Democratic Rights
observances.
I-
INTRODUCTION
The U.S and the E.U’s foreign
policies towards Nigeria in the areas of Human Rights and Democratization
constitute the subject of this chapter. The study reveals that there is a linkage
between the internal or domestic political economies of United States,
Europeans Union and Nigeria which necessitates the demand for respect for
fundamental Human Rights and Observance of Democratic Governance in Nigeria by
her economic partners.
This established linkage has
been traced to two factors namely first, the internal demands of U.S and E.U’s
open free enterprise economies which could only find credible counterparts in
economies governed by full human and democratic rights observances and; second,
the enabling international environment of the post cold war international
relations (Since the fall of 1989).
For convenience, the chapter has
been divided into four main parts and two short sections. The main parts are
made up of; first, conceptual clarification of human Rights, Democratization
and structural Adjustment; second, the U.S and Europeans Union’s foreign
policies in Africa: issues of Human Rights and Democratization: third’ Human
Rights violations in Nigeria; fourth, U.S and E.U’s policies towards Nigeria on
Democratic and Human Rights Violations the two sections are those of
‘introduction’ and ‘Conclusion’
II – HUMAN
RIGHTS, DMOCRATIZATION, STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT: CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION.
It has been agreed that the
concepts of human Rights, Democratization and free Market engendered by
structural) Adjustment are Linked and sometimes inseparable. The elementary
connotation in this regard is that. Democratization has its base in protection
or upholding or civil liberties: which in turn frees the energies of the
citizens for individual, private initiative, a motor of free market and its
attendant structural adjustment.
It is important for conceptual
clarification to be undertaken at this juncture in our discussion. This is
primarily because of the main reasons associated with conceptual clarity in
itself and the “faulty premise of the region (African)’s’ communitarian’
traditions (Mahhud, S.S. 1993). A
further explanation of each of these concepts and their interconnectedness
would go along way in achieving the objective of this study namely: revealing
the possible linkage between the internal or domestic political economies of
U.S, E.U and Nigeria and their foreign
relation among themselves.
Concerning the concept of human
Rights; an expose on it as a universal concept should of necessity precede the
national understanding to it. Thus, human Rights, otherwise referee to as
“Civil Liberty” has been found to connote “personal, natural rights quarantined
and protected by constitution e.g freedom of speech, press, freedom from
discrimination e.t.c. body of law of law dealing with natural liberties, shorn
of excesses which invade equal rights of other “(Black’s Law Dictionary (5th
Edition), 1992:223 & 224,).These rights could be grouped along three
categories namely, first, civil and political rights: second, Social and
Economic rights and third, Environment, Cultural and Development rights. Civil
and political rights are taken to “inhere in man without the requirement of any
further act on the part of political authorities “(Hauserman J. 1989, General
Babangia.I:128) This category of rights is recognized as impose legal
obligations on the state, on the other
hand, economic, social and cultural rights are considered more as aspirations
or goals of society than real human Rights and are thus mere moral Obligations
which are not enforceable(Ibid). This latest interpretation may be
euro-American-centric and in fact, may enter into agenda of constituting the
politics of human and peoples’ Rights.
Democratization as a concept
gains currency in the wake of the collapses of the Soviet Union as a state and
the states system which she is the center. In the fall of 1989, there come the
end of the44years of a ‘cold war’ are of internationals Relatinons:1945-1989.
The former Europeans states under the preponderant influence of the soviet
union regained their sovereignty while
the soviet union Federation as it was, also collapsed, leaving the component
units their self determination and sovereignty choices. All these states then
opted for democratization of their internal or domestic affairs. This decision
created a wave and an epoch.
Similarly, at this same period,
African States prompted by their former colonial ‘Overlords’ and Breton Woods
institutions which these ‘ overlords’ control, joined reluctantly, this
bandwagon of democratization wave. Democratization is slightly different from
the concept of democracy itself. Democratization is usually associated with the
term process. Thus it is often said of a democratization or democratic process.
This may entail among other things, the development of free and fair elections
and multiparty systems, the process that will enable people to participate and
to fulfill their responsibility to make democracy work (Cohen H. J. 1997:23).
The concept – democracy has no settled meaning
asset connoted image as well as realty of politic for different political
systems, rulers, citizens, actors and scholars (Oyovbaire, S.E. 1987:1). Thus,
it is possible to have such a concept defined as “ a political framework from
which public policies emerge and are administered for society “ (Ibid);” a
certain type of institutional arrangement for arriving at and as” political,
legislative and administrative decision ‘(Pateman, C. 1970) and as “political
contexts in which individuals are able
to exercise effective rights over the condition of their lives”
(Olagunju. I.- Oyovbaire, S.E); it has also been seen as” a way of organizing
government and peoples’ participation in it, the democratic way of organizing
government involves competition for the
major position of government power, it involves participation in the
selection of leaders and it involves a number
of civil and political liberties “(Sorensen, G 1991:18).
Finally, while agreeing to the fact that “the
defining components of democracy are necessarily abstract, for democracy to
thrive specific procedural norms must be followed and civic rights must be
respected” (Schumitter P.and Lynnkarl,
T).
Indeed, one finds a distinction
between democracy defined in its original pre-modern term and what is now
considered as modern political democracy. Our earlier definitions in most parts
reflect the earlier images of democracy, while” modern political democracy is a
system of governance in which “modern political democracy is a system of
governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public
realm by citizens acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of
their elected representatives” (Ibid:2).
The concepts of structural
adjustment and free market are two sides of a coin; an explanation of
structural adjustment of an economy suggests a more orderly reign for free
market forces. Indeed, the “orthodox structural adjustment programmers, by
their very design, assume that the classical instrument, by their very design,
assume that the classical instrument of control of money supply, credit squeeze
exchange rate and interest rate adjustment, trade liberalization which may be
positive results in African economies characterized by weak and dis-articulate
structures” (U.N.E.C.A, 1989). This meaning of structural adjustment seems to
be limited to the original designers- the U.S and E.U propelled Bretton woods
institutions for it has been critically observed that” structural change has
only one meaning for the development economist: what is called, for it is not
merely an adjustment but a morphogenesis to relax the orthogonal relations
between mining and agriculture, between agriculture and industry ( P.Okigbo, The Guardian (Lagos),
1993:21)
If the orthodox structural
adjustment programmed being implemented by African countries Nigeria in
particular is taken as a base for becomes necessary when a country faces a
serious economic dis-eqilibrium or imbalance between domestic aggregate demand
and supply which invariably results in a deteriorating external payment
position “(Ojo, M.O. 1989:38).
The objectives and strategies of
the structural adjustment programmed in Nigeria were namely to restructure and
diversity the productive base of the economic in order to reduce dependence on
the oil sector and oil imports, (ii) to achieve fiscal and balance of payments
viability over the medium term and balance of payments viability over the
median term(iii) to lay the basis for sustainable non-inflationary growth over
the medium over the medium and long term,(iv) to lessen the dominance of the
public sector improve its efficiency and to tap the growth potential of the
private sector (Falae, O, The Guardian (Lagos),1989:12.) The strategies were also outlined as
a.
Strengthening of the hitter to strong demand management policies
b.
adoption of policies to stimulate domestic production and broaden the
supply base of the economy:
c.
adoption of a realistic exchange rate policy;
d.
further rationalization/ restructuring of the tariffs to aid promotion of
industrial diversification; (e)move towards trade and payment liberalization;
e.
adoption of appropriate pricing policies especially for petroleum
products and public enterprises,
f.
reduction of complex administrative controls with greater reliance on
market forces and
g.
Encouragement of rationalization and privatization of public sector
enterprises (Falae, O, The
Guardian (Lagos),
1989:12.)
Having mad
some conceptual clarification, one may proceed to examining the perceived
interconnectedness between human Rights, Democratization and structural
Adjustment / free market.
“True Democracy is a collective right
that would not only enable individuals to demand right but also pressure states
to protect individual right “(Mahmud, S.S. op.cit:5)”.
In Africa today, more than ever
before, the stubble for democracy is by definition also taken to mean a
struggle for democracy is by definition also taken to mean a struggle for human
rights “(Aidoo.A.1993:2). These two quotation point to a linkage between
democracy and human rights. This linkage has been described as real and crucial
(Ibid:2). In fact, it has also been observed that “whereas it is not possible
to have human rights in undemocratic conditions; democracy will not
automatically guarantee human rights, on the other hand, the struggle for human
right does constitute a veritable bedrock for the sustainability foe the
democratization process.. “(Ibid:2-3). The above trend of thought on the
linkage between human Rights and democratization has been lucidly put thus “ there is nothing
mysterious about the foundation of a health and strong democracy. The basic
things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are
simple. They are; equality of opportunity for youth and for other; Jobs for those who can work, security for
those who need it; the ending of special privilege for the few, the
preservation of civil liberties for all (Arat.Z.F 1991:1) In essence, “Human
Rights lie at the base of democracy “ ( Aidoo.A op. Cit:3)
This point of view has been
pushed further by the conceptualization of democracy and its stability as a
function of a proper balance between existing civil and political right on the
one hand, and existing civil and political rights on the one hand, and
socio-economic rights on the other. (Arat.Z.A op.cit:4) the last
part of this conceptualization brings to the fore the tripartite linkage
between Human Rights, Democratization and Structural Adjustment / free market.
Indeed, by association, free
market quarantines socio-economic right while structural adjustment programmers
are devised to liberate any of the rigidities that impede socio-economic
rights. A human rights agenda motivated Democracy makes socio-economic rights
and free market easy and guaranteed. This consideration leads us to examine the
case of Nigeria, a victim of human Right violations under her military force of
occupation at state houses during the period under review.
III-U.S AND
E.U’S FOREIGN POLICIES IN AFRICA: AN OVER-VIEW OF ISSUES OF HUMAN RIGHTS
DEMOCRATIZATION.
The foreign policy posture of
the united stated and her N.A.T.O allies many of them members of the Europeans
union was dictated by a global policy of competition and containment during the
cold war are. Imperfection of their allies as regards human rights abuses and
authoritarianism were tolerated in the struggle to minimize the spread of
communist influence in African, inspire of the fact that as early a 1976, the
u.s congress had legalized formal requirements that U.S’s foreign and trade
policies should take into account, the human right policies and worker’s right
performance of countries they cooperated with. Despotic sit-tight hard-line
leaders in Africa, considered strategic allies in the struggle against
communism were given u.s. backing and support as indeed were guerilla movement,
like U.N.T.T.A (Angola) (Nder T.J., 1985;
Malone R.A., 1983) and R.E.N.A.M.O (Mozambique) (Gann, L.H, 1975; Whitaker, P.M:1973) In this scenario, scant respect was given to
violations of human rights and the transplanting of democracy.
The end of the arms race and
with it the politics of the cold war, minimized the risk of African politics
being drawn into the east-west conflict and killed the case for support for
strategic ideological allies. The U.S and members of the Europeans Union thus
desired a new foreign policy perspective towards Africa. For the United States
of America, this involved a doctrine of enlargement, predicated on the desire
to consolidate enlargement, predicated on the desire to consolidate and enlarge
as well as defend the common free market democratic communities. This involved
making reinforcement of democracy and the protection of human right the foreign policy pillars of the u.s. the
two were also to become the major focus of their foreign assistance programmes
(Christopher.W.1993:441). Other U.S agencies like the National Endowment for Democracy
established in 1983, the Center for International Private Enterprise, and the
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs assisted in espousing
and advancing the revolution in democratic practices. Since Democratic
practices were the moral and operative safe guards for upholding human rights,
expanding and defending its progress was
the best means to gain and guarantee those rights.
In Europe, the collapse of the
Berlin wall and president Mitterrand of France’s La Baule speech in 1990, in
which hecutlined the doctrines of aid its democratic conditionalities were
important Landmarks, in the changing scene. French prime minister Pierre
beregevoy’s 1991 endorsement of ‘la baule’ at the 17th Franco-African submit
and British Foreign secretary Douglas Huard’s call on Europe to cut aid to
African countries that violated human rights; set the pattern for Europeans
union’s attitude towards Human Rights violations in Africa (Britain’ Pilger.J
1994:14). The U.N November 1991 Resolution on human Rights. Democracy and
Development and Development has become a reference text in the field outlining
as it does specific policies and actions to be adopted by the ‘west’ in their
dealings with ‘third world’ countries in generals and Africa in particular (E.U
Countries). Lastly, the idea that
policies on development, cooperation
should emphasize human rights and democracy were incorporated into the treaty
on Europeans union signed in mastic.
Under these various provisions,
‘western’ aid was to be conditioned on improvements in human rights in a free
market democratic dispensation. The prudent management of national economies
and accountability by leaders were to made other prerequisite for ‘western’
aid. In addition. For Washington military assistance was to be geared towards
political pluralism (President Clinton in 1992)
During the period (1986-1993),
the U.S.A and E.U allies demonstrated a willingness to implement some of these
provisions in parts of Africa. In the Franco-phone West Africa, president
11.Boigny experienced a rebuff by the French, following the successful take
over of the Ivorian national television station and the international Airport,
as French troops failed to respond to his ell for military assistance. The U.S
suspended aid worth 19 million to Togo, while president Eyadema, one of the
Africa’s longest sit light dictators, until he had agreed to put the democratic
process on the right path leading to free and honest elections. France and
other E.U Countries also suspended aid to Togo. Inspire of this, the national
conference in Coted’ lyoire, Gabon and Togo have so far not been an entire
success.
In central Africa, where hither
to staunch ‘western’ allies between then enjoyed over 60 years uninterrupted
years of despotic rule, the U.S and Britain have attempted to pressure and prod
presidents Mobutu and Banda trees in Kinshasa and Lilongwe. Elections have
since been held in Malawi where the life President was defeated to a third
place candidate. Iie gallantly accepted his defeat to allow Malawi move
forward.
Zaire’s president Mobutu has in
the opinion of the 1993 Report to U.S
congress on human Rights (Overview of the 1993 Report, Feb 1994. Vol.5.),
perpetrated human rights crisis worse than any since the end of the civil war
in the 1960s. There are translated into a number of extra judicial killings,
torture, ethnic violence detentions and disappearances. He has also
successfully fought a dogged rearguards action against political pluralism,
suspending midway the National conference and its prime Minister Etienne
Tahikedi as well rejecting the conference’s final recommendation even after
verbal condemnation by the E.U and U.S.A. president Mobutu has for over two
years, succeeded in procrastinating and delaying the transition to political
pluralism inspire of the apparent verbal outage at seeming divorce between
Laire and her ‘western’ allies. These have not been translated into action
strong enough to force Mobutu to tow the democratic path..
The same is true of President
Kamuzu Banda who has for over 30 Years kept a firm grip and grasp on the single
party of Malawi. His arrest of Cchakufwa Chihama a frontline pre-democracy
activist was the catalyst for punitive action by the ‘west’ Who froze 174
million worth about by banda about the introduction of multi-party’s in Malawi.
A ‘yes’ vote in the referendum on the desirability of political pluralism
resulted in the establishment of three new political parties, the repeal of
repressive laws like the preventive ensured Act and the subsequent elections
were held where Banda was shapely defeated (AFOR, UDF, PAC,).
IV – HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN NIGERIA
Indeed, the
issues of human Right and political and economic reforms were the main Planks
on which the Nigerian Administration between 1985 and 1993 hoped to gain
legitimacy, acceptability and recognition not only from an international
community that was becoming increasingly restive with authoritarianism and despotism but with a citizenry growing
impatient with military dictatorship. Presidents Babangida’s commitment to
protect and uphold human rights principles and attain political liberalism at
various international fore and the initial abrogation of decrees 2,3,4, and 20
which violated the fundamental human right of the citizenry should be viewed
from this light ( President Babangida, 1992,.Ukeje U, 1994). The government
pledges to ensure the minimal prerequisites for the success of modern political
democracy (R.Dahl, U.S.I.A
Washington. Issue No 1994:2-4)
In addition to the rights
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African charter
of peoples Right committed them to recognize and uphold such
right as civil and political rights essential for an appreciation of the
possession of those civil and political rights held dearly by the ‘west’ (Osita
EZE, Human Rights N.I.I.A. 1984:244-253).
However, attempts at
implementing simultaneously economic and political transition in African have
always posed serious problem. Although economic reforms under SAP aim at budget
deficit reductions its basic elements involve privatization, trade
liberalization and devaluation (Madunagu, E, African Guadian 1986.). The period of economic
reconstruction under SAP is usually painfully belt tightening and the social
cost of adjustment has been intense poverty and hardship, particularly where
SAP has been implemented without a ‘human face’. The stresses and strains have
usually meant that no meaningful observance of human right is attainable as
insecurity and conflict is usually enhanced.
In Nigeria, the implementation
only accentuate the problem of poverty and led to massive violations of the
freedom of workers’ freedom of association, the pillar on which their ability
to defend workers’ grievances, protect them from unsafe and unfair working
conditions and to hargain collectively has not met the stipulated standards
endorsed by the international labour organization (I.L.D). Deregulation went
side by side with measures which eroded workers’ income. Privatization of
government prostates threw people at the bottom rung of the ladder out of jobs
in a country where the state was the highest employer. The amendment of the 181
minimum wage act and degrees 17 and 19 legacies of Buhari/Idiagbon regime
ensured workers. Complicate (Workers under Decrees 17 and 19,1982 and 1988).
Workers employed still faced a wage freeze and compulsory government deductions
at a time when freeze and compulsory government deductions at a time when fuel
prices were doubled with its resuilant fall in real wages (Decree 37 of 1986 empowered). Other SAP induced
policies like fuel and food subsidy removals, a has an imports resulted in a
rise in the rate of inflation to intolerable proportion.
Under these circumstances the
promotion and protection of the rights of workers in their socia-economic and
cultural dimensions become impossible. There is a total absence of the
opportunities for the attainment of these rights. The outcome is adjustment
fatigue which includes tension, discontent and violence. The government’s
attempt to minimize these resulted in the use of methods not in consonant with
accepted human rights norms.
The period under review was also
marked by a failure by government to maintain the rule of law. The government’s early demonstration of it’s
support for the idea that political liberalization and democratization are
based on fear expression by a repeat of Decree 4 which had shackled the press,
was short lived. This was signified by reincarnating of Decree 4 under the
guise of decree 2 between 1987 and 1992, nearly non-government media houses
were closed down for varying periods (The punch (Lagos), Lagos News (Lagos),
The Guardian (Lagos), champion Newspapers(Lagos), concord New papers(Lagos) and
Vanguard (Lagos)).
In addition, persistent calls by
human rights groups for government to respect the rule of law and the
fundamental rights of the citizens led to constant harassment, arrests of the
citizens led to constant harassment , arrests, detentions, prosecution and
persecution of their leaders, detention, without trial or trials outside the areas where the
‘crimes’ were committed gave all characterized the government’s determination to defend with the last drop of
its blood the intergrity of the
transition programme with all the available resources at its disposal. Leaders
of the civil liberties Oragnisation (C.L.O.), the committee for the defence of
human Right (C.D.H.R), the constitutional Rights project (C.R.P) and Human
Rights Africa (H.R.A), among them Gani Fawehinmi, Femi Falane, Baba Omojola and
Beko Ransome Kuti were among the more famous names detained and charged with
conspiracy and treason. Other less popular state officials of human right
groups in states like Kaduna, Kano and Lagos were also harassed silenced or
arrested.
Draconian
Decrees legalized the suspension of basic constitutional rights and the
provisions making for indefinite detention without trial. In addition parallel systems of courts were
established in the form of Tribunals where military officers were allowed to
sit with judges adjudicating sometime over serious cases.
1.
Lastly, the contradictions inherent in a military
dictatorship attempting to effect a transition to democratic pluralism become
obvious. With military precision and by administrative fiat, it violated the
rights of the citizens to form independent associations and writing the
manifestoes of the two political parties, it was willing to transfer power to.
It dictated the actors and the form of the acting through 59 transitional
decrees, containing 1175 sections and subsection (Ayeni O. West Africa
(London). 1992:2048).
2.
It killed the early political parties that had
signaled their intention to participate in the unfolding drama. It suspended
the first presidential primaries because of electoral malpractice and dissolved
the executive committees of the two military created parties, the Social
Democratic party and the National Republican party at all levels even though
they had been duly elected by the people. it disqualified all 23 presidential
aspirants from the process violating their rights as adults to run for elective
offices. Caretaker committees were appointed to take over functions of the
elected officials (Ayeni O.1992 West Africa (London):2012). Even the cumbersome
electoral process under option A4 could not prevent a military bent on
organizing a transition to democracy from aborting the process when the end
came. With it, it violated the right of nigerians to elect a leader of their
choice. Given the above violations of human Rights recorded in Nigeria, and the
most distabilising last stroke which the annulment of the June 12 1998
presidential Election constituted reactions from u.s, the Europeans union and
Britain to these democratic right violations would be examined in the next
section of this study.
VI – U.S. EUROPEANS UNION AND BRITAIN’S POLICIES
TOWARDS NIGERIA ON DEMOCRATIC AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
Nigeria’s place in the African policies of united
states and the Europeans union countries and more specifically, their human
rights and democratic postures could be determined by a series of fundamental
questions and answers. Notable among the prompting questions are; what makes Nigeria deserve the greate
attention of these counties?. Could it be the case of “prevention of pandwagon effect” of the bad
student of human right and democracy not dragging other potential or loyal
students among the remaining African countries in?, could it have been the
importance of her touted “ large and potential internal market” for investments
and viable trade links? Or could it just be the case of checkmating or nibbling
the bud of dissent on the contents of the “New would Order which are human
right and democracy?. Finally could it be a combinations of all the above factors?.
The united states and the E.U
countries’ policies individually or collectively have been noted earlier as
having becoming integral parts of their foreign policies built around the
promotion of human rights and democracy most especially since the end of the 44 years (1945 to 1939) of the ‘cold war’
signaling the end of an are and the beginning of a new one.
If these
countries’ intervention and insistence on observance of human right and democratic practices were now
routine, their recent policies towards Nigeria were perdicated on the events
leading to and the eventual annulment of the “most fairest and freest
presidential elections “in Nigeria ( Neng:1993, Nigerian Tribune (Ibadan),
1993:20, Sunday concord (Lagos), 1993:1to93).
3.
On Wednesday, June23 1993, the federal military
government issued a short statement terminating by fiat the entire transition
programme. The very manner in which the statement was made public indicated a
deliberate intention to insult and ridicule the entire Nigerian people. The statement was undated, unsigned, unauthorized and made on a
plain sheet of paper, but for the fact that it was distributed to the press by
the Chief press Secretary to the Vice-president, it could very well been issued
by the Association for Better Nigeria’ ( Chief M.K.O.Abiola in the Guardian
(Lagos),1993:2) This was the opening part of the text of statement issued by
the presumed winner of the presumed winner of the presidential Elections of
June 12 1993 in Nigeria .
From this extracted part, the
manner of the annulment of the June 12 electios was brought vividly to the
public. The United States and the Europeans Union countries had been following
Nigeria’s Transition programmes with all its adjustment. They therefore seem to
have adequate knowledge of the fundamental human and democratic rights of the
Nigerian people on the occasion of the annulment.
British
foreign secretary, Douglas Hurd, while describing the above acting as ‘bad
news’ in his interview on 24 june 1993 to R.B.C. situated the problem at the
door steps of the Nigeria’s military saying that “it looks as if the military
or some of the military are proposing to retain power” (B.B.C.Mr Douglas Hurd,
British foreign secretary in The Guardian (Lagos) 1993:4). Having focused the
problem, he speit out his country’s first set of measures which include” taking
steps to stop the military training courses; no new military training courses;
call back our British military advisory team, stop giving any priority to army
officers from Nigeria in getting visas for here and of course reviewing all
suggestions of fresh did to Nigeria’ (Ibid). He posited that an ongoing
consultation with Britain’s E.U and U.S partners.
The United States on its part
issued a statement through its state Department’s spokesman Michael Mccurry on
23 June 1993. The important message contained there in being that “the united
United States deplores the outrageous decision of Nigeria’s military regime to
annul the results of the June 12 presidential Election and cancel the
transition to elected civilan rule” (Michael Mccurry, washington D.C
(Washington)Vol.4,No26:472). Like Britain, he announced the first measure against the annulment. “all aspects
of our bilateral relations: including our $22.8 million in bilateral assistance
are currently under review” (Ibid).
4.
On July 20, the U.S department of state convoked the
Nigerian ambassador to inform him of U.S’s new steps or sanctions aimed
specifically at Nigeria’s military.
5.
The steps are “reviewing with the presumption of denial applications for
the commercial export of defence articles bound for Nigeria restricting the
remaining Nigerian military attaches access to the U.S. government are asking
five Nigerian military officers studying in the U.S. under the auspices of the
international military education and Training program to depart the United States”
(Michael Mccurry, Washington.D.C.1993 (Washington) 1993, Vol. 4. No 32, The Guardian (Lagos),1993:A2).
6.
(Still
further, on 10 December 1993, the U.S president Bill Clinton made a
proclamation restricting the entry of some categories of Nigerians into the
united states. The order was targeted against “immigrants and non-immigrants
who formulate or implement policies impending a transition to democracy in
Nigeria or who benefit from such policies and the immediate families of such
persons “(Tuesday 14 Dec1993 by U.S.I.(Lagos),1994:27) The U.S was reported to
have also cut a $1 million government to government aid, $450,000 aid military
education and withdrew its security
assistance officers in Lagos and the Nigerian Government’ military attached was
expelled (The Guardian (Lagos),1993:2. The Europeans Union announced sanctions
against the Federal Military Government of Nigeria to press for the resolution
of the political quagmire triggered by the cancellation of June 12 poll. The
sanction which were targeted at the Armed Forces; include a ban on visa to
Armed forces and security personnel and their families has been suspended;
further assistance and cooperation on military matters have been put on hold.
The flurry
of sanctions against Nigeria by the U.S has multiplied since the June election
cancellation and the full re-usurpation of political power by the military on
17 November 1993. Apart from the above mentioned directly linked pro-democracy
driven sanctions, there came those that were indirectly linked, in any case
June 12 spoiled bilateral relations environment, neither helped positively.
There was suspension of flights to and from Murtala Muhammad
international Airport in Lagos from the U.S airports on the excuse of
inadequate security measures. The most recent of these sanctions were those
against Nigeria for drug related trade.
Indeed, the
U.S president Bill Clinton in a memorandum, he reportedly sent early 1994 to U.S State Department gas
directed that U.S officials should for the rest of the year vote against
Nigeria’s request for assistance from any of the international financial
institutions, particularly the world Bank and the international Monetary fund
(Guardian (Lagos),1994:2). The American president’s directive entitled,
“presidential certification for Major Narcotics producing and transit
countries; the case of Nigeria was based on the clause that’ the president can
certify a country based on the vital national interest of the united states’
(Ibid). Apparently, the “Washington’s strained relations with Nigeria’s
military rulers” did not have a positive input into president Clinton’s political
cognition of his country’s national interest in the Dry issue.
Britain imposed a new list of
sanctions following the 17 November 1993 full return of the military to
political power in Nigeria. Notable among such sanctions are the suspension of
a #23 million grant for the energy sector (Guardian (Lagos),1993:1). The
facility pledged under overseas Development Assistance (ODA) scheme, was
packaged to energize Nigeria’s power generating and distribution capabilities;
and the cutting off of a #34 million defence related aid (Guardian
(Lagos),1993:3). A statement was issued by the British government to the effect
that “ the movement of Nigerian Defence staff outside London will in future be
restricted without prior permission. New export license applications for
defence equipment to Nigeria will be reviewed on a case by case basis with the presumption of denial
and those Nigerian military students still on course in the U.K will be asked
to leave “(Guardian (Lagos),1993).
On the heels of the measures taken
by Britain and the U.S governments against Nigeria’s military dictators, were
the E.U’s announcement of the following sanctions; travel restrictions on all
military staff of Nigerian diplomatic
mission, imposition of case by case review, with a presumption of denial
for all new export licenses for defence equipment; cancellation of training
course for all Nigerian military personnel; review of new Europeans union aid
projects on a case by case basis and suspension of all non-essential high level
visits to and from Nigeria (Ibid).
The above discussion has
centered on the various responses of united states and Europeans Union (E.U) as
well as the British to the violations of Nigerian’s Democratic Rights, the
highlight being the annulment of the 14 million voter’s decisions on the
presidential Elections on 12th June 1993.
One may posit the question as to
why did these countries react the way they did? Or put differently, what could
have been the motivation for the considered countries’ responses to the violations
Democratic and human Rights which the annulment of 12th June 199 in Nigeria
constituted?. The immediate idea that presents itself is traceable to the post
cold war foreign policy pre-occupations of these countries. The avowed
center-piece accorded the issues of human and democratic rights. The stand of
this study is that even if the above factor is retained, there is the latent
function of ‘free market’ world being guaranteed by democratic governance.
Nigeria’s position in African
affairs in terms of potentials and not real actualized power is seen as a got
pedestal for An African democratic governance, example and successful motivator
nation for the post cold war international system. Added factor to the
political turning point which Nigeria
represents, is that which make her potentially viable internal market and the
foreign investments already in a place worthy of encouragement and support.
VI-CONCLUSION
The study
attempt an examination of the relationship tat exists between the concept and
realities of Democratization, human Rights Observance and foreign policy.
Indeed, Nigeria’s human Rights observance or non-observance records, coupled
with her truncated democratization process subjected her to foreign policies of
the U.S and the Europeans Union
countries.
U.S and the E.U’s policies
became inflexible over democratic and human rights observance by their allies
and participants in the post cold war international system and relations.
Nigeria’s regional subordinate power role in the new dispensation was
unfulfilled as expected by the dominant actors in the system. She was therefore
made an object of ridicule in the comity of nations whose vision of a “new
world order” rests on twin concepts of democracy and human rights. As these two
concepts aid the realization of a strong market economy. Explaining the
relationship further, a U.S official observes that “a free market economy
decentralizes power, putting it in thousands and million of place” (Rudick.
M.R. No 201:4). This study analyses the motivations of these economic partners
of Nigeria as well as the objective ground factors that facilitated their
foreign policy actions. These objective factors we discussed under Nigeria’s
violation of the democratic and human rights of her citizens.
Finally, the period covering
1986 to 1993 is significant in the history of Nigeria as
a ‘nation’ (Soyinka Wole, The Guardian
(Lagos), 1994:13, The Guardian
(Lagos), 1994:25, The Guardian
(Lagos) 1994:31) and the world. It marked the tail end of the ‘ cold war’
international system and relations. The continued role which primitive
accumulation occupies in the minds of the visionary-less ‘leadership’ that
Nigeria is saddled with, has denied her the
respect of other nation to the extent that united states and Europeans
other nations to the extent that united states and Europeans union countries
put it on themselves to contribute to setting Nigerian’s ‘free’ of their
imposed rulers and power usurpers usually and often in military uniforms
supported by mercenary-without-uniforms politicians.
REFERENCES
Mahhud, S.S. (1993), “The state and human Rights in Africa
in the 1990’s: perspectives and prospects” from human Rights Quarterly. (The Johns Hopkins University press, 1993;
reprinted in Special Features Service
116, U.S.I.S. Washington.
Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition),
(1992), pp. 223 & 224, as cited in
Akinrinsola, FOA “problem of human Rights protection by Non-Governmetal
Organizations “Text of a Lecture, in the Buardian (Lagos), 119 March, 192. P28 and 23 March 1992, p.49.
HAUSERMAN J. (1989), “The Nature of
Economic social and cultural
Rights” in Rights and Humanity. Vol.1.
No1, June as cited in C.L.O, Human Rights in Retreat: A Report on the Human
Right Violation of the military Regime og General I.Babangia. p.128
COHEN H. J. (1997), “Reflection on
Democracy” in Topic U.S.I.S Publication: Washington. No P.23.
YOVBAIRE, S.E. (1987), Democratic
Experiment in Nigeria : interpretive Essays. Omega Publishers. Ltd. Benin 1987.
P.I
PATEMAN, C. (1970), Participation and
Democratic Theory, Cambridge University Press. .pps. 3-4
OLAGUNJU, I. “Transition to the
second Experiment; some political issues” in OYOVBAIRE, S.E Democratic
Experiment op.cit.
SORENSEN, G (1991). Democracy,
Dictatorship and development: Economic Development in selected Regimes of the
third world Macmillan: London. p. 18.
SCHUMITTER P.and LYNNKARL, T “What Democracy is. And not? “in
TOPIC. U.S.I.A. publication Washington. NO 199. See also, Journal of Democracy. National Endowment for Democracy.Washington.
U.N.E.C.A, (1989), African Alternative Framework to structural
Adjustment programmers for socio-economic Recovery and Transformation. April.
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (U.N.E.C.A), Addis Abeba.P.J p.l
l
Okigbo, (1993) “ There’s a lot of
loose talk in S.A.P Criticism “see Text of Obafemi Awolowo Foundation Dialogue Chairman’s Opening remarks in The Guardian (Lagos), 8 January. p.21.
OJO, M.O. (1989), “An Appraisal of
the Socia-Economic impact of Structural Adjustment policies in Nigerian”,
C.B.N, CBN Economic and Financial Review (Lagos),
Vol.27. No1 March 1989 p.38.
FALAE, O. (1989), “ The genesis of
structural Adjustment programme “See Text of Address by secretary to Federal
Military Government at the international symposium on Development Strategies
for the Third World in Beijing. China, The
Guardian (Lagos), p.12.
AIDOO.A.(1993), “Africa; Democracy
without Human Rights? “in Human Rights
Quarterly. The John Hopkins University Press,. Reprinted in special
features service 116. U.S.I.S Washington. P.2
ARAT.Z.F (1991), Democracy and human Rights in Developing Countries. London; Lynne
Reiner Publishers in p. l. see also A.AIDUO, “Democracy; Africa without Human
Rights?” op.cit. p. 1.
MALONE, R.A. (1983), JFK ordeal in Africa, New York, O.U.P.
GANN, L.H, (1975) “Portugal, Africa
and the future” Journal of Modern African Studies.vol. 13 March. For Details of
super power competition in mozambiqu,
NDER, T.J. (1985), Cold war and Black Liberation: University
of Missouri Press, Columbia, For Details of U.S’s support to U.N.I.T.A,
WHITAKER, P.M. (1973), “The
Revolution of Protuguese Africa” Journal
of Modern African Studiess. Vol. 8, No 1.pp.33-37
CHRISTOPHER.W.1993 “Democracy and
Human Rights, Where the U.S. stands? “Text of Address by U.S Secretary of state, at the World
conference on Human Rights Vienna. 14 June 1993, pp.441.
PILGER.J (1994), ““BRITAIN’ Dirty
Secrets in Indoesia” New stateman and Society.
22 February p.14.
Clinton (1992), “The United states
and Africa” in TOPIC. U.S.J.A
Washington. No 200.
BABANGIDA, IBRAHIM (1992), Address to
the U.N and also the opening address to the O.A.U.
UKEJE, U. (1994), “The Anguish of
Adjustment and Human Rights” paper presented at the sxith Annual Conference of
the Nigerian Society of International Affairs. Ile-ife. 22-3 March.
According to DAHL, R. among the seven rights which are
prerequisites to modern political democracy are, the right to form
relatively independent associations or
organizations, the right to run for elective offices in government and the
right to express oneself on political
matters, without the danger of severe punishment .see p. schemata and
T.LYNNKAIF 1991, as reproduced in TOPIC: U.S.I.A Washington. Issue No 1994.
Pp.2-4.
The African Charter was adopted in
June 1981 but implemented only in 1986. For details, see Osita EZE, Human Rights N.I.I.A Lagos, 1984.
Pps. 244-253.
MADUNAGU, E. “Limitation of the
Budget” African Guadian 19 January 1986.
Workers under Decrees 17 and 19,1982
and 1988 were preventd from appealing against retrenchment and the automatic
receipt of retrenchment benefits. Between 1982 and 1988, there was an over 60%
reduction in the workforce with the electrical pharmaceutical, construction and automobile industries being
hardest hit.
Decree 37 of 1986 empowered the state Governors to impose and deduct
development levies from salaries of civil servants to compensate for the fiscal
crisis in the country .
THE punch (Lagos), Lagos News
(Lagos), The Guardian (Lagos), champion Newspapers(Lagos), concord New
papers(Lagos) and Vanguard (Lagos), were all closed down during the period
under review. See O.AYENI. “Journalists in Distress; press Freedom and
Nigeria’s third Republic” in west Africa (London). 6-11 July 1992.p.1123.
NEWSWATCH (Lagos) was proscribed for 6 months in 1987, while the entire concord
Group of companies were closed down
AYENI O. “Nigeria’s search for Democracy” West Africa
(London). 30 November to 6 December
1992.p.2048.
AYENI O.1992 Transition credibility
crisis “West Africa (London), 23-29 November .p.2012.
NIGERIAN Elections Monitiring Group’s
(NENG) 1993,Report on the presidential Election in Nigerian Tribune (Ibadan),
28 June 1993.p.20, see also “African Monitors endorse June Election “in The Guardian (Lagos), 16 July
1993.p.4. see” British Monitors speak on Nigeria’s presidential Elections” in
Sunday concord (Lagos), 27 June 1993.pps. 1to93.
The Text of statement issued by chief
M.K.O.ABIOLA in the Guardian (Lagos), 26 June 1993.p.2
THE transcribed text of B.B.C
interview of Mr Douglas HURD, British foreign secretary in the Guardian
(Lagos), 26 June 1993.p.4.
see statement by Department spokesman
Michael Mccurry, washington D.C. 23 June 1993 in U.S. Department of state
Dispatch (Washington) 28 June.Vol.4,No26.p.472
THE text of statement by U.S. State
Department Spokesman, Michael Mccurry,
Washington.D.C.22 July 1993 in U.S.
Department of state Dispatch (Washington) 9
August
1993, Vol. 4. No 32. see also, the
Guardian (Lagos), 12 September 1993.p.A2.
THE text of the proclamation issued
on Tuesday 14 December 1993 by U.S.I.(Lagos), 13 May 1994.p.27.
THE cross news (Kaduna), 22 July
1993.p.1; also the Guardian (Lagos), 4 December 1993.p.2.
THE Guardian (Lagos), 13 April 1994.
p. p2
THE Guardian (Lagos), 6 December
1993, p.1.
THE Guardian (Lagos), 4 December 1993
p.2
THE Guardian (Lagos), December 1993.
RUDICK. M.R. “sowing the seeds “In
TOPIC. U.S.I.S information Agency Washington. No 201 .p.4
WOLE SOYINKA, “When is a Nation?
“Text of professor WOLE SOYINKA’S lecture at the oxford and Cambridge club of
Nigeria, delivered at N.I.I.A (Lagos) on June 7, 1994 as printed by the
Guardian (Lagos), 9 June 1994, p. 13 and THE GUARDIAN (Lagos), 10 June 1994,
p.25 and THE GUARDIAN (Lagos) 14, June 1994,p.31.
No comments:
Post a Comment