The case for Nigeria ’s territorial integrity is
always made as some bet hedged against an inevitable. This implies an existence
dynamically challenging to positions, designs and interests of diverse citizens
in the construct constituting the territory, waters, airspace and continental
shelf called Nigeria .
However what is unclear is the weight of significance attached to defending the
current status towards avoiding disintegration. Or is it taken for granted that
Nigeria
must be one in its current form?
The entity cobbled together in
1914 is an interesting piece undertaken without inquiry and consent of its
eventual constituents. No doubt many of the constituents were taken unawares
and those who understood it at the time resigned to radical change of reality
after struggle. It is important that the different nationalities and
communities that make up Nigeria
are assumed to desire this forced union as long as it last.
Unfortunately history has shown
that union (force or chosen) only survive in a consensus. For those who estimate
or adopt that Nigeria
will remain forever territorially unreconstructed seem to be ignorant students
of history. They seem to ignore historical evidence of territorial change even
in the glaring case that led to Nigeria ’s
origin. It is even against human nature to defy natural expression of
discontinuation or reconfiguration in relationships. Friends, marriages and
alliances serve various purposes for short and long term depending on internal
and external conditions surrounding the relationships. Political relationship
and territorial unions are not different.
On another level there is the
innate self flagellation at any suggestion that 19th century Berlin conference delineation is not
sacrosanct. Are Nigerians or Africans condemned to abide by boundaries redrawn
from outside? Whose interest is served by Berlin conference designs?
Those who take it for granted
that Nigeria will remain as
one should not forget that in part Nigeria has been territorially reconfigured
in the not too distant past. 1961 plebiscite that saw exchange of communities
between Nigeria and Cameroon is an
example. 2008 ceding of territory of Bakassi
again to Cameroon
is another. Of course these exchanges were made under civilian governments, but
the case for unity and integration has not been made forcefully through
credible governance by various governments. It is taken for granted that unity
is an existential certainty. Natural resources, military capacity and
access/lack of access to the sea cannot stop such possible disintegration.
Absence of conflict and friendly neighbours did not save Czechoslovakia .
Nigerians must accept that unity
is not sacrosanct or no-go area in a popular local parlance. This is all the
more plausible with an inter-generational bankruptcy of governance at all levels
of government in the country. The waste and abuse unleashed since 1960 cannot
be contained by denying citizens their aspiration for self determination even
its speculation. Communities cannot be run down and be forced to watch their
collective destiny decimated by external preponderance and mangled view of
statehood.
Countries or states unite and
disintegrate over time in relationship to internal and external geopolitical
realities. Nigeria
is no different. If the case for unity must be resounding then, real productive
governance must be instituted and backed by law. There are numerous examples of
change in the territorial status of countries. Even the United States used a combination of
war, outright purchase and genocide to expand her territory. In 1903 Panama was relieved off Colombia for Panama Canal to be built to serve US interest.
South Sudan disengaged forcefully from Sudan
for similar reason to Nigeria ’s
ineptitude in governance. United Republic
of Tanzania is an emergency cobbling
of Tanganyika and Zanzibar to forestall perceived
ambition of one man (Abdulrahman
Mohamed Babu) in 1964.
There is no divine right to clinging
to territories all the more territories designed for external manipulation.
Even civilization states like China
and United Kingdom
have not been immune to loss of territories. Reconfiguration or disintegration
of Nigeria
is not an issue for imposition or denial rather an inevitable outcome over time
and rather hastened by strategic errors of long term instability. If the
current political continues, then when disintegration occurs there is high
possibility that an inevitable resignation may have greater attraction than any
attempt of fighting to save it.
No comments:
Post a Comment