The United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, seems to have joined the burgeoning league of “experts”, “analysts” and “opinion leaders” who erroneously attribute terrorism as championed by Boko Haram to bad governance and enduring privations. During his recent visit to the country, the UN chief reportedly said, “I think that (Boko Haram) comes from mismanagement, bad governance, inequality and injustice. When you have no hope for your future, when leaders do not care for inclusive government, people find other ways.”
This is a misconception that is partly shared by the United States President, Barack Obama; but wholly embraced by his predecessor, Bill Clinton; and a former US Ambassador to Nigeria, John Campbell, among others. They hold the view that economic empowerment is a weapon for fighting terrorism. This is why Obama’s speech at a three-day conference on “Countering violent extremism” organised by the State Department in February canvassed this viewpoint. Among other things, he said, “All our nations can reaffirm our commitment to broad-based development that creates jobs…” and “…address grievances terrorists exploit, including economic grievances.” Campbell said, “Boko Haram insurgency is a direct result of chronic poor governance by Nigeria’s federal and state governments, the political marginalisation of northeastern Nigeria, and the region’s accelerating impoverishment.” They are wrong.
If Obama’s allusion was veiled, Clinton’s was stark. Speaking at Abeokuta in 2013, he noted, “You have to somehow bring economic opportunity to the people who don’t have it. You have all these political problems – and now violence – that appear to be rooted in religious differences and all the rhetoric of the Boko Haram and others; but the truth is the poverty rate in the North is three times of what it is in Lagos.” Back home, some prominent Nigerians have also propounded this theory, which tends to confer legitimacy on the horrendous activities of Boko Haram, especially the mindless killings.
However, holding this viewpoint reveals either a lack of understanding of the issues involved or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Though social conditions offer some explanations for other forms of violent crime, definitely jihadist terrorism is not one of them. Boko Haram, like its forerunners, especially Al-Qaeda and Al-Shabaab, as well as the latest addition, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, has expressly stated its desire for Islamisation, based on a perverted religious-based ideology. This is why the Boko Haram leader, Abubakar Shekau, has persistently claimed, “Our own government is defined as government of the Allah by the Allah; not as you define your own as the government of the people by the people for the people.” According to a Cable News Network report, “The ideology of ISIS and like-minded groups is rooted in Salafist ultra-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.” That is why efforts to get Boko Haram over to the negotiation table have failed so woefully.
What is happening all over the world, most of which is aped by Boko Haram, shows that the champions of terrorism are actually among the most privileged and the very well educated. For instance, the notorious ISIS executioner, Mohammed Emwazi, aka Jihadi John, credited with the beheading of foreign journalists, is a product of a comfortable family background in Britain, with a degree in computer programming from the University of Westminster. Certainly, poverty is not the motivation here.
Also, reports have it that Omar Sheikh, another notorious British terrorist, who kidnapped American Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl, attended the London School of Economics. The person said to have beheaded Pearl, Khalid Sheikh, reportedly studied Mechanical Engineering at North Carolina A&T State University in Greensborough.
The case of Osama bin Laden himself is very well known. The ultimate terrorist was the son of a Saudi multimillionaire and attended some of the best schools in his country. So also is his deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, an Egyptian surgeon, whose family, according to a CNN report, “counts ambassadors, politicians and prominent clerics among its ranks.”
Back home in Nigeria, the case of the underwear bomber readily comes to mind. Umar Abdumurtallab is, by every standard, a privileged child, who attended some of the best schools both within and outside the country. So, when he went on a suicide mission by attempting to detonate a bomb on a loaded plane on Christmas day of 2009, he was driven by an ideology that had no connection with poverty. So also is the case of the son of a former Chief Justice of Nigeria who took a trip to Syria to join forces with ISIS. He did so because of his belief in its cause, not because he suffered any privations. How could the actions of a commissioner who resigned from a state cabinet to join Boko Haram, as did Buji Foi, be attributed to poverty or lack of opportunities?
For a lasting solution to be found to the problem of Boko Haram, the West must apply the same yardstick it uses to judge what is happening in the Middle East to assess Boko Haram. If the over 5,000 young men and women from all parts of Europe and America who pop up regularly in Syria to fight alongside the ISIS terrorists are driven by forces other than poverty, then it should occur to the West that the same factors could be behind Boko Haram’s insane campaign in Nigeria.
As long as we continue to believe that poverty and marginalisation are the main forces behind Boko Haram, then we are not yet ready to tackle the problem head-on.
The author of this article misses the big picture.
Yes, it is true that [well known] champions of terrorism are among the most privileged and well-educated (Mohammed Emwazi, Omar Sheikh, Khalid Sheikh, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, Umar Abdumurtallab, etc.). However, how many of terrorism’s foot soldiers are as privileged as the sponsors?
The key point of Ban Ki-moon, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, John Campbell, etc., and those who believe that terrorism is fostered by mismanagement, bad governance, inequality and injustice is that “the majority” of terrorism’s foot soldiers are the disenfranchised. In other words, if we reduced the number of “disenfranchised” peoples – although a minority would still vocally advocate terrorism – terrorism would lose its “teeth” because there would be insufficient number of foot soldiers to carry out terrorist acts.
I think that newspapers that publish these types of opinions should have thorough in-house debates that truly understand both sides of an issue before publishing poorly researched positions and misinforming the public.