According to the US, protecting human rights is more important than saving human lives

Ezugwu Obinna

For Nigerians who are hopeful that President Muhammdu Buhari’s well publicized visit to the United States of America would herald a new era in the war against Boko Haram; an era that would see Nigerian military pounding the insurgents with highly sophisticated military hardware. Well, the news is a sad one: the US will not be assisting Nigeria with weapons because its Leahy Law prevents it from selling weapons to countries with records of human rights violations and Nigeria is one of those countries.

Those who had followed the story of this refusal under former president Goodluck Jonathan, which had rendered his government largely helpless in the face of rampaging Boko Haram attacks, and had prompted him to notoriously seek an alternativee means of securing weapons through the back door in South Africa much to the chagrin of the then opposition APC which almost skinned Mr. Jonathan alive when the South African government seized the money meant for the procurment, may have found sympathizing with the the Buhari led APC government uneasy, but for the fact that it is the lives of Nigerians that are being wasted daily by Boko Haram.

The APC at the time seemed to know  much about the situation on the ground; the handicaps of the of the armed forces. But for the party, it was all Jonathan’s fault. A number of the its personalities had in a way that one could not say reflected a sense of patriotism, proudly noted that the insurgents were parading more superior weapons than those of the Nigerian military.

But there is no point blaming the APC for its past sins, the party wanted power and power it has gotten, that’s now by the way. What truly buggles the mind is the thinkintg of the American government on these issuies of human rights.

It is no longer news that while America had during its festive mood following Buhari’s assention to the throne, promised to help Nigeria end Boko Haram, it has now dusted up the so called Leahy Law and informed President Buhari that it had not just refused to sell weapons to Nigeria earlierbecause it did not like the face of Jonathan, but in fact, because the lives of hundreds of lives being wasted in the country on a weekly basis is far less  important than preserving its defined human rights.

The important question now is, what right can be more important than the right to live? Understandly, rights groups such as the Amnesty International had variously accused the Nigerian army of human rights violations in the battle against Boko Haram. However, apart from such claims or any other claim for that matter being unsubstanciated, it cannot be a reason for America to allow a terror group to keep murdering Nigerians on daily basis when it can assist by way of providing weapons.

There may have been, no doubt, a number of innocent people killed in the war against Boko Haram. But such is inevitable in war situations, and no country should have known this better than the Uited States. The country’s led war in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq led to the death of thousands, if not millions of innocent Iragi citizens. The drone strikes in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan while taking out targeted terrorists have also on numerous occasions killed innocent people. But those, in the American lexicon, are not human rights violation, they are collateral damages.

No doubt, it is America that defines which actions constitutes what when it comes to issues of human rights and war crimes. And such definitions vary in accordance with who is involved. If it were America, or its allies in Western Europe, then cases of war crimes or human rights violations do not arise; they are given other names or ignored completely. Just like the country’s led war in Irag was ignored, even by the so called Amnesty International that would write multiple page reports on human right violations in a country battling a terror group that threatens its very existence, but would conveniently turn the other way when a favoured country out of pure aggression invades another country on false allegations of habouring weapons of mass destruction.

Amnesty International, just like the United States must be either joking with this sort of claims or thinking the rest of us are unitelligent fellows who must be taught how and what to think at all times.

It may not be cursory at the same time however, to infer that America’s refusal in this regard might not be unconnected with the refusal of President Buhari to adopt gay rights in the country. Of course, Barack Obama has not relented in his efforts to ensure that every country on planet earth accords homosexuals the right to practice their sexual orientations without restrictions, whatsoever and he has employed all manner of approaches, including threats and intimidation to force recognition of gay rights down the throats of other countries, especially on the defenceless continent vof Africa, not minding whatever the traditions of the people in question dictates.

The only tradition or custom Obama understands is liberty; morality is an achaic old order. And it calls for caution that America’s interest in helping Nigeria battle Boko Haram waned as soon as Buhari made it clear that gay marriage was not for the country. The verdict may just have been: if you wont guarantee gay right; we cant help you end Boko Haram. The dusting up of the said Leahy Law may just have been an afterthought. Or wasn’t America aware of the law when it first promised to assist Nigeria?

President Buhari must now, as a matter of urgency seek alternative means of procuring weapons to battle the insurgents. Luckily, he has and would not be subjected to unending scrutiny and criticisms as himself and his party men subjected Jonathan during his time as president.

Just like many observers have pointed out, the solution to the problems in Africa may just lie in Africa. The collaboration with regional powers has helped a great deal. Efforts should be channeled toward involving committed regional forces.