There is no way to focus on the disaster going on in Europe between Ukraine and Russia without distilling the hypocrisy, double standard, contradiction, war-mongering, deceit, illusion and callousness of modern-day governance on the world scene. On the surface, Russia conveniently cites security threat to its survival posed by Ukraine’s potential membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to justify invasion of Ukraine.
That concern, perhaps not legitimate, could not be easily dismissed. Even then, for Russia to have unilaterally invaded neighbouring sovereign member of the United Nations, Ukraine, violates international law and threatens world peace. It was an identical situation in 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis. As part of measures to ensure the security of Cuba from the threat posed by neighbouring United States, Soviet leader, Nikita Kruschev, empowered Cuba’s Fidel Castro with nuclear-armed missiles. America mounted a naval blockade. The development forced the Soviet leader to pipe down by removing the nuclear weapons. The difference at that time was that the United States did not invade Cuba unilaterally to pre-empt installation of, or enforce removal of, the missiles. Instead, America issued a 14-day ultimatum for the missile to be removed.
By the way, there was this fallacy that the U.S. instigated Ukraine to secede from the defunct Soviet Union. In the history of any nation, a reformer would emerge to crack any erstwhile stranglehold in the constitution. In the case of the Soviet Union, the uneasy federation combusted through the efforts of a trio led by Boris Yeltsin, who emerged thereafter as first President of the newly emerging Russia. No fewer than 15 new sovereign republics were set free from the old Soviet Union. What is more, after emerging from the old Soviet Union, Ukraine, along with the new nations, became a member of the United Nations. Russia, therefore, violated international treaty by invading a member of the United Nations and forcefully annexing portions of the alienated nation, Ukraine.
As usual, aspects of the Ukraine-Russia war have raised laughable issues. But for the fact that it is meant merely for public consumption, was it not ridiculous that the International Criminal Court (ICC) claimed to be planning a trial for alleged crimes against humanity during this war? Sheer international jamboree at the expense of public funds. Did the same ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, not tell the world that there were sufficient allegations to warrant investigations into crimes against humanity during the #EndSARS protests in Nigeria almost two years ago? What was the outcome of such a probe, if any? Is Russia a signatory to the Rome Statute? Surely, Russia, following the examples of Britain, the U.S. and Israel, will not feel obliged to allow the ICC investigate the conduct of (Russia’s) soldiers in Ukraine.
There was this unfortunate incident during the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Nigerians were pushed back and disallowed from joining the train taking refugees from Ukraine to Warsaw in Poland. As must be expected, such incidents generated persecution complex of discrimination. But, at least, Nigerians were not attacked in Ukraine as in war-time overzealousness. Largely dictated by everybody’s desire for survival of the fittest, it is not necessarily dictated by official policy. We had our experiences in the disturbances leading to the civil war in Nigeria and many fellow citizens not only became refugees but had to return to their parts of the country. The situation was almost the same after the cancellation of the June 12, 1993, presidential election. On both occasions, your dialect or mode of dress could render you vulnerable to unfortunate incidents, depending on what part of the country you found yourself in.
It was most risky during the war proper. Nigerian government dismissed all allegations of atrocities against Biafrans. In fact, they were encouraged to cross the lines from Biafra to the Nigerian side with all assurances of personal safety. One man did and was caught by a Nigerian soldier named Macaulay Lamurde. Whether the soldier was drunk was not clear. But in the presence of a British television reporter and cameraman, Lamurde ordered the unfortunate Biafran to be tied up like a ram. The reporter asked why the poor Biafran was being tied up or whether he was going to be shot, Larmurde confirmed the Biafran would be shot and he was shot. The sad scene was shown on British television. Diplomatic circles lodged official complaints with the Nigerian government, which, in turn, demanded full explanation from the divisional commander, Brigadier Benjamin Adekunle. On being pronounced guilty and unauthorised, the soldier, Lamurde, was himself subjected to the same treatment and shot in the presence of the same BBC reporter and cameraman.
To worsen matters, President Muhammadu Buhari could not have foreseen the violence in Ukraine and, in any case, was prompted by an entirely different matter a few months ago, when he addressed a parley and appealed to the authorities to help dissuade Nigerians from illegally relocating to Europe.
Overzealous Ukrainians and Poles might have mixed up Buhari’s request for the situation created by the war in the area.
Incidentally, the war provoked by Russia in Ukraine has compelled the British government to impose sanctions on Russians with unexplained wealth. One of them is Roman Abramovich, owner of the famous English football club, Chelsea. This is not a new law. For quite a long time, Britain had been threatening to expose and confiscate the wealth and property of foreigners with unexplained sources of wealth lodged in the country. Why did it take Russia to invade Ukraine for Britain’s bulldog to bite? Now is the time for Britain to expose Nigeria’s treasury looters. Otherwise, Nigerians should not take British Prime Minister seriously.
For a start, most African countries are at fault for allowing themselves to be intimidated and blackmailed by powerful nations into signing the Rome treaty.
Did the then British Defence Minister, William Hague, not bluff ICC when approached for investigation into the conduct of British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? Has America ever consented to ICC’s probe of (American) soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? Has the ICC ever investigated the conduct of Israeli soldiers against protesting Palestinians?
If the ICC could be so timid in confronting powerful nations for necessary probe into the conduct of their soldiers in different theatres all over the world, what is the guarantee of any serious probe into Russia’s role in Ukraine?
Men, rise to your status
Ordinarily, not many would bother about any difference between an accident and an incident, Trust Nigerians to magnify everything, especially if the issue involves a known figure. It all happened in an environment in one of those turbulent states. Clear details were not given in various media reports whether all occurred inside or outside the environment. What did that matter? The major fact was that a Nigerian died. In that situation, the death could be of high blood pressure, heart attack, prevailing liver or kidney problem. These things are not easily felt by the masses unless they just by chance underwent a medical check-up.
Fast-track to later events. A compensation of only N1 million was reportedly offered to dependants of the deceased. If true, that was too mean to offset the ensuing avoidable controversy. The traditional human feeling should have been two-pronged, to console the dependants and go a long way to cater for the family.up to university level(?) On the surface, that might be too expensive. No, sir. It is not more than chicken feed to provide for the upkeep and future of the dependants of the deceased. No amount can make up for the life of a deceased fellow Nigerian.
That would also be money well-spent. To be blunt, if, according to media reports, the dependants carry out their option to sue for damages, the DEFENDANT, owing to his status would hire a Senior Advocate. Such a top lawyer and Nigerian naira? The legal fee would not be less than N20 million. Which is more important and better appreciated by society, to show off with such “big” lawyer or to be humane and seen to be sympathetic to the plight and potential suffering of the dependants of someone who died in your service? At the end of the day, defending such a suit for damages might be futile if the Senior Advocate loses the case. After all, all top lawyers don’t necessarily win all cases. Why, therefore, not concentrate on gainfully settling with dependants of the deceased in terms of upkeep of the family and education of the children? Above all, imagine the bad blood to be generated by prolonged legal proceedings.