Diagnosing Dr. Adeniran Abraham Ariyo And The Act Of Genocide By Rudolf Ogoo Okonkwo

“We must never let the wreckage of our barbaric past keep us from envisioning a peaceful future when law and democratic freedom will rule the earth.”- Gregory H. Stanton.
Sometime in the 90s, Bola Ige wrote a controversial but landmark essay called, "The Road To Kigali." He later developed it into a series of essays published in his Nigeria Tribune Column, Uncle Bola’s Column, and so many other newspapers and magazines.

If you skim out the controversies as it relates to who is playing the role of the Tutsi and who is playing the Hutu in the case of Nigeria, the late lawyer and an agitator for a National Conference, argued that, left on the same path Nigeria was on, the people of Nigeria were headed for the same fate that befell Rwanda. The core of his argument was that a country that is structurally flawed, inherently unjust, where impunity reigns, and law and order means nothing to anyone, would constantly flirt with doom.
For those who have forgotten, Rwandans have lived in a fractured country with unresolved citizenship and rights questions, crawling from one crisis into another until 1994 when they killed 800,000 of their own compatriots in 100 days.
Bola Ige later became the Attorney General of Nigeria and was murdered at his home in Ibadan.
And Nigeria moved on, as we often do.
But the issues he raised have not died. Nigeria unfortunately continues to dangle between the Road to Kigali and the Road to Rio de Janeiro.
Remember, Bola Ige wrote when Plateau state was still peaceful; when the state had not been turned into a killing field where ethnic and religious conflict had not led to the death of thousands and the destruction of towns and villages. Ige wrote of the Road to Kigali when nobody in Nigeria could fathom that a group of Nigerians could rise up and call themselves Boko Haram and start destroying towns and villages, killing schoolboys, kidnapping schoolgirls, blowing themselves up and wiping out villages across the North East.
According to Gregory H. Stanton, the president of Genocide Watch, there are ten stages of genocide. He tagged them as Classification, Symbolization, Discrimination, Dehumanization, Organization, Polarization, Preparation, Persecution, Extermination, and Denial. He said these stages do not follow any particular order. They can occur concurrently.
In Rwanda, the 1994 genocide started when, on April 6, 1994, a plane carrying President Juvenal Habyarimana and Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira was shot down as it prepared to land in Kigali. It killed everyone on board. The next day, genocide against Tutsi and moderate Hutu started.
President Habyarimana, a Hutu, had signed a ceasefire agreement called the Arusha Accords. It was aimed at ending the Rwanda Civil War. Hutu extremists who opposed the ceasefire agreement shot down the plane as part of the move to frustrate Habyarimana’s move to share power with the Tutsi dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front. But when the incident happened, Hutu extremists blamed it on the Tutsi. It became an inciting tool in the hands of Hutu leaders who were determined to wipe out Tutsi people in Rwanda.
Jean Kambanda, a banker and an economist, directed the genocide that followed. As the leader of the Mouvement Democratique Populaire, he directed the execution of what they called “the final solution of the Tutsi problem.” The Hutu set up roadblocks and apprehended Tutsi people and massacred them. They distributed machetes and Hutu militias, soldiers and regular folks, hit the streets, killing and maiming and destroying properties belonging to Tutsi. In 100 days, over 70% of Tutsi in Rwanda were killed.
1994 was not the first time Tutsi had been massacred in Rwanda. It happened in the 50s and 60s. For the Hutu extremists, the Tutsi have dominated the country’s economy and power for generations and must be stopped. To accentuate their narratives, the Hutu tagged the Tutsi as foreigners, oppressors, ‘native colonialists, and even called them cockroaches. In each of the past instances of killing before the 1994 genocide, Hutu government officials have been at the forefront of organizing and supervising the massacre. But more importantly, in their rhetoric before the massacres, they prepared the masses for gruesome acts against the Tutsi.
In Rwanda, journalists who promoted hate on radio were later tried for inciting genocide. One George Ruggiu of Radio Television Libre des Milles Collines was sentenced to 12 years in jail. Inciting genocide and complicity in genocide are all crimes in violation of international law. So were army officers who led gangs that massacred people equally punished. Major Bernard Ntuyahaga, the commander of the Presidential Guard, received 20 years in prison for his role.
Genocide does not happen out of the blue. There is a long period of time prior to the actual killings when the populace is prepared for genocide. The first step in the preparation is to classify the potential victims as ‘them’ and the potential perpetrators as ‘we’. The set up is the classic ‘we’ versus ‘them’. The line could be drawn along ethnicity, religion, race, and even class. The ‘them’ are next given a symbol. They are discriminated against and then, dehumanized.
Discrimination comes in various forms. Those who intend to perpetuate genocide often begin by finding ways, using laws and customs, to deny rights to the group they intend to slaughter. As it happened to the Jews, full citizenship was denied. What often follows is restriction on employment, political participation and empowerment. In the Nigerian contest, the issue of indigeneship versus citizenship comes to mind. Discrimination can advance to what Prof. Alan Whitehorn called stigmatization. A targeted group is given a stigma on which they would be hanged.
It is important to the future perpetrators of genocide to dehumanize their victims. They need to be dehumanized so that their eventual killings would be guilty free or guilty-lite. The Germans discriminated and dehumanized the Jews. They fabricated stories blaming the Jews for all of Germany’s economic woes of the country. Another tool used by perpetrators of genocide is to create elaborate stereotype of the victims and put every member of that targeted group into that jacket. Good examples are: they are all thieves; they all love money; they are all dirty; they worship the wrong God etc. The massacre of Muslims going on in Central African Republic at this moment comes to mind.
In effect, part of the preparation for genocide is to induce hate for the targeted group through vile simplification of complex human issues. For instance, if some members of a group are mafia leaders, the problem is a law and order one and law enforcement will do well to treat people as individuals and hold them accountable for falling afoul of the law. It is not something that demands the generalization of the group in question.  A good example is the mafia problem in America in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Though most mafia leaders were of Italian descent, America did not tag every Italian-American a mafia. In fact, one of the people that brought the mafia in New York City to its knees was an Italian-American prosecutor named Rudy Giuliani.
That’s how it is done in a society that wants to progress. But a lazy society will rather scapegoat every member of a group and, in the process, jeopardize cohesion and advancement of the whole society.
Nigeria is a lazy society where a negligible number is interested in the heavy lifting needed to actualize the ideals of the nation. Majority simply wants a shortcut that will secure permanent advantage for their group over others. The lack of genuine nationhood feeds all the vampires out in the field. They spend time scheming and searching for whom to blame for their unpleasant life.
"Stereotypes are not necessarily malicious," once cautioned Chinua Achebe. "They may be well meaning and even friendly. But in every case they show a carelessness or laziness or indifference of attitude that implies that the object of your categorization is not worth the trouble of individual assessment." That’s how the action of a man or a group of people is often ascribed to the action of an ethnic or religious group.
Organizing genocide starts from those with power. It could be governments, local chiefs and extremists groups. And there are many in Nigeria. What is needed is for the environment to be ripe and the agitators for the elimination of a group that have been labeled undesirable to give a nod. The militia and other agitated groups in the society would take it from there. The leaders in their mansions, castles and palaces do not have to come out on the streets to direct the operation.
The first sign that genocide is about to start is when the moderate voices within the perpetuating group are silenced. That is needed for the extremists to take over. The extremists do not mind killing and arresting moderates within their own group to make room for their intention. It happened in Rwanda. The Hutu extremists first eliminated moderate voices within the Hutu society to ensure that nobody stopped them.
Of course, perpetrators do not come out and announce that they plan to commit genocide. They find a code name or metaphor to mask their real intentions. It could be as mundane as fighting terrorism or fighting crime but the ultimate goal is to eliminate the targeted group.
The actual operation could entail lynching, deporting, segregating, confiscation of properties and coldblooded killing of innocent men, women and children under any pretense. In situations like this, it is often difficult to contain and in a short period of time thousands of people could be killed by a brainwashed angry mob.
The final stage of genocide according to George H. Stanton is denial. He said that it is an indication that future genocides are going to happen.
“The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses,” he wrote. “They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile.”
Nigeria is a known area of conflict. It has a long history of killings and massacres that fit perfectly well into this genocidal model. And Nigeria has done everything to deny it which means future genocides are going to happen. Instead of acknowledging killings of the past, Nigeria blames the victims. And those who committed those atrocities rather than being driven out continue to oversee the affairs of the Nation.
That’s quite unlike what happened in Rwanda where an International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was set up in Arusha, Tanzania to try high level people involved in the genocide. It complimented the Gacaca Court system that tried over 3,000 cases. Twenty percent of the defendants received death sentences while another thirty-two percent received life in prison. To ensure that the people of Rwanda do not forget, the government has built monuments to remember. It also passed laws against discrimination on the basis of ethnicity. Each year it marked the anniversary of the genocide with events that start on April 7th until July 4 called liberation day. The first week of April 7th to 14th is called week of mourning.
That is quite different from the story of killings and massacres in Nigeria. In 1945 some Northern elements in Jos rose up and massacred Igbo people. When it was repeated in 1953 in Kano, the British inquiry reported that, "No amount of provocation, short-term or long term, can in any way justify their (Northern Nigerians) behavior." The British report went further to warn that, "the seeds of the trouble which broke out in Kano on May 16 (1953) have their counterparts still in the ground. It could happen again, and only a realization and acceptance of the underlying causes can remove the danger."
Of course, it happened again. It happened in all of northern Nigeria in 1966, Kano in 1980, Maiduguri in 1982, Jimeta in 1984, Gombe in 1985, Kaduna & Kafanchan in 1991, Bauchi, Kastina, & Kano in 1991, Zango-Kataf in 1992, Funtua in 1993, Kano in 1994.
In Northern Nigeria of 1964, there were calls in the Northern House of Assembly to revoke forthwith all Certificates of Occupancy from the hands of the Igbo residents in the region. Lawmakers stood up in the assembly and promised to find ways to do away with the Igbo. Alhaji Ibrahim Musa Gashash, O.B.E and Minister of Land and Survey, told the assembly in March of 1964 the following:
"Having heard their demand about Ibos holding land in Northern Nigeria, my ministry will do all it can to see that the demands of members are met. How to do this, when to do it, all this should not be disclosed. In due course, you will all see what will happen. (Applause)".
The Northern People's Congress, NPC, followed Alhaji Gashash's promise by issuing a booklet called SALAMA: Facts must be faced. This booklet portrayed the Igbo in a very bad light and gave the masses in the North the sense that the Igbo were the source of all their problems.
The military coup of 1966 presented a pretext to carry out a plan that had been laid out years before. It was a plan that aimed at a total extermination of the Igbo or, at least, their containment. The pogrom and the brutal war that followed was the final solution to the perceived Igbo problem in Nigeria.
Based on the above, for the Igbo, the utterances of the Oba of Lagos last month that Igbo people who failed to vote for his candidate in the Lagos State governorship election should be thrown into the lagoon was a warning sign. It fitted well into the pattern that leads to genocide.
The matter was discussed and those that the Oba’s utterances made uncomfortable urged that we move on. The nation moved on. Then xenophobic killings in South Africa began. Like genocides of history, it was triggered by the utterances of the King of Zululand. The king blamed foreigners for the difficult life of South African blacks.
In the course of that discussion, a Texas-based cardiologist, Dr. Adeniran Abraham Ariyo called for xenophobic attack against the Igbo in Nigeria the way foreigners were violently being attacked in South Africa.
“You see how they are being slaughtered in South Africa,” Dr. Abraham Ariyo wrote. “That’s what’s going to happen to them in Lagos…When are they not going to be slaughtered in Abuja?…God might have put a curse on them …We will continue to bus them to Onitsha.”
It was a surprise to many that a cardiologist in America could come so low as to suggest that the solution to whatever issues he has with the activities of some Igbo people in Lagos was a call for xenophobic attack. History, however, showed that well educated people like Rwandan Jean Kambanda advocated and subtly and openly promoted the carnage that ordinary people later carried out.
When the heat was put on Dr. Ariyo, he came out to claim that his Facebook account was hacked. In his thesis as to why he could not be an advocate of genocide against the Igbo, he listed all his Igbo friends and how he had helped a lot of Igbo people along the way.
Dr. Abraham Ariyo knows the truth. Despite his public posture to save his name and maybe his career, he will ultimately answer to his conscience and his chi.
But as history tells us, the promoters and perpetrators of genocide do have friends within the group they are targeting. Some Hutu who were married to Tutsi killed their Tutsi wives and even children they had with Tutsi women just to show their commitment to the total elimination of the Tutsi. So, doctor, that you have Igbo friends is not an alibi.
In Monday’s appearance on The Late Night Show with David Letterman, President Barack Obama said that, the first step in solving any problem is being aware of it, diagnosing it and not denying it.
By now, Dr. Ariyo is surely aware of how genocide comes about. He is also cognizant now of how educated people become perpetrators of genocide. But, more importantly, he is familiar with the consequences of such actions. He may not come out to acknowledge it but you can be sure that his Facebook account will not be hacked again. Ever.

saharareporters.

Popular posts from this blog

UK GENERAL ELECTIONS:Inquiry announced into memo alleging Sturgeon wants Tory election victory.

Ebola Outbreak: Guinea Declares Emergency As Overall Deaths From Ebola Rise To 1,069

Sandhurst's sheikhs: Why do so many Gulf royals receive military training in the UK? A parade outside the building at Sandhurst Continue reading the main story In today's Magazine The death list that names 5,000 victims Is this woman an apostate? Voices from a WW1 prison camp The Swiss selfie scandal Generations of foreign royals - particularly from the Middle East - have learned to be military leaders at the UK's Sandhurst officer training academy. But is that still a good idea, asks Matthew Teller. Since 1812, the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, on the Surrey/Berkshire border, has been where the British Army trains its officers. It has a gruelling 44-week course testing the physical and intellectual skills of officer cadets and imbuing them with the values of the British Army. Alongside would-be British officers, Sandhurst has a tradition of drawing cadets from overseas. Many of the elite families of the Middle East have sent their sons and daughters. Perhaps the most notable was King Hussein of Jordan. Continue reading the main story Find out more Matthew Teller presents Sandhurst and the Sheikhs, a Whistledown production for BBC Radio 4, on Wednesday 27 August 2014 at 11:00 BST It will be available on iPlayer shortly after broadcast Four reigning Arab monarchs are graduates of Sandhurst and its affiliated colleges - King Abdullah of Jordan, King Hamad of Bahrain, Sheikh Tamim, Emir of Qatar, and Sultan Qaboos of Oman. Past monarchs include Sheikh Saad, Emir of Kuwait, and Sheikh Hamad, Emir of Qatar. Sandhurst's links have continued from the time when Britain was the major colonial power in the Gulf. "One thing the British were excellent at was consolidating their rule through spectacle," says Habiba Hamid, former foreign policy strategist to the rulers of Dubai and Abu Dhabi. "Pomp, ceremony, displays of military might, shock and awe - they all originate from the British military relationship." Sheikh Hamad Bin Isa Al Khalifa, King Abdullah, Sultan Qaboos Sandhurst alumni: King Hamad of Bahrain, King Abdullah of Jordan and Sultan Qaboos of Oman It's a place where future leaders get to know each other, says Michael Stephens, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute, Qatar. And Sandhurst gives the UK influence in the Gulf. "The [UK] gets the kind of attention from Gulf policy elites that countries of our size, like France and others, don't get. It gives us the ability to punch above our weight. "You have people who've spent time in Britain, they have… connections to their mates, their teachers. Familiarity in politics is very beneficial in the Gulf context." "For British people who are drifting around the world, as I did as a soldier," says Brigadier Peter Sincock, former defence attache to Saudi Arabia, "you find people who were at Sandhurst and you have an immediate rapport. I think that's very helpful, for example, in the field of military sales." The Emir of Dubai Mohammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum with his son after his Passing Out Parade at Sandhurst in 2006 Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Emir of Dubai, with his son in uniform at Sandhurst in 2006 Her Majesty The Queen's Representative His Highness Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, The Emir of Qatar inspects soldiers during the 144th Sovereign's Parade held at The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst on April 8, 2004 in Camberley, England. Some 470 Officer cadets took part of which 219 were commissioned into the British Army Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, the Emir of Qatar until 2013, inspects soldiers at Sandhurst in 2004 Emotion doesn't always deliver. In 2013, despite the personal intervention of David Cameron, the UAE decided against buying the UK's Typhoon fighter jets. But elsewhere fellow feeling is paying dividends. "The Gulf monarchies have become important sources of capital," says Jane Kinninmont, deputy head of the Middle East/North Africa programme at the foreign affairs think tank Chatham House. "So you see the tallest building in London being financed by the Qataris, you see UK infrastructure and oilfield development being financed by the UAE. There's a desire - it can even seem like a desperation - to keep them onside for trade reasons." British policy in the Gulf is primarily "mercantile", says Dr Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, of the Baker Institute in Houston, Texas. Concerns over human rights and reform are secondary. The Shard at dusk The Shard was funded by Qatari investors In 2012 Sandhurst accepted a £15m donation from the UAE for a new accommodation block, named the Zayed Building after that country's founding ruler. In March 2013, Sandhurst's Mons Hall - a sports centre - was reopened as the King Hamad Hall, following a £3m donation from the monarch of Bahrain, who was educated at one of Sandhurst's affiliated colleges. The renaming proved controversial, partly because of the perceived slight towards the 1,600 British casualties at the Battle of Mons in August 1914 - and partly because of how Hamad and his government have dealt with political protest in Bahrain over the last three years. A critic might note that the third term of Sandhurst's Officer Commissioning Course covers counter-insurgency techniques and ways to manage public disorder. Since tension between Bahrain's majority Shia population and minority Sunni ruling elite boiled over in 2011, more than 80 civilians have died at the hands of the security forces, according to opposition estimates, though the government disputes the figures. Thirteen police officers have also lost their lives in the clashes. "The king has always felt that Sandhurst was a great place," says Sincock, chairman of the Bahrain Society, which promotes friendship between the UK and Bahrain. "Something like 20 of his immediate family have been there as cadets. He didn't really understand why there was such an outcry." David Cameron and King Hamad David Cameron meeting King Hamad in 2012... A protester is held back by police ... while protesters nearby opposed the Bahrain ruler's human rights record Crispin Black, a Sandhurst graduate and former instructor, says the academy should not have taken the money. "Everywhere you look there's a memorial to something, a building or a plaque that serves as a touchstone that takes you right to the heart of British military history. Calling this hall 'King Hamad Hall' ain't gonna do that." Sandhurst gave a written response to the criticism. "All donations to Sandhurst are in compliance with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations and our values as a nation. Over the years donations like this have saved the UK taxpayer a considerable amount of money." But what happens when Sandhurst's friends become enemies? In 2001, then-prime minister Tony Blair visited Damascus, marking a warming of relations between the UK and Syria. Shortly after, in 2003, Sandhurst was training officers from the Syrian armed forces. Now, of course, Syria is an international pariah. Journalist Michael Cockerell has written about Libyan dictator Colonel Gaddafi's time at the Army School of Education in Beaconsfield in 1966: "Three years [later], Gaddafi followed a tradition of foreign officers trained by the British Army. He made use of his newfound knowledge to seize political power in his own country." Ahmed Ali Sandhurst-trained Ahmed Ali was a key player in the Egyptian military's removal of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi That tradition persists. In the 1990s Egyptian colonel Ahmed Ali attended Sandhurst. In 2013 he was one of the key figures in the Egyptian military's removal of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi, now rewarded by a post in President Sisi's inner circle of advisers. In the late 1990s there were moves by the British government under Tony Blair to end Sandhurst's training of overseas cadets. Major-General Arthur Denaro, Middle East adviser to the defence secretary and commandant at Sandhurst in the late 1990s, describes the idea as part of the "ethical foreign policy" advocated by the late Robin Cook, then-foreign secretary. Tony Blair and Robin Cook Tony Blair and Robin Cook at one point planned to end Sandhurst's training of overseas cadets The funeral of King Hussein in 1999 appears to have scuppered the plan. "Coming to that funeral were the heads of state of almost every country in the world - and our prime minister was there, Tony Blair," says Major-General Denaro. "He happened to see me talking to heads of state - the Sultan of Brunei, the Sultan of Oman, the Bahrainis, the Saudis - and he said 'How do you know all these guys?' The answer was because they went to Sandhurst." Today, Sandhurst has reportedly trained more officer cadets from the UAE than from any other country bar the UK. The May 2014 intake included 72 overseas cadets, around 40% of whom were from the Middle East. "In the future," says Maryam al-Khawaja, acting president of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, "people will look back at how much Britain messed up in the [Middle East] because they wanted to sell more Typhoon jets to Bahrain, rather than stand behind the values of human rights and democracy." "It's one thing saying we're inculcating benign values, but that's not happening," says Habiba Hamid. Sandhurst is "a relic of the colonial past. They're not [teaching] the civic values we ought to find in democratically elected leaders." line Who else went to Sandhurst? Princes William and Harry, Winston Churchill, Ian Fleming, Katie Hopkins, Antony Beevor, James Blunt, Josh Lewsey, Devon Harris (From left to right) Princes William and Harry Sir Winston Churchill Ian Fleming, creator of James Bond (but did not complete training) Katie Hopkins, reality TV star Antony Beevor, historian James Blunt, singer-songwriter Josh Lewsey, World Cup-winning England rugby player Devon Harris, member of Jamaica's first bobsleigh team line Sandhurst says that "building international relations through military exchanges and education is a key pillar of the UK's international engagement strategy". Sandhurst may be marvellous for the UK, a country where the army is subservient to government, but it is also delivering militarily-trained officers to Middle Eastern monarchies where, often, armies seem to exist to defend not the nation but the ruling family.