Question:
Observers have recently noticed certain situations, events, circumstances, and conflicts in Nigeria and Kenya... Does this mean that the United States, the United Kingdom, or other powers have adopted a new policy to encourage ongoing civil wars throughout Africa—currently in Nigeria, and in Kenya after the 2007 general elections—or are these events internal?
Answer:
First: The ongoing conflict in Kenya and the continuous tensions between various tribes are a result of the competition between the United States and the United Kingdom over the upcoming presidential elections, scheduled for March 2013. The Anglo-American conflict centers on the current president, Kibaki, and his associate, the presidential candidate Uhuru Kenyatta—both of whom are loyal to the British—on one side; and on the other side, Prime Minister Raila Odinga, the presidential candidate loyal to America. This conflict stems from the results of the 2007 presidential elections, which were widely disputed between Odinga and his American supporters, and Kibaki and his British supporters.
Kibaki and Kenyatta both hail from the same ethnic group, the Kikuyu, which is the largest ethnic group in Kenya. Meanwhile, Raila Odinga is from the "Luo" group, the third largest ethnic group in Kenya. The power struggle between the United States and the United Kingdom has often translated into a conflict between Kibaki and Odinga, as well as between their respective tribes, clans, and allies.
As the presidential elections approach, tensions between the various factions increase to consolidate their gains before the vote. There is no deliberate intent by the United States and the United Kingdom to create a civil war for the sake of producing conflict and keeping the situation tense and unstable. Rather, the expected direction is toward gaining political advantages before the presidential elections, or potentially postponing the elections if either of the competing parties, "America and Britain," perceives that the conditions of the conflict do not favor their candidate's success. For this reason, America stresses the necessity of Kibaki holding transparent, free, and fair elections to give Odinga a better chance of succeeding over Kenyatta. U.S. intervention reached the point of direct involvement, where U.S. Secretary of State Clinton said during her visit to Kenya earlier this month: "The United States has pledged to provide assistance to the government in Kenya to ensure that the upcoming elections are free, fair, and transparent, and we urge preparation for elections that will be a true model for the whole world." However, she also admitted that this would not be an easy task because a lot of preparatory work is needed, stating: "But we are well aware that there are many things that decisions must be made about and many laws passed." (Clinton pledges US support to avoid bloodshed in Kenyan elections - Guardian Online, August 4, 2012).
It is clear that America remains concerned about the possibility of Odinga winning the election and wants to intervene in the electoral process. This increases British tension through Kibaki, Kenyatta, their elite followers, and the Kikuyu tribal group in an attempt to block any American intervention.
However, an issue that added some "spice" to existing tensions was Kibaki's announcement in March 2012 regarding the discovery of oil in Kenya (Kenya joins the African oil boom with the latest discoveries - Christian Science Monitor Online, May 9, 2012). Naturally, this increased tension between Britain and the United States as they compete to secure Kenyan oil for their multinational companies. This discovery also comes at a time when both countries are experiencing a severe economic crisis.
Second: As for Nigeria, following the illness that led to the death of Nigerian President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, President Goodluck Jonathan was inaugurated as the President of Nigeria on February 5, 2010. Before his appointment as President, Goodluck Jonathan held the position of Vice President to Umaru, and both men were from the People's Democratic Party (PDP). It can be said that both Umaru and Jonathan owe their political rise to Obasanjo, the powerful leader of the PDP.
Obasanjo is America's primary agent in the country, tasked with the responsibility of ensuring continued American hegemony in Nigeria and marginalizing British influence. It was Obasanjo who chose Jonathan to serve as Umaru's Vice President in the 2007 presidential elections. As stated in Goodluck Jonathan's profile according to the BBC: "Mr. Jonathan took over as governor and two years later was hand-picked by Olusegun Obasanjo to be the running mate to PDP presidential candidate Umaru Yar'Adua." (Profile: Goodluck Jonathan: Nigeria, BBC News Online, April 18, 2011). Later, Obasanjo orchestrated Jonathan's rise to the presidency. According to the newspaper Vanguard, Obasanjo was instrumental in Jonathan’s path to the presidency: "When Yar'Adua became terminally ill about two years into his four-year term, Obasanjo first visited the ailing president in a Saudi hospital and returned to lead the campaign for Vice President Goodluck Jonathan to be sworn in as Acting President because Yar'Adua did not hand over before traveling abroad." (Clifford: Obasanjo's resignation: What next for PDP, Jonathan? - Vanguard Online, April 4, 2012).
Thus, America succeeded in obtaining a broad mandate for Jonathan in his re-election to the presidency in 2011. Jonathan used social media tools to reach the Nigerian masses and secured 77.7% of the vote. These results were an improvement compared to the votes during Umaru Yar'Adua's term.
However, after Jonathan was appointed president, more political weakness appeared than during Umaru Yar'Adua's period, despite Obasanjo serving as an advisor to Jonathan while he was the Chairman of the PDP Board of Trustees. Jonathan's reign has suffered from several issues that undermined his ability to control Nigeria's civil institutions and political life. These issues can be summarized as follows:
1- Political Corruption:
Political corruption in Nigeria has radical dimensions. Under Jonathan's power, efforts to reduce government corruption were minimal. Even America, which supports Goodluck Jonathan, grew weary of the anti-corruption movement and publicly criticized the Nigerian government. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in her 2011 report to Congress on human rights practices: "Corruption in Nigeria is widespread and permeates all levels of government and security forces." Furthermore, Jonathan's government ignored development in Nigeria in line with other countries. This later led to resentment among segments of the population toward Jonathan’s rule and resulted in violence, especially in the north of the country.
2- Removal of Fuel Subsidies:
It seems that Goodluck Jonathan did not realize the impact of removing fuel subsidies and failed to manage the entire crisis. After several days of riots in January 2012, Jonathan's government eventually succumbed and provided some fuel subsidies, but it was too late. His government's reputation was severely damaged, and Nigeria's middle class, which had supported him, turned against him.
3- Increased Racial Discrimination Against the Muslim Population:
Relations between the government and the Muslim population worsened under Goodluck Jonathan's rule. Goodluck Jonathan abandoned the policy of "appeasing Muslims" mapped out by Obasanjo and subsequently increased violent tactics to suppress Muslim demands. Instead of providing better political rights, jobs, and improving social conditions, security forces intensified their injustice against Muslims, especially in the northern parts of the country. This created a massive reaction among Muslims against Jonathan's rule and pushed some Islamic groups, such as Boko Haram, to adopt violence against the government as a reaction to the brutal oppression taken by Jonathan's government against Muslims.
If we look closely at the issues surrounding Jonathan's rule and the violence in the country, it becomes clear that these issues were manufactured by America in cooperation with Goodluck Jonathan to allow America to increase its intervention deep into Nigeria with the sole aim of securing the country's oil wealth.
To clarify this American manufacture, we state the following:
Regarding political corruption, despite public disgust toward it in Nigeria, America encourages it in secret. It also allows the state to line its pockets more than ever with American aid and assistance; it is the way America makes its agents wealthier while they serve their master. It also allows America to pursue politicians who stand in its way and are loyal to other foreign powers, most notably Britain. Furthermore, "corrupt money" is a double-edged sword for America's agents: on one hand, it attracts America's agents with money to keep them attached to it; on the other hand, it intimidates and threatens them because it makes them more dependent on their master, as they know well that if they disobey America, corruption can easily be used as a means to punish them and remove them from power.
As for the removal of fuel subsidies, it was at the request of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is controlled by America. The BBC stated: "The IMF has long urged the Nigerian government to remove the subsidy, which it says will save $8bn (£5.2bn) a year." (Nigeria fuel price protests: Two killed in clashes, BBC News Online, January 9, 2012). Its goal behind this move is to economically subdue the people and occupy them with the heavy burden arising from the removal of fuel subsidies, thereby diverting their minds away from the efforts of American oil companies that are looting the country's oil wealth.
As for Jonathan's tyranny against Muslims, especially against Boko Haram, it was aimed at expanding American control over the security apparatus in Nigeria to protect oil under the pretext of helping Nigerian security officials fight Islamic militants. During Clinton's visit to Nigeria on August 9, 2012, a senior security assistant said: "Washington will provide Nigeria with forensic assistance, to track suspects and 'integrate' the disparate tracks of police and military intelligence..." The official added: "Washington would also be willing to help Nigeria develop an intelligence coordination center that could help integrate information." (AFP Online, August 9, 2012).
However, America wants this "manufacturing" of tense issues to stop at the point of creating a justification for American intervention to secure wealth, without reaching a civil war that would paralyze the movement of securing oil wealth—at least in the foreseeable future.
As for the political conflict in Nigeria, it differs from that in Kenya. In Kenya, both countries, America and Britain, have a similar political class serving their interests. But in Nigeria, since Obasanjo's term on May 29, 1999, the active political class has become loyal to America, and the British loyalists have gradually weakened. Although they remain, they are less effective and are considered to be in the back rows compared to the American loyalists. However, Britain is still trying to exploit the escalating tensions to return to its former influence.
In conclusion, it is painful that nations struggle in lands where Islam once had a great standing... Today, its affairs have fallen into the hands of its enemies from the colonialist Kuffar. Nevertheless, the Islamic Ummah will not remain silent; rather, by the will of Allah, it is in an escalating movement, awaiting the dawn of a new day that restores its glory and its quality of being the best, as described by Allah (swt):
كُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ
"You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah." (Surah Al-Imran [3]: 110)
And that is not difficult for Allah.