Hope fades: Rachel Daniel shows a picture of her daughter Rose, 17, one of the kidnapped girls. Photo: Joe Penney/Reuters
Show Hide image

John Simpson: Can anyone bring back Nigeria’s lost girls?

President Goodluck Jonathan has no strategy for dealing with Boko Haram – he just hopes the world will forget the 276 youngsters kidnapped by them in April.

Newspaper journalism in Nigeria is an acquired but distinctly attractive taste. It’s chaotic, assertive, hugely competitive, often deeply untrustworthy, and yet it is stubbornly, determinedly outspoken.

There are 30 or so national papers available in Lagos or Abuja, and they are like 1970s Fleet Street on acid: full of wild, intense reporting, bile and partisanship. The very names derive from Fleet Street: the New Telegraph, the Daily Sun, the Daily Independent, the Mirror, the Guardian, the Daily Times, each with its own subtitle – “A Voice of Your Own”, “Sanctity of Truth”. There’s even a News Chronicle, and a Punch, which happens to be particularly good. Some newspapers are government stooges but most are either notionally or sometimes genuinely independent. Accusations of government corruption fill page after page, and sources are, to say the least, sketchy.

Nigeria Today (“The Newspaper for Nigeria”) recently carried the word “Emergency” in 36-point type across its front page, above a picture of a weeping child. Underneath was the headline “11 Chibok girls to die soon”. Chibok, you recall, is the small town in north-eastern Nigeria from which, three months ago, 276 girls were abducted by the extremist Islamist movement Boko Haram.

The opening sentence was a masterpiece of dodgy writing: “If the expected exchange negotiations between the Federal Government and the intermediaries of the Boko Haram insurgents fail, the sect may look to kill the abducted Chibok girls in batches, an authoritative independent source has revealed.” It goes on, “The killing of the first batch of nine to 11 girls may be on video before the end of August.”

This is a rather artless example of the kind of reporting British newspaper readers have long been familiar with: the “Stands to reason/Well, they’re not going to deny it, are they?” school of journalism. Still, just because the source sounds questionable and the piece is full of ifs and maybes, that doesn’t necessarily mean the basic assumption of the article is wrong. The fact is that for three months the Nigerian government has done nothing serious to get the girls back, and there is no sign that this is likely to change. So there must be a danger that Boko Haram will start killing some of them in order to get the government’s attention, just as Nigeria Today suggests.

The Nigerian president, Goodluck Jonathan, is a pleasant, unassuming and often rather unworldly character who habitually wears a hat that makes him look like a jazz pianist. As the father of two daughters of his own, he has promised again and again to get the girls back; but there is no indication that he might be able to do so.

His wife, Patience Jonathan, is a tougher proposition. Being the first lady of Nigeria doesn’t give her any legal powers, yet she is reported recently to have ordered the arrest of a campaigner from the Bring Back our Girls movement who came to see her on behalf of the girls’ parents; Mrs Jonathan seems to have expected the parents to come in person, and got annoyed. She has been quoted as accusing Bring Back Our Girls (BBOG) of fabricating the abductions in order to give her husband’s government a bad name.

The campaign to get the girls released has run into the swamp of Nigerian politics: the worst thing that could possibly happen to it. As Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani schoolgirl and education campaigner, arrived in Nigeria on 12 July she thought she had managed to persuade President Jonathan to have his first meeting with the girls’ parents. He did indeed agree but the meeting didn’t take place, because the BBOG campaigners insisted on being there, and persuaded the parents not to go.

Malala, who is only 17, was reduced to tears, begging the campaigners and the Chibok parents by Skype link to see the president after all. But even though her plane to Paris had to be delayed while the argument went on, she left without getting anything agreed.

Meanwhile, the girls are still being held prisoner in the extensive Sambisa Forest, near Nigeria’s border with Chad. If the president and the parents have been finding it so hard to hold their first meeting, what chance is there of ever negotiating the girls’ freedom with Boko Haram?

The main trouble is, President Jonathan doesn’t have many cards to play. If this happened in some other country, the national army would go in and bring the girls back. No doubt there would be an all-out battle and many of the hostages would be killed in the effort, but at least the crisis would be resolved. Sadly, the Nigerian army doesn’t seem to be up to the job nowadays. It enjoys a good reputation abroad because of the various jobs it has done for the UN in different parts of the world. It’s had good training, and it’s still got the British tradition of spit-and-polish.

But I’ve travelled in Borno in the north-east, where Chibok is and where the girls are still being held, and I’ve seen how little of the area the Nigerian military controls. Even in Maiduguri, the state capital, there are frequent attacks, and the army scarcely maintains any roadblocks in the streets to search the cars that travel round.

This is not an army that is capable of a broad assault on a remote forest on the farthest edges of its territory. Boko Haram doesn’t control Borno State, but it has the men and the logistical support to attack anywhere it wants in sizeable numbers, and the Nigerian army doesn’t have the means to stop it.

Nor can Nigeria rely on help from foreign troops. Britain, the US, France and China have offered support, but it is planning, logistical and intelligence help, not fighting soldiers. If there are a few SAS men or Rangers on the ground there, which isn’t impossible, their job is reconnoitre, not to free the girls. As for the satellite surveillance that was supposed to pinpoint the whereabouts of the girls, it looks as though the British, Americans and Chinese have all been reluctant to share too much with the Nigerians, because they don’t trust their security.

President Jonathan has an alternative: to do a deal with Boko Haram to buy the girls’ freedom. The basis of such a deal is perfectly clear. Boko Haram kidnapped the girls in the first place in order to have people to exchange for its militants, who are in Nigeria’s jails in quite large numbers.

But Jonathan can’t do that. Even without the hundreds of imprisoned guerrillas, Boko Haram controls whole swaths of north-eastern Nigeria. With them, it would be even more dangerous.

It is said in the capital, Abuja, that the countries that have offered logistical help to President Jonathan have warned him not to think of doing any deal with Boko Haram. For the British, French, Americans and Chinese it would be regrettable if the Chibok girls didn’t make it home, but it would be far worse if Nigeria started to collapse.

Not that President Jonathan does seem to be contemplating any deals. Have you had any contacts with Boko Haram? I asked a friend who was supposed to be one of the president’s ad hoc negotiators. He shook his head wordlessly.

No parley... no power. President Jonathan. Photo: Getty

If Goodluck Jonathan can’t free the girls, and he can’t do a deal with Boko Haram to get them released, what does that leave for him? Nothing. And nothing is what has been happening for three months now. To put it at its crudest, the president and his government must be hoping that the world will simply forget about the girls.

We can be sure that this is something that pains him, as a father, as a politician and as a devout Christian; there are suggestions that Boko Haram is forcibly converting the girls, most of whom are Christians, to become Muslims, and that it has already handed over some of them to its fighters to be their “wives”. However, Goodluck has a job to do, and that job is to try to keep Nigeria together.

The tactic of allowing the world to forget the Chibok girls has worked twice. It was a fortnight before President Jonathan felt obliged to make his first statement about them, and it was only the success of the BBOG campaign in persuading Michelle Obama and David Cameron, among others, to hold up its hashtag sign on camera that brought a flood of media attention. Soon, Michelle Obama and David Cameron had other things to do, and the attention of the world’s media quickly turned elsewhere; until, that is, the tiny form of Malala Yousafzai arrived in Abuja to remind everyone that the girls had now been missing for three months.

Normally, I would be instinctively sceptical about 17-year-old girls who get that much media attention and who have days named after them by the UN. But Malala is different. She is self-possessed, articulate and effective, a remarkable person, whose injuries after being shot in the head by the Taliban two years ago have been overcome with a combination of brilliant surgical care in Birmingham and her own courage.

Poor Goodluck Jonathan: Malala was the last thing he needed. But here she was, reminding the world that he had never got round to meeting the Chibok parents, and recalling that Michelle Obama and David Cameron had once shown an interest in getting the girls free.

What’s going to happen? Sadly, it’s hard to think it can mean much good for the girls, or for Goodluck Jonathan, either, with a presidential election scheduled for next year. He seems to have no strategy for dealing with Boko Haram, which is growing in strength and effectiveness. What is most likely is that he will try for the third time to forget about the girls.

And how will Boko Haram respond to that? Nigeria Today’s source, if it really existed, suggested that the movement would start killing the girls and sending round the videos. Having already had to sit and watch one Boko Haram clip of some poor prisoner being slaughtered, I pray I won’t have to see another. But, prayer aside, it’s hard to imagine what other hope the devout Goodluck Jonathan has. 

John Simpson is world affairs editor of the BBC. He will be writing regularly for the NS

John Simpson is World Affairs Editor of BBC News, having worked for the corporation since the beginning of his career in 1970. He has reported from more than 120 countries, including 30 war zones, and interviewed many world leaders.

This article first appeared in the 23 July 2014 issue of the New Statesman, Summer Double 2014

Getty
Show Hide image

25 times people used Brexit to attack Muslims since the EU referendum

Some voters appear more interested in expelling Muslims than EU red tape.

In theory, voting for Brexit because you were worried about immigration has nothing to do with Islamophobia. It’s about migrant workers from Eastern Europe undercutting wages. Or worries about border controls. Or the housing crisis. 

The reports collected by an anti-Muslim attack monitor tell a different story. 

Every week, the researchers at Tell Mama receive roughly 40-50 reports of Islamophobic incidences.

But after the EU referendum, they recorded 30 such incidents in three days alone. And many were directly related to Brexit. 

Founder Fiyaz Mughal said there had been a cluster of hate crimes since the vote:

“The Brexit vote seems to have given courage to some with deeply prejudicial and bigoted views that they can air them and target them at predominantly Muslim women and visibly different settled communities.”

Politicians have appeared concerned. On Monday, as MPs grappled with the aftermath of the referendum, the Prime Minister David Cameron stated “loud and clear” that: “Just because we are leaving the European Union, it will not make us a less tolerant, less diverse nation.”

But condemning single racist incidents is easier than taking a political position that appeases the majority and protects the minority at the same time. 

As the incidents recorded make clear, the aggressors made direct links between their vote and the racial abuse they were now publicly shouting.

The way they told it, they had voted for Muslims to “leave”. 
 
Chair of Tell Mama and former Labour Justice and Communities Minister, Shahid Malik, said:

“With the backdrop of the Brexit vote and the spike in racist incidents that seems to be emerging, the government should be under no illusions, things could quickly become
extremely unpleasant for Britain’s minorities.

“So today more than ever, we need our government, our political parties and of course our media to act with the utmost responsibility and help steer us towards a post-Brexit Britain where xenophobia and hatred are utterly rejected.”

Here are the 25 events that were recorded between 24 and 27 June that directly related to Brexit. Please be aware that some of the language is offensive:

  1. A Welsh Muslim councillor was told to pack her bags and leave.
  2. A man in a petrol station shouted: "You're an Arabic c**t, you're a terrorist" at an Arab driver and stated he “voted them out”. 
  3. A Barnsley man was told to leave and that the aggressor’s parents had voted for people like him to be kicked out.
  4. A woman witnessed a man making victory signs at families at a school where a majority of students are Muslim.
  5. A man shouted, “you f**king Muslim, f**king EU out,” to a woman in Kingston, London. 
  6. An Indian man was called “p**i c**t in a suit” and told to “leave”.
  7. Men circled a Muslim woman in Birmingham and shouted: “Get out - we voted Leave.”
  8. A British Asian mother and her two children were told: "Today is the day we get rid of the likes of you!" by a man who then spat at her. 
  9. A man tweeted that his 13-year-old brother received chants of “bye, bye, you’re going home”.
  10. A van driver chanted “out, out, out”, at a Muslim woman in Broxley, Luton
  11. Muslims in Nottingham were abused in the street with chants of: “Leave Europe. Kick out the Muslims.”
  12. A Muslim woman at King’s Cross, London, had “BREXIT” yelled in her face.
  13. A man in London called a South Asian woman “foreigner” and commented about UKIP.
  14. A man shouted “p**i” and “leave now” at individuals in a London street.
  15. A taxi driver in the West Midlands told a woman his reason for voting Leave was to “get rid of people like you”.
  16. An Indian cyclist was verbally abused and told to “leave now”. 
  17. A man on a bike swore at a Muslim family and muttered something about voting.
  18. In Newport, a Muslim family who had not experienced any trouble before had their front door kicked in.
  19. A South Asian woman in Manchester was told to “speak clearly” and then told “Brexit”. 
  20. A Sikh doctor was told by a patient: “Shouldn’t you be on a plane back to Pakistan? We voted you out.”
  21. An abusive tweet read: “Thousands of raped little White girls by Muslims mean nothing to Z….#Brexit”.
  22. A group of men abused a South Asian man by calling him a “p**i c**t” and telling him to go home after Brexit.
  23. A man shouted at a taxi driver in Derby: "Brexit, you p**i.”
  24. Two men shouted at a Muslim woman walking towards a mosque “muzzies out” and “we voted for you being out.”
  25. A journalist was called a “p**i” in racial abuse apparently linked to Brexit.