Tim Black writes:
The details of what happened in the town of Baga in
north-eastern Nigeria remain sketchy. What we do know is that on 3 January, the
Islamist group Boko Haram launched a savage attack.
Eyewitnesses have spoken of
hundreds of dead bodies, many of them women and children, lying on the streets.
One local politician said that over 2,000 people were slaughtered. Others say
fewer. But what we can say for certain is that this was a barbaric act
committed by a barbaric group.
Boko Haram’s emergence as a brutal,
merciless force controlling vast swathes of northern Nigeria (reports this week
say it now dominates an area the size of Costa Rica or Slovakia) is a testament
to Nigeria’s internal disarray.
Indeed, Nigerian president Goodluck Jonathan
has barely mentioned the Baga massacre, preferring instead to play the global
statesman offering condolences to the French people following the Paris
massacres.
And little wonder: the insurgency in the north is proving an
increasingly intractable problem, one he would no doubt prefer to dream away in
the run-up to February’s national elections.
It shows up the weakness of the
Nigerian state, its increasing inability to unify a country riven by
geographical, political and religious divisions, a country split between an
impoverished Muslim-dominated north and a slightly less impoverished
Christian-dominated south.
Unsurprisingly, distrust of central government runs
high in northern Nigeria.
Combine that with weak local political institutions, widespread
underdevelopment and the familiar stench of backhander-heavy corruption, and
you have a situation ripe for political exploitation.
And exploit it Boko Haram
certainly has – to brutal effect, meting out jihadist justice to Christians and
‘traitorous’ Muslims alike.
So far, so depressingly familiar. A
conflicted, disordered nation state, lacking authority and breeding its own
potential gravediggers.
But there is also something peculiarly contemporary
about Boko Haram.
It can be glimpsed in the conscienceless extremity of its
violence, in its nihilism, in its sheer imagination-defying barbarity.
This is
the group that massacred hundreds of schoolboys, the group that kidnapped
hundreds of schoolgirls, the group that has now ruthlessly slaughtered the inhabitants
of a small town.
In short, Boko Haram acts with virtually no restraint.
Nothing
seems to holds its members back from the edge of atrocity. Not geography, not
territory, and definitely not morality.
Why is that? Why do they seem so
unencumbered by the concerns which once limited even the most ruthless of
political revolutionaries?
Why do they seem so callously blasé about the
sentiments, and lives, of the local populace? Why does winning support seem so
irrelevant to Boko Haram?
Because Boko Haram’s goals are no
longer really local.
Yes, its name, ascribed to the group by the media, means
‘Western education is forbidden’, but even that is almost too concrete a
mission statement for a group perhaps better understood in terms of its own
title, Jama’atul Alhul Sunnah Lidda’wati wal Jihad – ‘People Committed to the
Propagation of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad’.
Therein lies the key to
understanding Boko Haram’s barbarity.
Its goal is not territorial; it’s not
really connected to the particular interests of a determinate social
constituency in northern Nigeria.
It’s not about winning particular concessions
form Jonathan’s government, or achieving some degree of local autonomy.
Boko
Haram’s goal, its mission, is global in essence. Its field of vision is
ethical. It wants nothing less than to make the entire world over in its own
image.
‘In every nation’, reads one Boko Haram statement, ‘in every region,
[Muslims] now have the decision to make. Either you are with us, I mean real
Muslims who are following solid footsteps, or you are with Obama, François Hollande, George Bush. Bush! Clinton!... and any unbeliever… Kill kill kill
kill kill. This war is against Christians. I mean Christians generally.’
The
living and breathing men and women in places like Baga are neither here nor
there in this near cosmic struggle. They simply cease to matter in light of
this abstracted Manichean struggle.
In this turn from local political
struggles, underpinned by clear and concrete interests, towards an unhinged
global vision, in which a vicious barbarism is a means to an Allah-ordained
end, Boko Haram is far from alone.
It is joined by the likes of the Taliban,
which thought nothing of mounting an assault on the school for the children of
army personnel in Pakistan, killing 141.
And it is joined, of course, by
Islamic State (IS).
Because, despite its name, IS is a fundamentally stateless,
rootless force, packed with fighters from across the globe, waging a war for,
well, an entirely abstract global Caliphatic end.
And those it encounters in
its way are to be cast, shot and cut, to the wind, as the Yazidi people
discovered in July 2014, when IS slaughtered so many of them in the hills of
northern Iraq.
These groups are not really political at all. They are
post-political, their motivations abstractly ethical.
The bloodiness of these new cosmic outfits speaks to, as Brendan O’Neill described it in the Telegraph in 2013, ‘a profound crisis of politics and of morality’; to an emptying out of the old ideologies and political structures that governed domestic and international life for a substantial period of time, which has given rise to new groups that ‘appear to float free of normal political rules and moral compunctions’.
The bloodiness of these new cosmic outfits speaks to, as Brendan O’Neill described it in the Telegraph in 2013, ‘a profound crisis of politics and of morality’; to an emptying out of the old ideologies and political structures that governed domestic and international life for a substantial period of time, which has given rise to new groups that ‘appear to float free of normal political rules and moral compunctions’.
The solution to
this isn’t more Western intervention, as some seem to believe.
In fact, recent
interventions, driven more by the short-term political needs of Western rulers
than by clear plans or agendas for foreign territories, have left much of the
world stateless and in disarray, growing the spaces in which the new
post-political nihilists can act and gain influence.
No, what we need is a far
better analysis of the collapse of political life that nurtured the new
terrorism, and a serious, international commitment to celebrating the anchoring
values of liberty and democracy that might counter the free-floating misery and
mayhem offered by Boko Haram and others.
No comments:
Post a Comment