THAT is fair enough, but ironically, the Federal Government, which has been so quick to comply with international laws, has a bad reputation for flagrantly violating court pronouncements at home. Indeed, instances abound where both the judiciary and opposition parties have accused the Federal Government of blatant refusal to respect judicial decisions that do not serve the selfish interest of the executive.
In contrast, a country like the USA holds its constitution sacrosanct by ensuring that no aspect of its provision is desecrated no matter the circumstance. Hence, a one-time President of the country, Richard Nixon, was forced to resign from office owing to constitutional breach that snowballed into the famous Watergate scandal. Similarly, President Jimmy Carter failed to make it back to office following the Irangate scandal, which involved alleged violation of the country’s constitution in dealing with Iran under the powerful Shah. Bill Clinton’s political misfortune is still fresh. He was impeached over constitutional breach by the Lower House but escaped the hammer of the Upper House.
Unlike Nigeria, the United States selects the international laws and conventions it respects. Typical example is the International Court at the Hague to which Cameroun took Nigeria and got judgment. Curiously, the USA has lately objected to subjecting its military to the World Court jurisdiction, ostensibly because its service men scattered across the world in US military bases are often accused of running foul of the host country’s laws. And if arraigned at the International Court may be found guilty, leading to a situation where American service men might suffer loss of face by being held in prisons across the world.
The Kyoto, Japan Global Warning/Climate Change convention, which the USA, Russia and China, the greatest polluters refused to subscribe to, is another example. Add that to the human rights abuses allegedly committed by the US in Guantanamo Bay Prison, Cuba, Abu Ghraib prison in the Middle East, the alleged Heditha Massacre in Iraq and the infamous “Rendition” or out-sourcing of torture by American security agencies in Europe, then you can have a good picture of the complex game of International politics, which is propelled by national pride and self interest. Regrettably Nigerian seems to be playing the game of international politics with her eyes closed and arms tied. Perhaps, Nigeria’s policy of Africa as the centre-piece of her foreign policy, which has placed on her the burden of being the big brother in Africa-a role for which it only bears the burden without the corresponding benefits, is to blame. Back in the 1980s, when South Africa, Angola, Rhodesia, (now Zimbabwe) a nd Namibia were under the shackle of minority white rule, Nigeria adopted them as frontline states.
Nigeria went into direct confrontation with global powers such as the USA and Britain. By declaring herself a non-aligned country and showed its discontent with apartheid by nationalizing British Petroleum, Barclays Bank and other Western interests in Nigeria. Of course, Nigeria has suffered several collateral damages as a consequence of that political indiscretion.
A debt over hang which bogged down the economy and by extension its people, socially and economically, allowing countries like Indonesia and Malaysia which was at par with her 30 years ago, to surge ahead, is one such evidence. Today, it is quite a relief that the debilitating debt has finally been wiped off with an opportunity for Nigeria to have a fresh start at finding her feet in the global arena.
If Nigeria were to avoid going into litigation over Bakassi, it wouldn’t be the first country to do so. South Africa mined the mineral wealth of Namibia for 60 years from 1920 to 1980 when Germany, that country’s colonizers lost the rights to govern her after Germany and Japan lost the World War. Despite several resolutions passed by the League of Nations, which later transformed into the United Nations against South Africa, she did not stop the forceful occupation of Namibia until it satisfied itself in 1980.
Till date, the United States has refused to give up the control over the Panama Canal, which is critical to its economic life but rightly belongs to Panama. When Panamian President, Manuel Noreiga, tried to contend ownership with the US, he was picked up on drug trafficking