During a working visit to the American University of Nigeria (AUN) Yola, Adamawa State on Thursday, the American Ambassador to Nigeria, Mr. James Entwistle, told journalists that the poor human rights record of our military in the ongoing counter-terrorism operations in the North East is one of reasons our armed forces are having difficulty securing arms from the United States. He reportedly said: "The second thing we look at is the human rights situation in that country. And you all know there have been instances of human rights abuses by the Nigerian military in the North East." I totally disagree with the logic of the U.S. government in this regard. Do the Nigerian military authorities tolerate human rights abuses as a policy? Definitely not. It is on record that around 20 soldiers attached to the Joint Military Task Force in Jos were court-martialled during the tenure of former army Chief General Ihejirika. Does that portray the policy of a military organisation that tolerates human rights abuses as an official policy? Why should Nigeria be denied access to urgently needed weapons under the pretext of the so-called poor human rights record of its military? Lest one is misunderstood, human rights abuses are indefensible anywhere, but the culprits should be punished and not the entire military or country. I detest American hypocrisy on this issue.
From 2003 to 2004/2005, American troops committed physical and sexual abuses of Iraqi prisoners, including sodomy, and setting vicious dogs upon naked detainees. Known as the Abu Ghraib scandal (pictured in this comment), the Iraqi torture and prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers was exposed by Amnesty International and the Associated Press. Former U.S. President George Bush attempted to provide lame excuses for the Abu Ghraib human rights abuses on the grounds that they were "isolated incidents, not indicative of general U.S. policy." That is bunkum! He was whitewashing the scandal because the culprits were American troops. Apart from Abu Ghraib, American soldiers committed sexual abuses against Japanese and Vietnamese local women, offences for which America would have sponsored a UN resolution, demanding the arrest and prosecution of the offenders if they had come from weaker countries. One wrong does not justify another, but the American double standard in the application of human rights values and principles in its dealing with individual countries is nauseating. As long as the Nigerian military authorities do not officially approve proven cases of abuses by individual soldiers, the country should not be subjected to collective punishment. How can America reconcile its supposed support for Nigeria's counter-terrorism efforts with the hostile policy of denying us access to U.S. military equipment?
years back during their occupation of Iraq. They committed physical tortures, sexual abuses, including sodomy, on Iraqi prisoners. Yet, hypocritically, the same U.S. is castigating the so-called human records of the soldiers of weaker countries. America does not even accept the power or jurisdiction of ICC to try its own soldiers for crimes against humanity in Vietnam and Japan. While our soldiers should be held accountable for human rights abuses, we should not defend double standards either in the application of human rights principles and values on all countries evenly and fairly. (In the picture below, a poor Iraqi detainee was stripped naked, tied up and dragged on the ground).
No comments:
Post a Comment