In responding to what Ambassador Campbell said, I have marveled at how no real attempt has been made by his many critics to unravel what might be called his motive for writing the piece. He has been called names and the impression is that he does not love Nigeria. About that, I can say very little. But, as Shakespeare said, there is no art to find the mind’s construction in the face. We might say that the pen might really not be the best guide for determining who our friends or foes are. My intention in this piece is to argue that perhaps, rather than judge Ambassador Campbell on the strength of this one article, we need to probe a bit further. I am surprise that even our friends abroad and our Embassy in Washington have not made any attempt to rise beyond the surface by probing further.

When my good friend Karl Maier finished writing his book, he gave me the draft manuscript to read and suggested that I make some suggestions if I could. If I recall, I sent him some three or so pages of my comments. Among other things, I pointed out to Karl that I thought the title of the book was too bleak. Why not call the book, This House May Fall? I suggested. Karl’s reply shocked me. The title of the book it not original to me, he said. I am merely quoting Chinua Achebe. I was pole axed. In reaction to other issues I had raised in the book, regarding balance and objectivity in his narrative, again, Karl let me understand that he had been commissioned to write the book. He said something to the effect that his audience was made up of businessmen and visitors to Nigeria. It was clear, he was not writing a textbook for Nigerians. That was a major lesson for me. I bore this in mind when I read the Campbell essay and heard of the forthcoming book.

First, we all know that Dr. Campbell is no stranger to Nigeria, having served here twice, 1988-90 and 2004-2007. Secondly, after finishing his book, he spent time at Princeton before taking up the prestigious position of a Ralph Bunche Senior Fellow for Africa Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, CFR in Washington. Anyone slightly familiar with the politics of Washington will know that both  the CFR and its major mouthpiece, the Foreign Policy Magazine are very highly respected platforms for canvassing and articulating key issues on American Foreign Policy, from Abortion to Zimbabwe. In many respects, CFR speaks directly to the White House, Congress and those who move and shake Washington. In its mission statement, the CFR states that it seeks to help its members and others to: … better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries.Thus, if Ambassador Campbell made these comments as a senior hand in the CFR and published them in Foreign Policy, perhaps the first thing for Government to do would have been to pause and ask a few questions about his focus, intent and context.

When I emailed Ambassador Howard Jeter after reading the article, his response was cautious. I then decided to do some search on Dr. Campbell. It is the result of my findings that have prompted this essay, not an attempt to defend him. I discovered from my research that the much talked about essay,Dancing on the Brink was merely a short paragraph in the many public expert comments that Ambassador Campbell has written in the last one year specifically on Nigeria. His many comments show very clearly that his principal audience is the President of the United States of America. This much runs through the entire series of Policy Briefing Papers that he has written on Nigeria.

To properly understand Ambassador Campbell, in my view, we need to place him in the context of a man who is saddled with advising the American President on how to deal with Nigeria. Clearly, he has shown an appreciation of these complex problems and in my review of all his writings, his focus has been to say to President Obama: Listen Mr. President, Nigeria is an important partner for peace and stability in Africa. This is what you need to know in deciding how to handle her! What is wrong with that? Should the President of Nigeria not have experts who are constantly briefing him on how to handle certain key strategic countries that are our partners? Ambassador Campbell stated as much in the said Essay when he said:The Obama administration has little leverage over the conduct and outcome of the 2011elections — and if the vote does lead to chaos, Washington may no longer be able to count on Nigerian partnership in addressing African regional and security issues such as the conflicts in Darfur, Southern Sudan, and Somalia.

Furthermore, he argues that the breakdown of elite consensus, the lingering problems in the Niger-Delta, the crisis in the Middle Belt (read Plateau State) and the religious extremism that has made the North combustible, are all the key fault lines that could make the result of the forth coming elections problematic, if not handled properly. It is from here that Nigerians have jumped to the conclusion that the man is saying that there will be violence on the basis of Christians and Muslims. Whereas others could be forgiven for their wrong reading of the essay, I found the official response from the Nigerian Embassy in Washington the most embarrassing for our country.

In his very poorly articulated response, the Nigerian Ambassador, Professor Adefuye resorted to foul language, claiming that Ambassador Campbell’s piece was in bad taste. The newspapers reported him as claiming that Ambassador Campbell was an enemy of Nigeria and that his visa would not be renewed if it expired! Holy Moses, I said to myself. This is not how diplomats speak in a sensitive duty post like Washington. This matter called for sober reflection, not indecorous and threatening language especially when it seemed that very little effort had been made to gather enough background information about the thinking of Ambassador Campbell.

Ambassador Adefuye rather buried his head in the sands of snap shot patriotism, arguing rather unprofessionally that elite consensus is not key to politics. What is, then, I ask?  Of course, political conduct any Democracy in the world is hinged on elite consensus, as any political science student knows. Has Ambassador Adefuye been deaf to the uproarious, nerve wracking, incoherent debate about Zoning conducted by a garrulous elite back in Nigeria? If we had elite consensus within the People’s Democratic Party, PDP, would we have heard the open quarrels about zoning and allegations of betrayals and so on? Ambassador Campbell did not say that violence against Christians and Muslims will break out in the country. In his view, the existing tensions could be exploited because of the three key issues that he identified in addition to the absence of a ubiquitous strong man like General Obasanjo to bully his way. How can any one fail to see sense and logic in all this reasoning in a country that is dancing on the brink?

AmbassadorCampbell further nailed his case by saying that supporters of candidates might exploit religious and ethnic identities, a dangerous and potentially explosive dynamic that until now has largely been avoided. (Note, he said they might, not will). In my humble view, what Ambassador Campbell did here was to do what experts do to their Principals to guide their policy choices and decisions. Thus, the questions that President Jonathan’s advisers should work on should include the following: Are the fears raised by Ambassador Campbell real? Can they really be exploited? If so, by whom, when and how?

Finding answers to these questions should be the immediate assignment to the relevant Intelligence and Security Agencies with key and influential interlocutors being summoned by the Government to respond and ensure that these threats are averted. Averting all these should then constitute part of the President’s political body language, his consultations as he traverses the country. Why did these options seem so difficult and why have we allowed politics and short sightedness to blind us?  With experience and hindsight, the United States and the Europeans have woken up to the need to check and cross check any information, no matter how insignificant it may seem. Based on our domestic experiences and what is going on around, should we not heed the Hausa proverb: Idan ka gan gemun dan’uwanka ya kama wuta, ka sa wa naka ruwa! (If you see your brother’s beard on fire, quickly put water on yours).

The key question here for the President and his advisers is to understand how your political opponents might exploit a particular identity in a plural society especially in moments of desperation such as during elections. Every sportsman or woman has to bear in mind the character and persona of his or her opponent in any game and seek to answer the question; what will my opponent do if threatened with defeat? We saw how ambitious, power hungry war lords in the Congo, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, former Soviet Union etc, fell back on memories of historical injuries, ethnic and religious differences in moments of desperation. Why are these lessons so hard for us to take in with maturity? In other sports, sportsmen and women have done the same. The issue is not so much that there are clear lines of demarcation between Christians and Muslims, but the fact that these sentiments can serve as rallying points. We will be foolish to forget the reflex reactions that swept all the Northern states after the Sharia declaration in 2000.

In desperation to defeat England (and make up for the loss of the Falkland war) did Maradona not score a goal with his hand?  In moments of desperation, did Mike Tyson not bite off Evander Holyfield’s ear in order to end their fight? Paying three million dollars was an easier option than defeat.In desperation, did the Uruguan striker Luis Suarez not become an emergency goalkeeper? In desperation did President Babangida not annul the elections in 1993? The challenge that Ambassador Campbell has placed before us is for us to wake up to what our enemies might do in desperation if they are threatened with the loss of their investment in the 2011 elections.

Cont’d from page 28

More than the rest of us, Ambassador Campbell has been thinking through these issues for a long time as I discovered. Let me offer the reader a sample of my findings. Two days after Abdulmutallab was caught with his undetonated bomb on Christmas day last year, Ambassador Campbell wrote and article on December 28thtitled: Flight 253 and Nigeria’s Troubling Trends. Two days later, he published another article on December 30th, titled: Nigeria’s Leadership Vacuum. He followed up on January 5th, with an article titled:Abdumutallab is More than Just Al-Qaeda and another on January 19th, 2010, Nigeria’s Leadership Crisis. In February, he published two other articles. First, which was on the 11th was titled, Nigeria’s Succession is Peaceful But Illegal, and followed up on February 23rd with, US-Nigerian Relations.Before writing this famous essay, Ambassador Campbell wrote two other articles in August. On August 16th, he published Good Luck Nigeria and then on the 18th,Oil Pollution In the Niger Delta: Whose Fault? In September, he published Electoral Violence In Nigeria followed byText Messaging as a Weapon in Nigeria, September 22nd. In the September issue of The Majalla, the Saudi News Magazine, he published the piece, Good Luck Nigeria. His main outlets have been the Huffington Post, The Global Post the CRF and The Majalla. There are many more if the reader searches further.

In the light of all this, I think that were he to be put on the witness box and asked to declare if he is a friend or a foe of Nigeria, Ambassador Campbell would have been right to quote what Jesus said at His trial: I have spoken openly to the world…I have said nothing in secret (Jn 18: 20). What is clear is that any serious scholar who has followed Ambassador Campbell would have realized that very little if anything has changed in the substance of his articles and opinions on Nigeria as far as the nation’s future is concerned. He has been consistent.

When finally published next month under the auspices of the CFR, Nigeria: Dancing on the Brink will vindicate Ambassador Campbell. Taken together with his other writings, it is clear that he comes across as one who loves Nigeria and wants her to succeed. It is a pity that somehow, Nigerians often confuse praise and sycophancy with love.  Others have accused him of being Alhaji Atiku’s friend. So what, I ask? Are Jimmy Carter and Ambassador Andrew Young not Obasanjo’s friends,is Jesse Jackson not a friend of General Abdusalam, was Louis Farrakhan not Abacha’s friend, is Ambassador Howard Jeter not a friend of Governor Yuguda and is Ambassador Carrington not a friend of Asiwaju Tinubu and now Governor Mimiko? These relationships are only part of the tapestry of their relationships with Nigeria as a country.

The much-awaited book, Nigeria: Dancing on the Brink, is a little book of about 150 pages. In my search, I stumbled on the manuscript. It is a masterly piece of work written with candour but in the manner of foreign diplomats and journalists. The book is full of hear says, anecdotes, gossips, rumours, tales from sources and interpretation of events. But most of it is based on what Ambassador Campbell heard from his many Nigerians guests, journalists and his own informants even in the Presidential Villa. Ambassador Campbell’s book is actually a download of the things Nigerians themselves have said, written or gossiped in moments of sobriety, inebriation, frustration or patriotism. None of these has been in short supply. For example, Professor Nwabueze is quoted on page 147 of the book as saying that: We need a people’s revolution. The rot in this country can only be cleansed by blood. Mark it, one day it will happen (p141). Similarly, Senator David Dafinone in desperation, raised the alarm, paraphrasing Karl Maier: It is midnight in Nigeria, the House is falling!

The reactions to this Essay in Nigeria have been the best marketing strategy for this book. I imagine that those in Washington who know us well would have predicted that we would dance and prance ourselves to exhaustion without getting the real message. The book has a few errors, wrong assumptions and some questionable conclusions. For example, on pg. 89, yours sincerely is referred to erroneously as the Chairman of the National Political Reform Conference!

But, as I said, diplomats and journalists who write about our country find the periphery more exciting, gossip more salacious and reinforcement of already existing prejudices. They merely take advantage of  moments of emotional weakness(Remember the saying in the world war, Loose lips sink ships?).But this is not a review of the much-awaited book. Even our own writers have been hard put to find much to cheer about in the country. Professor Esage Eghosa’s titled his book, Nigeria: The Crippled Giant and Michael Peel excellent thriller on the Niger Delta, A Swamp Full of Dollars.

So let us not deceive ourselves. It is the tragic ruination and banditry that has been our lot in the last thirty years that should bring tears to our eyes, not the seemingly frank comments by an informed foreign commentator on our nation.

He has captured our stasis in the following words: Nigeria’s top political personalities have largely remained the same since the end of the civil war—they have merely aged in place (p141). I believe that when his book is out, Ambassador Campbell will have the last laugh. He concluded his book by stating in the last paragraph on the last page (p147), that: A democratic Nigeria characterized by the rule of law would promote economic development, encourage alleviation of poverty, and address the people’s alienation from their government.

The Giant would have freed itself from its hobble, and the dance would be moved back from the brink. Nigeria indeed would become for the international community that African example of progress and peace that was the hope of the visionaries of the ‘‘Nigeria Project.’’ The shadow of state failure would fade like the smile of Alice in Wonderland’s Cheshire cat. Nigeria would become a nation rather than merely Awolowo’s ‘‘geographic expression’’ and would shine as the beacon for African democracy. Are these the words of one who is pushing Nigeria to the brink or a wise man giving us counsel?

Father Kukah is a Catholic Priest, author and social critic