Ken Saro-Wiwa - The Long Term Consequences of Colonialism

On November 10, 1995, Ken Saro-Wiwa was hanged in prison in Port Harcourt in Eastern Nigeria as ordered by Sani Abacha the fifty-four year old military leader.  His violent death sparked outrage in Nigeria as well as throughout the world.  He still is considered to be a heroic martyr by a majority of his countrymen.

Saro-Wiwa had a diverse life in which he was a public servant, a celebrated author and a businessman.  He was born on October 10, 1941, while Nigeria was under British colonial rule – the country gained independence in 1960.  He was born in Ogoniland in Bori on the Niger Delta and was a member of Ogoni people, a minority population.  His father, Jim Wiwa, was an Ogoni chieftain.  The Niger Delta was found to be an oil-rich region and was targeted from the 1950s for oil development.

As a nation, Nigeria was an artificial construct as a result of colonization by the British.  It was created from the remains of the Niger River Trading Company.  The Europeans helped themselves to vast territorial holdings in Africa as a result of the Treaty of Berlin signed in 1884.

Northern Nigeria was populated by Muslims – the Hausa Fulani ethnic group ruled by emirs.  The people of northern Nigeria were relatively easy to control on account of the hierarchical nature of their social structure. The peoples of southern Nigeria, on the other hand, were more difficult to control – they were fiercely democratic.  In order to subdue them, the British used religion, bribery, the influence of missionaries, and the power of the military.  It was British administration driven by economic considerations that carved out the Nigerian borders.  It was through the clever application of divide and conquer that the colonialists used the differences between the Hausa-Fulani in the north, the Yoruba peoples in the west and the Ibo in the east to control the country and extract the economic resources of the region.

Oil was discovered in Nigeria in 1958.  For over 30 years oil has provided over 30 billion dollars to the Nigerian economy.  However, this revenue fed corruption and enriched a small and well-connected minority of the nation's population.  The Ogoni people received no real benefit from their oil-rich land.  Quite to the contrary, they had no reliable electricity, no pipe-born water and they were not the beneficiaries of any significant social or economic projects.  In addition, their language was disappearing and they were effectively pushed into slavery as their environment became increasingly assaulted by irresponsible practices on the part of the oil industry. 

As a young man, Saro-Wiwa witnessed the break out of civil war.  On July 6, 1967 the so-called Biafran War began.  The Ibo people of eastern Nigeria formed a loose ethnic grouping that was called Biafra.  The Ibo leader, Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, seceded from the Nigerian Federation taking most of the country's oil reserves.  Civil war broke out as a direct result of this action.  Over the duration of hostilities, a million people died mainly as a result of starvation.  The Ogoni people did not directly participate in this conflict.  The conflict finally ended in 1970 with the collapse of the Biafran forces. During this conflict, Saro-Wiwa was appointed as a civilian administrator of a crucial oil port on the Niger River Delta.  The brutality of this conflict had such a marked impact on him that he crafted an anti-war novel around this historic event that he entitled, Sozaboy.   His harsh criticism of the military in later years was essentially formulated as a direct result of his experience in regards to the civil war, the plight of minority peoples and the corrupting influence of the wealth and power associated with oil.  He felt a compelling need to be true to his own conscience.

On account of these influences, Saro-Wiwa strived to exert some influence on the course of Nigerian affairs – he attempted to run for office.  When he failed to get into the constituent assembly in 1977, however, he decided to embark into the world of business.  Seeking financial security, he opened a grocery store, invested in property and began a career in writing and publishing.  He did well in all these endeavors.  In spite of these successes, he was determined to exert some positive political influence. 

He reentered public life when was appointed to the position of Executive Director of the federal government's Directorate of Mass Mobilization for Self-Reliance, Social Justice and Economic Recovery (MAMSER).  One of his chief responsibilities was to awaken Nigerians to their rights and obligations as citizens.  This role caused Saro-Wiwa to become intimately involved in social mobilization in order to seek social justice for his people and his country.

Saro-Wiwa gained renown as a satirical political Columnist.  He wrote for Lagos daily newspapers, including the Vanguard and the Daily Times.    He attempted to address the ills of his society and government which he defined as tribalism, ignorance of the rights of minorities, materialism and corruption.  In the late 1980s he focused his attention on the plight of his people, the Ogoni.  They inhabited a small but fertile area on the Niger River Delta.  The region happened to possess a significant portion of Nigeria's oil reserves.  Since the 1950s, Ogoniland was devastated by the pollution caused by the extraction of oil as mentioned previously. 

He witnessed the wholesale environmental degradation of his homeland that was a byproduct of oil development under the aegis of the Royal Dutch Shell Oil Company – a multinational concern.  The environmental damage was multi-faceted and resulted in an ecological wasteland:

·         The loss of a once rich and prosperous agriculture

·         The destruction of fisheries as a direct result of ongoing pollution

·         The concentration of sulfur in creeks and watering holes poisoned by indiscriminate oil spillage.

It is what Saro-Wiwa referred to as a "slow genocide.  In reaction to this reality, Saro-Wiwa presided over the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP); an organization that began in 1990.  This organization called for the immediate compensation from the Nigerian government and Royal Dutch Shell to the Ogoni people, and sponsored mass demonstrations that were both peaceful and non-violent.  On account of his unrelenting and open criticism of the Nigerian government and the military and his role in the demonstrations, he was arrested in 1992 by the Nigerian military and held in prison without trial.  On account of intense international pressure, Shell ultimately ceased operations in the Ogoni region.  On January 4, 1993, MOSOP sponsored a mass rally calling for nonviolent resistance; some 300,000 people participated.  In regards to Saro-Wiwa's role in the demonstration he said, "It had fallen to me to wake them – the Ogoni people – from the sleep of the century."

At that time the Ogoni military was led by General Ibrahim Babangida.  Saro-Wiwa was eventually released from prison and general elections were held on June 12 of 1993.  MOSOP boycotted that election.  General Moshood Abiola was chosen to lead by the electorate.  However, General Abacha declared the results of the election were null and void and imprisoned the victor.  On June 12, 1993, Saro-Wiwa was arrested by the State Security Service (SSS); he was asked to write a statement about his activities and was released.

The situation as he witnessed it looked bleak; oil money had a very corrupting influence on the government and its policies.  For this reason, Saro-Wiwa continued his protests.  As a result of his activities, he was arrested once again.  This time the charge was incitement to murder; an accusation that was without merit.  He was imprisoned for more than a year and tried by a specially convened tribunal that amounted to a show trial.  On Thursday November 2, 1995, he and eight other co-defendants were sentenced to death and on November 10 of that year, he was executed.

In response to this reprehensible act of horrific injustice, much of the world became incensed.  To this day, Ken Saro-Wiwa's contribution to the cause of peace and social justice is honored and remembered.

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf - the Role of Women in the Search for Peace

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the head of state of the nation of Liberia, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011 along with two other women - Leymah Gbowee, 39, a social worker and a peace activist and Tawakkol Karman, a Yemeni journalist.  She is the first woman to be the elected head of state of an African nation.  She was awarded this coveted prize for her undaunted efforts to bring peace to her once troubled homeland.

 

Liberia of all contemporary African nations has a unique history tied intimately to the existence of slavery within the United States.  Slaves were first brought into the American colonies in 1670 and the institution of slavery flourished within the United States for 270 years.  The practice of slavery was not addressed by the "founding fathers" and no reference to it was made in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States at the nation's inception.  As an institution, it was not abolished until the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863.  Slavery was finally completely outlawed following the additions of Amendments XIII and XIV of the United Sates Constitution – 1865 and 1868, respectively.

The Abolitionist Movement that sought to end slavery was particularly strong amongst the Quakers.  Among them was an influential maritime businessman by the name of Paul Cuffee.  Cuffee believed that the best solution to end the blight of slavery would be to help establish these slaves in their own homeland in Africa.  He, therefore, both financed and led, as captain, a journey to Sierra Leone by ship.  A group of American-Americans came along with him with the purpose of beginning a colony of African-Americans in the hopes that they would be able to, "rise to be a people" and thrive in a way they would be unable to do as slaves in the United States.  Cuffee had an image of a prospering black trade implemented by ex-slave who could utilize the skills they had learned in captivity.   Cuffee died in 1817; his plans were never fully realized.

In 1817, well-known Americans such as Henry Clay, John Randolph of Roanoke, and Justice Bushrod Washington became members of the American Colonization Society (ACS).   The purpose of the ACS was to encourage African-Americans to settle in Africa if they wished to do so.  Many were wary of this new organization, however, because it denied blacks membership.

The ACS sent its first immigrants to Sherbro Island in Sierra Leone. This initial attempt was met with some major setbacks that involved serious illness and death.  As a result, a member of ACS was authorized to purchase land further north that might be more hospitable to the new settlers.

Ultimately, on April 25, 1822 those who survived the initial settlement arrived at Cape Mesurado and began their settlement.   Eventually, after initial disputes with the ACS governing authority, a constitution, government, and system of laws were created that helped usher in the current-day nation of Liberia.   In this new country, both slavery and participation in the slave trade were forbidden.   Initially, the settlement was called Christopolis and was renamed Monrovia after the American president, James Monroe.  Eventually, it was called Liberia.

Once Liberia was established, the slave states in the United States saw the opportunity to free themselves of their African American populations who were no longer slaves.  These states included Virginia, Maryland and Mississippi.  In 1838, the colonies established by the Virginia Colonization Society in addition to those established by a Quaker group and the ACS merged as the Commonwealth of Liberia and appointed a governor.

It was not until 1847 that a Liberian Declaration of Independence was formally adopted and signed.  The government of the new state of Liberia then proceeded to charge the United States with injuries to its people who had previously been enslaved and denied their civil rights.  The new government called upon other governments to recognize the statehood and independence of Liberia.  Not surprisingly, Great Britain was one of the first nations to do so.  The Liberian Constitution was ratified in 1848 and the first elections were held.  In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln officially recognized the state of Liberia.

Ironically, as the new nation developed, a two-tier social system evolved in which the native black population of Liberia was not afforded the same rights as the transplanted African-American population.  By 1869, the so-called True Whig Party was founded and became the dominant political force in the country until the coup of 1980.  At the end of World War I, Liberia was one of the first sovereinties to accept the legitimacy of the League of Nations.  By 1946, the right to vote and to participate in elections was finally extended to the native population.

Liberia's first republic abruptly came to an end in 1980 with the assassination of the then President Tolbert and the insertion of the leader of the military coup, Samuel K Doe in the leadership position.  Civilian rule was reaffirmed in 1985, and a new constitution was adopted that established the second republic of Liberia leaving Doe in power.  This state of relative peace did not last long, however, for in 1989 Charles Taylor toppled the Doe government.  This threw the nation into an era of civilian unrest.  With international assistance, peace was restored and by 1997, Charles Taylor became the elected president of what came to be the third republic of Liberia.  Sirleaf campaigned against Taylor in the 1997 election and received 10% of the vote and was subsequently charged with treason.

The essential cause of the civil strife that plagued the relatively new country was the apparent and divisive social and economic inequalities that existed between the dominant Afro-American population and the indigenous peoples in Liberia.

 

Sirleaf was born on October 29, 1938 in Monrovia, the capital of Liberia; she is a direct descendent of African-Americans who first helped settle the territory that would eventually become the nation of Liberia.  She received education in economics at the College of West Africa in Monrovia and was married to James Sirleaf when she was seventeen years old.  Eventually she received a masters degree in public administration at Harvard University in the United States in 1971.  Upon her return to Liberia, she immediately entered into the political arena working for President Tolbert's administration.  She served as Minister of Finance between 1972 and 73, leaving over a policy dispute in regards to public spending.  She witnessed the horrific and unsettling coup of 1980 as mentioned previously and subsequent execution of President Tolbert.  This was followed by a brutal purge of the government orchestrated by Doe.  Sirleaf recognizing the danger of her situation, fled to Kenya where she served as Director of Citibank in Nairobi from 1983 to 85.  As conditions improved in Liberia, she returned to participate in the 1985 elections against Doe.  She was immediately placed under house arrest and sentenced to ten years in prison.  Her prison sentence was subsequently commuted provided she agreed to leave the country; she chose to return to Kenya where she continued her career in banking.

During her hiatus, she was an Assistant Administrator and, ultimately, Director of the UN Development Program in the Regional Bureau for Africa.  During this time, civil strife continued in Liberia, and, finally, elections were held in 1996 due, in part, to the presence of West African peacekeepers.

As mentioned earlier, Sirleaf took part in this election, but was defeated by Charles Taylor.  The leadership of Taylor was disastrous, resulting in a state of civil war.  On August 11, 2003, Taylor finally relinquished power and a peace accord was reached that signaled a new round of elections to choose a new leader.  In the election of 2005, Sirleaf became the new President of Liberia – a post that she retains until this day.

 

As President she sought to restore basic services, such as water and electricity, to the capital of Monrovia in keeping with the preservation of the Commons. In addition, she has sought to place an emphasis on agriculture with the goal of bringing back food independence to the people of Liberia.  She has also sought to utilize her skills as an economist to repair the damage done to the nation's economy and infrastructure as a result of many years of civil strife.

In a speech she delivered in 2006 at Georgetown University's Gaston Hall she said, "Across Africa and around the world, we must show that freedom can deliver prosperity and peace. Failure to do so will be more costly than we can contemplate and in Liberia that failure could be catastrophic."

"Our children are beginning to smile again with faith in the future," she said. "I tell you there is one thing that bores down on us very, very hard and that is a sense of urgency. We have got to deliver fast to be able to keep that hope alive and to have that hope build on a solid foundation."

 

Finally as a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize of 2001, she uplifted the role of women in securing a more peaceful world in her acceptance speech, "… in the universal struggle for peace and social justice in the following way, In its selection this year, the Nobel Committee has brought here three women linked by their commitment to change, and by their efforts to promote the rule of law and democracy in societies riven by conflict. The fact that we – two women from Liberia – are here today to share the stage with a sister from Yemen speaks to the universality of our struggle.

The enduring spirit of the great women whose work transcended gender and geographical boundaries is in this room with us. From Baroness Bertha Felicie Sophie von Suttner of Austria, honored for promoting the Hague Peace Conference of 1899, to Jane Addams of Hull House fame; from the American activist Emily Greene Balch to Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan of Northern Ireland; from Mother Teresa to the heroic Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as Rigoberta Menchu, Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi, and Wangari Maathai: these our forebears, these women who are Nobel Peace Laureates, challenge us to redouble our efforts in the relentless pursuit of peace…"

War

Strident pronouncements from the

pulpit of state

proclaiming superiority,

demanding loyalty,

stirring the shimmering

cauldron of fear,

tsunami of emotions

assaulting the senses.

War grinds on

poking desperate holes in

the fabric of reason.

Humans stand astride

the abyss of the damned

and plunge without reluctance

into the chaos of their own making.

War shreds humanity

under the staggering weight

of bountiful corpses

left bloodless,

discharged from the living

in a torrent of metal and fire.

Cycles of endless violence and

retribution,

falling upon

sharpened spikes

of hatred

ignorance

fear.

War glorifies pitiful death

upon the altar of

the unrelenting darkness.

I mourn for all the pointless killing,

for the gravestones piled high upon

the beleaguered hearts of all the mothers

who have wept over the ashes

of their vanquished children.

Wars' hollow victories

give succor to the void

and offer the promise

of future grief upon the bones of

fractured peace.

I mourn for needless suffering,

for the compendium of horrors,

for the blood and sinews of the

armies of victims who

fall to the earth so

thoroughly shattered.

War is carnage

unredeemed by the rhetoric of

shallow righteousness or

the politics of punishment

and retribution.

I long for a time when peace is

no longer a sentiment

reserved for the prophets,

not just a word used on

special occasions.

I long for a time when peace is

not simply a sweet turn of phrase

laced within the rhetoric of

the politics of deception,

but a way of being

within the substance of humanity.

A Fundamental Question

At this time close to a major election when we pride ourselves as a nation in regards to our democracy – in our apparent ability to direct our own government, it is of utmost importance to assess the state of our nation and use our collective intellect to project into the future in regards to what kind of country will it become given the decisions that are made now.  To the degree we have impact on our own destinies, the future, after all, unfolds based on what transpires in the present – every choice has its own particular set of consequences.

In my view, any sane and viable civilization must constantly assess its own condition.  The fundamental question in this regard is, "What kind of future will result from the worldview and policies that we choose to embrace in the present?  This question represents the ultimate test of our political and social systems, for it requires reasoned judgment based on an understanding grounded in science and an essential trust in human ingenuity, resourcefulness and ability to grapple with real problems. 

This is a critical area in which this nation is failing.  As a people we have collectively "bought into" a life style that demands immediate satisfaction to often trivial and inconsequential problems, where relentless acquisitiveness plays a central role and the real living conditions of our people, the actual state of our natural resources and even a basic understanding of truly democratic principles become of secondary importance.    

There is a necessary corollary to this fundamental question and that is – "Do we want a society where the lives of all of our fellow citizens are regarded with the quality of  love and compassion we so readily demonstrate to members of our immediate families, or do we choose a future where there is no room for personal misfortune; where there is no provision made for personal tragedy or grievous illness; where there is no consideration made for those who suffer from mental and physical defect; where poverty and needless suffering is ignored and where there is no acceptance of our undeniable role in the deterioration of the natural environment that sustains us all?

These are questions that we should, in my estimation, pose to ourselves on a daily basis.  Our collective answers will ultimately determine our fate as individuals and as a people.

Welcome to the Age of Indifference

    Oil extracted from the ground

in prodigious amounts

to feed the hunger of humans in the

age of the irascible machine.

 

From the ancient carbon stores,

many things are fashioned,

gasoline runs the engines

designed to foster and prolong convenience,

to feed the insatiable progress machine.

 

From the fuel that was earth's bounty,

wondrous polymers are constructed,

molded in myriad forms to

shape our insatiable indulgence.

 

From wild and exuberant beginnings,

the creatures that call themselves human

have created an elaborate reality

that has removed them so completely

from their origins that

the future is dying.

 

Magnificent creatures that

remind us of the wildness of the world

we once had,

disappearing from earth's diminished bounty.

 

Polar Bears drowning

ice no longer able to

sustain them.

 

Tigers and Rhinos and Elephants

slaughtered to near extinction

to satisfy ancient superstitions and

feed the endless lure of profit.

 

Zoos destined to be their

final habitat.

 

The insatiable human penchant

for order and dominion

wrecks havoc upon this hapless planet.

 

Once wholesome air

now populated with

noxious chemicals

too numerous to catalog

turn lungs into black parchment and

suffer the children.

 

Water is no longer considered sacred

squandered by abuse,

bottled water now the norm
fresh water no longer trusted,

fire retardant resident in

mother's milk.

 

Oceans, pity the oceans

the fate of coral, uncertain,

denizens of the ocean depths

depleted by the extravagance

of human folly.

 

Humans, an unfinished species

seem incapable of learning

from a history of profound mistakes,

too inured to the machinations of

the lower brain,

too bridled by emotions,

too wedded to the

shallow dimensions of self.

 

What does the future hold for

creatures so immersed in

paths of self-deceit and

mindless destruction.

 

What gruesome future

will unfold if

we do not take hold of the present and

transform it to something

hopeful and transcendent.

Hope Springs Eternal

Living can be such a torturous, tormenting and painful experience at times.  And yet, it is, after all, a transcending, powerful and wondrous sojourn.  Within the magnificent caldron of self, we move about with a kind of reckless endeavor and energy.  We hunger for the transcendent; we crave admiration and affection like deranged love junkies.  We long for understanding and seek leadership that will guide us through the seemingly endless miasma.  The choices we make that are driven by such a compulsive desire to be saved are usually disastrous. 

In our thirst for solace, we plunder the earth for its treasures.  We are all members of an unfinished species that is awed and persuaded by the power of mindless emotion.  We are the prisoners of our own lack of imagination.  Given these imperfections and in spite of them, there remains that alluring and still possible future of a planet where the dominant species is no longer the destroyer and purveyor of ruinous chaos, but the keeper of a peaceful and harmonious Earth. 

Yet Another Killing Spree

Within the short space of a few weeks, the nation has witnessed two separate instances involving a lone gunman who has taken innocent lives using that implement of death that has become so ubiquitous in our nation, the gun.  Each of these horrific instances took place in different settings - one occurred at a movie theatre in Colorado during the showing of the latest Batman movie and the other took place at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin while individuals in attendance were involved in worship.  Although the apparent motives of the killers involved were uniquely different, the fact that both men were seriously mentally deranged is quite clear.

Although it may serve some cathartic purpose to level all the communal anger and frustration at the killers, it does little to address the underlying societal malaise.  Any human society will necessarily have members who, for whatever reason, are so mentally unstable that within the fever of their own misguided and distorted thinking they see the need to exact punishment on others.  The larger question, however, needs to be addressed – How are such individuals able to procure such deadly weapons? 

The answer to this question is quite obvious and it lies within the purview of national policy.  A rational society would place reasonable restrictions and limitations on the ability of ordinary citizens to obtain firearms.  Most nations attempt to do just that.  In the United States, however, reasoned judgment has been held hostage by the extraordinary economic and political clout of the National Rifle Association (NRA) – an organization that has managed to turn gun control into a so-called, "hot button" social issue.  The NRA is backed by corporate interests that actually make huge profits in the selling of firearms not only domestically but around the world. 

In addition, there has been a disturbing trend in many states, Arizona and Florida for example, where legislation has been passed that liberalizes even further the "right" to bear arms to the remarkable extreme that gun owners have been given the legal authority to shoot individuals who they feel is a threat to their safety whether or not such a threat actually exists.  This represents a very disturbing trend in social development – a culture in which an overwhelming majority of citizens feel the need to possess and bear arms does not suggest a productive and viable future.

Given the long history of this nature's apparent affinity towards violence and barbarism as the recent anniversary of the horrific atomic bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki suggests, it is possible that the current trend is essentially irreversible.   In my estimation, our proclivity towards addressing vexing problems through the application of violence as an integral part of our foreign policy is inseparable from the readily apparent trends in the ways we have come to relate to one another in the life of the nation.  If this is so, we can anticipate an unpalatable future; unless, we collectively begin to apply sound and reasonable judgment to the problems we face in the present.