By Dr. Jimoh Ibrahim CFR
In part one of the Power Currency articles, I saw a conspiracy between Nigeria’s Tinubu Liberalism and the aggressive power accumulator of Nigeria’s realism. The power play started with an exciting scenario. The riot, the protest, and God forbid, the revolts! The welfare of the Nigerian citizen is an issue, a case of the tragedy of the common, a typical depiction of the legitimacy of government or a diminishing in the living value of humanity. They are hanging on food insecurity and hunger! The legitimacy of the liberal government is challenging the peace of the citizens. The government skipped between fear and courage. Yes, there is a credible legitimacy that the government came in through election and electoral processes for a specific term, that the government is not around by accident, and that it is not the first to be in legal procession of power. The challenge now is about managing people, state, and fear within the context of its legitimacy. The people say they are hungry and may want to rethink the transfer of legitimacy by protest, and good enough, the right to protest is democratic! Again, fear concerns the government’s appropriate response strategy to address the immediate cause of crises. My teacher, Berry Buzen, captures this well as it affects national security. He says, “Throughout, attention is placed on the interplay of threats and vulnerabilities, the policy consequences of overemphasising one or the other, and the existence of contradictions within and between ideas about security”.
The liberalists argued that the exigence and the compelling collaboration and corporations for peace and security arise from the challenges of food and hunger; this is so because of the liberal belief that politics is more than the maximisation of wealth, power, and security. The issues of food insecurity and hunger must be approached, and liberals are convinced that individuals and states are capable of cooperating even though the international system is anarchic. The liberal paradigm – classical liberalism and neo-liberal institutionalism- does not disagree with the working of the international system beyond the anarchic nature of its engagement, giving hope and reassurance that international organisations will provide respites in contributing positively to the challenges of food and hunger. Grotius, the acclaimed father of international law, explained the causes of war (jus ad bellum) and conduct in war (jus in bello). He explained that most states have a deeply rooted obligation to create and respect rules. The collective interest of the international society. This is so for man’s nature as a rational and social creature. It gives rise to a commitment to reciprocity in international dealings.
Despite the anarchic nature of the global system, Kent posited that states could bring about a state of perpetual peace. States can create percentual peace, and the need for the maximum corporation to avert the danger of food insecurity and hunger is imperative as Kent further listed three essential conditions for engagement: ‘a republican constitution’, ‘conditions of universal hospitality’, a ‘federation of free states. In Kent’s argument, the most critical aspect of food security is the ‘conditions of universal hospitality’, which is the basis for states to protect against food insecurity and hunger. Yes, Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye neo, liberalists argued for economic independence in the face of increasing modernisation among states such as globalisation; they argued and just like President Bola Tinubu saw it, that ‘welfare, not security, was becoming the most crucial goal of states’ the central argument to welfarism is food insecurity and hunger which state are expected to prevent the seed of conflict arising from such by collaboration and corporation. Beyond the state’s engagements, international non-state actors become the focus of explaining liberal ideas of the imperativeness of food security.
The policy response to hunger and food insecurity should be the first item in the value stick of any government. The United Nations (UN), on May 24, 2018, first explained the imperativeness of hunger and war when it advised that “using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare may constitute a war crime.” Food insecurity can precipitate violent political conflict. The French Revolution of 1789 witnessed increased food prices, creating economic challenges that prolonged the conflicts. While it is not the case that the increase in the cost of bread is the cause of the war, bread shortages trigger the conflict “stroking anger toward the Monarchy” The outbreak of civil war in South- Sudan in 2013 killed more than 100 humanitarian workers of the United Nations as the conflict prevented farmers from cultivating land again, leading to over 400 thousand deaths and displacement of four million food sources and homes.
The Syrian Conflict of 2011 created a historical record that is not comparable to World War 11. The incredible displacement of over 11 million people led to the largest global refugee crisis. We saw in Syria a military strategy of food starvation used by the government and the insurgents to prolong the internal conflict. This includes the tactical operation of blockage to prevent food supply and other essential items from reaching target areas. Such a crime did not prevent the escalation of the war. Still, it increased the number of killings, particularly among the staff of the United Nations who are working as aids in the humanitarian department—the challenges of government in providing measures that prevent state insecurity from sound social policy.
The question remains: is the current protest coming because of hunger and food crises? Or is it the case of realist texting their accumulation of power for a projected state of statism for another day? What were the protesters looking for in Aso Rock? What was the nature of the crisis in Daura with the propaganda that there were crises? It was widely reported, and wrongly, too, that the Buhari house was under fire: Hehehehehe, who is not reading widely? Whatever the answer, President Bola Tinubu should not forget his incredible idea of visiting 11866 federal Government abandoned projects, one of which Nigeria spent $10 billion and building for 42 years on-site without producing any steel! Yet Buhari returned cash of $500m to the buyer in the last months of his administration, and there was no riot and no hunger!!
President Bola Tinubu’s fasting records show he is used to political ‘hunger and food insecurity’! That explains his refusal to drag power with the realists. Surprisingly, to the realists, there is no signal from the international community. A few days after the political hunger protest, the international community said, “We saw nothing from our end so far, Bola.” You can handle this with some laughter!
Jimoh Ibrahim, a senator representing Ondo South, holds a PhD in Modern War from the University of Buckingham and another Doctorate in Management Science from the University of Cambridge.
