Row over Buhari’s comment on Israeli– Palestinian conflict 

President Muhammadu Buhari’s recent comment in Qatar on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis has drawn the attention of experts who described the comment as a setback for Nigeria’s non-alignment foreign policy, FISAYO FALODI writes It was not long ago that the Peoples Democratic Party accused President Muhammadu Buhari of de-marketing Nigeria with harmful and unabated negative statements. The PDP had said that the President was unwittingly de- marketing the nation and scaring away investors through negative labeling of Nigerians and unwarranted unhealthy portrayal of the nation’s economy. The opposition party had said in a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Chief Olisa Metuh, that Buhari’s “unwary statements have become a very serious clog in the wheel of progress, eroding the confidence of both domestic and international investors in the Nigerian economic and social system.” But Buhari defended himself in a statement by his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Mr. Femi Adesina, that all he said about Nigeria was the truth about the abject state in which the PDP leadership plunged the nation’s treasury and the economy. Likewise, experts in international affairs have said that the recent comment by Buhari over the age-long Israeli- Palestinian conflict had technically set aside Nigeria’s non- alignment and non-intentional interference in the internal affairs of other nations. Experts have grouped the roles of a President into major headings. As the chief of the executive arm of government, the President oversees national agencies, appointing their directors and creating policies to determine their goals; as head of state, he represents his country at official functions like meeting the leaders of foreign nations; and as a foreign policy leader, the President oversees treaties or agreements with other countries and set policies that affect his country’s relations with other nations. The others are, as commander in chief of the armed forces, he is the leader of the military who may send troops into actions; and as the economic leader, the President is to ensure that his country’s budget is profitable as possible. The experts added that the President’s utterances should, at all times, be promoting the economic, political and religious interests of his people either at home or abroad anytime he is privileged to address local or international fora. Therefore, the recent statement by President Buhari in Qatar is said to have portrayed the President as taking side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Buhari had said during a recent meeting with the Emir of Qatar, Tamim Bin Hammad Al-Thani, that he backed a two- state solution to the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conflict is, perhaps, one of the most violent and complex in history. Many attempts in the past to resolve the conflict by the European Union and the United States have been unsuccessful as a result of its complex nature. Even the European Union’s recognition of a two-state solution has not helped either. Instead, Israel and Palestine have continued to carry on with the conflict over ownership of Jerusalem’s territory. The Council of the European Union had endorsed a set of conclusions on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict which formed the basis of the current EU policy. It reasserted the objective of a two-state solution and stressed that the union “will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem other than those agreed by the parties.” The EU also claimed that it “has never recognised the annexation of East Jerusalem” and that the State of Palestine must have its capital in Jerusalem.” The desire of the Palestinians is that Jerusalem or al-Quds will be the capital of the future Palestinian state, basing their claim on religion, history and their demographic presence in the city. Palestinians point to their large, long presence in Jerusalem, which currently constitutes 30 per cent of the city’s population. Religiously, Palestinians lay claim to Muslim holy sites (in conflict with Jordanian claims), as well as those holy to Palestinian Christians. While Palestinian officials have made statements asserting their claim to all of Jerusalem, most Palestinians claim East Jerusalem, where the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem live, as the site of their future capital. But Buhari’s support for a two-state solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict with emphasis on “brotherhood and sisterhood” caught the attention of experts, who said the President’s comment failed all diplomatic logics. A statement by his spokesperson, Mr. Femi Adesina, quoted the President as saying, “I want to assure you that we will stand side by side with you, until our brothers and sisters in Palestine achieve their desired objectives. “Our support for various Security Council resolutions restoring and respecting 1967 boundaries with Jerusalem as capital of Palestine is firm and unshaken. “We in Nigeria, like the State of Qatar, favour a two state solution, with the State of Palestine living side by side with the State of Israel.” While it is said that Buhari’s position on the Israeli-Palestine conflict is not new as it was claimed to be in tandem with most countries of the world, including the European Union and Qatar, but experts are of the opinion that the choice of the President’s words in declaring his support for Palestine “is laced with ambiguities that can be misinterpreted by some bigots.” According to them, a phrase like “until our brothers and sisters in Palestine achieve their desired objectives” set aside Nigeria’s non-alignment and non-intentional interference in the internal affairs of other nations, which the country had maintained since her independence in 1960. A diplomatic historian, Mr. Benjamin Morakinyo, said the President was right to express his view on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, but would have done better if he had carefully chosen his word to reflect Nigeria’s non-alignment and non-intentional interference foreign policy. Morakinyo said that religious bigots with fundamentalist idea could have used the President’s comment to see Nigeria as a member of the Organisation of Islamic Conference, which is against the nation’s secular state. Claiming that brotherhood in Islam means sense of oneness and unity, he said by referring to the Palestinians as “our brothers and sisters” by Buhari at a time Palestine is in conflict with its neighbouring Israel was enough ground by bigots to perceive Nigeria as an Islamic state just because of the President’s statement. Morakinyo said, “Buhari’s statement, to say the least, was not diplomatic enough. It may be misconstrued by bigots to mean that the President has already taken side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially as some critics see the President as a fanatic who is always interested in promoting Islam. “Constitutionally, the President determines Nigeria’s foreign policies. So, all his actions in relating with other countries must be such that will project Nigeria as a respecter and upholder of its foreign policies. “He could sympathise with any country undergoing conflict; at least it is within his constitutional powers to do that, but he should be more careful in choosing his words anytime he addresses issues that have connection with religion and international affairs. A phrase like our ‘brothers and sisters’ could be misconstrued for taking blanket side in the conflict.” Also, a social empowerment advocate, Mr. Taiwo Akinlami, is of the opinion that Buhari’s comment presupposed that Nigeria had taken a position in the debacle. He said the President needed to clarify his statement in Qatar because the statement was a sensitive one that could trigger off open disagreement among Nigerians. Akinlami said Nigeria had not come out before to openly express a position like the one expressed last Sunday in Qatar. According to him, the EU and the United States have been careful in the choice of their words while speaking on issues that have connection with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said, “Nigeria’s foreign policy is that of non-alignment; it is against Buhari’s comment on Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So, supporting a two-state solution like the EU has rightly done is not the issue, but the real issue is being seen to have taken position in the conflict, which ought not to be so.” On what should be Nigeria’s position on the debacle, Akinlami urged the country to always maintain its non- alignment stance in foreign affairs policy. He also urged adherence to the United Nations’ position on the debacle. Akinlami said, “The conflict has raged for a long time and it requires objective assessment of the situation for a solution, which is the responsibility of the United Nations, not just comments that could be misinterpreted by some people.” The spokesperson, Afenifere Renewal Group, Mr. Kunle Famoriyo, said Buhari’s comment had only succeeded in plunging Nigeria into murky waters. He described the President’s comment as needless interference in another country’s debacle when there are more pressing challenges for him at home. Famoriyo said, “Nigeria should mind its own business rather than interfere in another country’s debacle. We have more problems than putting our hands in another country’s issues. “We already have enough problems in Boko Haram; we have enough problems in the Niger Delta militancy; we have enough problems in Biafra agitation and we have enough problems as regards the management of the country.” While seeking explanation on the nature of Buhari’s support for “our brothers and sisters,” he asked, “What are we really going to do for them? Are we going to send troops or arms and ammunition to help fight their cause? “What do we want to do if we really want to support them? So, the President’s comment was undiplomatic unless we are told that he was misquoted. “The two countries involved in the conflict have their own mission and vision. The question President Buhari should answer now is what is Nigeria’s vision and mission that other countries should support us to advance?” He, however, asked the President to concentrate on issues that should demand his attention rather than “helping another country to advance its mission and vision.” Famoriyo identified devolution of power and restructuring of Nigeria for the advancement of the country as major issues that should agitate the President’s mind. He said, “The President should mind the business of devolution of power in such a way that will make it easier for him to manage the country’s economy. The desire to ensure fiscal federalism should be his focus. “Devolution of the unitary system that has been frustrating Nigeria’s advancement should be his focus, not creating more problems by fishing in murky waters. So, if we can know other people’s mission and vision, then we should clearly state our own for other countries to help us advance them.”