Oh, the things you find online... like a Star Wars cult fan site with a major forum, where they discuss international politics and particularly African civil wars.

Go figure.

---------------------------------------

International Disney

Globalization and McWorld: "I Wanna Be Like You", Jungle Book
Dr. J Classes: "I'll Make a Man Out of You", Mulan
The Best Solution: "Under the Sea", The Little Mermaid
Protectionism: "You'll Be In My Heart", Tarzan
Idealistic Global Cooperation: "You've Got a Friend in Me", Toy Story

Yikes, shari'a law is messy. I'm digging more into it, trying to establish a difference between Arabic application of shari'a and African application (it seems, although I have no solid proof, that African nations tend to be slightly less militant and more open to appeals, etc.) Quite simply, shari'a is meant to be instituted in an Islamic state, for only there can it be properly understood and administrated. Islamic scholars are some of the first to admit this, with one even saying that under any other system, shari'a becomes a tool for oppression and injustice. That the establishment of an Islamic state is the requirement and goal of shari'a is no secret, and this makes it dangerous, particularly for a multireligious "secular" state.

When shari'a was put in place in the Nigerian states, i.e. given official recognition -- a move, btw, which was only for political gain and happily enough pleased the citizens as well as the political parties -- the Christian minorities obviously disliked it. There was a move to get Christian law recognized as well (what they would use is unclear) but from what I can tell, that was short lived. Overall, shari'a is oppressive, insiduous, unjust, and distinctly meant for a religious, not secular, state.

And the good-but-slightly-frustrating thing is that my policy recommendation hasn't changed in all this new information! My rec. goes like this: leave shari'a to Nigeria to figure out, but keep a close eye on it and the court case determining the secular/religious nature of states versus the federal government. Reasons:

1) Nigeria is technically a working democracy. Say what you will about unfair elections and human rights violations or whatever -- it's a functioning "free" government, self-declared as secular and quite influential in the sub-sahara. The states chose to institute shari'a, and regardless of motivation, the U.S. cannot simply go in and demand its revocation.

2) It's religious law -- Islamic religious law at that. Foreign nations messing with religious law and/or freedom is very rarely a good plan in any situation.

3) Shari'a has already caused ethnic and religious violence in the entire nation. Should U.S. policy require the removal of shari'a as offical state public policy, it would only inflame the situation more. First, it's a foreign state interfering, and no one likes being told what to do. Doubtless some would applaud our position, but it might cost us more support than anything else, simply because the "American hegemon" strikes again. Second, Nigeria is a good ally in the War on Terror and securing West Africa through ECOWAS, etc, and it would not be wise to enrage the entire nation by a condemnation of shari'a. Third, it would not help the U.S./War on Terror image of there really being a war against Islam... and this would only increase tensions in an already uptight area.

Leaving shari'a alone in the northern states is, in my view, the only thing to do. Let Nigeria decide what to do with Islamic law and its proper place, if it has one at all. Wait and see what the Nigerian Supreme Court decides about the secular requirements of states. Even if we were to encourage a particular path or hint at certain displeasure, most of the US money and support going to Nigeria is not necessarily marked as US dollars, but goes through a series of IPs, IGOs, and/or NGOs and community organizations. It's American money and effort, yes, but not directly, and this is probably for the best. We have two main options for influencing the Nigerian government in this regard: sanctions and a reduction of support. Sanctions will only boomerang on us, causing us difficulty as well and should be avoided. Reducing support will cripple IGOs and NGOs working to improve the nation, thus delaying progress, and will open the nation to other sources of funding -- potentially a bad situation.

On top of all this, Nigeria has shown a good attitude toward appeals for shari'a cases. Sometimes, sentences are carried out too quickly for an appeal, and this is a great tragedy -- however, most often, appeals are possible, though slow. Typically, a person sentenced under shari'a will wait months or years for a final decision, and while this is stressful, the court/appeals system is working.

In other words, it's broken, but we can't fix it -- so stand back and be alert.

That a democracy needs to be secular to function is pretty clear from history and Nigeria itself recognizes this. Thus, in it's constitution, it declares itself secular. For now, the best U.S. policy is keep a close eye on things and maintain status quo. If we so choose, there are human rights organzations through which we can support a ban on corporal punishment -- but not shari'a as a whole or even as named.

POLITICAL SITUATION: 2007 ELECTIONS

Current standing

The current president, Obasanjo, has been praised for his democratic tendencies and efforts to improve human rights, improve foreign relations through peacekeeping troops and ECOWAS, and strategies to eradicate the rampant corruption in the Nigerian government at all levels. Indeed, things have improved, but overall, human rights violations are for the most part unchecked and corruption seems unstoppable. His policies and goals, however, are very cooperative with U.S. interests and he is regarded in most circles as a positive force in Nigeria.

Unfortunately, he's on his second term now -- a lame duck, and there is no guarantee that his policies will be continued.

Candidates

There are many potential candidates for the 2007 elections. Like early in the American elections, "many are called but few are chosen." The lack of manpower and force of most of the smaller parties make them, while important in the large scheme, irrelevant to the question of who will actually be elected. There are three main parties: the All Nigerian People's Party (ANPP), the People's Democratic Party (PDP), and the Alliance for Democracy (AD). Four candidates have come to the forefront, and most of them are familiar names: Babangida, Abubakar, Marwa, and Buhari. All are military, and most are former heads of state.

Of those four, Babangida is the frontrunner at this time. He is still unpopular for his previous eight years in office, when he annuled election results -- a move which earned him the mistrust of the people and poor relations with the U.S. and other nations. That said, he is politically popular and a known quantity. According to an analysis from the Nigerian paper The Vanguard, one of the reasons Babangida is so popular is because of his previous skill at grafting in politicians and cycling them through, making friends and bringing up unknown politicians to positions of power. This has extended to people within his opponent's circle of friends, who suddenly find themselves caught between two candidates. With so many who owe him, and with the current tone of Nigerian politics, where politicans are mistrusted regardless, Babangida (or as he is more popularly known, IBB) is a likely winner in 2007.

There has been a push for him to apologize for the previous annulled elections, but this is one thing IBB will likely not do. He has refused in the past, justifying it by saying a court had annulled the elections and he simply followed court orders, and besides, Obasanjo should be thanking him. Without the annullment, events in history might have turned out differently and Obasanjo might never have been elected.

As yet, IBB has not officially announced his candidacy; however, this is kind of like Hillary Clinton saying she wouldn't run in New York. It's going to happen, everyone knows it, and many Nigerian political analysts agree that his candidacy is a done deal.

Even in IBB did not run or did not win (and I would predict that both of those are more likely to happen than not, for the above reasons) whoever makes it into power will not be much different. Reasons:

1) Though there are over thirty political parties registered, and three dominant ones, the main three are practically indistinguishable from one another in terms of policy. Thus any candidate, if he holds to the policies of the party, will not differ from the others in too great a degree.

2) As mentioned before, all have a military history and IBB, Abubakar, and Buhari have all been in power previously, with mixed records for IBB and Buhari. Abubakar is the current vice president and is tied with Obasanjo in many ways. Although similar background is certainly not the only factor in prediction, the political history of Nigeria suggests that they will be of the same mind in the areas.

What to look for...

Besides the political wrangling, this is an unknown quantity. Given their past records, particularly IBB who has shown a dislike for civilian rule, Nigeria may slip back a few steps in her journey to democracy. Although things are still too fluid to say for certain, the new leader will come into power probbaly facing continued human rights violations, a wary and cynical public, and vast corruption. Whether they continue on the path set by Obasanjo, or take another road, has yet to be seen.

U.S. Policy

Obviously we cannot and should not seek to influence the elections, in the interest of a free and open society. However, there is the risk of the new president in 2007 negating what little progress has been made under Obasanjo, and this we would like to prevent. One plan would be to increase the attention given to local democracies (building the nation from the ground up) and to increase the aid and training being given now for anti-corruption and various human rights issues (such as sending the leaders to conferences, running conflict managment activities, etc). By strengthening what is already there, we can hope to prevent too much loss of freedom, should things come to that.

NIGERIA BRIEF #1:

SHARIA LAW

Background

Nigeria is unoffically divided into northern and southern portions. The South was the portion colonized by the British and is generally more educated, more developed, and predominately Christian. The North was not colonized and is predominately Muslim, and the majority of Nigerian leaders over the last forty years have been from the North. Nigeria is divided into thirty-six states, and twelve of these Northern states have instituted Islamic sharia law.

Sharia Law...

Sharia law allows for harsh corporal punishment for crimes like stealing, sexual offences such as adultery, drinking alcohol, and gambling. Punishments include stoning, amputations, flogging, and more. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, among others, have condemned the institution of sharia, but it is unlikely to leave Nigeria anytime in the near future.

... In Nigeria

Nigeria is split between Christian and Muslim majorities, and its constitution declares the nation to be a secular state. The religious tension, combined with at least 250 different ethnic tribes, causes strife throughout Nigeria and the imposition of sharia has not lessed the fighting. Several riots in the North, made up of Christians who do not want to be subject to sharia, have resulted in thousands of deaths and reprisal killings in the South and East.

Initially, sharia law was welcomed by the Northern residents. The court system in Nigeria struggles with corruption, lack of funding and resources, and very slow proceedings. In the interests of justice, residents believed sharia would speed up legal proceedings and resolve disputes faster. The Muslim majority also supported it for the higher moral code and standard they believed sharia would bring. The Christian majority protested, and were promised that sharia law would only apply to the muslims who voluntarily agreed to it, but there is no evidence this has been followed.

Since the institution of sharia, the glasses are a little less rosy. Corruption runs rampant in Nigeria and sharia was no exception. Northern residents now complain that it is being used as a political tool, but fear saying so for being labeled un-Islamic. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International condemn it strongly, arguing that those sentenced under sharia are not represented well if at all and that punishments are carried out too quickly for an appeal. This is presuming that a higher appeal would do any good, since the problems of sharia -- human rights abuses, bribery, etc -- are just as prevalent in the secular courts. HRW has only been able to confirm several amputations, and several stoning cases have gotten international attention; many who are able to appeal are left hanging for months at a time for the decision.

Offical Response

The officals in the North state that dislike of sharia is based in a hatred of Islam, and no amount of condemnation will dissuade the local governments from using it.

President Obasanjo has come under some pressure to order the state governments to end sharia law, but refuses. He likes to refer to Nigeria as "multi-faith" rather than secular, and in a 2002 interview, stated that his opinion about sharia is just his opinion. If he enforced his opinion on this matter he would become a dictator, but Nigeria is a democracy -- so while he regrets the stoning deaths and amputations, nothing is to be offically done.

However laudable Obasanjo's dedication to non-interference, he cannot legally maintain his position. The Nigerian constitution declares the nation a secular state, and as such, strict religious law cannot be made a part of offical legal code. Additionally, Nigeria has signed several human rights agreements banning such corporal punishments as practiced under sharia. How many of these agreements have been signed versus how many have been actually ratified is unclear -- one of the central agreements, the U.N. Convention Against Torture, has not been ratified.

Recommendations

Abolishing sharia entirely is impossible and would only lead to more ethno-religious tension. However, the human rights violations, as well as legal difficulties, make it just as impossible for sharia to remain in place as it is if Nigeria is to develop into a legitimate, strong democracy. **[The Nigerian constitution only prohibits the federal government from adopting a national religion and said nothing in regard to states and religion -- currently, there is a case about this very matter before the Nigerian equivalent of the Supreme Court, and to my knowledge it has not been decided yet. If states are permitted to declare official religions, sharia law will likely continue. If they are not, the Nigerian government (both state and federal) have a responsibility to eradicate sharia from the offical legal code and court system.

U.S. Policy

Until the Nigerian court rules, all the U.S. can do is push for Nigeria to make the states secular as well. Several methods might work: we are already heavily involved in training some officials and "training the trainers" -- emphasizing the need to keep the states secular would be an indirect way to influence the future, and possibly our best plan. Sanctions are only going to boomerang around and hit us back, and won't achieve the goal. Withholding aid will not help either, since it may cause resentment and allow the training to be run by another group... thus the U.S. loses influence.]** edited 11/9/04

Suggestions STILL welcome, folks.