How Can You Offer Amnesty To Terrorists?

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community however, terrorism refer to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

Genghis Khan, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler have had their reigns of terror dis-continued by force. Osama Bin Laden, arguably the greatest terrorist of modern times, and most recently Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the Boston bombers have been either tracked down, into police custody or killed all by force, not dialogue.

They are terrorists, they do not have any cause for their act of terror, they hide under the influence of spreading Islamic Jihad, but even many Muslim readers on NigerianEYE have denied these Islamic extremists, quickly pointing out Islam as a 'Religion of Peace'

 

Nigerians are however sharply divided over amnesty for terrorists who have held Northern Nigeria hostage. It is not the first time religious extremists are embarking on their avowed mission to force Islam on Nigeria, a multi-religious, secular state.

The only differences are the duration and the magnitude of loss of lives. The stridency of the movement’s leaders does not indicate any penitence.

Faceless group? Indeed

The decision of some politicians to mix criminality with opposition politics has added new dimensions to efforts to end the insurgency.

The clamour for amnesty, which the attackers have rejected, is coming from quarters without control over the group, which means there are no guarantees that amnesty will stop the attacks.

Some Nigerians believe amnesty would entice those among the terrorists who are tired to rejoin normal society as law abiding citizens. They buttress their argument by pointing to the calming effect the policy had in the Niger Delta.

Terrorism in the North differs in objective and scope with the Niger Delta where the issue was economic justice. The ideological impetus of Al Qaeda global terror network makes amnesty an inappropriate response to the challenge. The group has justified this stand by rejecting the offer.

Would amnesty change the belief of the terrorists? We are dealing with a faith-propelled terrorism with support from abroad. Amnesty cannot pacify the group. A combination of methods – amnesty for those who want it and frontal battles with those who refuse it – should be applied. It was the case in the Niger Delta.

The terrorists are not fighting for our religion. They are not fighting for political power. If they are, their methods would still be wrong, for they are not legitimate, and no government would accept the wastes in lives.

Nigeria has to develop a zero tolerance strategy for dealing with the rebellion. It has taken too long. The first move would be to include firm conditions for amnesty to those who drop their arms and ask for pardon. They must understand that accepting amnesty means that they have stopped the rebellion.
Nothing short of this will suffice in tackling the terrorists.
The presidential amnesty committee should listen to the opinions of Nigerians, in order to avoid creating more problems while trying to solve one. Amnesty must be a balm. It should not be seen as a bonanza, or a political blackmail. It should leave Nigeria stronger and better respected.

If amnesty portrays Nigeria as weak, a state begging terrorists for peace, it would adversely affect government’s chances of dealing with future challenges.
More efforts and funds should be invested in assisting those displaced or victimised in the insurgency to return to normal life not on rewarding terrorists.