ISIS-K Terror, Creative Diplomacy, and UNSC Resolution: Lessons for Nigeria’s Boko Haramism

Bola A. Akinterinwa

The Taliban takeover of Kabul, the capital city of Afghanistan, is currently a major source of international concern, not only in light of the antecedents of the Taliban, but more so with the suicide bombing carried out by ISIS in Khorasan (ISIS-K) on Thursday, August 26, 2021 at the Amid Karzai International Airport. The suicide bombing was foreseen by the United States, who advised, before the bombing, on a likely terror attack at the airport. And true, the attacks took place at the Abbey gate of the airport, near the Baron Hotel, where thousands of people had been desperately gathering in preparation for airlifting out of Afghanistan, possibly before US President Joe Biden’s deadline of August 31, 2021 for the withdrawal of all American troops from Afghanistan. The withdrawal was a fait accompli on August 30 and, therefore, now belongs to the dustbin of history.

Noteworthy is the point that the suicide bombing was brutal: 13 US service members were killed, 18 US service members were wounded, over 170 people were killed and over two hundred people were wounded. This not only points to a new wave of terrorism, but has also prompted the suggestion of a creative diplomacy, cum use-of-force, approach by Dr Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State, as well as the adoption by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) of Resolution 2593 of 30 August, 2021.

Besides, the immediate aftermath of the Taliban takeover of Kabul has raised some critical challenges: future of the struggle for political control of Afghanistan; the new coordinating place of jihadist terror, especially if Afghanistan is prevented by the Taliban government from being used as a theatre for training of terrorists and spread of terrorism; how best to maintain international peace and security, by particularly nipping terrorism in the bud; the likely influx of international terrorists into Nigeria and the likely roles to be played by the Boko Haram; and perhaps most importantly, the future implementation scenarios of the UNSC Resolution in an emerging new Cold War era. The maintenance of international peace and security is most largely to be defined by how these problems are addressed.

ISIS-K Terror, Creative Diplomacy and UNSC Resolution

ISIS-K is the short form for the Khorasan (Afghanistan) branch of the central ISIS in the Middle East. It is also referred to as the ISIS-KP or Islamic State Khorasan Province. It was founded in 2015 and is very hostile to both the Taliban and the United States. It was responsible for the airport suicide bombing attacks. This means that the whole world, and particularly the United States and Nigeria, may be under very severe threats of terrorism in the foreseeable future. Since 9/11 in 2021, the US has been relatively free from terrible al-Qaeda terror at the domestic level. But what now happens outside of the United States? What happens in Nigeria, the terra cognita for boko haramism?

As regards creative diplomacy, it is about how to contain the use of terror in international life and maintaining global peace. Dr Henry Kissinger has suggested that an enduring solution to the problem of international terrorism requires combining creative diplomacy with the use of force, especially considering that the United States has not been able to turn Afghanistan into a modern democracy. In this regard, what really is creative diplomacy? Which type of force is required, as different from the type of force being used now? How is Nigeria likely to be affected, in light of the strong relationship between the Al-Qaeda and the Boko Haram in Nigeria, and particularly considering that Al-Qaeda is a staunch opponent of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Boko Haram may also have support for the Taliban at a point in time? To what extent can creative diplomacy be relevant or adequate as a solution mechanism in this type of situation? We cannot, with ease, provide answers to these questions without first looking at the chronological developments in diplomacy since the Seventeenth Century as explained by Dr Kissinger.

As Dr Kissinger has it, ‘in the Seventeenth century, France, under Cardinal Richelieu, introduced the modern approach to international relations, based on the nation-state and motivated by national interest as its ultimate purpose. In the Eighteenth Century, Great Britain elaborated the concept of balance of power, which dominated European diplomacy for the next 200 years. In the nineteenth Century, Metternich’s Austria reconstructed the Concert of Europe and Bismarck’s Germany dismantled it, reshaping European diplomacy into a cold-blooded game of power politics. In the Twentieth Century, no country has influenced international relations as decisively and, at the same time, as ambivalent as the United States. No society has more firmly insisted on the inadmissibility asserted that its own values were universally applicable.’ Put differently, Dr Kissinger is simply saying that every century is marked by one critical international development since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and that while France is noted for promotion of nation-state and national interest system, and Great Britain for balance of power theory, while Metternich and Bismarck were noted for the promotion of Concert of Europe and power politics respectively.

Additionally, Dr Kissinger is also saying that the United States prides itself as having the best type of government in the world. In his words, ‘the singularities that America has ascribed to itself throughout its history have produced two contradictory attitudes toward foreign policy. The first is that America serves its values best by perfecting democracy at home, thereby acting as a beacon for the rest of mankind. The second, that America’s values impose on it an obligation to crusade for them around the world.’ Even though the American thought has oscillated between isolationism and commitment, the belief of the American people is that a normal global international order should be based on democracy, free commerce, and international law.

In this regard, since no such system has ever existed, its evocation often appears to other societies as Utopian, if not naïve… Thus, the two approaches, the isolationist and the missionary, both of which are of American experience, do reflect ‘a common underlying faith: that the United States possessed the world best system of government, and that the rest of mankind could attain peace, prosperity by abandoning traditional diplomacy and adopting American reverence for international law and democracy. America’s journey through international politics has been a triumph of faith over experience’ (vide Chapter One of his book, Diplomacy). This is the background to Kissinger’s suggestion of the need for creative diplomacy. How do we create newness from the foregoing and on the basis of faith?

Ordinarily speaking, diplomacy is not only an art and tact, but also a field of study and a technique of negotiating away inter-state differences, of enhancing and restructuring power, and essentially for managing inter-state relations by peaceful means. As an art and method of conducting and managing the foreign policy interests of sovereign nation-states in international relations, diplomacy should not be confused with International Studies, International Law, International Affairs or International Relations, even though diplomacy can still be explicated differently under the various disciplines.

Definitionally, creative diplomacy is essentially about the evolvement of new strategies to deal with noisome problems. The art of creativity requires thinking beyond the box and also looking at a multidisciplinary approach in every solution-finding effort. As defined by Routledge, ‘a creative involvement is a kind of diplomatic thinking which encourages more active participation in international affairs and advocates creative solutions’ (vide Yizhou Wang, Creative Involvement: A New Direction in China’s Diplomacy, Routledge, April 2020, 104 pp. and Routledge – Publisher of Professional & Academic Books

Routledge – Publisher of Professional & Academic Books

Routledge publishes professional development books and textbooks across psychology, education, STEM, humanities …

In other words, creative diplomacy is defined by increasing active participation and pursuit of fresh solutions to current challenges. And one good illustration is the creation of the new position of High Representatives of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security in the Lisbon Treaty that entered into force in 2009. The High Representative is deployed and functions under the supervisory authority of the European External Action Service (EEAS) which has delegations in 169 countries of the world.

As for the UNSC Resolution 2593 of 30 August 2021, adopted at its 8848th meeting, the Security Council not only reaffirms ‘its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Afghanistan. It condemned ‘in the strongest terms the deplorable attacks of August 26, 2021…’ and therefore ‘demands that Afghan territory not be used to threaten or attack any country or to shelter or train terrorists, or to plan or to finance terrorist acts…’ The resolution also reiterates the importance of combatting terrorism in Afghanistan’ and ‘upholding human rights, those of women, children and minorities,’ and the need for ‘negotiated political settlement.’

And perhaps most importantly, the Resolution expects that the Taliban government will adhere to its statement of August 27, 2021 according to which ‘Afghans will be able to travel abroad, may leave Afghanistan anytime they want to, and may exit Afghanistan via any border crossing, both air and ground, at the re-opened and secured Kabul airport, with no one preventing them from travelling, including regarding the safe, secure, and orderly departure from Afghanistan of Afghans and all foreign nationals.’

This resolution is interesting, but more interesting is the aspect of likely non-compliance. There have been many UNSC resolutions and statements by the UNSC presidents on Afghanistan in the past, but they have largely not been adhered to. For example, there was the 18 December 2020 Resolution no, S/Res/2557 which renewed the mandate of the Monitoring Team Supporting the 1988 Afghanistan Sanctions Committee for another year until 17 December 2021. There was also the 15 September 2020 S/Res/2543, which similarly renewed the mandate of UNAMA (United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, until 17 September 2017. The UNAMA was set up in 2002 by UNSC resolution 1401 in laying the foundations for sustainable peace and development.

The immediate implication of these renewals is that, with the August 30, 2021 withdrawal of the US troops from Afghanistan, what are the likely implications of the renewed mandates? Why have the foundations for sustainable peace and development not been laid since 2001? The main purpose of US intervention in Afghanistan was not simply to avenge for the 9/11 saga by seeking the end of Osama bin Laden and stopping the use of Afghanistan as an instrument of international terrorism. The more important objective was also to completely neutralise the use of terror in international life and relations. In fact, as President George W. Bush put it by then, it was to ensure that peace and freedom reign in the world. Above all, what really are the lessons that can be drawn for Nigeria?

Lessons for Nigeria

There are five levels of implications of the Afghanistan saga from which lessons can be drawn for Nigeria’s boko haramism. The first is at the level of the former President of Afghanistan, Professor Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, who fled the country. He was an economist and a Professor of Anthropology in many universities, including the Johns Hopkins University before he resigned to take appointment with the World Bank and thereafter returned to Afghanistan to first become the Minister of Finance and later the President. He authored a book, entitled, ‘Fixing a Failed State,’ with Clare Lockhart. His abandonment of his followership is not befitting of a professorial leader. A professor is like a Field Marshall in a battlefield and when a Field Marshall decides to abandon his troops for whatever reason, it does not speak well. In the event of a trouble in Nigeria, if the Chief of Staff runs away, it is pardonable, but if PMB is the first to run away, it cannot but be an unforgivable sin. But the lesson here is a question, what happens if PMB, with the mounting tension in the country as at today, decides to ‘Andrew’ himself out of Nigeria in the mania of Professor Ghani?

Second is the imminent civil war in Afghanistan that has the potential to continue to threaten international peace and security. The war is likely to arise from the struggle for control of Afghanistan which can renew and prolong the war in the country because of three militant groups contesting the government of the Taliban: the Northern Alliance (the Panjshir Valley), which opted out of the Taliban rule in 1996-2002 and has vowed to fight the Taliban; the ISIS-K, comprising hard-line Sunni Islamist militants, who pledged allegiance to the slain ISIS leader, Abu Bakre al-Baghdadi, in 2015; and the Al Qaeda, which has a close rapport with the Haqqani network branch, in spite of the agreement done between the US and the Taliban on non-use of Afghan territory for terrorism.

The implication is the likely new relationship to be evolved between the insurgents in Afghanistan, especially the al-Qaeda group of which the Boko Haram is a strong member. Boko Haram is said to be deadlier than any of the Afghan terrorist insurgents, including the Taliban. If the Taliban can move successfully from the various Afghan provinces to take over Kabul, it can also be expected that the Boko Haram in Nigeria can similarly attack and shame the Aso Rock, especially in light of the Nigerian Defence Academy saga, and particularly if we admit that there are Boko Haram agents in the government, of both presidents Dr Goodluck Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari.

Third, Nigeria is likely to be one of the new coordinating places for jihadist terror, in addition to Yemen, Syria, and Somalia. Nigeria is most likely to be considered, with particular focus of using the Boko Haram to promote the influx of more terrorists into Nigeria. As such, it cannot but be more difficult for the Government of Nigeria to contain boko haramism, as insecurity will be more critical to contain by the time the capacity of the Boko Haram is strengthened with the arrival of new terrorists. The Boko Haram in Nigeria will then become a major defining factor in the spread of terrorism in the whole of Africa. And perhaps more cautiously, US mission in Nigeria cannot but be an immediate target of attacks, meaning that there is the need for Nigeria to strengthen diplomatic protection in Nigeria.

Fourth, the implication is more serious at the level of foreign policy implications of the UNSC Resolution on the Afghanistan imbroglio. The resolution, passed on Monday, 30th August, 2021, called on the Taliban government to facilitate a safe passage for all those people seeking to leave Afghanistan, allow humanitarians to access the country, and to uphold human rights, especially the rights of women and children. What is noteworthy about the resolution is that it was passed with thirteen votes and two abstentions: China and Russia.

The abstention of China and Russia raises the new Cold War in the making, as made evident in the positions of the abstaining two countries. Western allies of the United States are all agreed on the need for safety of evacuation and protection of humanitarian rights. For instance, Nathalie Estival-Broadhurst, Deputy Permanent Representative of France, says that the ‘resolution calls on everyone to make all efforts to secure the airport and surrounding area’ and that creating ‘this safe passage and protection is a sine qua non condition to ensure that threatened Afghans who wish to leave can do so safely, but also to ensure that humanitarian assistance can reach all of those who need it through the airport, of course, but also over land borders.’

The United Kingdom support for the resolution is on the ground of the need to continue to ‘ensure the Council holds the Taliban accountable on its commitments. The Taliban will be judged by the international community on the basis of their actions on the ground, not their words,’ the UK ambassador, Barbara Woodward, has said.

The perspectives of Russia and China are on a parallel line. Russia alleged that the authors of the resolution ‘categorically refused to refer to a passage on the fight against terrorism containing internationally recognised terrorist organisations, ISIL and the East Turkistan Islamic Movement.’ As Russia further sees it, the ‘reluctance to acknowledge the obvious, and to divide terrorists into ‘’ours’’ and ‘’theirs’’ … is nothing more than downplaying ‘the terrorist threat coming from these groups.’

For China, ‘the recent chaos in Afghanistan is directly related to hasty and disorderly withdrawal of foreign troops,’ and therefore, hopes that ‘relevant countries will realise the fact that withdrawal is not the end of responsibility, but the beginning of reflection and correction.’ Thus, while the resolution is talking about further evacuation of stranded people and their safe passage out of Afghanistan, China and Russia are complaining about US withdrawal and its mania and the need to include some other terrorist organisations in the resolution. This disagreement is a reflection of an emerging Cold War between the West and Asia-Russia region.

In terms of foreign policy implications, with which side will Nigeria’s policy of non-alignment swing? Will Nigeria support the economic sanctions that are most likely to be taken against the Taliban government in the event it reneges on its pledged commitment? To what extent will the PMB government be prepared to join the world in fighting the Islamisation of the world, which is what the jihadist terror is all about, and particularly in light of what PMB is also on record to have said in Kaduna at a seminar organised by the Supreme Council of Sharia in Nigeria in August 2001. He said that ‘Sharia should be introduced in full across Nigeria,’ that he would ‘continue to show openly and inside me (him) the total commitment to the Sharia movement that is sweeping all over Nigeria… God willing, we will not stop the agitation for the total implementation of the Sharia in the country. It is a legal responsibility which God has given us, within the context of one Nigeria to continue to uphold on the practice of Sharia wholeheartedly and to educate non-Muslims that they have nothing to fear.’

The critical challenge at the international level, therefore, is how to maintain a balance between the use of terror by Islamic jihadists, on the one hand., and prevention of threats to Western values in international relations, on the other. More important, the notice and effective withdrawal of the United States troops from Afghanistan has not only created a new vacuum for terrorists to renew their jihadist activities in Afghanistan, but has also prompted the suicide bombing at the airport in Kabul on Thursday, 26th August, 2021. But where will the next bombings take place after Afghanistan? When will the imminent civil war take place in Afghanistan? Will the civil war predicted to take place in 2022 in Nigeria come to be?

Solutions to terrorism in Nigeria requires making a choice between creative diplomacy, collaborative diplomacy, bio-diplomacy, and brainstorming diplomacy. Creative diplomacy, as suggested by Henry Kissinger, has its advantages and limitations, in the sense of what is required: need to create. Collaborative diplomacy, according to Robert Albro, requires rethinking of some of the methods and goals of cultural diplomacy, because ‘the publics are now much less distant, more assertive, and actively engaged participants in the making of their encompassing cultural worlds… Collaborative diplomacy underscores trust-building through cooperation on mutual objectives and around shared values, often via team work.’ Bio-diplomacy is about promoting the ‘new forms of technology-based international partnerships’ with the ultimate objective of changing the traditional patterns of international cooperation. Diplomacy, be it creative, collaborative, bio-based, art, etc, requires thinking and newness of purpose. Thus, the mother of all lessons for Nigeria is the need for a Brainstorming Diplomacy à la Nigériana to serve as art and guide to policy making in Nigeria’s Grand Strategy agenda. Brainstorming Diplomacy will be a technique of inquiry into problems of governance, delineation of security challenges, articulation of the possible solutions with their implementation challenges, and recommendations for the future

Attachments area