This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 ABUJA 001330 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
 
STATE FOR IIP/SC AND IPI, IIP/T/ES, AF/PDPA IIP/G/AF, 
INFO AF, AF/RSA, AF/W, NEA/PPD 
LAGOS FOR PAS 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KPAO PREL SCUL OIIP NI
SUBJECT: NIGERIA "ENGAGING ISLAM IN NIGERIA: THE TWO - 
DAY KANO CONFERENCE" - - an analysis 
 
REF:  Abuja 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: In late January an unprecedented 
forum initiated by the Emir of Kano brought together 
Embassy officials, American scholars, and Moslem 
leaders from northern Nigeria to explore perceptions 
of the US and Islam, U.S. Middle East Policy, the 
Global War on Terrorism, and economic development in 
Northern Nigeria. The conference was a frank exchange 
that revealed a wide gap in perspective between the 
American and Nigerian attendees.  Many of the 
Nigerians espoused "clash of culture" and conspiracy 
theories, with the United States being Islam's main 
antagonist. The bedrock of their indictment was 
perceived U.S. bias in the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict. This perception colored every aspect of 
their view of U.S. policy from Afghanistan to West 
Africa. While no minds were changed during the 
meeting, the dialogue helped to loosen positions 
somewhat and also served to show our concern about how 
we are perceived in Northern Nigeria.  The dialogue 
has led to requests for more conferences.  End 
Summary. 
 
 
¶2. (SBU) The impetus for this conference was the April 
2002 visit to the U.S. by the Emir of Kano who was 
greatly concerned about the negative image of Nigeria. 
During the conference's preparatory stages the focus 
shifted. Instead of focusing on American perceptions 
of Nigeria, we decided to seek the Emir's agreement to 
change the focus of the conference to how Northern 
Nigeria sees the United States.  This adjustment would 
allow us to advance a key USG and Mission objective -- 
engaging Muslim opinion-makers on their home turf. The 
Emir and his lieutenants agreed to this reorientation 
and offered to host the conference in Kano for U.S. 
and Nigerian policymakers and opinion leaders. 
 
 
----------------- 
Clash of Cultures 
----------------- 
¶3. (SBU) Giving the initial presentation of the 
conference, Dr. Ibrahim Suleiman of Ahmadu Bello 
University set the tone for an energetic exchange by 
claiming that a clash of cultures was inevitable. He 
argued that Islam has been a wholly beneficial 
development in West Africa while Christianity, 
modernity and globalization were negative influences. 
He asserted that the United State had implicitly 
declared war on Islam. Throughout the conference, 
Suleiman and others cited President Bush's description 
of the Global War on Terrorism as a "crusade," as 
evidence that America was warring against their 
religion. 
 
 
¶4. (SBU) Embassy staff debunked the notion of a war on 
Islam as well as the thesis that western values and 
globalization were inimical to the "African 
Personality." Dr. Godlas also attempted to refute 
Suleiman's position. Speaking as an American Muslim 
and a religious scholar, he stated that American 
"modernism" and Islam have many common themes; thus a 
cultural collision was avoidable but necessitated 
better understanding and a willingness to transcend 
stereotypes. 
 
 
------------------ 
Middle East Policy 
------------------ 
¶5. (SBU) Middle East Policy: Throughout the session, 
the Nigerian interlocutors pointed to the Israeli- 
Palestinian question as the litmus test of U.S. view 
toward their religion. As long as the U.S. was seen as 
uncritically supportive of Israel, the U.S. would have 
problems in the Moslem world. Additionally, they 
claimed that Islamic countries could not "trust" the 
United States.  They complained the U.S. once 
supported Iraq but was now its mortal enemy.  One 
person went as far as accusing the U.S. of preparing 
to attack Saudi Arabia because it disagreed with U.S. 
on Iraq. 
 
 
¶6. (SBU) Nabeel Khoury gave a solid presentation 
outlining the Administration's "Roadmap for Peace in 
Middle Eastern."  While the Nigerians commended U.S. 
support for a Palestinian state, they criticized our 
insistence on a new Palestinian leadership.  They also 
voiced skepticism about whether we would use our 
assistance as leverage to pressure Isreal to be more 
flexible. 
 
 
----------------------- 
Global War on Terrorism 
----------------------- 
 
 
¶7. (SBU) Most participants deplored terrorism and 
condemned the September 11 attacks. However, they 
viewed the U.S. war on terrorism -- symbolized by 
military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq -- as 
anti-Islamic. Some said North Korea represented more 
of a threat but was being handled with kid gloves 
because it was not Islamic and was a nuclear state. A 
few claimed that the Global War on Terrorism was a 
ruse to spur the U.S. economy by attacking Islamic 
states with oil reserves. 
 
 
¶8. (SBU) All the Nigerians claimed that using military 
means to combat terrorism would prove ineffective.  To 
get to the root of the tension, the U.S. has to become 
an impartial arbiter in the Isreali-Palestinian 
conflict. 
 
 
------------------------------------------ 
U.S. Foreign Policy - Morality in Question 
------------------------------------------ 
¶9. (SBU) The Nigerian interlocutor contended that U.S. 
foreign policy failed to live up to its democratic and 
human rights underpinnings.  They claimed the U.S. 
supported unpopular regimes in the Middle East because 
of oil.  They also claimed that the U.S. policy in 
Africa has been checkered by indifference and racial 
prejudice. 
 
 
¶10. (SBU) Ambassador Jeter asked how U.S. support for 
the conflict in Bosnia could be reconciled with the 
conclusion that the U.S. was anti-Islamic.  He also 
pointed out that Nigerian Moslems often criticized the 
U.S. but were reluctant to upbraid Islamic states. 
For instance, they were silent on Sudanese government 
mistreatment of southern Sudanese Christians.  The 
Nigerians argued that the Sudan was a "political" 
battle over land and resources, not a religious war. 
They were told that the same description could also be 
applied to the Israeli-Palestinian feud. 
 
 
------------------ 
Random Perceptions 
------------------ 
 
 
¶11. (SBU) 
 
 
--Nigerian Participants presented their perceptions of 
the U.S. Unfortunately, a current of anti-Semitism ran 
through many comments. 
 
 
--The Jewish lobby has undue influence on USG policy, 
including Middle East policy. In the United States no 
candidate for any national, state or local officer can 
be elected without the support of the all-powerful 
Jewish lobby, said one participant. 
 
 
--Jews were responsible for the September 11 terrorist 
attacks; Jews were told to stay at home on that day. 
 
 
--September 11 attacks were responsible for the Jos 
unrest (though that unrest took place on September 7). 
 
 
----------------------- 
Next Steps and Comments 
----------------------- 
 
 
¶12. (SBU) There are two ways to view the conference. 
One is pessimistic; the other is hopeful.  The gulf 
between American and Nigerian Muslim perspectives of 
the world is vast.  The Nigerian participants 
generally represented the mainstream thought in the 
Northern Nigerian community.  Unfortunately, they 
shared a strong inclination for believing the worst 
about America.  Theirs was a selective interpretation 
of history - they tended to give extra significance to 
things they felt showed America's anti-Islamic bias. 
Thus, the inordinate focus on President Bush's use of 
the word "crusade." At times, this propensity served 
to materially distance their understanding of U.S. 
actions and intentions.  For example, most believed 
the U.S. sided with the French and British during the 
1956 Suez crisis.  Conversely, they gave short to 
shrift to action that showed the United States has 
acted even-handedly. 
 
 
¶13. (SBU) Their collective analysis of the United 
States lacked sufficient objectivity.  Their views 
were the product of a long term diet of anti-American 
disseminations and discussions.  They want to believe 
the United States is an adversary.  Having such a 
powerful adversary provided a convenient excuse for 
many of the ills in their society.  At another level, 
having a strong enemy also helps to validate their 
sense of self-worth. (We must be a potent force or 
else the U.S. would not bother).  In short, having an 
omnipotent adversary fits nicely into their political 
and religious cosmology and helps explain negative 
socio-economic trends in Northern Nigeria.  However, 
this somber interpretation is not insuperable.  Behind 
the rhetoric is a certain respect for America and what 
it stands for.  Whether they say it or not, they wish 
Nigeria could be more like America than it is. Thus, 
there is certain ambivalence in their view of the U.S. 
They mistrust but do not hate us.  They want to be 
like us and want to like us but we must first show 
that we like them. 
 
 
¶14. (SBU) Consequently, we can use this begrudging 
admiration of the United States to help influence 
perceptions in a more positive way.  There are two 
major steps that can be taken.  Our active engagement 
in resolving Israeli-Palestinian crises is sine qua 
non.  While the road map to peace was greeted coolly 
by the Nigerians, they will warm if progress is noted. 
Second, we need to be more active in Northern Nigeria. 
We need to elevate our official presence and 
developmental assistance particular in agriculture and 
education.  The more we have a benign material effect 
in their daily lives, the more we undermine 
perceptions of U.S. indifference. 
 
 
15 (SBU) In the final analysis, the conference was a 
productive opportunity to exchange views on key 
foreign policy issues as well as to discuss 
perceptions of each other.  The meeting did not change 
minds, but it engendered better understanding on some 
issues.  Equally important, the conference was well 
received. Participants have requested future 
conferences on Sharia in Nigeria, the bilateral 
relationship, and West Africa regional issues.  In 
March, U.S. speakers Dr. Gwendolyn Mikell also invited 
the Ciroma of Kano to Washington to speak to the 
Council on Foreign Relations and to Chicago to speak 
to the Third World Scholars Conference. 
 
 
Governor of Katsina has agreed to any offer of a 
similar conference in Katsina. 
 
 
16 (U) This cable was delayed in transmission. 
 
 
LIBERI