DOMESTICATION OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM IN NIGERIA: STUDY OF BOKO HARAM AND NIGER DELTA INSURGENCIES, 2000-2012
Need help with a related project topic or New topic? Send Us Your Topic
DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE PROJECT MATERIAL
DOMESTICATION OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM IN NIGERIA: STUDY OF BOKO HARAM AND NIGER DELTA INSURGENCIES, 2000-2012
CHAPITRE ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Research
Violence and the threat of it have long been associated with human existence. It can be traced back to the biblical tale of Cain’s murder of Abel. This is due to the fact that human existence and activities on Earth are primarily social events prone to agreement and disagreement.
It is also a well-known fact that, whereas agreement leads to peace, disagreement leads to chaos and violence. That is why eliminating conflict and crisis in human activities and interactions is tough. This also explains why international peace could not be maintained after the cold war.
Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the establishment of a Uni-polar International System, hopes were high that the international polity would once again witness peace and security.
Unfortunately, this hope was destroyed by what Viotti and Kauppi (2009:256) refer to as the “preeminent post-cold war threat,” when on September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked in a very destructive way by al Qaeda, hitting significant targets, the World Trade Centre (WTC) Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
The foregoing explains why US President George Bush committed to confront terrorism front on and immediately organised a coalition of other nations, particularly North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) members and some superpowers, to ensure the effective and total defeat of this new enemy.
The United Kingdom, France, and Spain, as well as Germany, Russia, and China, replied swiftly to that call (Konecky and Konecky, 2008:631). He urged all peace-loving countries to help him in bringing terrorists,
their sponsors, and custodians to justice. “Americans should not expect a single battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other ever witnessed,” he declared (Woodward 2002:108).
This is because the planning, execution, and chronology of the 9/11 events, as well as the mortality rate, were such that any rational person would consider terrorism to be worse than war. That incident remains the pinnacle and most catastrophic in international terrorism history, shocking the entire world.
It rocked the international community to its core not just because of the weapon used, but also because of the flawless preparation and execution, as well as the high death rate. According to Konecky and Konecky (2008:630),
“over 3,000 people died in New York, Washington, DC, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania.” The hijackings involved four passenger jets departing from Boston’s Logan Airport, Washington’s Dulles Airport, and Newark Airport in New Jersey in the morning.”
American Airlines Flight 11 with 88 passengers and staff members crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre in New York at 8:45 a.m., while United Airlines Flight 175 with 59 passengers and
crew members fell into the second tower of the WTC at 9:02 a.m. Within less than two hours of the crashes, the twin towers imploded, destroying five other WTC buildings as well as four underground stations, killing over 2,650 people,
including approximately 350 firefighters who were deployed to assist the estimated 25,000 people in the twin towers. The third plane, American Airlines Flight 77, smashed into the Pentagon at 9:43 a.m., killing all 59 passengers on board and 125 people on the ground.
The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was unable to hit the target, which was supposed to be the White House at Camp David. The failure to hit this target was due to the heroic actions of the passengers who had already been informed about the New York incident via phone and who,
as a result, mounted strong resistance to the hijackers’ plan of steering the plane towards the White House but which eventually crashed landed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing all 40 passengers and crew.
At the conclusion of the horrifying and tragic episode, it was determined that al-Qaeda, an Islamic fundamentalist group led by Osama Bin Laden, was responsible for the wicked and horrific conduct. Analysts saw it as a continuation of the earlier attack on the same WTC on February 26, 1993, which resulted in the deaths of six people.
The low amount of effect documented in the first bomber attempt is thought to have prompted the meticulous planning of 9/11. Ramzi Yousef carried out the 26 February 1993 attack, according to Martin (2006:19), who “detonated a bomb in a parking garage beneath tower one of the World Trade Centre in New York City.”
He and his master, Bin Ladin, had originally planned to make the bomb chemical in order to record a high death toll. According to some experts, he included poisonous sodium cyanide into the device in order to generate a toxic chemical cloud.
This claim is unverified, while some experts believe he attempted to obtain chemical agents before to the attack but was unsuccessful (Parachini, 2000:186-187).
Because of the nature of weapons that technological advancement has placed in the hands of terrorists, the 9/11 attack made not only the United States, but the entire international community realise that terrorism is more dangerous than war, and its potency and capability as a global human eliminator more devastating than world war. As Nye and Welch (2011) put it:
“The September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington in 2001 (9/11) has illustrated how technology is putting into the hands of nonstate actors destructive powers that once were reserved solely for governments” .
Many experts instantly concluded that, given the mastery and precision of the attack, the use of weapons of mass destruction cannot be ruled out in upcoming strikes, and as such, terrorism should be curtailed before it is too late.
While analysing the attackers’ mastery and the damage done during the 9/11 attack, Falk (2003:52) concluded that “never in the history of terrorism had an operation of such stunning proportion been pulled off.” Many commentators saw it as a watershed moment in the history of political violence, and dubbed it the development of a New International Terrorist Environment.
Martin (2006:3) stated that in this new environment, terrorists were now capable of – and eager to employ – weapons of mass destruction to inflict unparalleled casualties and destruction on enemy targets.
These attacks appeared to corroborate experts’ predictions from the 1990s that a New Terrorism would characterise the terrorist environment in the new millennium, employing ‘asymmetrical’ means.
With this mindset, foreign leaders showed strong unity and support for America. There was an outpouring of words of solidarity from the worldwide community, world leaders, and allies to the United States. Many countries cancelled their various official activities to express their condolences to the American government and people.
Russia, for example, had to postpone strategic bomber manoeuvres over the Atlantic, Pacific, and Antarctic Oceans that were originally slated for that week in order to avoid misinterpretation and/or being mistaken for an adversary. It instead directed its foreign intelligence branch to coordinate with colleagues in the United States, Europe, and the Middle East to prevent further attacks.
In response, the European Union (EU), through its police arm (EUROPOL), promptly established a 24-hour crisis centre to cushion and counter the threat of terrorism (Combs and Slann, 2007).
NATO, for its part, despatched surveillance planes to watch US skies, conducted a naval show of force in the Mediterranean, and opened its facilities and airspace to American aircraft and combat troops.
A Counter Terrorism Unit was established in EUROPOL by European Union member states and was authorised to immediately liaise with the US government to maintain water tight security in the regional bloc.
European Union ministers, for their part, took swift action to prevent banks from generating and transferring terrorist funding. To demonstrate the extent of the attack’s impact on the global community’s psyche and nations’ readiness to fight the scourge,
Carter (2003:20) reported that eighty-one nations joined the international coalition effort against terrorism by freezing the assets and accounts of individuals and organisations that participate in terrorist activities or associate with terrorists.
Terrorism is a violent activity directed at unsuspecting members of a society with the goal of traumatising and mentally defeating them in order to score a political point or gain a socioeconomic advantage. It is a violent situation in which only the aggressors know and see their victims, but the victims are unaware of their existence.
Terrorists do not fight or engage in war; instead, they conduct guerrilla-style surprise attacks on civilians, the unarmed populace, or the military during their inactivity. The preceding logic explains why experts frequently refer to terrorism as asymmetric warfare.
Nigeria’s current security concerns may be traced back to two primary sources: politics and religion. These two fire sites, though existed in the geographical territory known now as Nigeria prior to the entrance of white colonialists, were mishandled by the invading imperial lords, either ignorantly or due to a lack of awareness of the environment.
When the British colonists arrived, they encountered multiple tribes comprised of individuals from various languages, cultures, faiths, and socio-political orientations. The sociopolitical environment at the time would have qualified or awarded each of these tribes a nation.
Unfortunately, colonialists were anxious to study the people’s sociopolitical and religious lives before establishing a proper governmental system for them, despite their obvious economic interest.
Rather, it rapidly pushed the European model of nation state on the people, disregarding their unique social, economic, political, and religious backgrounds, by jacking these various and distinct ethnic nationalities into one nation via her ‘Union Jack’. According to Omoweh and Okanya (2005:301),
the British government pushed the nation-state model on Nigeria with one key goal in mind: to bring together many ethnic groups with varied social, economic, political, and security systems in one country to enable exploitation.
It not only undermined conventional production systems, exacerbating the people’s and society’s economic, social, and political uncertainty, but it also established an alien system that undermines traditional socio-political institutions.
The failure of the British to recognise the above prevalent conditions while imposing the nation state model on Nigeria has resulted in the country’s security dilemma both during and after the colonial period. “The various ethnic nationalities wasted no time in resenting this imposed merger and artificial nation state,
which manifested early (in 1948-51) in the emergence of regional rivalries and parties expressing them” (Post, 1999:331). This posed a threat to the colonial Nigerian state’s security. And, of course, that situation has not changed in this post-colonial era.
Concurrently, the people’s religious concerns were not ignored in the burgeoning European imperialistic sequestration and adventurism. When the numerous ethnic groups were jacked and tinkered into one super nation, as with pre-colonial socio-political, economic, and traditional institutions, no regard was made to the people’s divergent and multiple religious preferences.
Prior to the amalgamation, which was the legal instrument that bound Northern and Southern Nigeria together prior to independence, the people practised two major religions, Christianity and Islam, in addition to the Traditional African Religion, which was indigenous to Nigeria before the arrival of Christianity and Islam
. Interestingly, with the exception of African Traditional Religion, which might be considered universal due to its history, the two major religions – Christianity and Islam – were practised almost entirely along regional and racial lines.
It is also worth noting that the practise of these two religions along geographic and ethnic lines is triggered by their introduction into Nigeria. While Christianity entered Nigeria through the southern coastal line via European merchants and missionaries, Islam spread through Northern Nigeria via trade contact with North African Arabs as well as Islamic Jihadists.
As a result, whereas Muslims predominate in Northern Nigeria, Christians predominate in the southern half. As a result, achieving statehood through the union of North and South was laden with unhealthy mutual distrust, suspicion, and enmity. According to Muhammad (2006:292),
the two religions’ different origins, as well as their being rooted within separate geographical localities, as well as the disparity in the pace of socio-political and economic development between the localities typified by the North and South during the colonial era, sowed the seeds for a discordant relationship after the country’s independence.
The diversity of ethnic and religious groupings in Nigeria clearly lends the country a heterogeneous character, which has frequently served as the cause of the entity known as Nigeria’s perennial disputes and violence. And which is linked to distrust and mutual suspicion among ethnic groupings.
This predicament was deliberately controlled by colonialists with the help of the same superior authority that enabled them to merge the nationalities into one, but soon after independence, Nigerians were confronted with the realities of this heterogeneity through an unbridled wave of violence.
It began as political violence but degraded into an ethnic conflict, which eventually snowballed into a military takeover of the democratic administration. This resulted in the establishment of the first military administration,
led by General Aguiyi Ironsi. Despite the fact that the political violence only afflicted the Northern and Western regions, the military was forced to intervene by taking over the country’s political leadership due to the quantity of carnage documented in those two regions, as well as what the coupists referred to as “political corruption.”
The coupists, who claimed they overthrew the democratic government in response to a wave of violence that swept throughout the country, then engaged in state terrorism by assassinating senior Nigerian political leaders. The Niger Deltans observed the intrinsic marginalisation, injustice,
and imbalanced structure of the Nigerian socio-political environment at this period, and attempted to secede through the legendary endeavour of Isaac Adaka Boro. Civil war erupted shortly after, as a result of the military leadership’s high degree of violence, insecurity, harshness, and distrust.
The Easterners, particularly the Ibos, not only perceived the obvious link between what led Isaac Boro to take up guns to defend his people, but also felt threatened by the size and regularity of violence directed at them in the country’s northern axis.
There had no alternative but to respond to what appeared to be governmental terrorism aimed not just at marginalising and oppressing them, but also at total annihilation of the race.
This reaction came in the form of secession, which, as some say, was intended to safeguard Easterners from the escalating pogrom. According to Adeniran (2002:102), the pogrom was the catalyst for the Biafra War. While corroborating and expounding on the preceding, Soyinka (2006:101) states:
“It would be a distortion of history and an attempt to trivialise the trauma that the Igbo had undergone to suggest – as some commentators have tried to do – that the lure of oil wealth drove them to seek a separate existence.”
When individuals have been subjected to a level of inhumanity that can only be described as genocide, they have the right to seek an identity apart from their aggressors.”
While agreeing with the above, Ezeani (2013:46) referenced Major General Philip Effiong’s 1970 end-of-war surrender announcement as follows: “Throughout history, injured people have had to resort to arms in their self-defense where peaceful negotiations failed.” We were not an exception…we battled in defence of that cause.” As a result of this attempt to secede, Nigeria had a thirty-month civil war.
Following the civil war, the Nigerian civil populace, which was already becoming politically and environmentally conscious, discovered that they were being led by a politically greedy and economically avaricious military class with no regard for the rights and welfare of the people. This sparked a new round of agitation and bloodshed in Nigeria, with the goal of deposing the military government.
Attempts by political elites to return the country to democratic politics were met with opposition from the military oligarchy. While the civilian population strove to return the country to democracy, military commanders fought back in what can only be described as state terrorism.
This reaction-counter-reaction situation eventually brought another wave of violent agitations to Nigeria, which could be considered the forefather of today’s regionalised violent militia groups such as the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), Odua Peoples Congress (OPC), Arewa youths, Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), and so on.
Militancy in the Niger Delta, for example, is alleged to have been sparked by mismanagement of the region’s oil wealth and the military leadership’s absolute disregard for the welfare of landowners. Ibeanu (1999:166) believes that the “central causal variable in the growing problem of internal population displacement in Nigeria…is state violence, i.e.
aggressions of the state towards certain groups that appear as inter group conflicts.” The socioeconomic and political foundations of state violence are found in military control, crude oil production, and communalism,” all of which have been highlighted as being intimately tied to the issues causing conflict in the Niger Delta.
The level of concern for the problems of the Niger delta demonstrated historically by the Nigerian government through its acts and inactions has been a major role in the emerging surge of resentment, dissatisfaction, and discontent that has given rise to the region’s difficulties.
Many indigenous people believed that, while international oil companies (IOCs) contributed to the sociopolitical problems in their area, the IOCs could only get away with what the government let them to get away with.
As a result, the problem of the region’s people’s welfare, or its neglect, is entirely the responsibility of the government. The prevailing consensus in the Niger Delta is that the IOCs’ activities reflected the government’s sense of responsibility to the host communities of these enterprises. The “Niger-Delta Manifesto” (Darah, 2003) captures this viewpoint.
According to this manifesto, the region’s resources have been subjected to deliberate and systematic abuse and misuse by the IOCs in active collaboration with the Nigerian government, using the repressive federal laws aimed at central control of the oil wealth. As a result, in addition to environmental and other related issues, the conflict became one of resource control.
This, in reality, served as the foundation for what has come to be known as the Niger-Delta ideological battle, as well as the ideological fulcrum of the insurgency. According to Biakolo (2012:18-19), Niger Deltans believed that the Niger Delta’s resources belonged to the region; that since independence,
the people of Niger Delta have not reaped the benefits of their God-given resources; and that a political context existed in which these resources were literally seized from them.
Furthermore, the resources are used to aid other portions of the federation. As a result, the institution known as the Nigerian state was, if anything, a hostile neighbour, working in collaboration with other industrial exploiters to expropriate from the Niger Delta the surplus value of what was generated on their land.
This awareness was followed by a natural desire to correct the wrongs that had occurred in the area. In a move reminiscent of the classical dialectics of oppression, awareness, transformed consciousness,
and revolutionary action by the deprived, through a series of indoctrinations by the vanguard, most recently epitomised by Ken Saro-wiwa and the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP),
the ordinary people of the Niger Delta – including displaced farmers, fishermen, befuddled market women, and, perhaps most dangerously, unemployed youth –
Because of oil exploration, extraction, and expropriation, the Niger Delta region, which is the heart of Nigeria’s oil wealth, has been in instability for decades. The situation can become violent at times due to the Nigerian government’s oppressive inclinations on the one hand and the irresponsibility, exploitative, and environmentally unfriendly activities of multinational oil companies (IOCs) on the other.
According to Ogundiya (2009:31), such violent agitations have taken hundreds of lives, displaced thousands more, and destroyed incalculable property. Millions of dollars have been wasted as a result of teenage unrest, production disruption, pipeline vandalism, hostage-taking, assault, bombing of oil installations, and other violent scenarios.
Such use of terror techniques by disgruntled groups to combat real and perceived injustices and deprivation has frequently drew global outrage, attention, and a re-focus on the government’s resource distribution policies.
It is worth noting, however, that global oil wealth has historically been a source of both international and local conflict. In socioeconomic perspectives, it is usually recognised as a natural fact that every wealth accumulation, distribution, a
nd acquisition generates some level of conflict. What is abnormal, and causes concern, is the volume and proclivity of conflicts related with oil wealth since the discovery of oil on a global scale.
This prompted Monica (quoted in Spin Watch 2004) to observe that ever since oil was found as a true source of energy in the aftermath of the industrial revolution in the 18th century, man’s appreciation, value rating, and desire for this substance has reached a concerning level.
This insatiable need for black gold, which competes with human blood for first place in man’s desires, has resulted in several wars, as various nations compete for control, protection, and acquisition of oil-producing territory.
Similarly, Ikporupo (1996:159), while assessing the general positive and negative aspects of oil discovery, observed that since the great gold rush, which informed and characterised the voyages of discovery and expedition in the new world (the Americas),
no natural or otherwise resource has drew as much attention, generated as much boom, and yet as much conflict as petroleum. This argument is supported by several inter and intra-state conflicts in and around the world’s oil producing regions, including Nigeria.
The war in Nigeria is neither interstate, as in a disagreement over land or the placement of an oil well, nor intrastate, as in a community land dispute over oil wells. It is an expression of resentment, disenchantment, and discontent with the accumulated injustice, marginalisation, deprivation,
and undue domination of the host communities of these oil activity areas, as a result of the Nigerian State’s active and unwholesome conspiracy with multinational oil companies, whose environmentally degrading activities and casual attitude towards the plight of the subjugated natives are the sources of conflict in the region.
These indigenous regard as arrogant and outdated all laws/decrees that disfavour oil-producing communities and prohibit them from exercising complete authority over the resources on their territory. Their lands were taken away without any rent or compensation. This scenario is exacerbated by the ecological issues and environmental consequences of oil extraction.
The aquatic life was killed alongside crops and trees: water, land, and vegetation were destroyed, as was natural air, in addition to the roofs of their houses, which were demolished by the gas flare.
However, preventative measures such as providing portable drinking water and a good health delivery system were not implemented to alleviate the issue.
This circumstance not only rendered the regions inhospitable, but also severely hampered human development.
However, several measures were put in place by the federal government to accommodate the region’s unique developmental needs. Some of these include the defunct Niger Delta Development Board (NDDB) in 1966, Shagari’s administration’s 1.5 percent derivation formula Committee, Oil Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission (OMPADEC),
and the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC). The inadequacy of these agencies to successfully carry out the task for which they were founded, as well as the government’s authoritarian, coercive, suppressive, and repressive approach in dealing with the locals, contributed to the region’s armed conflict.
However, the Federal Government pushed additional effective palliative measures in addition to the NDDC to combat militancy in the Niger Delta region, which was the burning furnace of Nigeria’s political environment at the time. In addition to the many training and rehabilitation initiatives,
the warring teenagers were awarded amnesty. The Ministry of Niger Delta was also established to assist the current NDDC in addressing the region’s challenges, with particular infrastructure funds provided through the Subsidy Reinvestment Programme (SURE-P).
Issues such as marginalisation, domination, real or perceived injustice, power imbalance, and poverty have all played a role in the creation of armed militia in the Nigerian polity. Apart from the Niger Delta issue, the same socio-political anomy plagued other parts of the country. For example, the rise of the Odua Peoples Congress (OPC),
the military branch of the Pan Yoruba socio-cultural group-Afenifere, has been linked to misrule and the perceived marginalisation of the West by the Hausa-Fulani military aristocracy. According to Onah (2005:296), the OPC was created in 1994, following the annulment of the 1993 presidential election,
which was assumed to have been won by Chief M.K.O Abiola, a Yoruba. The organization’s initial goal was to combat the seeming marginalisation of the Yoruba in Nigeria at the time, but as the events of the annulment faded, the organisation took on new tasks and became more violent.
Unfortunately, while the insurgency in the Niger Delta region was being addressed through the aforementioned programmes, particularly the amnesty programme, which was embraced by the militants,
who accordingly not only laid down their arms, but surrendered them to the Federal Government, another round of violence erupted in the country’s north, the Boko Haram insurgency.
The time of the development of the Boko Haram insurgency, whose operations were discovered to be more lethal and devastating than Niger Delta militancy, raised many doubts among observers about the true cause(s) or causes for its emergence.
While some observers considered Boko Haram’s development as a cunning ruse designed to draw similar federal government attention to that of Niger Delta militants, others saw it as a political plot aimed at Goodluck Jonathan’s leadership.
Though these two schools of thinking appear to be disconnected from the underlying issue, they should not be discarded entirely because they may be tied to or closely entwined with the secondary motivation to the group’s activity.
A detailed examination of the Northern region and its inhabitants, on the other hand, has revealed the presence of historical socioeconomic disequilibrium, alienation, and dislocation, as well as the concomitant recurring unease in the area. This unease is not unrelated to incidents of real and/or perceived injustice, deprivation, undue socioeconomic dominance and imbalance,
poverty, marginalisation, past ethno-religious conflict, and intolerance. Although the foregoing may contradict the broad surface perception and the group’s stated purpose, it is determined to be the root and undercurrent aspect that gave inclination for the insurgency.
According to the group’s claims and popular perception, sectarian religiosity and global Islamism are the true causes of Boko Haram’s rise. Yes, as stated explicitly by the group’s original leader, late Muhammad Yusuf, Western education, culture, life, and anything Western are incompatible with Islam and thus wicked.
Thus, if it is not in the Qur’an or sanctioned by Ibn Taymiyyah, it is “Haram” (forbidden) to Yusuf and his followers. According to Yusuf (2012:50), the current Nigerian education system “…is Haram based on its structure, because the content contradicts Allah’s oneness.”
It is prohibited because it combines males and females in the same location. It is haram because they celebrate Christian holidays. It is haram because they teach concepts that call Allah’s basic nature into question.”
Yusuf was a staunch supporter of Ibn Taymiyyah’s school of thinking, and all of his teachings, sermons, and writings were inspired by the same idea. And, in the majority of his sermons, he criticised the acquisition of Western education, knowledge, government employment, and the elective or democratic political process.
This is why, in one of his 2009 articles, “Hazihi Akeedatum Wa Minhaju Da’awatuna” (this is our Manifesto and Advocacy), which was translated and reproduced in Adamu (2012:53), he sent a message saying:
I am warning you about the problems of our time, particularly those concerning democracy, the infidel, and the modern idol to which its adherents worship. We will not accept, interact with, or participate in this democracy because it is the route of the infidel;
following, interacting with, and using it is the way of the infidel. It is illegal for any Muslim to be a part of it or to vote for an infidel under the democratic system.
With this frame of mind, Yusuf and his “radical” followers (Boko Haram) considered themselves as living and functioning outside of the Nigerian system and its regulations. As a result, they became hostile to the government and police enforcement.
For example, when a crash-helmet law was passed in Borno State in 2009 and was enforced by a police task group called Operation Flush Out II, Yusuf and his followers flatly refused to respect the law.
Unfortunately, the very endeavour to execute this law and ensure its compliance by everybody was the origin and progenitor of the current Boko Haram insurgency.
It became the detonator of a previously bottled-up societal explosive, as the ensuing encounter and its aftermath prompted him to declare war on the Federal Government of Nigeria.
Adamu (2012:54) further stated that on June 11, 2009, he published a video titled “Budaddiya Wasika ga Gwamnatin Tarayya” (Open Letter to the Federal Republic of Nigeria) in which he declared:
We’ve stopped paying attention to their threats. Our brothers do not detest you because you are a member of the PDP or the ANPP (the main political parties in Borno State, the movement’s native territory). We didn’t do anything to make them dislike us. They simply despise us because we believe in Allah and refuse to accept democratic rule.
They detest us not because we love Allah, but because he offends them. Why do they not attack other citizens? Only those of us who believe in Allah and His Prophet are targeted. Whose belongings have we ever destroyed? Who are we slaughtering like a ram? Who is it that we broke into and ransacked their homes?
Just because Allah stated it and the Prophet (Muhammad) said it, they despise us because of our turbans–and this isn’t enough, they have to shoot us with their firearms. This is my justification. We shall no longer hear from anyone (for mediation);
their time has passed. We shall no longer accept mediation invitations from anyone. We will not accept the shooting of 20 of our members, we will not forget it, and we will no longer listen to anyone. You gave the order to the soldiers to shoot us…
The preceding was thus an open call to battle, to which the members replied with zest, extraordinary passion, and zeal. Ironically, the call was based on what he viewed as injustice and loss of his freedom of assembly, association, and worship, rather than Jihadism or Islamism.
Boko Haram not only despises and condemns Western culture, education, civilization, and democracy, but also has a hostile attitude against anything associated with the West.
This is not only because they believe they violate Quranic injunctions, but also because they are the basis of Nigeria’s corruption and poverty, particularly in the North. They saw strict Islamic application as a cure for the problem.
The foregoing, however, is interpreted as an open attack on the frustrations of Nigerian society, the primary causes of which are poverty, unemployment, religious intolerance and fundamentalism, socioeconomic imbalance, injustice, and marginalisation. It was a reaction to a society that was unjust to its members.
In comparison, the Northern Region is economically worse than the Southern Region. One explanation for this is because, unlike their Southern counterparts, Northern youngsters were not exposed to Western education, which was considered as a foundation for work and wealth production.
The rationale is found in part in the region’s historical socio-cultural practises of class inequality, as well as the colonial legacy of denying the region Western education. Fafowora (2013:8) claims that
The sect is the result of a political and social process that failed to secure the country’s even growth, with the North lagging considerably behind the South in terms of economic and social development.
The insurgency in the North is a symptom of a deeper malaise that dates back to the colonial era, when colonial policies resulted in the North…falling behind the rest of the country in practically every aspect.
Boko Haram is a direct result of Northern governments’ refusal to invest in their people’s education. This failure, rather than religious divides, explains the Boko Haram insurgents’ deep-seated frustrations in Nigeria.
The North’s modernization process and speed have been substantially slower than the South’s. This condition frustrates Northern youths, who find themselves unable to compete in many areas with their Southern peers.
This could explain the group’s aversion to western schooling. A close examination of the group reveals that 99% of the adherents are illiterate, with the remaining 1% brainwashed into abandoning their academic pursuits at various levels of education with the simple indoctrination that acquiring western education is sinful (Haram) (Ajayi, 2012:105, Olojo, 2013:7, Akinfala, Akinbodo, Kemmer, 2014:118).
As a result, the members of the gang perceive themselves not only as a distinct race, but also as creatures from another world who were sent and instructed by their creator to come to the universe, wipe out the occupants, and occupy it.
This is due to a combination of inferiority complex, ignorance, and jealousy. This is the effect of what Giddens (2006:1034) refers to as “social exclusion.”
As previously stated, the cause of this weak educational system and the resulting socioeconomic underdevelopment may be traced back to prior sociopolitical, religious, and cultural institutions on the one hand, and colonial disinterest in educating the region on the other.
The region was already accustomed to the aristocratic social structure of the haves and have nots prior to the arrival of colonialism. While the “haves” are wealthy, the “have nots,” who account for 99 percent of the population, come with prostrate reverence to beg for “sadaka” and to serve the “lord” in order to feed from the “lord’s” yard.
As a result, education was denied to the majority’s children, the “have-nots,” making the possibility of youth growth and empowerment gloomy. Unfortunately, not even the colonial authorities attempted to improve the situation. It was more concerned with preserving the existing aristocratic Emirates and social order in the North.
The British colonial authorities did little nothing to promote education in the North. Fafowora (2013:11-12) observed that while Christian missionaries introduced schools and western education in the South, the British colonial authorities effectively prohibited churches from establishing schools in the North.
The practical result of the British colonial authorities’ fundamental preference for the Islamic way of life in the North was a widening divide in western education between the North and the South.
Even today, the educational divide between the North and the South is a major source of conflict and instability in the country. It is directly responsible for the formation of religious sectarian groups such as Boko Haram in the North.
The negative result of the foregoing is socioeconomic instability, which has been blamed for some of the tension between the Moslem North and the Christian South, as well as religious conflicts such as the Boko Haram insurgency in Northern Nigeria.
Despite many years of Northern political dominance in the country, the North continues to lag behind the South in economic and social progress.
In terms of per capita income, the North is significantly poorer than the South. Because the North offers great economic prospects, several educated Southerners have travelled to the North for work and commerce. However, due to their clear educational deficit,
Northerners are ill-equipped to take advantage of these chances. They are just unable to compete with the more educated Southerners who controlled the region’s economic activity.
As a result, the Northern Moslems despise the predicament, which they blame on both their own self-serving aristocratic leaders and the Christians who have coexisted with them for millennia.
Even if there were no religious differences, the fact of economic inequality was certain to create some antagonism against Southerners residing in the North. The militants’ objections range from religious and cultural differences to the lack of economic possibilities in the North.
They have witnessed how their dreams for a better society and living conditions have failed to materialise over the years due to prevailing cultural and religious conventions (Fafowora, 2013:13).
As a result of this predicament, the youths in the area regard the Nigerian polity and the Northern region as harsh and unjust to them. They feel duped, defrauded, ostracised, and abandoned. They are dissatisfied with Nigerian society, which provides unequal treatment and opportunity to its citizens.
As a result, there is aggressiveness, violence directed not just at Christians and Southerners, but even at some of their leaders, the very aristocratic class, whom they regard as cheaters, corrupt, and deceivers. As a result, they are dissatisfied with how their political leaders, whom they once admired, handle regional problems.
The teenagers reasoned that, contrary to Islamic injunctions, their political leaders had turned to savage wealth gain and obscene personal lifestyles that were not only destructive to their interests but also repugnant to Islamic culture.
Domestic terrorism became their only option of releasing their rage on the government in the lack of any access to the alleged ‘Islamic dissidents’ to lodge their concerns.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The conclusion of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union signalled the demise of the latter and the establishment of a Unipolar international structure.
As a result, there was widespread belief that this watershed event would result in international peace and stability. Unfortunately, this optimism proved to be a mirage, as disagreements and conflicts can never be completely removed in international relations.
As echoes of disaffection caused by perceived injustice by some states and groups within states quickly enveloped the emerging international peace, grievances of deprivation that were seen as remote causes of the emerging wave of various violent acts occasioning terrorism became replete in the international environment.
This situation can be traced back to perceived injustices in the international system, as exemplified by the power imbalance among nations, undue domination of the poor nations by the advanced capitalist west,
a lack of equity and fairness in the distribution and sharing of global wealth, exacerbation of the poor nations’ poverty levels through excessive exploitation by the advanced industrialised nations, which also has its origins in the slave trade and colonialism, and reliabilities.
It was revealed that people who felt tricked and denied resorted to violence to show their rage. The 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in America was the pinnacle of this violent reaction to perceived injustice in the global system,
for which al-Qaeda claimed responsibility and claimed it was its own reaction to America’s role in the Middle East, i.e. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so on.
The leadership of Al-Qaeda has condemned what it sees as America’s backing for Israel and believes that America is using a double standard in the region. With its unipolar global power structure, it believes that the United States is the greatest hindrance to an Islamic order and cause of injustice in the world.
According to empirical studies, the disaffection, disenchantment, and discontent that have been identified as being responsible for contemporary international terrorism have their roots in injustice, power imbalance, poverty, exploitation, religious intolerance, lack of equity, unfairness of the global order, and ethno-racial issues and complications.
In addition, the same socio-political malady that characterises global structure has been replicated and domiciled in some developing countries, such as Nigeria, with disastrous repercussions. The current violent socio-political environment in Nigeria,
which is a result of historical disenchantment with marginalisation, poverty, injustice, inequality, power imbalance, inordinate domination and exploitation, lack of equity and unfair treatment of some among the country’s diverse federating units, ethno-religious intolerance,
and so on, dates back to the unfortunate imperialistic amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria in 1914, which was meant to enslave the people of Northern and Southern Nigeria. And which, as a British colonial dependence, did little to unify the country. According to Fafowora (2013:19),
Nigeria, like the majority of African governments, owes its origins as a nation state to European imperial ambitions in Africa. European ambitions and rivalry in Africa have resulted in the territorial limits, political institutions, and images of African states. Chief Obafemi Awolowo had already identified Nigeria’s emergence as a new British dependency,
arguing that Nigeria is not a nation but rather a geographical manifestation. To bolster this point, the argument went on to say that there are no “Nigerians” in the same sense that there are “English,” “Welsh,” or “French.”
Rather, the name Nigeria is only a distinguishing appellation used to differentiate those who reside inside the geographical cartography known as Nigeria from those who do not (Awolowo, 1947; referenced in Clark, 2009:456-457).
This multiplicity of external factors reshaped and reconstructed these new governments’ political structures. Colonialism, on the other hand, was both a source of cohesion and a cause of tension.
It brought people from distinct cultural and ethnic origins under one administration, like in Nigeria, where multiple ethnic nationalities with different social, economic, political, and security systems were bonded together. As a result, a federation of ethnic nations living in constant distrust and enmity was formed.
This explains why ethno-political and religious conflicts and killings were started in the Northern part of the country in the 1950s, even before independence, and worsened after independence, leading to the military takeover of the nascent democratic dispensation and the eventual but unfortunate Nigerian Civil War.
Given the civil war experience and its negative impact on the polity as well as the socio-political and economic lives of the individual Nigerian, one would think that no Nigerian would ever consider partaking in any life-threatening mass violence.
Unfortunately, the opposite is true, as a result of brigandage and other violent criminal activities that may be said to be inextricably linked to the civil war,
an existing violent security scenario in Nigeria evolved. This security situation, particularly in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s, can be attributed to the military’s quest to not only ensure its hegemonic presence on the nation’s political environment, but also catastrophic control of the nation’s necessary socioeconomic and political structures.
Characteristic of this period (1970s-1990s) was an increase in violent coups and human rights violations, which drew further antagonistic reactions from some individuals and civil society groups eager to rid the polity of this unfavourable socio-political environment and possibly enthrone a democratic regime.
In a vicious spiral, the situation drew counter-violent reactions from the military class, which promised never to relinquish political power. As a result, the administration used all the necessary governmental machinery, both traditional and unconventional, including state terrorism, to crack down on the “raw” civilian agitators.
The frigid political environment peaked during the late General Abacha’s rule and was eventually inherited by General Abdulsalami Abubakar after General Sani Abacha died. The heated and sensitive political atmosphere at this moment was prompted by General Ibrahim Babangida’s annulment of the presidential election on June 12, 1993, and General Abacha’s subsequent arrest of the supposed victor of the election, Chief MKO Abiola.
According to Fawole (2003:222), General Abubakar, who took over after General Abacha’s death, inherited a nation on the verge of implosion, a political transition programme marked by suspicion and disbelief,
a polarised military establishment, a population up in arms against continued military rule, and a country held at arm’s length by most of its erstwhile friends and allies.
However, the issue was exacerbated when Abiola died in prison under dubious circumstances. As would be imagined, this antagonistic situation climaxed and gave rise to a very intense wave of terror that swept across Nigeria until 1999, when a new democratic dispensation took over.
The nation’s fourth republic began in May 1999, and there was an immediate spike in ethno-communal and regional agitations and conflicts, which were recorded alongside existing religious cleavages and reverberations.
While the MASSOB, despite claiming to be nonviolent, is pulling from one end over agitations of marginalisation and undue domination of the Ibos,
as well as the need for Biafran state, MEND is fighting from the other end against the sane marginalisation, exploitation, and injustice meted out to the Niger Delta, in whose house the “golden egg” is laid.
As if these two (2) issues were not enough for the Nigerian state, religious extremists and chauvinists were busily butchering human beings in the most heinous manner at the country’s northern split, driving the OPC of the west to charge for vengeance.
The shocking part of this spike and multiplication of violent conflicts and agitations is that they are taking place under democratic administration, which some analysts think is the ideal method for conflict resolution.
The reason for this, however, may not be that far-fetched, as a look into Nigerian history will reveal how Nigeria’s colonial authority, Britain, grafted a heterogeneous tree that turned out to be Nigeria unintentionally but with full imperial ambitions, and with the aid of her Union Jack.
Previously, the Niger Delta Region was the epicentre of these conflicts in terms of the Nigerian government, with the agitators initially employing vandalism and sabotage of oil installations, which later progressed to horrific kidnapping and bomb detonation, which were more or less complete acts of terrorism.
Arm proliferation, maritime piracy, youth restlessness, illicit oil bunkering, and hostage taking are added to the list of top risks and security issues in the region. According to Ogundiya (2009:31), the Niger Delta Region, the heart of Nigeria’s oil wealth, has been a site of protest, sometimes violent, against the repressive tendencies of the Nigerian state on the one hand,
and the recklessness, exploitative, and environmentally unfriendly activities of oil multinationals on the other. The agitated group’s use of terror techniques to end real and perceived injustice in the region has drew global attention, as has the Nigerian government’s resource allocation policies.
The issue at hand is one of historical injustice: marginalisation, dominance, exploitation, socioeconomic negligence, and intensified deprivation of the needs of a people, an area whose citizens’ lives are being jeopardised in order to ensure the nation’s well-being. Oil exploration in the region endangers people’s lives,
yet nothing is done to mitigate the negative effects of oil activities, despite the substantial cash generated by the oil industry. According to Ojakorotu and Olawale (2009:7),
oil exploration and its poor management, which manifests in oil spillage, disrupts the economic life of the people because farming and fishing, the area’s main occupations,
are decimated, their environment is polluted, and their water is poisoned. This is the precise circumstance that has caused unrest in the region, prompting the teenagers to seize both the laws and the weapons.
The rise of numerous armed groups, led by the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), has been attributed to the state’s aggression against the people of the Niger Delta.
But, if one is concerned and bewildered by the operations of MEND and its partners, what can be said about the stupefying and heinous activities of the group known as Boko Haram? This group, which is attempting to establish itself as an actor and player in the Nigerian political setup, has made the country its greatest enemy,
unleashing earth-shattering mayhem on both Nigerians and foreigners without any known provocation, aside from the replication of ISIS activities in the Arab world and of al-Qaeda jihads crusade against the West represented by America, as well as everything and everyone associated with the West, as a reaction.
The group’s criticism of western education, civilisation, culture, and everything associated with the West, including democratic politics, reinforces the foregoing. It regards participation or indulgence in any of these activities as sinful, and has thus called for the establishment of an Islamic state in which orthodox Islam is practised.
Orthodox Islam, according to Yusuf Mohammed, the sect’s leader, considers Western education and civil service to be evil. As a result, in order to achieve their goal, all institutions represented by the government, including security agencies such as police, military, and other uniformed individuals, should be crushed (Tell Magazine, 10 August 2009:34).
According to them, moral decadence and evil in society are caused by the presence of Western Civilisation, and in order to combat such evil, an Islamic order must be established by destroying modern political institutions and infrastructures, which must coexist with a government based on Sharia laws in the society.
However, the foregoing is what the gang has openly stated as the cause for its acts. A detailed examination of their activities, however, reveals a group that is dissatisfied, disgruntled, and disenchanted. Their rage reveals something deeper than what they have openly acknowledged.
As a result, Abimbola and Adesote (2012:11) attribute the majority of the circumstances leading to this criminality to frustration. This position is shared by Copeland (2013:5), who identified two policy blunders made by the Nigerian government while critically assessing the situation.
He describes the government’s ruthless suppression of the group, such as extrajudicial murders, as a clear violation of the rule of law that has sparked a backlash in the North.
Many Muslims worry about being marginalised by the federal government, which they believe is dominated by Christians. Furthermore, the Nigerian government has failed to respond properly to underlying social and economic problems in the Northern states at both the local and federal levels.
According to Copeland (2013:5), poverty and malnutrition rates in the north are alarming, with over 75 percent of individuals living on less than US $1 per day.
It is also important to note that northern Nigeria is known for religious intolerance and bloodshed. It is a region with the highest prevalence of religious conflict, dating back to the 1804 Usman Danfodiyo Jihad.
Since then, there has been a recurrence of violence in the region, which has been triggered by aggressive, extremist, and bigoted preaching by Islamic religious leaders.
It is also a region where more than 70% of the youths are labelled almajiri and purposely abandoned to roam the streets begging for food, always ready to be mobilised for violence.
As a result, the preceding discussion suggests that Nigeria’s existing international terrorist disposition is likely to be locally replicated. So far, it has been shown that states with a high prevalence of ethno-political and religious intolerance and conflicts are more prone to acts of violence that result in terrorism, since aggrieved weak contenders would generally resort to terror operations as a last resort.
The current outbreak of terrorism in Nigeria occurs at a time when the Nigerian government has done much to assuage citizens and reduce the rate of domestic discontent through the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) and the Ministry of Niger Delta, as well as the establishment of nomadic and almajiri schools, among other democratic dividends.
It is also concerning that, despite all that the Nigerian government has done to create a calm domestic environment, terrorism persists. This paper seeks to determine whether modern terrorism in Nigeria is externally influenced, caused by the same internal domestic issues and discontent, or a combination of both, and so needs the following questions.
Is domestic unhappiness in Nigeria to blame for the rise of terrorism?
What effect does domestic terrorism have on foreign security?
To what extent does foreign terrorism have an impact on domestic peace?
How far may peaceful resolution of home concerns and disputes lead to world peace?
1.3 Research Hypothesis
The greater the level of deprivation in Nigeria as a result of injustice, marginalisation, unfairness, undue dominance exploitation, power imbalance, poverty, ethno-religious intolerance, the greater the level of discontent and aggression, which may lead to insurgencies and terrorism in the north east and Niger Delta regions.
The greater the degree of domestic terrorism, the greater the influence on foreign security.
To a considerable extent, the more worldwide terrorism issues are mirrored in people’s minds through news media, the greater the odds of domestic duplication.
To a large extent, peaceful resolution of home concerns and conflicts would transmit to a peaceful international environment.
1.4 Purpose(s) of the Research
The Overarching Goal
To investigate the extent to which internal dissatisfaction influences and promotes terorism.
Subordinate goals
To investigate the factors that give rise to terrorism in Nigeria.
To determine whether the current terrorism in Nigeria is externally influenced, a result of the same internal domestic issues and discontent, or a combination of the two.
To evaluate the socioeconomic and political consequences of terrorism in Nigeria.
To investigate the measures put in place by Nigerian authorities to combat terrorism.
To fill a gap in current literature, thereby increasing understanding on the subject.
1.5 Significance of the research
This work will highlight the underlying causes of most terrorist operations, as well as the link between domestic and worldwide terrorism. It will demonstrate the extent to which an inability to adequately manage and control domestic unrest frequently leads to violence, which has frequently devolved into terrorism.
The recommendations from this work will help policymakers develop proper policies and methods to combat terrorism on both a domestic and worldwide scale.
This effort will also expose fresh areas of research interest to scholars and researchers who want to conduct additional research on this topic.
Need help with a related project topic or New topic? Send Us Your Topic