ROLE OF U.S IN WORLD AFFAIRS AFTER SEPT 9/11
Need help with a related project topic or New topic? Send Us Your Topic
DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE PROJECT MATERIAL
ROLE OF U.S IN WORLD AFFAIRS AFTER SEPT 9/11
ABSTRACT
Following 9/11, the United States (US) securitized Africa in a new way, believing that weak states posed an existential threat to the US. As a result, American aid to Africa more than tripled in the years following 9/11.
But why did the United States’ decade-long security cooperation and counterterrorism efforts in Nigeria fail to bring down Boko Haram or, at the very least, weaken its terrorist organisations and international spread?
Scholars disagree on the influence and consequences of US security engagements in Nigeria on the military’s counterterrorism strategies. The study attempted to comprehend the role of the United States of America in world affairs following 9/11,
with an emphasis on African politics. Using a qualitative method, the study discovered that the United States’ national interests remain substantially intact, and its unmistakable denunciation of international terrorism, and so play a critical role in African politics and world events.
INTRODUCTION TO CHAPTER ONE
1.1 Background of The Study
Human society has always been moulded by violence in many forms throughout history. Raids, clan battles, slavery, and revolt were all forms of violence in traditional society. Individuals and groups took out these acts in order to increase their power,
position, and influence over others, or to register their discontent. Insurgency has occurred throughout history, although its strategic value has waned. Today, the globe has entered a new era in which disobedience is prevalent and strategic.
The uprising is a method employed by groups that are unable to achieve their political goals through traditional power grabs. The insurgency is distinguished by sustained brutality, asymmetry, ambiguity, the utilisation of complicated terrain (jungles, mountains, and urban areas), psychological warfare, and political mobilisation, all of which serve to protect the insurgents and, in the end, shift the balance of power in your favour.
Insurgents may attempt to seize power and replace the incumbent government (revolutionary revolt), or they may have more limited objectives such as separation, independence, or policy reform. They avoid battlefields where they are most vulnerable and concentrate on locations where they can operate on equal footing.
They attempt to defer decisive action in order to prevent defeat, to assert themselves, to broaden their support, and to hope that the balance of power would shift in their favour over time (Metz, 2004: 2).
There are two types of uprisings in general. The first is what is known as a “national” rebellion. The major opponents are the rebels and a functioning government that has some legitimacy and popular support.
Insurgents and governments differ based on economic class, ideology, identification (ethnicity, race, religion), or other political factors. Although the government has external backing, the battle is unmistakably between insurgents and a national government.
National uprisings are triangular in nature because they involve not only the two antagonists, insurgents and insurgents, but also a slew of other characters who can alter the connection between one or both supporting antagonists.
The population of the country is the most important of these other actors, although it can also include states, organisations, and outsider groups. Insurgents and insurgents employ techniques that reflect the image of others in order to weaken the opposing party while also attracting neutrals or those who are not committed to either side (Metz, 2004: 2).
The second essential form is the “liberation” uprising. These pit the insurgents against a governing class that believes itself an outsider due to their race, nationality, or culture. The militants’ purpose is to “liberate” their country from foreign occupation.
Examples include the Rhodesian uprising, the white minority government in South Africa, the Palestinian uprising, Vietnam after 1965, the Afghan uprising against Soviet occupation, Chechnya, the current Taliban/Al Qaeda uprising in Afghanistan, and the Iraqi uprising (Metz, 2004: 3).
Insurgent movements have always existed throughout history. From the nomadic rebels who overthrew the Roman Empire to the Internet jihadists who blew up the plane and launched the misconstrued “global war on terror” in the United States, insurgent forces have been a consistent factor throughout the war’s history.
And combating them is more tough than ever. According to Max Boot, “Invisible Armies” is a story of guerrilla warfare and insurgency from its inception to the fall of the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia in the 22nd century BC. The present is sufficient (Boot, 2013).
Among the various “liberal” insurgents considered by Boat (2013) are the American Revolution and the war against Napoleon on the Iberian Peninsula. Greece’s independence fight against the Ottomans;
The Italian unification wars, as well as various rebellions against colonial powers, such as the slave uprising against the French, which resulted in the establishment of the Republic of Haiti.
Boot witnessed the consequences of irregular forces in World Wars I and II, which contributed to insurgency. The fundamental essay “In the War of the Guerrillas” by Mao Tse Tung, whose experiences in the Chinese civil war were the most diversified, made a significant contribution to insurrectional ideology.
The reactions of the French and British to rebellions against their fading empires, the “chic chic” revolutionaries of the 1960s, and the development of extreme Islamism (Boot, 2013).
History suggests that most rebels who pit the vulnerable against the strong fail (Boot, 2013). Only a fraction of its goals were met between 1775 and 1945. According to the Boat (2013), this figure has risen to 40% since 1945. The increased relevance of public opinion is one explanation for increasing success rates.
Since 1945, the growth of democracy, education, the media, and the concept of international law has deteriorated in order to erode the resolve of states committed to long-term counterinsurgency operations. In the battle for the story, militants have far more weapons at their disposal than previously (Boot, 2013).
As a result, regular armies from the American Revolution to World War II, Syria, and Afghanistan have been confronted with irregular warriors who hide among the civilian and target their targets.
Many African countries have widespread dissatisfaction and disillusionment among various communities because successive governments have been unable to resolve complaints for long periods of time due to a lack of response from the state and insensitivity to the difficult situation of the EU population.
This breeds despair and dissatisfaction, which certain leaders exploit to organise stubborn attacks or the beginnings of anarchy. Terrorist acts by insurgent groups such as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Al-Shabab, the Islamic Salvation Front, the Niger Deltas Movement (MEND), and the Boko Haram Crisis provided vivid examples.
Statement of the Problem
Following September 11, 2001, the United States’ African security objective shifted. Africa became significant because weak states were deemed a threat to American security.
Weak African regimes, unable to provide their people’s fundamental needs and lacking complete control over their borders, served as both a breeding ground and a safe haven for terrorist organisations.
Who was the driving force behind the post-9/11 shift in US Africa policy? How and why did they do this? Who and why did the claim become legitimate? What impact has the US securitization agenda had on African politics?
What role does the United States play in international affairs and counter-terrorism? Because of its investigation of security agenda-setting, this paper aims to answer these problems using securitization theory.
Objectives of the Study
This study looks into who started the post-9/11 shift in US Africa policy and foreign relations, why and how they did it, and who legitimised the claims. Taken together, these responses serve to explain why changes in US Africa policy and world affairs occurred after 9/11.
Methodology
The study follows the format of a theoretical case study, with the goal of advancing theory and illustrating a case, and with the belief that the securitization theory is well matched to the scenario at hand. Despite the study’s implicit comparison method, it is unable to evaluate other or competing hypotheses for the US’s post-9/11 securitization of Africa.
Furthermore, the researcher was unable to study if the United States securitized other parts of the world in a manner similar to Africa following 9/11. The study relies on a wide range of evidence to back up its claims.
The research is based on scholarly journals and books, as well as reports and Internet sources. However, primary sources are most crucial, notably government documents, numbers, and media pronouncements, because we are looking for answers to changes in official US policy and position in global events.
Need help with a related project topic or New topic? Send Us Your Topic