Call/whatsapp: +2348077215645, +2348176196229  Email: distinctvaluedproject@gmail.com

DISTINCTVALUED RESEARCH PROJECTS

www.dvlresearch.ng

research project writing and materials

GET COMPLETE PROJECT MATERIAL

  • BSc. N3000 – N5000
  • PGD N10,000
  • MSc. N30,000
  • PHD N60,000

CLICK HERE TO PROCESS PAYMENT

GET NEW PROJECT WRITTING

  • BSc. N8000 Per Chapter
  • PGD N10,000 Per Chapter
  • MSc. N25,000 Per Chapter
  • PHD N60,000 Per Chapter

CLICK HERE TO PROCESS PAYMENT

  • AFTER PAYMENT SEND YOUR PERSONAL DETAILS AS FOLLOWS –
  • NAME, TOPIC, DEPARTMENT, MOBILE NUMBER, E-MAIL, AMOUNT PAID TO +2348077215645 , +2348176196229 AS SMS OR WHATSAPP MESSAGE OR E-MAIL: distinctvaluedproject@gmail.com

AN APPRAISAL OF THE EFFECT OF BOKO HARAM TERRORISM ON NIGERIA-US RELATIONS, 2009-2015

ABSTRACT 

The study was an attempt aimed at understanding the relationship between the United States national interests in Nigeria and the fight against Boko Haram terrorism. It raised the pertinent question of why the United States is involved in the fight against Boko Haram terrorism. Using a qualitative approach, the study discovered that the United States national interests remain largely unchanged and its averred condemnation of foreign terrorism incontestable, and therefore, responsible for its involvement in the fight against Boko Haram terrorism. However, since the designation of the group as Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the United States, its members appear more determined, ferocious and coordinated in their attacks against the Nigerian state. To this end, the work recommended that the global community should see the fight against Boko Haram scourge from the prism of international terrorism and thereby contribute immensely to arrest it.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The United States’ national interest in Nigeria has increasingly remained consistent over the years and it appears that not even the Boko Haram insurgence can significantly change it. However, to underrate the possibility of Boko Haram insurgence significantly affecting the United States interests in Nigeria due largely to the concentration of the sect’s activities in the North-Eastern part of the country is to undermine the capability of the group’s impact on the security of both countries. Against this backdrop, many analysts have drawn the attention of the United States government in assisting Nigeria in finding a lasting solution to the problem posed by the group (Ham, 2012; Oritsejafor, 2012; Campbell, 2012 and Meehan, 2012). Consequently, Boko Haram, properly called Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati Wal Jihad, meaning “people committed to the propagation of the Prophet’s teachings and Jihad” has undoubtedly appeared to pose serious security threat to the governments of both the United States and Nigeria. Its leader Abubakar Shakau has continually threatened that the moment they were through with the Nigerian government, their next target would be the United States, seen to be the leading agent in the propagation of the western values (boko) which the sect considers to be sin (haram). Notwithstanding this threat, the government of the United State has hitherto seen the group not to possess the magic wands necessary to make real its threats. However, given the successful execution of the group’s terrorist acts within and outside the shores of Nigeria, including the kidnapping of foreign expatriates in Cameroon and Niger Republic, the United States government appears to be faced bare with the realities on ground and the capability of the sect in carrying out its threats; hence, the recent designation as Foreign Terrorist Organization. Meanwhile, the Boko Haram sect ab initio made its stand known and subsequently adopted violent philosophy in pursuit of its goals whereas the United States continued to underplay the activities of the group as a mere expression of grievances against the Nigerian state by the members until recently when it became clear to the country that such assumption was wrong. This necessitated open commitment of the American government in finding a lasting solution to the Boko Haram crisis in Nigeria by way of labeling the sect Foreign Terrorist Organization. However, it does appear that since this designation, the sect has become more determined and ferocious in their attacks than before. More than one thousand five hundred (1500) deaths have been recorded within the period alone (Amnesty International, 2014 and Bekele, 2014) in addition to the abduction of over 200 school girls at Chibok, Borno state. The study therefore aims to understand the relationship between the United States’ national interests in Nigeria and its involvement in the fight against Boko Haram terrorism. Methodologically, the study is specifically a qualitative one which relies mostly on documentary evidence and generation of tables for lucid clarification of data as well as the understanding of the argument.   The United States’ National Interest in Nigeria and the Fight Against Boko Haram 2. The US national interest in Nigeria can be summarized as follows: –  Stable democracy with business friendly environment –  Free flow of crude oil –  Partnership for the maintenance of regional peace and security. Due largely to the fact that the focus of the study is not on the first two, we shall therefore deal with only the US partnership with Nigeria in the maintenance of regional peace and security which has implication on the fight against Boko Haram terrorism. It is absolutely undisputable that Nigeria is a regional power and therefore indispensable by the United States for the maintenance of regional peace and security. Nigeria has contributed immensely in peacekeeping missions around the world; both under the auspices of the UN, AU and ECOWAS. Some of these peacekeeping missions include: Cong, Sierra Leone, Sudan, among others, and in each of these, Nigeria had excelled as a regional power (Sanda, 2010). Indeed, Jega and Farris (2010: 231) have observed that: Peacekeeping, peace building, peace enforcement, and peace-support operations constitute a major area of achievement in Nigeria’s involvement in global affairs. Beginning with participation in the UN Mission in the Congo (1960-1964) to its foray in Chad (1979-1982); through its contributions to UN missions in Lebanon (1978-1981) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-1995); its involvement with African Union (AU) missions in Darfur, Sudan (since, 2004); and its leadership in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) through the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) operations in Liberia (1990-1998) and Sierra Leone (1996-2000), as well as its interventions in Guinea Bissau (1998-2000) and Cote d’Ivoire (since, 2000), Nigeria has helped to contain  conflicts, minimize suffering, restore order, reconstruct war-torn societies, and pave the way for transitions to civil rule and democratization. Due largely to these crucial roles, the US cannot afford to lose sight of this gigantic edifice called Nigeria to insurgence thereby creating lacuna in those areas the country had excelled. In view of the foregoing, the former Vice President of Nigeria, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, in his address at the University of California, Los Angeles, persuading the US that in the emerging New World Order, the destiny of Nigeria and the US are irrevocably intertwined, observed as follows: …may I remark that in a rather ironic twist of historical fate, it has been over a century America’s lot to critically influence the course of world history. This cannot be totally divorced from its population, size, resource potentials and profile as an established democracy. Nigeria’s population, size, resource potentials and leadership profile within the comity of Africa’s emerging democracies also set her apart. Thus, while Nigeria is transiting from age-old military dictatorship into the realm of civilian democracy, the world is also transiting into a new international order. For Nigeria’s transition to succeed, collaboration with the international community is vital; and for the current transition to new world order to succeed, the cooperation of emerging democracies is imperative. Nigeria and the United States therefore carry the dreams of the people of the earth and hence hold a significant stake in shaping the destiny of our evolving new world order. We cannot afford to fail; we should not even contemplate the possibilities of failure. Nigeria stands prepared to play its part. But because every chain is as strong as its weakest link, America must share its strength with Nigeria in this regard so that together we can live the promise of our vision of a better world (cited in Adogamhe, 2006: 113). However, the partnership with Nigeria for the pursuit and maintenance of regional peace and security by the United States appears incontestable. Another benefit that accrues to the US government from this partnership is reduction in the financial resources necessary to maintain peace and security around the world especially within Africa.  Having understood the basis of the United States’ national interest in Nigeria especially as it affects this work, it is important to relate its foreign policy thrust to the fight against Boko Haram terrorism not only Nigeria but also in the WestAfrican sub region. Since the notorious 9/11 attacks on the United States twin towers (Pentagon and World Trade Center), the country’s foreign policy to international terrorism assumed a new shape. This new development involves taking the fight against terrorism to the host country instead of waiting until the terrorist activities get to the US soil. The 9/11 attacks also strengthened the US fight against terrorism. Against this backdrop, it is important to understand what terrorism is all about, at least, in the context of this study. Terrorism has been identified as a foreign policy issue, as well as a national Security issue (Pillar, 2001: 9). Deriving from the above, Pillar remarked that: Most of the terrorism that has damaged US interest is foreign, as are most of the significant terrorist threats that confront the United States today. Seventy-eight percent of the Americans who died from terrorism during the past two decades were killed by foreign terrorists (Pillar, 2001: 9). Terrorism itself has elicited unquantifiable definitional wrangles that have combined to compound its meaning. However, Pillar (2001: 13) has identified four main elements that distinguish terrorism from other acts of violence. These elements include: 1. Premeditation: this means that there must be an intent and prior decision to commit an act that would qualify as terrorism under the other criteria. An operation may not be executed as intended and may fail altogether, but the intent must still be there. Terrorism is not a matter of momentary rage or impulse or even a matter of accident. 2. Political Motivation: terrorism excludes criminal violence motivated by monetary gain or personal vengeance except if such has direct bearing to the implementation of the terrorists’ objectives. Nevertheless, other forms of criminal violence have been tagged terrorism but the fundamental difference between terrorism and other forms of crime or criminal violence lies in the onus of what gives rise to it and how it must be countered, beyond simple physical security and police techniques. What terrorists have in common that separates them from other violent criminals is that they claim to be serving some greater good. 3. The targets are non-combatant groups: this suggests that terrorists attack people who cannot defend themselves with violence in return. 4. The perpetrators are either sub-national groups or clandestine agents. Terrorism in this context therefore means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. Any act of violence that meets these criteria could be tagged Terrorism. Consequent upon the foregoing, the US interest in maintaining zero tolerance to international terrorism gave rise to the establishment of section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 2001 as amended which empowers the US Secretary of State with the approval of the President to label any violent group(s) found to be involved in terrorist activities outside the United States, Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). For a group to be qualified as a terrorist organization, it must possess the following: 1. The group must be domiciled in a foreign country (that is, outside the US territory). 2. The group must be involved in terrorist activity(ies). 3. Such activity(ies) must be a threat to the United States security (http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/ 123085.htm). FTO designation plays critical role in the US fight against terrorism and it is an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business. Foreign, as explained earlier, refers to non-United States based organization and most of the organizations as at 2014 have been mostly Islamic extremist groups; with the remaining largely Communist and nationalist/separatist groups.

To get the complete  project or material

Pay #3000 (10 Dollars) for  Project material

Pay #5000 (30 Dollars) for complete project.

BANK TRANSFER  OR    DEPOSIT

PAYMENT DETAILS:

  •    ACCOUNT NAME : SAMUEL CHARLES

ACCOUNT NO. : 2009884029

BANK : FIRST BANK

ACCOUNT TYPE: CURRENT ACCOUNT

(2) ACCOUNT NAME : SAMUEL CHARLES

ACCOUNT NO. : 2078806476

BANK : UBA

ACCOUNT TYPE: SAVINGS  ACCOUNT

AFTER PAYMENT SEND YOUR PERSONAL DETAILS AS FOLLOWS –

NAME

TOPIC

DEPARTMENT

MOBILE NUMBER

E-MAIL

AMOUNT PAID

TO +2348077215645 , +2348176196229 AS SMS OR WHATSAPP MESSAGE OR

E-MAIL: distinctvaluedproject@gmail.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× Make inquiry/Contact us?