Terrorism and Foreign Relations (a Case Study of Buhari Administration)
Chapter One
Objectives of the study
The broad objective of this study is to examine the implications of terrorism on foreign relation A case study of Buhari administration. Specifically, the study aims to
- To examine the factors that encourages terrorism globally.
- To analyze the implications of terrorism in the contemporary IR.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Conceptualizing Insurgency: Contemporary Advanced Phase of Terrorism
Insurgency, like many other concepts in international relations, has been subjected to not only different interpretations but also misinterpretations by scholars’ common usage (Findley and Young 2006). In some cases where the concept is not misused, policymakers (Smith 2008) and academics fail to draw a clear demarcation between insurgency and other forms of political violence such as terrorism or considering terrorism as a form of insurgency (Merari 1993). A plethora of other scholars (Mason 1996; Olaniyan and Asuelime 2014; Oyewole 2015), while engaging in the intellectual overture of the concept, ignore the important responsi- bility of conceptualizing insurgency within the framework of its usage. Unsurprisingly, a critical perusal of some journal articles (Merari 1993) reveals the utilization of insurgency as synonymous with terrorism which indicates sameness. Underhill (2014, 10–11) attested to this knowledge misplacement in his work Countering Global Terrorism and Insurgency when he stated that in the contemporary time, ‘insurgency and terrorism have almost become one and the same in terms of our understanding of them’. Failure in this aspect prompted consideration of some terrorist groups as insurgent groups or conversely. This is notwithstanding the earlier studies done regarding the conceptual analysis of insurgency (Ünal 2016; Underhill 2014). Thus, it is highly paramount to conceptu- alize insurgency within the framework of the uprising to avoid constant abuse and misconception created by some authors and at the same time to generate often abandoned nuanced difference between insurgency and, most notably, terrorism.
As a matter of fact, insurgency is not a new phenomenon in peace and conflict studies; many scholars, government agencies, and organizations have attempted defining the concept in the past. According to the United States Department of Defense (2010, 113), insurgency can be defined as ‘[t]he organised use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify and chal- lenge political control of a region’. It indicates that the overarching rationale for either destruction or ferocity in an insurgent uprising is to question the political legitimacy of the government or the status quo. Kilcullen (2007) delineates insurgency as ‘grassroots uprisings that seek to overthrow established government or social orders’. The above defini- tion is similar to the one given by Underhill (2014, 11) as ‘grassroots uprisin[g] that emerge with the aim of overthrowing an established government or a set of societal norms that they feel threatened by’.
In other words, the insurgency is nothing but homegrown movement or rebellion against the existing political or societal configuration through the application of coercion. Gary Bernstern (in Underhill 2014, 12) also avers insurgency as ‘a protracted struggle by one or more armed groups that employ violence with the goal of overthrowing an existing political order’. From the perspective of Findley and Young (2006, 2–3), ‘insurgency is a protracted political-military conflict over control of the state or some portion thereof using irregular military forces’. By impli- cation, it signifies the acknowledgment that political violence that will be appropriately termed as insurgency must incorporate not only military conflagration but also political one with the use of unconventional warfare to challenge the legitimate authority of a sovereign state nationwide or any portion thereof.
It must be noted that the few identified definitions above are not the same. However, they have some salient relatively standard features. These include the existence of the rebellion, use of force, desire to over- throw the government, and yearning for territorial control. In spite of the vagary nature of contemporary insurgency that is regularly exposed to persistent modification, any robust conceptual elucidation of what insur- gency is all about must embrace all of the above-recognized elements. First, the starting point (though not remote) of any movement that is appropriate to consider insurgent struggle is the existence of a revolt by a group of individuals within a state directly against the government fueled or instigated by socioeconomic, religious, or political grievances and displeasures (Osumah 2013) accumulated over time. Such an uprising may be sudden or gradually inclined but is mostly rooted in a deeper demand for justice and manifests with conspicuous disturbances against public order. Also, such a sense of injustice or unfair treatment is usually shared by a notable group of people with common identities. Another unavoidable characteristic of insurgency is the use of violence. It is an attribute that insurgency has in common with other forms of political violence which cannot be taken away. Demand for common objectives in an insurgency never takes the form of diplomacy or a peaceful protest or negotiation between two opposing parties, but insurgents are noted for pugnacious and fierce violence against the forces of government, putting into consideration that their yearnings will not be attended to unless ferocity is employed. In other words, violence is an indispensable instru- ment of insurgency. Furthermore, two other important hallmarks of an act of insurgency are the desire to overthrow government and yearnings for territorial control (Thomson 2004). Influenced by these two major attributes, Kilcullen (2006, 112) describes insurgency as a ‘struggle to control a contested political space, between a state (or group of states or occupying powers), and one or more popularly based, non-state challengers’. Any outbreak of political violence that deploys the use of physical force against the de jure government due to discontentment over issues without aiming at ousting the leadership of a country or carving out a section thereof for jurisdictional administration is inapposite to be termed insurgency.
Chapter Three
Conceptual Analysis of Terrorism
There is no universal definition of terrorism in all literature of terrorism. The concept is essentially contested among scholars and practitioners. This is because the meaning changes overtime, and it has greater rhetorical power but limited scientific precision (Gallie, 1956). Terrorism is ideologically contested and emotionally charged; some even refuse to use it on the ground that it either hopelessly vague or carries unhelp pejorative implications (White, 2003; Heywood, 2011). To be clear with that, Hoffman (1998) write that, “Few words so insidiously worked their ways into our every vocabulary. Most individuals have vague notion of what the term means, but cannot offer precise explanatory definitions”.
Scholars and practitioners have hung up in attempting to define terrorism in a way that distinguishes it from other criminal violence and even military actions. Complications aside, most people would agree that, terrorism is a subjective term with negative connotations, a pejorative term, used to describe the act of enemies or opponents. Terrorism is defined within social and political context. This is the reason that no single definition will ever be successful (White, 2003). The term has moral connotations and could be use to persuade others to adopt a particular viewpoint. For example, one man’s terrorist act is another man’s freedom (Rourke, 2005; Golstein in Tella and Akintola, 2013).
However, there are various definitions of terrorism which ranges from those that are quite simplistic to those that are equally comprehensive. Terrorism is violence for purpose of creating fears and anxiety to human beings. Terrorism is politically and socially motivated violence. It is a political violence against true democracies. Terrorism is a method of action by which an agent tends to tends to produce terror in order to impose his domination. Terrorism may be described as a strategy of violence designed to inspire terror within a particular segment of a given society. Terrorism is a systematic use of coercive intimidation, usually to service political ends (Mitchel and Smelser, 2002:26; Goodin in Heywood, 2011:283).
CHAPTER FOUR
IMPLICATIONS OF THE RISE OF TERRORISM IN THE CONTEMPORARY IR
Today humanity is facing the risk of being exterminated as a result of terrorism. The impacts of terrorism (though positive and negative) in contemporary IR have left behind inestimable damages to every facet of life globally. There is no gainsaying that, the rise of terrorism have slowed down international economic relations growth and development. Indeed, no investors would prefer to invest in a crisis ridden nations. The world now lives in fear like Hobessian theory of state of nature, “where every man is against everyman”. No country goes unaffected by the upsurge of terrorism, for the reason that, global community is interconnected and interdependence (Nimma, 2007). Terrorism threaten the viability of nation-states bringing about economic crises, political instability, a threat to tourism, energy-sector, civil-aviations, maritime, transportations (Oviasogie, 2013). In fact, terrorism is today considered to be the second most serious threat to global security after the fear of nuclear conflagration by or between superpowers in the international system. Terrorism is a huge threat all round world to the extent that, they influence global politics due to their financial and resources capabilities.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Conclusion
From the foregoing, it is obvious that the upsurge of terrorism in all its ramifications is a serious threat to the international system. The upsurges of terrorism have seriously affects the interdependence and interconnected geographical location of the IR. The study examined various concepts of terrorism and acknowledges it generic, vague and essentially contested nature among scholars and practitioners, and the concept despite of it various definitions has common comprehensive characteristics adopted by experts. The study adopted the rational choice theory as a theoretical framework that could be used to explain terrorist actions and motives; that a terrorist act is not senseless, but a logical effective given certain political and psychological conditions. The study argues that, there is a linkage between mass media, globalization and the upsurges of terrorism in IR. It identifies various factors that precipitated for the upsurge of terrorism ranging from poverty, unemployment, psychological repercussion, inequality and technology among others. It argues that, the impacts of terrorism are negative and positive, ranging from economic, political, foreign relations and socio-cultural among others. To address these implications, the study argue that, in spite of the strategies used to curb the upsurge of terrorism by US after the 9/11 experiences and other regional efforts made by other nation-state, it proves counter-productive and ideological crusade. That the ways out is to embarked on negotiation, comprehensive economic, social strategy for sustainable development, reconciliation and diplomacy through open discussion globally. By doing this, the study summit, as proposition subjected for empirical scrutiny, that recantation of terrorist group, proper education and actions by both Muslim world and West as the major strategies to curb the upsurge of terrorism in international system.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are proffered:
- A functional joint border security commission be formed whose responsibility will be to recruit, train and survenance of borders with view to tracking down every security threat and clamping down on them before it attracts a bilateral or multilateral attention.
- Recognition and understanding of terrorism as a local and international threat. This means that both political, traditional and religious leaders should cooperate with one another and the international community to overcome root causes and fight together should it occur. Therefore manifestation of terrorism, local, inter-state or regional relations should not be politicized because it has a characteristics of international linkages.
- Establishment of a joint academy (University) by both Nigeria and Cameroon whose responsibility will be to research on causes and effect of all manners of criminality and ways of averting, curtailing and stopping them from emanating, escalating and crossing the borders.
- Joint resource pull: Both countries should agree on annual budget allocation to handling such border criminal activities like piracy, terrorism, kidnapping etc.
References
- Adele, B., J. (2013) “The Boko Haram Crisis and Nigeria’s External Relations”, British Journal of Arts and Social Science, Vol.11, No.22, 126-29.
- Bahghat, K., and Medina, R.M. (2013) ”An Overview of Geographical Perspectives and Approaches in Terrorism Research”, Perspectives of Terrorism, Vol.7, No.1.
- Bruce, V. (2005) ”Islam in South and Southeast Asia”, CRS Report Congress.
- Burchil et al, (2005) Theories of International Relations (3rd eds), Palgrave Macmillan.
- Baylis, J., Smith, S., and Owens, P. (2009) The Globalization of World Politics: an Introduction to International Relations,(ed), Oxford UP, New York
- Camilleri,J.(2002) “Terrorism, Anti-Terrorism, and the Globalization of Insecurity”, Arena Journal, Vol.19. Chisti, S. (2002) “Globalization, International Economic Relations and the Developing Countries”, International
- Studies, Vol.39, No.3.
- Enders, W., and Sandler, T. (2002) “Transnational Terrorism, 1970-1990: The Alternative”, International Studies Quarterly 49, pp.145-65.
- Gallie, W., B. (1956) Essentially Contested Concepts: In Proceeding of the Philosophical Society, London, Harrison and Son’s Ltd.
- Haque, F. (2010) Global Media, Islamophobia and its Impact on Conflict resolution (Available: http://www.ihmsaw.or/reourcefiles/1260024024pdf) accessed on 20th, November, 2014.
- Heywood, A. (2011) Global Politics, Palgrave Macmillan.
