international terrorism and the middle east: an expository … · 2015-12-16 · middle east. this...

International Terrorism and the Middle East: An

Expository Approach

By

Jide Ibietan, PhD Department of Political Science & International Relations,

Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria.

[email protected]

Felix Chidozie, PhD Department of Political Science & International Relations,


[email protected]

&

Ese Ujara Department of Political Science & International Relations,


[email protected]

Abstract: This paper interrogates the role of the Middle East in international terrorism

and the spillovers of this on global security. The narrative traces the roots of terrorism

to the Middle East, noting the volatility of the issue and susceptibility of some countries

within that region to terrorism, zeroing-in on Iran as misconstruing this vice for foreign

policy instrument. Essentially, the paper relied on secondary data, statistical tools

backed by the analytical approach, leading to the inference that the terrorist network and

activities have wider international ramifications and reverberating effects on developing

countries, including Nigeria. The adoption of more proactive measures and pragmatic

security-building strategies by the United Nations towards a deceleration in international

terrorism were canvassed.

Key Words: International Terrorism, Global Security, Middle East

Introduction

Terrorism is often linked with the

Middle East. This is because the

region has proved to be the hotbed and

fertile ground for Islamic extremism.

Terrorism in the Middle East is a

challenge with global implications.

The early stages of terrorism played

out as nationalist movements and

other worthy causes became a menace

not peculiar only to the Middle East

where terrorism have gained roots,

but has also become a global issue.

Scholars and writers in this field have

traced the roots of terrorism to the

Jewish Zealot‘s movement (66-

73 AD) when the group known as the

sicarii, in their attempt to drive the

Romans out of Palestine used

unorthodox means of violence like

murder, forcing the Jews into a more

fierce opposition against occupation

and forcing the Romans to leave

(Maskaliunaite, 2002:40).

Several other groups had before the

millennium, emerged all around the

world that carried out terrorist acts;

however, there was a close similarity

between most of the groups and

majority of them were motivated by

nationalist goals until they lost the

true purpose of their original intent

and became tagged as ‗terrorists‘

(Shuhghart, 2005:14).

Some of the groups included:

• Narodnaya Volya, first heard of

in 1878, which assassinated Tsar

Alexandar II in Russia on March

1, 1881. Their aim was to replace

‗propaganda of ideas‘ by

‗propaganda of deed‘.

• Front de Liberation Nationale

(FLN) emerged in 1954, running

an anti-colonial terrorist

campaign. By 1956, their

strategies changed and evolved

into acts of terror.

• Irgun in Israel, called the Stern

Gang by the British, used the

strategy of political

assassinations to secure

independence.

• Red Army Faction (RAF) in the

1960s engaged in bank robberies

and murders as a form of

revolution.

• Italian Red Brigade engaged in

14,000 terrorist attacks in 10

years under the guise of political

reformations.

• The Popular Front for the

Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) in

1968, which engaged in

hijacking of planes and training

of groups from Japan, Jordan and

Germany.

• Japanese Red Army, though brief

in their existence, also engaged

in plane hijacks, murders and

sabotage.

• In the 1960s, the USA suffered

attacks from the Weathermen,

Black Panthers and the

Symbionese Liberation Army.

• The list goes on to include

terrorists such as the Armenian

Army for the Secret Liberation of

Armenia; Justice

Commandoes of the Armenian

Genocide (in Turkey); the ETA

in Spain; the Irish Republican

Army; the Black September and

many others (Shuhghart, 2005:

3-36).

In the United States of America

particularly, before the September 11

attacks, the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) came up with a

couple of recorded terrorist incidents:

• March 1999 - the Animal

Liberation Front (ALF), an

extremist Animal Rights group

was responsible for several

incidents like the incendiary

bombing of vehicles belonging to

the Big Apple Circus; two arson

attacks in New Jersey against Fur

factories; malicious destruction

and theft.

• July 1999 – Benjamin Smith,

member of the World Church of

the Creator (WCOTC) embarked

on the killing of religious and

racial minorities in Chicago,

Shokie, Northbrook, all in

Illinois and Bloomington in

Indiana

• December 25, 1999 – arson was

carried out by a group known as

the Earth Liberation Front (ELF)

fighting against the production of

Genetically Modified Organisms

(FBI,

1999:3-6)

At a point too, the white supremacist

group, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was

regarded as a terrorist group because

of its nefarious and violent acts

against the black section of the

American society. However, all of

these developments did not come

close to the activities of the AlQaeda

group, particularly the September 11,

2001 attacks. The activities of the

ALF, ELF, KKK and Mr. Smith of

WCOTC, could only be referred to as

a ‗tip of the iceberg‘. The 9/11 attacks

on the USA, with the masterminds

being Mideast Islamist kingpins,

marked a turning point in the course

of terrorist movement in the world.

This paper therefore seeks to

interrogate the nature of terrorism in

the Middle East, which has become a

global security threat. The paper

discusses concepts with the view to

clarifying them, identifies the

dimensions of international terrorism

and its linkage to the Middle East and

makes recommendation.

Concept of Terrorism

Terrorism is an ambiguous concept

that has been argued to mean different

things. However, the arguments of

different scholars may help form a

basis to describe the concept of

terrorism. Following the events of the

September 11, 2001 attacks, former

President George Bush declared that

the ―War on Terror‖ was the number

one priority of the United States. This

―war‖ went ahead to eventually

change the nature of their domestic,

national and international policies. It

was recorded also that President Bush

used the terms ―terror‖, ―terrorism‖

and ―terrorist‖ thirty two times

without ever defining what it meant (a

source would have been useful here)

Best and Nocella (2004:1) however

try to define the term as they regarded

the word to be abused by all as it was

―applied to actions ranging from

flying fully loaded passenger planes

to rescuing pigs and chickens from

factory farms‖. They posited that,

―all terrorism involves violence, but

not all violence is terrorism‖ and

defined terrorism in the body of the

work as ―…the institutional use of

physical violence directed against

innocent persons – human and/or

inhuman animals – to advance the

religious, ideological, political, or

economic purposes of an individual,

organization, or state government‖.

Their definition gives this paper a

good start as it helps to establish that

the violence is directed at innocent

persons, but it might as well also

include targeted persons who may not

be exactly ―innocent‖ in the sense of

the word.

Al-Thagafi (2008:3) defines terrorism

as the use of either organized or

random violence against innocent

people in order to intimidate them for

political reasons. This definition can

be said to be limited as the definition

does not explain the nature of the

perpetrators of these violent acts

regarded under the concept of

terrorism.

United States Department of Defence

(in Al-Thagafi, 2008:3) viewes

terrorism as ―the calculated use of

unlawful violence or threat of

unlawful violence to inculcate fear;

intended to coerce or to intimidate

governments or societies in the

pursuit of goals that are generally

political, religious or ideological‖.

This definition, though carefully

stated by the US Department of

Defence, gives cause to wonder if

there is any concept in existence

considered as lawful violence that can

be carried out by civilians in the state.

An interesting definition of terrorism

given by the Arab Convention for the

Suppression of Terrorism (in

AlThagafi 2008:4) goes that terrorism

is:

Any act or threat of violence,

whatever its motives or

purposes, that occurs in the

advancement of an individual

or collective criminal agenda

and seeking to sow panic

among people, causing fear by

harming them, or placing their

lives, liberty or security in

danger, or seeking to cause

damage to the environment or

to public or private installations

or property or to occupying or

seizing them, or seeking to

jeopardize national resources

The above definition is quite detailed

owing to the fact that, it seemingly

describes the nature of terrorism that

emanates from the Middle East

region. The definition adequately

captures the overt nature, intent and

mechanisms of terrorism. This clarity

is necessary in both conceptualization

of terrorism and engagement in

counter-terrorism. A proper definition

of a possible problem is important in

determining its combat mechanism.

Compared to the foregoing

definitions, the US Department of

State (in Al-Thagafi, 2008:4) defines

it as ―premeditated, politically

motivated violence perpetrated

against non-combatant targets by

subnational groups or clandestine

agents, usually intended to influence

an audience‖. It is pertinent to note at

this point that of all the foregoing

definitions; only Best and Nocella

(2004) noted that states also, can

organize terrorist activities in their

definitions.

Shuhghart (2005) elaborates the

concept of terrorism to include four

distinctive characteristics namely:

terrorism is violence for political

effect; it is a planned, calculated and

systematic act; the terrorists are not

bound by established rules of warfare

or codes of conduct and;

Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs (CUJPIA) Vol. 2, No. 1, June, 2014.

6

terrorism is designed to have

farreaching psychological

repercussions beyond the immediate

victim or target.

Defining terrorism is not an exercise

in futility as, even though there may

be differences in the definitions

posited by scholars, these definitions

provide good stands through which

reasonable progress can be made to

determine pre-emptively what looks

like terrorism in times to come

(Cooper, 2001:882).

A very dynamic view on the concept

of terrorism was advanced by

Chomsky (2002) who posits thus:

―It‘s very simple. If they do it, it‘s

terrorism. If we do it, its

counterterrorism‖ Chomsky‘s view

here validates the earlier argument in

this work that terrorism is nebulous

and can be elusive in an attempt to

grasp the concept. Terrorism, like

beauty, can also be said to be in the

eyes of the beholder as it is commonly

said, one man‘s terrorist is another

man‘s freedom fighter.

Concept of Security Baldwin

(1997:13) defines security as ―low

probability damage to acquired

values‖. His conceptualization of

security is encompassing as it does

not border only on the ‗presence and

absence of threats‘, but also on the

preservation of acquired values. This

definition explains why the concept of

preservation of acquired values is

what changes the nature of security

threats that range from country to

country; and how the various

countries react to these threats.

A much clearer definition of security

has been given by Buzan (in Stone,

2009:1) to mean ―…the pursuit of

freedom from threat and the ability of

states and societies to maintain their

independent identity and their

functional integrity against forces of

change, which they see as hostile‖. His

definition is more detailed as it breaks

down the nature of ‗value‘ as

Baldwin put it and emphasized the

maintenance of ‗functional integrity

against forces of change‘. This

definition is also particularly peculiar

as it emphasizes the perception that

states reject all forms of terrorism

because it tampers with their

functional integrity through

unacceptable forces of change.

In recent scholarship however, the

concept of security has widened in

scope and form. According to

Nwolise (2012:14) security in

contemporary usage has expanded

horizontally and vertically. He posited

that horizontally, security has gone

beyond the military to encompass

economic, political, environmental,

social and other aspects. He stressed

that vertically, security has gone

beyond the state to incorporate and

emphasise the individual, social

groups, (ethnic, religious,


7

professional), the state, and humanity

at large. Thus, there is a dramatic shift

in the concept of national security, to

human security. Hubert (2001:3)

offers a clear distinction of human

security. According to him:

70 In essence, human security

means safety for people from

both violent and non-violent

threats. It is a condition or state

of being characterized by

freedom from pervasive threats

to people‘s rights, their safety or

even their lives... It is an

alternative way of seeing the

world, taking people as its point

of reference, rather than focusing

exclusively on the security of

territory or governments (Hubert, 2001:3)

In view of this, George and Hilal

(2013:51) opines that human security

paradigm adds a new dimension to

traditional security by focusing on the

human being rather than the state.

According to them, whereas

traditional security is state-centric and

concerned primarily with interstate

security, the protection of borders and

sovereignty, with human security

―non-military/nontraditional threats

to security have led to the broadening

of the reference object of security to

include individuals, non-state actors

and subnational groups‖. They

concluded that this paradigm shift has

profound implications for not just

inter-state relations in contemporary

politics, but much more for regime

survival.

International Terrorism and the

Middle East: A Review

The events of the September 11, 2001

magnified the Middle East in global

politics because the terrorist attacks

were perpetrated by a group that

emerged from the region known as the

Al-Qaeda. Traditionally, threats to

global peace and security ensued from

wars and crises among regional states

which thereby engaged the

international system. Presently,

threats to global security are

considered in the context of global

terrorism. The aftermath of

September 11, 2001 has introduced a

new approach to dealing with

terrorism, since global terrorism is

argued to emanate from the Middle

East, it is important to examine the

correlation between the Middle East

Region and the international terrorism

issues (Barzegar,

2005:113).

As opposed to Barzegar (2005) who is

of the opinion that terrorism stems

from the Middle East, Fahmy

(2002:28) has a different view on the

issue. He averred that even if security

is to be redefined to include the

general threat of terrorism, post9/11

does not necessarily reveal a new

security landscape for the Middle

East, in the sense that terrorism threat

has been part of the regional security

situation for decades (Fahmy,

2002:28). This notion of his seems

convincing because Shuhghart (2005)

in his work made reference to the rise


8

of Islamic terrorism dating back to the

Iranian Revolution of 1979. The

revolution was unexpected and led to

the seizure of the American Embassy

in Tehran.

Consequently, Ayatollah Khomeini

toppled the Shah leadership which led

the Shi‘a theocracy into power in Iran.

This revolution paved the way for the

new wave of terrorism.

Khomeini‘s regime inspired and

assisted Shi‘a terrorist groups in Iraq,

Saudi, Kuwait and Lebanon, and also

the Hezbollah (party of God) came

into existence via this regime. This

regime did not only begin to spread

terrorist groups around the

aforementioned countries, an even

greater issue arose (Shuhghart,

2005:38). ―Terrorism had a new

‗able and active state sponsor‘‖, a

role that Iran played throughout the

1990s (Shuhghart, 2005:38; Pillar,

2001:46).

Another factor that contributed to

Islamist terrorism was the Afghan

War. According to Shughart (2005:

38-39), the war ―provided terrorist

related skills and experience to large

members of non-Afghan militants‖;

it launched Osama bin Laden to

prominence as a ―terrorist

entrepreneur‖; inspired the

remaining members of the Arab

World that participated in that war

who suffered humiliation from the

Soviet Union; and the fact that the

exit of the Soviet Union left

Afghanistan rich in resources (both

money and artillery) available for

deployment in support of Islamic

terrorism whenever the opportunity

came by (Shuhghart, 2005:38-39).

This seemingly simple emergence of

Islamic terrorism has become one of

the major sources of terror to various

countries of the world.

Bazergar (2005:114) gives a

thorough and detailed explanation of

the nature of old and ‗new‘ terrorism

as propagated by the Middle East

stating their major reasons and aims

that the new terrorism seeks to

achieve around the World.

According to him, terrorism has

always existed throughout the world.

What is new is that terrorism has

acquired an international dimension

with its own specific definition,

which increases its importance

within the global community.

Introducing a new nature and

definition, September 11

undoubtedly marked a turning point

in terrorist activities. Old terrorism

had internal or regional dimensions,

functioning in specific spatial and

time domains, and had less negative

impact on the international

community. In contrast, new

terrorism acts beyond national and

regional boundaries, has global

impact and constitutes a direct threat

to global peace and security.

International security, long

threatened by wars and tensions


9

among nations, is presently

endangered by an unknown,

complex, and unconventional force.

This by no means suggests an easy

resolution. In contrast with old

terrorism, the new kind of terrorism

has no individual, nationalistic, or

state-sponsored characteristics. It

occurs in many countries and is

supported by a global network. The

hub of new terrorism is the Middle

East, its driving force is Sunni

Islamic radicalism, and its

representative is Al-Qaeda. Its main

aims are as follows:

1. To destabilise

international

security;

2. To de-legitimise Western culture

and values; and thereby,

72


10

3. To create a new balance of

power between the West and the

Islamic World.

The above views are quite detailed,

informative and almost

incontrovertible. A Country Report

on Terrorism done by the US

Department of State in (2011) states

that: Iran, the world‘s leading state

sponsor of terrorism, continues to

undermine international efforts to

promote peace and democracy

and threatens stability, especially

in the Middle East and South

Asia. Its use of terrorism as an

instrument of policy was

exemplified by the involvement

of elements of the Iranian regime

in the plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, a

conspiracy that the international

community strongly condemned

through a UN General Assembly

resolution in November.

The above assertion validates

Shuhghart‘s contention that Iran has

played state sponsorship roles from

the 1990s till date. It seems logical to

infer that Iran is a state sponsor of

terrorism from the above quotation,

and this underscores the activities of

the other terrorist networks and

organizations in the Middle East.

Bazergar (2005) categorically

mentioned the Al-Qaeda in his work

as the ―representative hub‖ of new

terrorism in the Middle East. The

Country Report on Terrorism

validates that assertion and further

asserts that: Despite the counterterrorism

successes in disrupting and degrading

the capabilities of al-Qaeda and its

affiliates, al-Qaeda and violent

extremist ideology and rhetoric

continued to spread in some parts of

the word. For example, while not a

formal al-Qaeda affiliate, elements of

the group known as Boko Haram

launched widespread attacks across

Nigeria, including one in August

against the United Nations

headquarters in Abuja, which

signalled their ambition and capability

to attack non-Nigerian targets (US

Department of State, 2011:6)

Not only did the statement validate the

fact that the Al-Qaeda terrorist group

is a major proponent of the tenets of

Islamic terrorism, it also established

that their activities had gone beyond

just the Middle East, but had spread

across regions and with special

reference to the developing world. It

referred to the network system that the

Middle East based terrorism runs on.

Tables 1-3 and Figure 1 below

reinforce the above arguments and

present graphic illustration of the

nature of terrorism in the Middle-East

and other flashpoints around the

globe.


11

Table1: Terrorism Attacks Worldwide (2013)

Month

Total

Attacks

Total

Killed

Total

Wounded

Total

Kidnapped/Taken

Hostage

January

669 1022 2043 986

February

567 991 1840 118

March

639 1027 1881 145

April

804 1123 2533 148

May

924 1557 3448 172

June 685 1542 2326 313

July 898 1862 3151 176

August 842 1918 3683 126

September 761 2034 3296 199

October 934 1639 2702 199

November 1007 1448 2649 144

December 977 1728 3025 264

Total 9707 17891 32577 2990

Source: US Department of State, Country Reports on Terrorism in 2014


12

Table 2: Top Ten Terrorist Flashpoints (2013)

Country Total

Attacks Total Killed Total

Wounded

Average Number Killed

per Attack

Average Number

Wounded per

Attack

Iraq 2495 6378 14956 2.56 5.99

Pakistan 1920 2315 4989 1.21 2.6

Afghanistan 1144 3111 3717 2.72 3.25

India 622 405 717 0.65 1.15

Philippines 450 279 413 0.62 0.92

Thailand 332 131 398 0.39 1.2

Nigeria 300 1817 457 6.06 1.52

Yemen 295 291 583 0.99 1.98

Syria 212 1074 1773 5.07 8.36

Somalia 197 408 485 2.07 2.46

Source: US Department of State, Country Reports on Terrorism in 2014


13

Table 3: Top ten perpetrator groups of terrorist attacks in 2013

Perpetrator Group Name

Total

Attacks Total Killed

Average Number

Killed per Attack

Taliban 641 2340 3.65

Al-Qa'ida in Iraq/Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 401 1725 4.3

Boko Haram 213 1589 7.46

Maoists (India)/ Communist Party of India-Maoist 203 190 0.94

Al-Shabaab 195 512 2.63

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) 134 589 4.4

New People's Army (NPA) 118 88 0.75

Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula 84 177 2.11

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) 77 45 0.58

Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Movement (BIFM) 34 23 0.68

Source: US Department of State, Country Report on Terrorism 2014


14

Figure 1: Tactics used in Terrorist Attacks Worldwide (2013)

Source: US Department of State, Country Report on Terrorism 2014

In Tables 1-3 and Figure 1 above, it

can be deduced that over 20,000

people are casualties of terrorist

attacks worldwide and these attacks

(though they) occur in several

countries of the world, but the target

locations are the Middle East and

Africa. The terrorist groups

mentioned in Table 3 secure their

bearing and support from the Middle

East region where the new wave of

terrorism seems to have originated

from. They engage several modes of

attack as shown in Figure 1 namely:

bomb explosions, armed attacks,

assassination, facility/infrastructure

attack and hostage taking. These

activities carried out by the terrorists

have had effects not only on the

victims (mostly innocent civilians),

but also on the governments of target

countries.

The countries mentioned in Table 2

can be categorised as developing

countries. This is one of the major

reasons why the countries remain

susceptible to terrorist attack. Apart

from the Middle East countries

involved, the other countries are

disadvantaged due to challenges

ranging from conflicts; weak

governance; collapsed state

institutions; porous borders (thus

allowing the free movement of illegal

arms and uncontrolled movement of

people); extremism based on religious

ideology; and the radicalisation of

vulnerable groups by more equipped


15

ones. Coupled with poor socio-

economic conditions in these

countries, it creates a platform for

fertile growth of terrorism

(Kimunguyi, 2011:2-3).

Each year, terrorism advances,

particularly in the African region. If

left untamed, there is the possibility

that it may transform into a fertile

breeding avenue for launching larger-

scale terrorist attacks around the

world (Alexander, 2014:3). Nigeria,

for example is the most affected

African country in terms of terrorist

attacks in 2013. The country is

constantly terrorized by the Boko

Haram insurgents (meaning

―Western Education is a Sacrilege‖

in the local Hausa language). These

attacks are significant not only

because of the amount of damage

done, but also due to the realization

that the country is the continent‘s

most populous. This group seeks to

impose its version of strict Islamic

law in the country through constant

terrorist attacks. They have been

involved in attacks in Mali also and

noted to gain support and cooperation

from Al-Qaeda in the Islamic

Mahgreb, Hizballah and AlShabaab

(Alexander 2014:3). They operate

through kidnappings, killings,

bombings and attacks on civilian and

military targets in the Northern parts

of Nigeria, thus resulting in numerous

deaths, injuries and destroyed

properties. They also escape to

neighbouring countries such as

Cameroon, Chad and Niger to evade

pressure, establish hide-outs and

engage smooth conduct of operations

(US Department of State 2014:10).

The spread of terror is not only

evident within the African continent,

but also beyond the African continent.

The activities of Al-Qaeda in the

Arabian Peninsula were visible in

Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq,

Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere

in Asia and the Pacific. These attacks

all over the world are orchestrated

mostly with the support of affiliate

terrorist groups and similar

motivebased terrorist groups

(Alexander, 2014:4). However, it is

important to identify the role that

some countries play in the

perpetration of terrorist attacks

around the world.

Some countries have been designated

as state sponsors of terrorism because

they repeatedly provide support for

acts of international terrorism. Such

countries include: Cuba (designated

as a state sponsor of terrorism since

1982); Iran (designated as a state

sponsor of terrorism since 1984);

Sudan (designated as a state sponsor

of terrorism since 1993); and Syria

(designated as a state sponsor of

terrorism since 1979). These states

encourage the spread of international

terrorism through funding of terrorist

related acts, equipping terrorist

groups with needed arms and proper


16

training of the members of the

perpetrator groups (US Department of

State, 2014:228-232). Where states

have not been designated as terrorist

or sponsors of terrorist acts, certain

groups within certain sovereign states

have been designated as terrorist

groups and bounties have been put on

their leaders because of the persistent

violent acts calculated at collateral

damage to the internal politics and

external community, as well as their

links to known international terror

groups. Examples include Boko

Haram menacing around Northeast

Nigeria and Northern Cameroon and

Al Shabab, perating in Somalia,

Kenya and Uganda.

Among the countries involved in state

sponsorship of terrorism, Iran‘s

involvement can be seen as most

significant. Iran uses terrorism as a

tool of foreign policy however; this is

not a recent phenomenon as it dates

back to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Iran‘s support for terrorism is with the

aim of furthering her national interest.

It also stemmed from the clerical

perception ―that it has a religious

duty to export its Islamic revolution

and to wage, by whatever means, a

constant struggle against the

perceived oppressor states‖ (Levitt,

2013:4).

The disturbing fact about Iran‘s

support for international terrorism is

not only because Iran voices support

for terrorist groups, but because of the

influence Iran wields in the Middle

East politics, thus projecting power

into Arab countries and disrupting the

Middle East peace process. Iran‘s

support for terrorism is unique

because little has been done to hide it.

Other countries that support

international terrorism by using proxy

terrorist groups deny association with

the groups like the case of Pakistan

and Pakistan‘s InterServices

Intelligence (ISI).This is unlike Iran

which shows open support for

organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas

and Al-Qaeda. This is a threat to

global peace, and the implication is

that Iran endorses the use of violence

on civilians as a proper way of

achieving political goals (Manni,

2012:34-35).

Conclusion and Recommendation

The data which formed the pivot of

this paper, and the analysis that

followed gave vent to the conclusion

that the source of new terrorism is

traceable to the Middle East and the

effects and casualties extend beyond

this region with wider ramifications

and consequences on global peace.

The reverberating and panoramic

contort of these on developing

countries deserve special attention

due to their technological level and

resource mobilization for surveillance

and security management endeavours.

However, developed countries can

over time build enough security

apparatus to deal with this challenge


17

and continue with this ―war on

terrorism‖ as announced by the former

US

President, George W. Bush.

The developing countries face issues

that make them vulnerable such as:

proximity; political and economic

instability; poverty; porous borders;

civil conflicts emanating from ethnic,

racial and religious alignments and

ideologies; human rights

infringements and; insecurity on a

large scale. Such issues make them a

target for terrorist groups seeking

places to establish their presence. The

terrorist groups that also emerge from

countries indigenously form alliances

with terrorist networks for financing,

support and supply of weapons used

in terrorizing the populace.

The phenomenon of terrorism is one

that can be reduced, but not totally

eradicated. The means through which

countries can curb the spread of

terrorism are: intelligence gathering;

political and economic stability;

improved security measures; citizen

reorientation with emphasis on

curtailing all forms of religious

bigotry, zealotry,

fundamentalism/extremism, and

collective security systems in

combating terrorism.

There is need also for the international

system to consider ways in which

state sponsors of terrorism can be

adequately dealt with on a sustainable

basis. The United Nations can serve as

a veritable tool in combating

international terrorism through more

proactive measures and pragmatic

confidence-building strategies.

References

Alexander, Y. (2014). Terrorism in

North Africa and in the Sahel in

2013, being a Fifth Annual

Report published at the

International Center for

Terrorism Studies at the Potomac

Institute for Policy Studies,

January, USA.

Al-Thagafi, A. (2008). Causes and

Possible Solutions to the Middle

East Terrorism. Strategy

Research Project, US Army

War College, Carlisle Barracks.

Baldwin, D. (1997). The Concept of

Security. Review of

International Studies, 23, pp. 5-

26

Barzegar, K. (2005). The Middle East

and the New Terrorism. Journal

on Science and World Affairs, 1

(2), pp. 113- 121

Best, S. and A. Nocella (2004).

Defining Terrorism. Animal

Liberation and Philosophy

Journal, 2 (1), pp.1-18

Cooper, H. (2001). Terrorism: The

Problem of Definition Revisited.

American Behavioural Scientist,

44(6), February, pp.881-893


18

Fahmy, N. (2002). Implications of

September 11 for Middle East

Security, in Barletta M. (ed.)

After 9,11: Preventing

MassDestruction Terrorism and

Weapons Proliferation,

Occasional Paper, No. 8, Centre

for Non-proliferation Studies,

Monterey Institute of

International Studies.

Federal Bureau of Investigation

(1999). Terrorism in the United

States: 30 Years of Terrorism A

Special Retrospective Edition.

Counterterrorism Assessment

and Warning Unit, US

Department of State

George, E. and Hilal, N (2013). Africa

in Search of (In)Security:

Beyond the Bondage of

Boundaries, in Sabelo J.

Ndlovu-Gatsheni &

Brilliant Mhlanga (eds.)

Bondage of

Boundaries and Identity Politics

in Postcolonial Africa: The ‗Northern

Problem‘ and EthnoFutures. South

Africa: Africa Institute of South

Africa. Pp. 45-60 Good Reads

―Noam Chomsky‖.

Retrieved from

http://www.goodreads.com/quot

es/559241-it-s-only-terrorism-

ifthey-do-it-to-us-when; Data

accessed on 6th October, 2013.

Hubert, O (2001). Small Arms

Demand, Reduction and Human

Security. Ploughshares Briefing

Kimunguyi, P. (2011). Terrorism and

Counterterrorism in East Africa,

Global Terrorism Research

Centre, Monash

University, Australia

Levitt, M (2013). Iranian Support for

Terrorism and Violations of

Human Rights, Being a

Testimony before the Standing

Committee on Foreign Affairs

and International Development,

International Human Rights

Subcommittee, House of

Commons, Parliament of

Canada, May 30th. Published by

The Washington Institute for

Near East Policy, pp.1-9

Manni, N. (2012). Boko Haram: A

Threat to African and Global

Security. Global Security

Studies, Fall, Volume 3, Issue 4,

pp.44-54

Maskaliunaite, A. (2002). Defining

Terrorism in the Political and

Academic Discourse. Public

Defence Review, 2 (8), pp. 36 –

50

Nwolise, O.B.C (2012). Spiritual

Dimension of Human and

National Security. A Faculty

Lecture by the Department of

Political Science, Faculty of the

Social Sciences, University of

Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. Held on

Thursday, April 26

Office of the Coordinator for

Counterterrorism (2014).

Country Report on Terrorism

2013, July, US Department of

State Publication. Retrieved

from

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/559241-it-s-only-terrorism-if-they-do-it-to-us-when


























http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2012/210017.htm


19

2012/210017.htm, Data accessed

on 29th September, 2013.

Pillar, P. (2001). Terrorism and U.S.

Foreign Policy. Brookings

Institution Press, U.S.A

Shuhghart, W. (2005). An Analytical

History of Terrorism, 1945 –

2000., pp. 1-65.

Stone, M. (2009). Security According

to Buzan: A

Comprehensive Security

Analysis. Security Discussion

Papers Series 1, Spring, pp. 1-

11

Cultural Plurality, National Integration and the Security

Dilemma in Nigeria

By

Sheriff F. Folarin, PhD Department of Political Science & International Relations

Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria [email protected]

Ilemobola Peter Olanrewaju Department of Political Science & International Relations




20

Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria

[email protected]

&

Mrs. Lady Yartey Ajayi Department of Political Science & International Relations

Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria

[email protected]

Abstract: The cultural plurality of the Nigerian State has been a major factor in the make-

up of the policy environment as well as policy frameworks of national leadership from

independence. Cultural pluralism could be a uniting or divisive factor, and for Nigeria,

it has been more instrumental in the challenge of nationhood, culminating in a Civil War,

agitations for state creation, sovereign national conference, rotational presidency, and

zoning, and in more recent times, ethnic and religious insurgency as well as terrorist

violence. National integration thus becomes far-fetched as it yet remains a quest by

successive administrations and non-state actors who are stakeholders in the Nigerian

project. But has the context of the external influences and concerns such as migrants,

foreign visitors unaccounted for and unwanted aliens as well as their activities in the

challenge of nationhood been well addressed? This paper examines the historical and

contemporary issues of cultural plurality (often referred to as multiculturalism, although

a little different) in the challenge of national unity, with particular attention to the

security dilemma for Nigeria in the 21st century, paying attention to the growing influence

of the unchecked aliens in the swelling question and graver dangers of insecurity posed

by unconcerned and unpatriotic aliens who flock into the nation through the porous

borders. A descriptive-analytical approach is applied, while the data are basically

collected from texts and academic journals. The paper submits that the Nigerian State

requires an overhaul of its security machines within and around its borders, while also

taking a second and deeper look at its immigration system.

Keywords: Cultural Diversity, Multiculturalism, National Integration, National Insecurity

Introduction

The contemporary global system is

characterized by culturally plural

states, due largely to the rural-urban

population flow. Major world

economic centres, owing to their

commercial importance, are often

home to peoples of diverse cultures.

Ironically however, African states,

considered not too economically

viable and regarded from a distance as


21

more culturally homogenous, have the

biggest share of cultural mix. The

architect of this cultural diversity is

the colonial enterprise resulting in

mergers and in some cases creation of

multiple, culturally incongruent and

artificial boundaries. Nigeria has the

highest mix of peoples and nations in

Africa. The estimated 140 million

(NPC, 2006) peoples are divided into

over 250 ethnic clusters- small and

large. The major Hausa, Igbo and

Yoruba ethnic groups find themselves

contending for relevance, power and

supremacy, while the multiple minor

ethnic groups perpetually agitate for

identity, recognition, power sharing

and resource control. Thus, one

hundred years after amalgamation, the

polity comprising many peoples and

cultures remains in a seemingly

unworkable union, the ―nation‖ is

absent and remains experimental,

while national integration is

farfetched.

This paper therefore, examines the

issues of cultural plurality- often,

erroneously, referred to as

multiculturalism of the Nigerian

State- and national integration, and

how all of these have ultimately

created security gaps and problems

that the state continues to grapple

with. The historical issues are

investigated; the idea of nationhood or

national integration is interrogated,

while submissions about a general

reengineering of the state to enhance

unity and national security are

attempted.

Understanding Multiculturalism,

Cultural Plurality and National

Integration

Rosado (1997: 2) defines

multiculturalism in an attitudinal

perspective, describing it as a

―system of beliefs and behaviours

that recognizes and respects the

presence of all diverse groups in an

organization or society,

acknowledges and values their

sociocultural differences, and

encourages and enables their

continued contribution within an

inclusive cultural context which

empowers all within the organization

or society‖.

This ideal perception of

multiculturalism describes a group

and community that have, surmounted

racial, discriminatory, ostracizing or

marginalizing tendencies. This

concept suggests that cultural

plurality and multiculturalism is a

situation that has transcended petty

ethnic, religious, class and ideological

differences and conflict. It suggests a

society that has risen above mundane

primordial considerations and that

operates in an atmosphere of social

inclusion.

Scholars have argued that

multiculturalism queries the concept

of national identity, in that, it

appreciates and recognizes, without


22

ignoring or turning blind side to the

presence of variety of cultural groups

coexisting in a particular society.

Rather than conjuring a common

identity for a widely dispersed groups

(Heywood, 2007; Udebunu, 2011),

multiculturalism describes the

coexistence of numerous cultures,

without anyone dominating the others

(Wong, 2006; cited in Udebunu,

2011). More explicitly, Garba (2011)

sees it as appreciating, tolerating and

promoting multiple cultures and

identities situated within the confines

of a community. Thus, Udebunu

(2011) submits that multiculturalism

refers to a plurality of cultures. In fact,

Takaki (1993) and Yinger (1994)

suggest that cultural diversity should

be celebrated (cited in Richeson and

Nussbaum, 2003).

Multiculturalists argue that in issues

of governance, rights of divergent

groups are to be respected and cultural

identities of ethnic minority groups

are to be respected (Taylor, 1992;

Kymlycka, 1995). Therefore

multiculturalism rides tandem with

the principle of equality.

A nation, in this context, according to

the World Book Dictionary, may be

referred to as ―a community of

people who share a common

language, culture, ethnicity, descent,

or history‖. But there is a more

complex nation-state where

multinations are linked under a single

political and economic organisation

(Ekanola, 2006). Integration on the

other hand must be situated in this

discourse as a careful and thorough

understanding of the fundamentals of

the past, conceiving practical steps of

what happens after, a disposition to be

cohesive, subjected to a mutually

agreed programme (Favell, n.d.;

Jacob and Tenue, 1964, cited in Ojo,

2009). To Morrison et al. (1972, cited

in Ojo, 2009), it is a process of inter-

locking linkages where every hitherto

dividing boundaries are deliberately

dismantled to allow for a more

frequent contact, cooperation,

consensus and community. Also,

Leonard Binder describes integration

as involving a high degree of

comprehensiveness (Ojo, 2009).

Cultural plurality or pluralism on the

other hand, is not devoid of these

unique features that underlie

mutuality and equality. While it the

same as multiculturalism in the sense

that it refers to the co-existence of

diverse socio-cultural groups in a

political entity, it does not represent a

community of equal and friendly

groups, or an egalitarian society. It is

a term used when ethnic groups

within a larger society maintain their

distinct cultural identities, and their

values and practices are only accepted

by the wider culture provided they are

consistent with the laws and values of

the wider society (Science

Encyclopaedia, 2007).

An understanding of

multiculturalism and cultural


23

plurality will set the tone for our

discourse of national integration and

will indeed give us an idea of where

Nigeria, in view of the challenge of

integration, belongs. National

integration as a concept can be

regarded as a conscious process of

creating an interlocking and vertical

relationship between and among

hitherto separate nations, after an

understanding and reconciliation of

the fundamental differences and an

establishment of an acceptable

consensus. Thus, like the concept of

multiculturalism, national integration

must involve an understanding,

respect and appreciation of the

differences of the entities being

integrated (Nkom, 2008).

Multiculturalism is thus an attitude of

appreciating and accommodating

cultural diversities, while national

integration is the process of

governing these diversities on the

basis equity and justice. If these

concepts are clearly understood, one

would understand that what is as far

as Nigeria is concerned is cultural

plurality, but where it should

gravitate towards is a multicultural

system and by this national

integration might be accomplishable.

Cultural Pluralism,

Multiculturalism and National

Integration in Nigeria

The Nigerian socio-political structure

was forcefully assembled by the

technological and economically

superior British colonial government

in 1914, when the Northern and the

Southern protectorates were merged

(Ekanola, 2006). This singular act

brought together numerous

linguistic, ethnic and cultural groups,

as well as autonomous communities,

sovereign kingdoms and caliphates,

which hitherto had attained different

levels of economic and political

development. These entities with

different, many unrelated, cultural,

traditional and historical

backgrounds were conjoined to form

a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and

multi-national society. This

arrangement was purposed to satisfy

imperialistic desires, which

primarily, was for colonial

administrative convenience as the

Nigeria structure did not, in any way,

depict nor was meant to lay the

foundation for integration; but a mere

‗production plant‘ to meet the needs

of the metropolitan economy

(Ifeanacho and Nwagwu, 2009), a

fact complemented by Shively (2003:

62) who argues that ―Nigeria was

not constructed for cohesion but for

the administrative convenience of the

British‖.

Despite this illegitimate foisting of

―Nigeria-hood‖ on peoples of

different nationalities, who did not

aspire to become one united entity in

the first place, further internal

divisions were orchestrated by the

colonial lords, who introduced several

constitutional methods of divide and

rule, and imposed the Hausa/Fulani


24

Emirs on the other ethnic groups

(Ifeyinwa, 2002). This, expectedly,

gave rise to a sense of mutual

suspicion, distrust, intolerance and

conflicts among the ethnic groups,

soon after political independence. It is

important to note that these

exploitative and oppressive actions of

the colonial lords also created a crop

of elites who initially called

themselves nationalists, but who, after

the post-independence events, were

soon exposed as ethic leaders,

opportunists and power mongers who

took advantage of their positions to

pursue ethno-religious interests, and

to create opportunities for themselves

and their ethnic groups, to plunder the

country‘s economy, as well as

institutionalizing an ethnic-centred

leadership (Ifeyinwa, 2002;

Ifeanacho and Nwagwu, 2009).

Ekanola (2006) asserts that the

creation of Nigeria as a single

territorial and institutional framework

expanded inter-ethnic interactions

through the practice of colonial

system, thereby fabricating a new but

common history of economic

exploitation, political, administrative,

and cultural oppression. Following

this artificial creation of a

resemblance of multiculturalism

(which, in actual fact, was a mere

culturally plural society without

foundations for genuine integration),

the true nature of the created fragile

unity played out with multiple cases

of mutual suspicion, intolerance,

discrimination and hostility, making it

difficult to have a true and successful

national integration. The crude

outplay of ethnic discrimination and

struggle among ethnic groups for

dominance or parity were refined in

modest policies, including federal

character and quota system.

Immediately after independence,

ethnic and tribal practices that reared

its ugly head right from the colonial

period, as demonstrated by the

emergence of ethnic-based and

regional political parties, began to tear

the new state apart. The postcolonial

period of 1960-1966 was

characterized by clear struggle

between the ethnic groups for

dominance and control of power at the

centre. A multicultural system as we

have highlighted was therefore

absent; what evolved was a culturally

plural state with unambiguous show

of brinksmanship among the

dominant ethnic groups. Even the

ruling party, the Northern Peoples

Congress (NPC) was, in name and

intent, an ethnic and regional party

(Crowder and

Abdullahi, 1979). At this period, no

attempt towards national integration

was made as each political

organisation desired to dominate the

entire federation from its regional

base alone, strictly preventing

penetration by other regions. Jackson

Larry (cited in Crowder and

Abdullahi, 1979) describes this as

‗Regional Security‘, giving an


25

illustration of the late Sir Ahmadu

Bello who preferred to lead from his

regional base, sending his deputy to

represent him at the centre. This

clearly runs parallel to

multiculturalism, as discussed and can

be gleaned from other


26

multinational political templates, such

as the United States of America.

At its inception, one of the emergent

political parties, the National Council

of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) was a

national party until 1961 when the

reality of regionalism dawned on it.

By 1961, it had been able to win

electoral seats only in the East, win

only one seat in the North and had

become dramatically unpopular in the

West. Apparently, the Action Group

safeguarded the political yearnings of

the Yoruba in Western Nigeria. Each

of these political blocs jealously

guarded its territorial sphere,

essentially and singularly, the region

(Crowder and Abdullahi, 1979).

Deepening the disintegrative practices

of the colonialists, the ruling NPC

government fabricated a heated

national census figures in 1963 to

place the North in a position to

perpetually subjugate the other

regions and to provide a basis for the

fraudulent reallocation of seats after

the 1964 general elections into the

Federal Parliament (Adeoye, and

John, 2005). Beyond the census and

electoral manipulations, the dominant

Northern ethnic nation sought other

means of further multiplying social

differences and weakening the

strength of opposition political parties

in the Southern region. The creation

of a new MidWest region in 1963,

though initiated in 1961, became

timely tool in 1963 to weaken the

support for the Action Group in the

Southwest. This view is in tandem

with the observation of

Ozoigbo (2010) that ―the more

Nigeria is divided in smaller units, the

more the component units are weaker

and the centre stronger‖. Also a seed

of discord was sown by the Northern

political class, in the person of Chief

S.L. Akintola, who was the deputy of

Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the first

premier of the West and leader of the

AG. Akintola left the party,

denounced his boss, Awolowo and

formed the Nigerian National

Democratic Party (NNDP), an

affiliate of the NPC-led central

government (Crowder and Abdullahi,

1979; Ifeanacho and Nwagwu, 2009).

By 1966, increased tension had

enveloped the entire country,

culminating in flashes of violence

between the regions and ethnic

groups, more particularly between the

East and the North. The pogroms or

wanton killings in the North of Igbo

and Eastern elements, first with

soldiers of Igbo extraction in Western

and Northern army barracks,

culminated in an anticlimax, which

led to the hijack of government in

January by the army, suspension of

the constitution and the ban of all the

political parties by Major-General

Aguiyi Ironsi (an Easterner). The

abolition of federalism and its

replacement with a unitary system

through Decree 34 of 1966, led to


27

suspicions in the North that the Igbos

were attempting to dominate the

entire country. In July 1966, the

Northern military officers staged a

countercoup during which

86

Ironsi was assassinated and the Igbo

elements of the first coup were

rounded up and thrown into jails

(South East Nigeria, 2012). This

ethnic and tribal sentiment permeated

the entire fabric of the socio-political

system, leading, inevitably and

inexorably, to a feeling of rejection,

social injustice and social exclusion

and ethnic hatred that ultimately led to

the Civil War in 1967.

Throughout the fifteen years of

military rule in Nigeria that followed

the end of the war, there were

deliberate attempts to forcefully

sustain the togetherness of the diverse

ethnic groups by creating a system of

government that would harmonize the

divergent culture in the country.

These included the abolition of

regional police; cancellation of state

or regional coats of arms and mottos;

takeover of regional and state

television stations, newspapers;

deployment of soldiers as governors

or administrators in states other than

their own with cultures different from

theirs; takeover of Christian and

regional schools; establishment of

National Youth Service Corps scheme

to promote cultural integration of the

country‘s youths who were the leaders

of the future; and the introduction of

the Federal Character principle to

allow for equitable representation in

federal institutions and distribution of

resources. All of these were measures

aimed at conjuring a common national

identity to replace the conflict of

culture in the polity (Ojo, 2009;

Udebunu, 2011).

Despite the attempts by the armed

forces in power to maintain the

relative peace of the country, military

intervention did not recognize nor

appreciate the cultural differences of

the colonial arrangement. The

military however erred in some

fundamental respects and

contradicted its own national ideology

objective by turning blind eye to

Nigeria‘s cultural, ethnic and

religious diversity, and pursuit of

policies that directly touched the

sensibilities of the culturally

conscious peoples. This included the

attempt to enrol Nigeria in the

Organisation of Islamic Conference in

the mid-1980ss (Udebunu, 2011).

Such acts further undermined the

objective of national integration,

which is meant to be, like Nkom

(2008) posits, a true understanding,

respect and appreciation of the

differences of the entities being

integrated.


28

Cultural Diversity and New

Challenge of National Security

Ironically, the plural nature of Nigeria

remains the way it was at

amalgamation in 1914. The

fundamental differences remain

constant, but the only difference is

fifteen years of uninterrupted

democracy (1999-2014). More

ironically is the fact that the same

political and military bourgeoisie (the

Centre in the Periphery or

Compradors, as Marxist scholars

would describe political surrogates

and arrowheads of the ex-metroples or

colonialists) are still in power and

design the democratic system, the

difference being in the seeming

integration into existing political

parties of persons across ethnic and

sectional lines (Ifeanacho and

Nwagwu, 2009). It is however

important to note that when the issue

of cultural plurality is not well

managed, it will continue to threaten

the peaceful co-existence of the

‗nation-state‘, a term that best

describes Nigeria. This untreated or

ill-managed issue of national

integration has been most

instrumental in the challenges of

nationhood and the togetherness of

these multiple and diverse nations in

the polity.

Since amalgamation, the contention

of ethic or sectional domination has

dichotomized the country, and one

hundred years after, debates over the

authoritative allocation of values (a la

Easton) still remain on the front

burner. Several concepts as zoning,

rotational presidency and tenure

elongation have been introduced by

politicians to suit group/class and

selfish desires. Ogbu (2001) defines

the zoning system as ―an equitable

sharing of the key political posts,

taking the state of origin of the

beneficiaries into consideration‖. The

implication of ‗consideration of state

of origin‖ will be grievous as it will be

an arduous task reaching out,

equitably, to the 36 states of the

federation and gratifying the over 250

ethnic groups in the states and Abuja.

The principle has no doubt created

more tension and ethnic conflict

because it places at a vantage point

and ensures the domination of the

numerically superior and stronger

ethnic groups (Okwenna, 2011).

In addition to the problem of ethnicity

and tribalism, political class interest

has further exacerbated the challenges

of national integration (Omodia,

2010). Omodia further argues that

prior to elections, the party politics

cajole the masses by artificially

integrating them into the process of

recruitment of political leaders, using

tools such as ethnicity; but that shortly

after election, the masses are excluded

and maligned in polices and dividends

of democracy (Omodia, 2010: 14).

Again because the democratic process

as it is today was manufactured by the

military, a military fashion of

hierarchical flow of command, power


29

and opportunities is noticeable. The

short-changing of the masses by

ethnicity inclined politicians, coupled

with the heating up of the polity by

politics of ethnic selection and ethnic

exclusion, have exacerbated the

security challenges in the country,

particularly from 2009 to 2014.

The unaddressed issues of plurality

have continued to give impetus to a

growing political consciousness and

ethno-religious identity that always

culminate in communal and societal

conflicts. The fragile peace in Nigeria

most often falls apart, resulting in

horrible violence. This includes,

among other incidences, claim over

land and scarce resources

88

(Berom-Fulani crisis, Ijaw-Itsekiri

crisis), power and chieftaincy

(IfeModakeke crisis), Osu catse

system (Umuleri-Aguleri crisis),

settlers and indigenes (Jos crisis),

Christian and Moslem (violence in

Kano and Kaduna) and more recently,

the Boko Haram menace (Adagba,

Ugwu and Eme, 2012).

Insecurity has reached a record high in

Nigeria due to the activities of the

Boko Haram terror group, whose

mission to Islamize Nigeria has led to

over 115 major attacks inside the

sovereign state since 2011 (HRW,

2014) . The spate of bombings,

killings and destructions by the group

remains the most potent threat to the

Nigerian integration project. The

height of insecurity was the shaking

of the foundations of the corporate

existence of the country by the

group‘s seizure of territories, sacking

of military platoons, dislodgment of

entire towns and villages, hoisting of

a different sovereign flag and

declaration of an independent

‗Caliphate Republic‘ in Northeastern

Nigeria (Ukong, 2014).

The acts of Boko Haram, coupled with

the agitations of the Niger Delta

militants before and currently, have

reawakened the Igbo of Eastern

Nigeria who are beginning to again

clamour for secession from the

Nigerian State and re-declaration of a

sovereign state of Biafra. The free

descent to anarchy was however

quickly interjected by acceding to

age-long call for a national

conference, with the government

setting up a committee and later

inaugurating the National

Conference, which sat and deliberated

on wide-range of issues of national

social and security concerns,

including national coexistence, true

federalism, proper funding of the

military among other interests.

Gravitating from Cultural

Pluralism to Multiculturalism

Nigeria‘s cultural diversity should

have been a source of strength. This is

the order of things in multinational

states as the USA, United Kingdom

(that has Welsh, Scots and English),


30

Canada, Bolivia, Malaysia, Pakistan,

India, and the Russian Federation,

among others. The multi-ethnic or

multinational nature should have been

a means to bringing together all of the

potentials of the diverse groups for the

purpose of national growth and

development. This means that there is

no sin in being culturally plural; what

is ‗sinful‘ is the inability of the groups

to recognize and reconcile the

differences, see the potential in the

diversity, and transform the diversity

into strength. While it is clear that the

colonial architectural piece remains a

‗Hammer House of

Horror‘ for Nigeria, a new

consciousness to refurbish the piece

or discard it outright, is desirable. If

nothing can unite Nigerians, the grave

dangers of terrorism and local

insurgences should call for unity of

purpose to at least, stay alive.

The policies and principles of federal

character, quota system, resource

control, zoning, rotational presidency;

and the national attitude of polarizing

public institutions and occasions by

opening and closing prayers in

Christian and Islamic traditions,

further pulverize, divide and heat up

the already fragile polity. The

political templates as outlined,

including the USA and Britain should

be models for the Nigerian

multinational state. If the Nigerian

peoples cannot co-exist as a nation,

there could be peaceful means such as

conducting of a referendum for a

national decision of what is preferred.

Recently, the United Kingdom faced

a major challenge of disintegration

when agitation in Scotland for a pull-

out reached a head. The Scots

subjected this to a peaceable

referendum and the outcome was such

that majority prefers to remain as part

of the British union. That settled the

issue once and for all and normalcy

returned. The Catalonians in Spain are

currently asking for their referendum

too, to attempt a peaceful pull-out

from Spain. Forcing the peoples

together in the case of

Nigeria is a recipe for future disaster.

Conclusion

In this paper, we examined the nexus

between cultural diversity and

multiculturalism, national integration

and security as each has played out in

Nigeria‘s political experience. It has

to be noted that the security of human

life the world over, is aided by an

understanding and acknowledging

that we live in a multicultural world,

and appreciating diversities will

create a peaceful environment, with

care and attention given to the process

of integrating the differences.

It is pertinent to note that the activities

that permeated the Nigerian State

from independence, such activities by

the colonial elite, ethnic nationalists,

military bourgeoisie, and political

class have been the long dug

foundation and recipes for the advent


31

of ethnic conflict, religious extremism

and the eventual rise of

Boko Haram. The Nigerian

experience contradicts the concept of

multiculturalism and poses a deep

challenge to the country‘s national

security, for, human security is

actually most predicated upon mutual

respect, peaceful co-existence and

equality of social groups.

References

Adagba, O., Ugwu, S. & Eme, O.

(2012). Activities of Boko

Haram and Insecurity Question

in Nigeria. Arabian Journal of

Business and Management

Review. 1(9), 77-99.

Crowder, M. & Abdullahi, G.

(1979). Nigeria: An Introduction

to its History, Hong Kong:

Longman.

Ekanola, A. (2006). National

Integration and the Survival of

Nigeria in the 21st Century. The

Journal of Social, Political and

Economic Studies. 31(3),

279293.

Favell, A. (n.d.). Integration Nations:

The Nation-State and Research

90


on Immigrants in Western

Europe. In International

Migration Research. Retrieved

on the 4th of September, 2012,

from

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/f

aculty/favell/grete.pdf

Garba, K. (18th November, 2011).

Diversity, Multiculturalism…

Experts Device New Approach to

Drive Growth in Africa. The

Guardian. Retrieved on the 4th of

September, from

http://www.guardiannewsngr.co

m/index.php?option=com_conte

nt&view=article&id=67920:div

ersity-multiculturalism-

expertsdevice-new-approach-to-

drivegrowth-

inafrica&catid=96:fridayreview

&Itemid=602

Heywood, A. (2007). Political

Ideologies. 4 Edition. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Ifeanacho, M. & Nwagwu, J. (2009).

Democratization and National

Integration in Nigeria. Research

Journal of International Studies.

Issue 9, January, 12-20.

Ifeyinwa, M. (2002).

SocioCultural Factors and Ethnic

Group Relations in

Contemporary Nigerian Society.

The African

Anthropologist.9(2), 117-136.

Kymlycka, W. (1995). The Rights of

Minority Cultures. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Nkom, S. (2008). Culture as an

Instrument for Sustainable

Development and National

Integration. A Paper Presented at

the National Workshop on

Cultural Rejuvenation for

National Integration and

Sustainable Development,

Organized by the Centre for

Black and African Arts and

Civilization, Lagos, 17th-18th

April.

NPC (20-06). National Population

Census Reports, Abuja: National

Population

Commission

Ogbu, S. (2001). Politics and the

Struggle for Democracy in

Nigeria: An Appraisal.

University of Jos Journal of

Political Science. 2(3), 14-25.

Ojo, E. (2009). Federalism and the

Search for National Integration in

Nigeria. African Journal of

Politicial Science and

International Relations. 3(9),

384-395. Okwenna, I. (2011).

Zoning, Rotation and the Power

Struggle in Nigeria. Retrieved on

the 7th of

September,2012,from

http://elombah.com/index.php?o

ption=com_content&view=articl

e&id=4836:zoning-rotation-

andthe-power-struggle-

innigeria&catid=25:politics&Ite

m id=92

Ozoigbo, B. (2010). Federal Balance

in Nigeria: A Paradigm for

Sustainable Democracy.

Retrieved on the 4th of

September, from

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/favell/grete.pdf




http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=67920:diversity-multiculturalism-experts-device-new-approach-to-drive-growth-in-africa&catid=96:friday-review&Itemid=602































http://elombah.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4836:zoning-rotation-and-the-power-struggle-in-nigeria&catid=25:politics&Itemid=92























http://www.ajol.info/index.php/

og/article/viewFile/52329/40954

Richenson, J. & Nussbaum, R. (2003).

The Impact of

Multiculturalism versus Colour-

Blindness on Racial Bias.

91

Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology. 40, 417-423.

Rosado, C. (1997). Toward a

Definition of Multiculturalism.

Retrieved on the 4th of

September, 2012, from

www.rosado.net/pdf/Def_of_M

ulticulturalism.pdf

Science Encyclopaedia Cultural

Pluralism Retrieved on May 31,

2007

Shively, W. (2003). Power and

Choice: An Introduction to

Political Science. Eight Edition.

New York: McGraw-Hill

Higher Education. South East

Nigeria, (2012). Nigeria‘s War Over

Biafra, Nigerian Aggression, British

Support 1967-1970. Retrieved on the

7th

of September, from

http://www.southeastnigeria.co

m/blog/2012/09/03/nigeriaswar-

over-biafra-nigerianaggression-

british-support-

1967-70/

Taylor, C. (1992). Multiculturalism:

Examining the Politics of

Recognition. N.J: Princeton

University Press.

Udebunu, C. (2011). Nigeria and the

Dialectics of Multiculturalism. A

New Journal of African

Studies. 8, Doi:

http//dx.doi.org/10.4314/og.v8i1

.1

World Book Dictionary. In

Wikipedia. Retrieved on the 4th

of September, from

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

http://www.ajol.info/index.php/og/article/viewFile/52329/40954




http://www.rosado.net/pdf/Def_of_Multiculturalism.pdf




http://science.jrank.org/pages/10750/Pluralism-Cultural-Pluralism.html




http://www.southeastnigeria.com/blog/2012/09/03/nigerias-war-over-biafra-nigerian-aggression-british-support-1967-70/






















international terrorism and the middle east: an expository … · 2015-12-16 · middle east. this...

Documents