Realism, Power And The Nigerian Civil War

International Relations is a field of politics that takes a look at the interactions that occur in between states in the international arena. Its aim is to explain why certain events have unfolded in certain ways, as a result of how states use their power relatively to each other. Mostly the interactions that International Relations tries to examine or explain, is the conflicts that arise as a result of differing interests that states have. To provide a base for analysis, this essay is going to use the central theory of realism to explain the civil war that occurred in Nigeria in between 1967 to 1970. This essay will seek to explain

The foreign, military and economic policies of states, the intersections of these policies in areas of change or dispute, and the general structure of relations which they create, are all analysed in terms of aspirations to achieve national and/or international security. Security is most commonly associated with the alleviation of threats to cherished values (Williams; 2008). However this is a definition that is undesirably vague and a reflection of the inherent nature of security as an ‘essentially contested concept’ (Gallie; 1962). Security in the modern day context has many key concepts associated with it: uncertainty, war, terrorism, genocide and mass killing, ethnic conflict, coercion,

Civil Peace is set in the early 1970's in the country of Nigeria. There had been a civil war in the late 1960's that had had a devastating effect on the country. When the civil war had

While analyzing the North Africa conflict, a combination of service capabilities would be required to achieve the desired end state of deterring and if necessary, the defeat of Algerian guerilla aggression to prevent regional and global destabilization. Taking into account the current military landscape that exists today, a joint task force (JTF) would be the ideal military response of the United States and collation partner’s while utilizing the regional military assets. Intelligence suggests guerilla forces are capable of a full scale offensive into Morocco in less than 36 hour notice, bringing the factors of time, force and space into consideration.

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

With the number of deaths being over 500,000 (Shillington,2005), the Angolan Civil War only ended in 2002, after struggling for 27 years ever since obtaining independence from Portugal. The Angolan Civil War began in Angola after the end of the war for independence from Portugal in 1975. The war featured conflict between two primary Angolan factions, the Communist MPLA and the anti-Communist UNITA. There are several causes of this war, such as the power vacuum, resource fighting and ethnic tensions. Hence, in this essay, I hope to analyze these causes and afterwards decide which cause play the most critical role in the civil war.

Realism has dominated international relations theory since emerging in the 1930’s. The era of state conflict lasting from the 1930’s to the end of the cold war in 1947, proved the perfect hostile environment to fit the largely pessimistic view of world politics. While many aspects of realism are still alive in International Relations today; including the dominant presence of states, intrinsic of war and the decentralised government. However, realism only reaches so far in explaining and creating a structure for international relations. Whilst the strengths of the theory lie in its pragmatic approach to power politics and conflict. However, the realist view is weakened by changes in the way that conflict is fought, the ineffectiveness of the balance of power model and the increasing global and interconnected world. Thus, using realism as a structure to explain international relations today is to some extent, a theory of the past.

The balance of power theory is viewed as critical policy in the handling of international relations. To fully comprehend how the balance

Contemporary international relations is a complex field. Understanding events and attempting to make sense of them can be a daunting task. There are, however, tools available, which can assist in providing clarity to these complex issues. The first of these tools is historic knowledge. Without historic background of an issue, it is nearly impossible to understand the events driving that issue in modern times. A second tool, the one which will be the focus of this paper, is international relations theory. Theory can be defined as “a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action,” (Merriam-Webster) and can be used “in many cases as a basis of prediction.” (Mingst 56) There are three major theories which we

The background of this conflict is entrenched in; Ethnic division, Politics and economics of federalism. The Nigerian Civil War, also known as the Biafran War, 6 July 1967 – 15 January 1970, was a war fought to counter the secession of Biafra from Nigeria. Biafra represented nationalist aspirations of the Igbo people, whose leadership felt they could no longer coexist with the Northern-dominated federal government. The conflict resulted from political, economic, ethnic, cultural and religious tensions which preceded Britain's formal decolonization of Nigeria in 1960–1963. Immediate causes of the war in 1966 included a military coup, a counter-coup, and persecution of Igbos living in Northern Nigeria. Control over oil production in the Niger

The role and nature of African agency has been debated, and is a contentious issue, especially with regard to its role in shaping the contemporary international relations (IR) of the continent. The nature of African agency is weak and inadequate, however the continent does have some influence in aspects of political debate and the potential to become more prominent. African agency is a broad, yet core concept which is; the ‘ability of states as primary actors in the international system to produce both hard and soft capabilities in pursuit of their national interests (Andreasson 2013). This essay will first discuss the nature of African agency, and the viewpoints contributing to it, then will discuss and analyse its role in shaping the contemporary IR of Africa, and the challenges it faces.

Morganthau (Cited in Haas,1953, pp.445) argues that the Balance of power can be viewed as either a description of any state of international politics in relation to power distribution or a policy or action intending to distribute power. From this framework we can use the balance of power to both understand static moments in history to observe where power lies at that moment in time and to look at how states themselves actively implement foreign policy for their own power related interests whether that be looking to balance the set of scales or to tip them

The conflict between Hegemony and Petrol dates back seventy-five years, when land was unfairly distributed, in favor of Petrol, after the two states gained independence. This territorial dispute elicited the belief by Hegemony that Petrol is not a state. Hegemony yearns to regain the oil fields currently owned by Petrol. The conflict escalated when an anti-Petrol group arose, in which, is supported by Hegemony’s government. Throughout the conflict, Hegemony has violated international law by disrupting Petrol’s territorial integrity with state sponsored terrorist groups and the buildup of nuclear weapons. This conflict lead to utilization of two political principles, Internationalism and Realism, whose similarity will be further discussed in the essay. The actions taken by the country being attacked, Petrol, exemplify Realism. Whereas the actions taken by the neighboring country, Concordia, exemplify Internationalism.

Realism is one of the main theories within International Relations. It provides the view that all actors within the international system act on their own self-interests to gain power. This essay intends to discuss its usefulness as a theory and the reasons for and against it being used to analyse world affairs. Firstly, it shall discuss how the theory is advantageous as it explains how shifts in the balance of power can lead to conflict however it is unable to explain why the distribution of power changes. Second, it will portray how it is useful because states do not need to be labelled as good or bad to fit the theory although it disregards the idea of Natural law and gives a cynical view of human morality. Finally, it will suggest that as the theory is very parsimonious, it can be applied to multiple situations within the world system. On the other hand, it will be said that it fails to look at individuals within a state and their influence on the actions of the state. These costs and benefits will be conveyed through the current tensions between the USA and North Korea to link the theory in with current world politics.

4 Analyze the effects of the cold war on apartheid in South Africa or on another specified issue and region or country.