Nigeria Biafra Civil War

His approach attempts to consider deeper causes of intrastate violence than traditional case-studies have done (Newman 2014, 63). Newman identifies four general types of civil war: ethnic, political-ideological, weakened or failed state, and resource-based (Newman 2014, 63-65). Most intrastate conflicts can be characterized by a combination of these classifications and their influences. Newman defines four loose requirements for a conflict to be considered using this model. First, a conflict must mainly occur within the borders of an internationally recognized state to be considered “civil” rather than interstate (Newman 2014, 62). Secondly, civil wars are fought between organized groups rather than individuals or unorganized affiliates (Newman 2014, 62). Governmental military forces fit this mold, but are not required for a conflict to be deemed as intrastate. Third, there must be evidence of sustained violence. Newman defines this threshold as 1,000 fatalities (Newman 2014, 62). Last, belligerents must be fighting with a political objective in mind (Newman 2014, 62). This requirement is given a wide range of applicability, as almost any objectives of a group can be defined as political. The Nigerian civil war of the late 1960s fits all of these parameters, and can therefore be analyzed using the typologic system devised by

Ikechi Mgbeoji’s book, Collective Insecurity examines the hidden causes of West Africa’s civil wars and addresses an important question: “Why has the U.N. system not worked to protect people and to enhance their welfare, as intended, in Africa and elsewhere?” In his book, Mgbeoji proposes, “the solution to African political instability lies in a structural rearrangement of the African polity for the purpose of legitimate governance of African peoples.”

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.

Nigeria would soon become a prime example of the issues with arbitrary borders and the long term effects they can create. Nigeria would gain its independence in 1960 and would become a Federal Republic with three regions. This federalist republic would bring out regional rivalries and fears amongst the people. Violence against Igbo would erupt around the North and soon after `the Southeast secedes as Biafra. (Reno, pg. 2) A three year war would follow and illness and hunger within Biafra would prevail. Britain got involved in the issue and would aid Nigeria in pulling Biafra back in as a way to avoid a chain reaction. Eventually, the Southeast region would give in, and return to Nigeria. However, regional distrust remained an issue, and would take on ethnic and religious dimensions for years to come. In addition, there was a deep disregard to many of the institutions and practices that had already been set in place by the people.

Nigeria was having an internal war that the Muslims started with the Ibos. It started when they gained independence in 1960. They adopted the feudal systems and had to share power with Lagos, and three state governments in the north, east, and west. In 1964, the Ibos seized power and declared a central dictatorship. The Muslims of the north didn’t like the Ibos because they weren’t Muslim. So they sparked a war in 1967. The Ibos, after a group of northern officers obtained the government positions, created their own

Realism is a theory that depicts world politics as a ceaseless repetitive struggle for power. In other words, political realism seeks to explain international relations between states in terms of power. Realist “views that nation-state as the most important actor…because it answers to no higher authority;” in other words, it is an anarchic system (Kegley, 27). Some traits of realism are that states are sovereign, non-cooperation among states, and the exclusion if morality in policies.

The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.

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.

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 first was the weak sense of nationalism caused by all the ethnic groups where religion played a major part of the division. The main three ethnicities in Nigeria are Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo; the former is Muslim while the two latter are Christians. The second cause mentioned was the “divide and rule” which was a British tactic to employ ethnic groups against one another, and thus “helped ensure that ethnicity would be the main line of political cleavage after Nigeria became an independent country.” The third cause is the personal rule system based on “big men” and what this means is that Nigerian’s who worked for the British used their personal relationships to gain power and wealth, and in a certain way it is still used today in the Nigerian government. The fourth devastating cause was the “creation of an increasingly active and interventionist state during WWII and after until its independence in 1960, but that opened the doors to patronage, which would be used to gain political power and wealth. The past reveals the problems Nigeria has had for several decades, some of which have not disappeared but seem to get progressively worse. (CITATION)

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

Before we begin, let’s take a look at the country and its environs. Nigeria a former British Colony, located in the western part of Africa, it shares borders with Benin, Cameroun, and Niger. A growing population of 150million, labour force of 51million (70% Agriculture, 10% industry and 20% service), urbanisation is less than 40%, GDP is over $300billion, Per capita income is $2300. Nigeria is blessed with different cultures, languages and ethnic groups (252 in total); this was due to the colonization of the British in the early 19th century (Columbia Encyclopaedia). The British amalgamated its protectorates in 1914 to enable stable control and governance which made them create one Nation of Nigeria formed from all the groups, community and empires around the Niger area under their control. Nigeria had her independence on the 1st of October 1960 and since then various civil wars, political and religious unrest in the country to share power and resources amicably.

     Nigeria has been a country in political turmoil for a long time. The country was created in 1914 under British colonial rule and at that time it was considered a protectorate. It was not until 1960 that Nigeria received independence from the United Kingdom. One of Nigeria's problems politically is that it has over three hundred different ethnic groups. The three largest of these are the Hausa-Fulani, Igbo, and Yoruba. At the time of the independence of Nigeria it was split up into three states with each state being under the control of one of the major ethnic groups. The natural resources of the other 297 ethnic groups were exploited for the major three groups,

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.