The political situation on the African continent, associated with pipeline attack - Term Paper Example

?Outline Introduction Background and Outcomes Analysis Political Social Economic Parties Involved into the Conflict Reasons and Motives Official and Obvious Motives Unofficial Motives Who stands Behind These Attacks (Analytical Research) Brief Review of the Hidden Political and Oligarchic Image Responsibility Personal opinion Conclusion Introduction Pipeline attack in Nigeria that took place in January 2010, is regarded as one of the most resonant events on the African political arena. Since one of the military groups has taken responsibility for this attack, it can be stated that the political background is even deeper than it is considered. The reason is simple: military group must have a leader, who is connected with political powers. Politicians often have connections with oligarchs, who have their own interests and motives. Since, this is just a version by several journalists, (Ifeoma, 2011; Bello, 2011; Hanson, 2009), the other versions should be reviewed and analyzed. The aim of the research is to analyze the political situation on the African continent, associated with this attack. The backgrounds will be studied for defining the reasons and motives of the attack. The consequences of the event will help to define the parties involved into this affair, as well as the interests of each participant. Considering the fact that an oil pipeline was attacked, most researchers agree that the economic outcomes will be obvious. The analysis will help to reveal the depth of the consequences, as well as the changes on the oil production industry. Background and Outcomes Analysis Previously to analyzing the background, the attack should be reviewed for pointing out the necessary details. This was not the only attack. The militants group attacked the pipelines, kidnapped and threatened employees of the company since 2006. The reviewed attack was another sabotage that had several aims: Attracting attention Showing power Threatening and increasing the terror level for the company and its employees Pursuing the aims of freedom and equity Moreover, the militants claim that Nigerian Government send crude oil to the southern regions of Nigeria. In accordance with their words, this will help to fight with poverty, as southern regions stay poor due to unwillingness of the government to develop and expand the economic and industrial potential of these regions (Forerst, 2005). Political Background In accordance with the research outcomes by Renner (2002), military groups, terroristic bands, sects, and other groupings have protectors, who have a particular influence level on the political arena, as well as sufficient financial reserves for sponsoring these groups. As it is stated by Associated Press (2010), Lt. Col. Timothy Antigha claimed, that any organization had not taken responsibility for this particular attack, however, most of the attacks are performed by militant groups of MEND (Movement for Emancipation of the Niger Delta). This extremist grouping is aimed at fighting against exploitation and oppression of the Nigerian people. The federal Government of Nigeria is the enemy #1 for the MEND (Bello, 2011), and the key aim is to overthrow it. Considering the basics of the Conspiracy Theory, a political force must be standing behind the MEND. However, its leaders prefer staying faceless (Faucon, 2012). Since the Federal Government is not able to reach an agreement with the aggressors, the amnesty program was initiated in the Niger delta region (Faucon, 2012). On the one hand, this program shows willingness to begin negotiations; on the other hand, this reveals lack of opportunity and support to fight against aggressors. Moreover, some researchers claim that the conflict is not beneficial for the government, as essential powers may stand behind the militant groups. Social Background The social aspects of these attacks are not obvious, nevertheless, in the light of the fact that the MEND is supported by at least 20 million of Nigerians, the social resonance is high enough (Eberechi, 2009). The key social factor that requires attention in the context of these attacks is the oppression of the citizens, as well as devastation of the lands and environment. People, whose interests are protected by the MEND, claim that they do not have an opportunity to live in freedom, the environmental situation worsens, and regardless of the 50 years oil production, the economic situation remains hopeless for this social stratum. The social outcomes are hard to predict, as there are too many unknowns in this political equation. It is expected that the parties will start negotiations, however, unless the faces of the leaders are opened, the agreement is hardly reachable. Economic Background Oil production is the largest industry in Nigeria, and the key GDP source for the Western African region. Crude oil is produced for at least 50 years in Nigeria, and the control over these resources was passed to international corporations (Chevron Oil, and Royal Dutch Shell) under the dictatorship regime. The Federal Government does not have a legal means and opportunities to regain control over these sources. Therefore, the economic background of these attacks looks like a struggle of personal interests, from this perspective (Hanson, 2009). The outcomes of these attacks are closely associated with the economic position of the country in the world, as well as with oil prices growth. It can be explained by the fact that attacks are the reason of essential losses for the oil production companies, harm for the environment, as well as injuries for the qualified personnel. Parties Involved into the Conflict In spite of the fact that these attacks are regarded as a domestic Nigerian affair, and the MEND is aimed at confronting with the Federal Government only, this situation has caused an essential international resonance. Considering the fact that oil production industry is under the control of international companies, the involvement of the Chevron Oil is obvious. The company is interested in preventing further attacks in order to minimize losses, however, the MEND is not going to negotiate. Their aims are clear, however, Kane (2007) considers that the unwillingness of the MEND leaders to disclose their faces is suspicious, and open negotiations are impossible. Political actors are the Federal Government, as well as the group of oligarchs who may be standing behind the MEND. (Bello, 2011) Control is their primary interest. International organizations, such as the UNO, Human Rights Watch, WHO, occupy neutral position; nevertheless, they may be also involved into the conflict due to several reasons: 1. The international situation is not aggravated; however, further attacks may provoke sanctions against Nigeria. 2. The population of the Delta region does not have the opportunity to get a job, qualified medical assistance, social assistance, and protection. 3. The oil spills caused by the attacks endanger the environmental situation, as well as it may affect health of the people living there. 4. Politically unstable regions are always in the attention focus of different organizations; moreover, oil is the key interest factor of the most international powers. Review and Analysis of the Motives As it is emphasized by Williams (2005), there are no neutral parties, if the affair involves financial interests. In accordance with the basics of political realism, the key aim of the opponents is gaining as much power, as possible. However, they are not able to state it directly, therefore, the only alternative is to create a high aim, and protect it with the national idea. The executors of MEND may be strongly devoted to the aims of liberty and freedom, however, the leaders of the organization, as well as the group of oligarchs who must be standing behind the leaders, have purely financial and political motives. It is hard to explain terror from the viewpoint of political liberalism, nevertheless, as Rawls (1996) states, the actors may resort to extremism and radicalism for making opponents take them more seriously. However, as it is stated by Gillison (2012): "This relatively insignificant attack is a reminder of our presence in the creeks of the Niger Delta and a sign of things to come…” Such a threat can not be explained by liberalistic views. In the light of this fact, it should be stated that the actual aim of the militants is to violate the unsteady political stability of the region. However, the officially stated aims and motives involve the wellbeing of the people living in the Niger Delta. Nevertheless, trying to protect Nigerians from oppression and discrimination, the MEND has become a violent discrimination tool itself, and the leaders, as well as the executors of the organization do not care that they are killing other Nigerians, and destroying the environment by attacking tanks and pipelines. Goodluck Jonathan, the president of Nigeria, does not have sufficient support among the Nigerian citizens, and, as a leader of the Government, he is the key opponent of the MEND. Therefore, his motives and aims are not less important for the analysis of these attacks. Hence, Gillison (2012), emphasizes that the attacks could be caused by the barring of the governor Timipre Sylva. Sylva’s political line essentially differs from Jonathan’s aims, therefore, the MEND may represent Sylva’s supporters. He aimed at establishing a unity government with various political powers. Such an attempt of fortifying the political stability is worth attention, therefore, Jonathan, who is not interested in stability, must have direct financial interests (Bello, 2011). This means, that by attacking oil pipelines, the Movement for Emancipation of the Niger Delta aims at hitting Goodluck Jonathan, and decrease his political influence in the country. The aims and motives of the international organizations have been enlisted above, however, it is worth mentioning that regardless of the obvious violations of the human rights, and political instability with overthrows and extraordinary elections, the international community does not wish to interfere like in the case of Iraq or Libya. The conclusions vary, however, Almquist (2009) emphasizes that since oil resources are controlled by European (Royal Dutch Shell) and US (Chevron Corporation) companies, the interference, as well as power regulation of the conflict are almost incredible. From the perspective of political realism, as well as conspiracy theory, the political powers, as well as the governing groups are interested in power mainly, while concerns and troubles of the lowest population strata can not attract their attention. Who stands Behind These Attacks (Analytical Research) Considering the fact that terroristic attacks often require essential financial assistance, as well as training, it is hard to agree that MEND is supported by the population of the Niger Delta only. Its leaders avoid disclosing their faces; however, there are at least two internal threats in Nigeria: Islamist militant groups who are attacking Christian churches, and rebels from the Niger Delta, and militant groups that act similarly to MEND. The former does not attack pipelines, and Delta region is not their territory (Hanson, 2009). The letter are not regarded as a serious threat unless they are united with the MEND. The MEND is fighting against extremely irresponsible Nigerian Government, and the question is, whether Goodluck Jonathan will be able to resolve the problem adequately. Considering that he originates from the Niger Delta region, he must assign #1 priority to solving this problem. However, as it is stated by Godsday Orubebe, the minister of foreign affairs (in Baldauf, 2012): Unfortunately, the extremely irresponsible, floundering government of Nigeria is more concerned with enriching themselves and family members than attending to the problems of the Niger Delta and the continuously depreciating standard of living of the ordinary Nigerian. In the light of this statement, it should be emphasized that leaders of the MEND can be Jonathan’s political opponents. Any researcher does not dare to call the names. Considering the present political situation in Nigeria, either politicians at power, or politicians who appeared outboard can be the leaders. The names of the oligarchs, who may be standing behind the attackers are not mentioned, nevertheless, these could be the representative of the Nigerian military top. Considering the political reality and pragmatic interests of the oligarchic groups, Forrest (2005) emphasizes that closing of the oil production may be beneficial for those who does not benefit at the moment. Hence, it should be reviewed who appeared out of the share when the oil sources were denationalized. Regardless of the fact that the MEND is the only organization who takes responsibility for the pipeline attacks, the increasing social and security problems are beneficial for all the opponents of Goodluck Jonathan. Therefore, some researchers suppose (Eberechi 2009; Maerkl and Weinberg, 2006) that MEND may cooperate with Islamic extremist organizations. In fact, such a hypothesis is not supported by serious arguments, nevertheless, ex-commanders of MEND have not benefited from peace dividends. Therefore, even if Islamists are their former enemies, the rules of political cynicism emphasize that former enemies can unite for fighting against their common opponent. Personal Opinion In general, it is hard to analyze the situation in a politically unstable region. Comparing and making parallels is the only alternative, as there is no clear tendency on the political arena of Nigeria, and the Niger Delta region in particular. First, it should be stated that finding the ends is the most difficult part in investigating the attacks. In fact, the MEND is the only organization who takes responsibility for the attacks in the Delta region. However, they are just cat’s paw that pulls chestnuts out of the fire. This does not mean that they are naive and fight for the idea of freedom and emancipation. In accordance with the results of the Nuremberg Trials, the execution of the orders is not a justification of the military crimes, and crimes against humanity. However, the MEND is just the top of the iceberg, while the leaders should be sought among the representatives of the government, or among those who are outboard in the presidential races. Considering the political and international situation, associated with these attacks, it should be emphasized that the particular importance is attributed to the fact that the international community is not going to interfere. Nevertheless, similarly to the situation on the Middle East, there are all the necessary factors for interfering: terrorism, kidnapping, violation of human rights, absence of democratic procedures for electing the State leader, etc. Nevertheless, while the oil resources are under control of the international organizations (in distinction with Iraqi wells), there is no need to interfere. From the pragmatic point of view, the international community is interested in oil only, and, unless the oil production in the Delta region is captured by military groups, or nationalized, the international community will not undertake firm actions. Conclusion The political situation in Nigeria is quite unstable, and the pipeline attacks only promote the destabilization. Considering the fact that responsibility is taken by militant groups, the actions, undertaken by the government, and Goodluck Jonathan, as the leader of Nigeria do not meet the needs and requirements of the oligarch groups. Since MEND is controlled by unknown leaders, the true motives of these personalities can be guessed only. As for the international situation, the pragmatic and cynical outcomes are evident. These can be explained by the fact that kidnapping, violation of human rights, unwillingness of the government to grant social and governmental protection to Nigerian citizens is not a sufficient cause to interfere. Reviewing the situation from two opposing viewpoints (realism and liberalism) makes the only conclusion possible: the international community is interested in stable oil supplies. From the perspective of most researchers, the political stability is unreachable, until the agreement between the government and extremists is reached. Nevertheless, while every group pursues its own interests, stability and agreements are impossible. Reference List Almquist, K. J. (2009). U.S. Foreign Assistance to Africa: Securing America's Investment for Lasting Development. Journal of International Affairs, 62(2), 19 The Associated Press (2010) Gunmen Attack Pipeline in Nigeria. The New York Times. Retrived April 3, 2012, from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/world/africa/10nigeria.html?_r=2 Baldauf, S (2012) With oil pipeline attack, Niger Delta rebels announce return. The Christian Monitor. Retrieved April, 3, 2012, from: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2012/0206/With-oil-pipeline-attack-Niger-Delta-rebels-announce-return Bello, K. (2011). God-fatherism in the Politics of Nigeria: Continuity and Change/god-fatherism Dans la Politique Du Nigeria Continuite et Changement. Canadian Social Science, 7(2), 256 Eberechi, I. (2009). Armed Conflicts in Africa and Western Complicity: a Disincentive for African Union's Cooperation with the ICC. 53 Faucon, B. (2012) Militants Attack Pipeline in Nigeria. The Wall Street Journal. retrieved April, 4, 2012, from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577204600907864644.html Forrest, T. (2005). Politics and Economic Development in Nigeria. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Gillison, D. (2012) Attack on Nigerian oil pipeline attributed to MEND, despite three-year truce. Global Post. Retrieved April 4, 2012, from: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/africa/nigeria/120205/attack-nigerian-oil-pipeline-attributed-mend-despite-thr Hanson, J. H. (2009). Religious Militancy and Self-Assertion: Islam and Politics in Nigeria. The Historian, 61(2), 405. Ifeoma, E. E. (2011). Nigeria Foreign Policy and the Politics of Debt Relief/politique Etrangere et Politique de L'allegement de la Dette Du Nigeria.Canadian Social Science, 7(2), 153 Kane, O. (2007). Moderate Revivalists: Islamic Inroads in Sub-Saharan Africa.Harvard International Review, 29(2), 64 Maerkl, P. H. & Weinberg, L.. (2006).Right-Wing Extremism in the Twenty-First Century. London: Frank Cass. Rawls, J. (1996).Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press. Renner, M. (2002). Lessons of Afghanistan: Understanding the Conditions That Give Rise to Extremism. World Watch,15, 36 Williams, B. (2005).In the Beginning Was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument(G. Hawthorn, Ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Read More