Globalization and Terrorism in Nigeria

Abstract

This paper examines the interface between globalization and terrorism in Nigeria. There has been an increasing trend of terrorism in Nigeria. The success of these attacks proves that the government does not have the capacities to curb this emerging trend. The attacks in Abuja, the nation’s capital, during Independence Day celebrations, and in Jos, the plateau state, on Christmas Eve in 2010, readily come to mind. This paper thus examines the following questions: Is terrorism in Nigeria a consequence of globalization? Are terrorists in Nigeria exploiting the tools of modern globalization in carrying out terrorist activities? The paper submits that the genesis of terrorism can be traced to colonialism, which came before modern globalization. Therefore, while terrorism in Nigeria is a legacy of colonialism, modern globalization also facilitated the creation of conditions for the continued existence of terrorism. Lastly, the paper submits that terrorists in Nigeria are comfortably using tools of globalization to perpetuate their nefarious acts to the detriment of the government, and warns that these activities could graduate to even more dangerous levels, should government activities completely go online due to the large presence of cyber criminals popularly known as “yahoo yahoo boys” and hackers.

INTRODUCTION

Globalization and terrorism are two concepts that are intertwined. Although, globalization has resulted in development in every strata of our society—economic, political, technological, and socio-cultural it has been argued that globalization begets terrorism. In other words, terrorism and other related violent activities are consequences of globalization. Cronin asserted that “The current wave of international terrorism, characterized by unpredictable and unprecedented threats from non-state actors not only is a reaction to globalization but is facilitated by it.”[1] Also Rourke was of the view that the gap between the rich countries and poor countries have expanded over the last 20 years owing to the effects of globalization,[2] thereby fuelling animosities and violence among the poor, marginalized countries located in the Third World, against the Western pioneers of globalization and its antecedent characteristics, expressed in economic and political terms. “Whether deliberately intending to or not, the United States (and her Western counterparts) are projecting uncoordinated economic, social, and political power even more sweepingly than it is in military terms.”[3] Cronin thus concluded thatthis results in aggression  in the form of terrorism in the Third World against the pioneers of these policies that disarticulates their economy and leaves them with  nothing.[4] One of the root causes of terrorism in the Third World, it cannot be dichotomized from poverty, which is an end-product of the evil effects of globalization facilitated by the Bretton Woods institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO), which are largely controlled by the Western industrialized capitalist states. The economic policies emanating from these institutions have helped to maul the economies of the Third World countries, especially in Africa, and ensured perpetual domination. The effects of these policies, such as the structural adjustment programs, have resulted into extreme poverty of the people and cursing hatred towards their governments, which dance around these institutions. Thus, the expression of hatred through violent attacks on government institutions, both foreign and local. In the words of the Paul Martin, Canadian Minister of Commerce, after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States:

For the terrorist, however, the aims of their criminal act was not only the destruction of life—they were seeking to destroy our way of life. The terrorist did not choose their target randomly. New York’s World Trade Center stood at the heart of the international financial district. It was a symbol of accomplishment and confidence. It was targeted for that reason. The terrorist sought to cripple economic activity, to paralyze financial relations, to create new barriers between economics, countries and people.[5]

Karascasulu stated that, “today global terror is a giant problem for all humanity. September 11, gave a message that target was the main leader of globalization, the United States. World Trade Center as one target in the United States symbolized economic dimension while the Pentagon symbolizes political and military dimension.”[6]

Like other countries in the Third World, Nigeria has had its fair share of the evil effects of globalization, which have resulted in terrorist activities and have also aided it. The various policies of governments that were sold to them by the IMF and World Bank in the 1980s led to untold economic hardships on the citizens, which prompted various groups to react violently against these policies. This period set the stage for terrorist violence in Nigeria, from the militants in the Niger Delta, who adopted terrorist tactics to fight the government, whom they believe are agents of foreign capital, to the Boko Haram followers, who were frustrated by poverty and unemployment, tore their university and college certificates, and destroyed the institutions of government they believed were the cause of their plight. However, all this begs these questions: What is the relationship between globalization and terrorism in Nigeria? Is terrorism in Nigeria a consequence of globalization? Have terrorists in Nigeria been exploiting the tools of globalization to wreak havoc on the populace?

This paper seeks to examine whether terrorism is a consequence of globalization in Nigeria and how terrorists in Nigeria have exploited the instruments of globalization to destroy the institution and forces responsible for it in Nigeria. However, it is expedient that these two concepts be thoroughly discussed.

CONCEPTUAL ISSUES

Terrorism

The concept of terrorism today is a subject shrouded in a lot of controversies. There have been questions as to what constitutes terrorism. For the purpose of this study, the definition of terrorism can be perceived from two schools of thought. The first school is termed the idealistic conception of terrorism, and the second school of thought is termed the realist conception of terrorism. The idealist school of thought stressed the fact that every act that produces fear, terror, or death, whether legitimately carried out or not, by an individual group or state, is an act of terrorism. The realist school of thought, on the other hand, sees terrorism essentially as an attack by clandestine groups on non-combatants or civilians in order to draw attention by imbuing fear in the public to coerce a state actor from carrying out an action for their political objectives.

One of the proponents of the realist school of thought is the United States Government. Title 22 United States Code (USC) Section 2656 (f)) provides a definition of terrorism by the United States. According Title 22, “terrorism is defined as premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetuated against non combatant targets by sub national or clandestine agents usually intended to influence an audience.”[7] The US State Department defines a terrorist group as “any group practicing, or that has significant sub groups that practice international terrorism.”[8] Wiotti and Kauppi defined terrorism as “a politically motivated violence, aimed at achieving a demoralizing effects on publics and government.”[9] Wilkinson defines terrorism as “a systematic use of coercive intimidation usually to serve political ends. It is used to create and exploit a climate of fear among a wider target group than the immediate victims of the violence and to publicize a cause as well as to coerce a target into assenting to aims”[10] Cronin conceives of terrorism as “the threat or use of seemingly random violence against innocents for political ends by a non state actor.”[11]

The essential features of the definitions of terrorism as posited by the realist scholars is that they place emphasis on non-state actors, such as clandestine groups perpetuating violence on the public and having political objectives. More so, these definitions shield state actors. This therefore raises two questions: is a lone attacker or bomber a terrorist? What political objectives does a lone attacker or bomber have? For instance, the Unabomber, a name given by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to an elusive perpetrator of a series of bombings between 1975-1995 that killed three and wounded many people. More so, what are his objectives? An individual terrorist can be motivated by personal reasons, such as unfair dismissal from work place, divorce, death of loved ones, frustration, depression, unstable homes or insecurity at home, or, as has been suggested by Lee and Pearl, financial motivation.[12]

The idealists on the other hand, view every act, legitimate or not, that breeds an atmosphere of fear, destruction of lives and properties as terrorism. Among the proponents of this school of thought are Spiegal and Wheling, They define terrorism as “violence across international boundaries intended to coerce a target group into meeting political demands”.[13] The African Union defines terrorism as “any act which is a violation of the criminal laws of a state party and which may endanger the life, physical integrity or freedom of, or cause serious injury or death to any person, any member or group of persons or causes or may cause damage to public or private property, natural resources, environmental or cultural heritage.”[14] The Nigerian government has very recently provided a definition for terrorism.  They define a terrorist as “anyone who  [is] involved or who causes an attack upon a person’s life which may cause serious bodily harm or death; kidnapping of a person; destruction to a government or public facility, transport system, an infrastructural facility including an information system, a fixed platform located on the intercontinental shelf, public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss.”[15]

Proponents of this school further argue that “the consequences of an action are what matters and not the intent. Collateral or unintended damage to civilians from an attack is the same as a terrorist bomb directed deliberately at the civilian target with the intent of creating that damage”[16]

This is the reason why it has been said that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. This school of thought adopts a moralistic and pacifist view point in their conception of terrorism. However, one question raised here about the definition of terrorism from this viewpoint is its emphasis on violence perpetuated outside the country. What about terrorism perpetuated against citizens within the boundary of the state?

However, irrespective of these schools of thought as regards the definition of the concept of terrorism, the United Nations, which is a platform where various countries meet, have not reached a consensus on the definition of concept. This is based on the fact that some countries, especially in the Middle East, are careful not to subscribe to any definition of terrorism that opposes a legitimate fight for freedom from foreign occupation. However, despite this obstacle, the UN has loosely agreed that terrorism violates certain principles on which the institution is established. The UN Policy Working Group on Terrorism enumerated these principles, which include “assault on the principles of law or order, human rights and peaceful settlement of disputes.” [17] For the purpose of this discussion, terrorism may be defined as violent attack by faceless groups, individuals, or the state in order to push forward their political, primordial, and personal objectives. This definition incorporates both the realist and idealist conception of terrorism. It takes into consideration all groups, individuals, and states and looks at the factors that engenders terrorism, such as political reasons, which may come in form of liberation from foreign occupation, one country trying to influence the decisions or policies of another country, or trying to force its policies on its own citizens, through coercive means; primordial reasons such as age long acrimony between two groups, especially religious groups; personal reasons, such as loss of job, marginalization, frustration and depression, instability or lack of security in the family; or financial reasons due to excessive poverty and trying enrich oneself. This definition illuminates the concept of terrorism.

Globalization

Alasuutari  posited that “the term globalization has been used to refer to a number of developments”; thus, the concept is considered very significant.[18] Tomlinson defines globalization as “a process whereby a global network of interconnections and interdependence, uniting different countries and regions is getting more and more dense.[19] Friedman conceives of globalization as “the the integration of everything with everything else”; that is, “the integration of markets, finance, and technology in a way that shrinks the world from a size medium to a small size.”[20] From the foregoing definitions of the concept of globalization, scholars agree that globalization is a process that enhances the destructions of barriers that previously existed among states of the world, thus integrating the world into a single entity or unit where barriers such as culture, communication, governance and geography are extinct. It should, however, be noted that the concept of globalization has come a long way, and “many precursors of modern globalization date back into history, even into antiquity”.[21] Marx and Engels, in their Communist Manifesto of 1848, discussed the concept of globalization especially in economic and academic terms:

The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country to the great chagrin of reactionaries. It has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw materials drawn from the remotest zones, industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as immaterial, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

These attest to the fact that globalization is not a new concept. Scholars have classified the term into several historical epochs, such as modern or contemporary globalization and pre-modern globalization. [22] Alasuutari asserted that globalization is both old and new. It is old in that the efforts of humans to overcome the distance and other barriers to increased interchange have long existed. The first canoes and signal fires are part of the history of globalization.[23] Rourke termed this stage of globalization particularly in the 1800s as “creeping globalization” where the world metamorphosed incrementally.[24] In our contemporary society however, globalization moves at a very rapid manner, far different from what I may term old globalization. Tomlison attest to this fact that modern globalization is a “rapidly accelerating process, and especially so from the early 1980s to the late 1990s.”[25] Alasuutari concluded that the pace of globalization refers to a long historical process, the contemporary stage of which represents a “distinctive historical form with a unique conjuncture of social, political, economic and technological forces.”[26]

Globalization has closed the gaps that existed among states. Today, various issues such as environmental degradation, diseases, and terrorism are not issues that affect one state alone, but all states. States are continually interdependent in political, economic, and socio-cultural terms. Rourke corroborated this viewpoint when he stated that “because security and prosperity of individual state are increasingly linked to politics, economy and environmental conditions, in other states, thus, the result is a true global village where states, must work together to achieve a common goal.”[27]

TERRORISM: A CONSEQUENCE OF GLOBALIZATION IN NIGERIA

The history of terrorism in Africa can be traced to the period of colonialism. Although, prior to colonialism, there has been evidence of violent clashes among various groups within African states fighting for one course or the other.[28]   However, terrorism was more evident during the colonial period. Hübschle posited that, “Historical data shows that the African continent has witnessed a wide array of terror incidents including revolutionary, state sponsored and state terrorism.”[29] Past liberation movements that fought for independence in their countries, such as “Africa National Congress (ANC), The African National Union- Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), The West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) and Frente de Libertaçãode de Moçambique (FRELIMO), are labeled as terrorist organizations.”[30] Anette Hübschle stressed the fact that it was ironical that terrorism perpetrated by colonialist powers was not recorded, while revolutionary activities of liberation movement in Africa were labeled terrorist. The colonialist committed atrocities upon the African populace. Hübschle termed this pattern of terrorism as “colonial terror” “a distinct form of terrorism perpetuated during colonial and post-colonial period.”[31]

Colonialism in Africa was largely facilitated by globalization. Pre-modern globalization ushered in the period of colonization in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. In Africa, this historical epoch was the beginning of modern terrorism. Pre-modern globalization brought tripartite factors which are essentially linked. First, globalization brought about colonialism in Africa and other continents such as Asia and Middle East, which led to acts of resistance by the natives; thus, a culture of violence was created among the people till this day. In trying to suppress these violent resistances by the natives, the colonialists employed all manner of state terrorism to instill an atmosphere of terror and tension among the colonial people. Chinweizu, in his book West and the Rest of Us, best captures the relationship between globalization and colonialism and consequently terrorist activities by the colonial authorities:

For nearly six centuries now Western Europe and its Diaspora have been disturbing the peace of the world.  Enlightened through their Renaissance by learning of the ancient Mediterranean; armed with gun, the making of whose powder they had learned from Chinese firecrackers; equipping their ships with lantern sail, astrolabes and nautical compasses, all invented by the Chinese and transmitted to them by the Arabs; fortified in aggressive spirit by arrogant, messianic Christianity of  both the popish and protestant varieties; and motivated by the lure of enriching plunder, white horbes have sallied forth from their western European homelands to explore, assault, loot, occupy, rule and exploit the rest of the world. And even now the fury of their expansionist assault upon the rest of us has not abated.[32]

The Nigerian state had its own story to tell about colonial terror and other terrorist activities which were mobilized as a result of colonial policies. This came about as a result of revolutionary movements and violent inter-ethno-religious clashes. Suberu and Osaghae stated that, ethnic and violent clashes can be traced to colonialism and its attendant policies. Colonialism brought about socio-economic inequality through the institutionalization of classes and thereby class struggle. A state of mutual suspicion existed among the major ethnic groups in Nigeria. And violent clashes among these groups has economic undertone. The various ethnic groups are keen to control the central government because all resources are centralized, thus making positions in the central government highly lucrative.[33] Furthermore, Falola, in his book, Colonialism and Violence in Nigeria, argued that the root cause of violent activities in Nigeria today, such as Jos crisis, the Niger Delta violence in the southern and northern part of Nigeria respectively, can be traced to colonialism. At that time, the natives challenged colonial rule through violence. Therefore, a “public culture” was created in the Nigerian polity, in which the citizenry were inclined to commit acts of violence in response to exploitative colonial policies. Some of the notable violent protests during the colonial rule were the Aba women riot of 1929, and the Ekumeku wars, in which the guerilla form of resistance was used against the British occupation of Nigeria.[34]

These violent activities by the colonial people in Africa and Nigeria, in particular during the colonial period, can be traced to the policies of the colonial authorities, during and after the period of the great depression from 1929 to 1939. Before the depression of the 1930s, the economic depression in the 1870s was the major factor that led to the colonialism in some parts of Nigeria.[35] The economic depression of the 1930s was felt in various ways. There was the “falling export prices for crops and tin and declining trade profits and revenue, as British firms either ceased importing European manufacturers or sought tax relief.”[36] These economic development had an established economic pattern where the agricultural and other reserves are accumulated from the taxes paid the colonialist. The colonial authorities responded by introducing austerity measures aimed at cutting salaries, firing some workers, expanding taxation, an aggressive revenue drive, public works were suspended, price controls, and expansion of export crops.[37]

The people of Nigeria were prematurely integrated into the world market. According to Ochonu, “they were placed in the web of uncertainty, volatile and exploitative world market.”[38] He further stated that “during the depression, the British colonial authority implemented contradictory policy of both incorporation and imperial closure of colonially mediated globalization and deglobalization.”[39]

These economic policies of the colonial authority, which affected the income of colonial subject, stirred up all forms of violent and domestic terrorism against colonial authorities. These problems are attributed to the negative effect of globalization or pre-modern globalization. This is based on the fact that by the 1920s and the 1930s, the colonized nation’s economy had been fully integrated with the world economy, forming a center- peripheral-like relationship. Thus, the economic depression in Western developed states affected the colonial states.

Furthermore, in the 1980s, another economic depression hit the nation; that is, in the period of the “oil doom” there was a sharp drop in the sale of crude oil, which was rapidly becoming the major export earning of the country at that time. Responding to the economic crisis, the government, under the advice of the IMF, introduced the structural adjustment program. This austerity measure, which was aimed at wage cuts, dismissal, cuts in government expenditures, etc., resulted in severe hardship among the populace. The end product became violent protests and domestic terrorism towards the government. “In 1988, in response to an increase in the price of fuel, riots broke out in Jos and Sokoto state, which turned out to more intense….”[40]   Moreover, in May and June of 1989, several towns such as Lagos, Ibadan, Benin City, and Port Harcourt revolted against the IMF’s plans, which resulted in destruction of hundreds of lives and property worth millions of naira (the Nigerian currency).[41]

The economic crisis in the 1980s saw the emergence of groups who were involved in terrorist activities in the country. They include: Ogoni Youth, Niger Delta Volunteer Force, (NDVF), Odua People Congress (OPC), Arewa Youth Consultative forum, Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MASOP), Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), Ijaw Youth Council (IYC), Egbesu Boys of Africa (EBA), Niger Delta Vigilante (NDV), Isoko National Youth Movement (INYM), Egi Women Movement. “[S]everal factors underline the growth and development of these groups… economic recession of the 1980s, falling commodity prices, OPEC price increases, privatization, economic liberalization, deregulation, currency devaluation, cold war politics, trade barriers”[42]

In another vein, this period also witnessed state terrorism. The response by the government to these violent protests was brutal. Several military administrators from the 1980s through the 1990s responded violently to these protests, thereby creating an atmosphere of fear. Ogundiya and Amzat posited that certain incidences capture the fact that, in suppressing opposition to economic policies by the military government, diverse acts of state terrorism weere carried out successfully. For instance, Ken Saro Wiwa, the leader of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MASOP), was executed by the then military ruler General Sanni Abacha; the assassination of Dele Giwa, an editor and environmental activist, through a letter bomb in October 1986; the assassination of Kudirat Abiola in June 4 1999; and the assassination of Moshood Abiola in July 7, 1998.[43]

Therefore, all these factors highlighted above affirm the viewpoint that among the disadvantages of globalization is the consequence of terrorism in Nigeria. The economic policies and advice of the Bretton Woods institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and World Trade Organization, which are agents and forces of globalization, have negative influences on the economy of developing nations such as Nigeria. This kindles the fire of hatred of the people of these developing countries on their government and the western collaborators.

GLOBALIZATION AS A MEANS OF TERRORISM IN NIGERIA

The tools of globalization have become a veritable means for terrorists to carry out their activities successfully. This makes most terrorists ideological hypocrites. Murphy observes that the major instruments of globalization, which are the information and communication technologies, such as mobile phones, the internet, mass media, etc., have ensured that terrorist plans are executed with  the same ease at which commerce is carried out among nations in the world.[44] He further states that, “using technological advances in communication, these groups  (terrorist) can easily contact and operate”.[45] Pillar further states that “the use of information technologies such as the internet, mobile phones, and instant messaging has extended the global reach of many terrorist groups.”[46] Of one very essential tool of globalization, the internet, Theohany and Rollins state that “it is used by Insurgents, Jihadists, and terrorist organization as a tool for radicalization and recruitment, method of propaganda distribution, a means of communication, and ground training.”[47]

In Nigeria, there is an emerging trend among terrorist groups. They have adopted the methods used by other terrorists, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, by using information technology, and particularly the internet, to communicate to the people and the government on their activities. In the same vein, the leader of the Al Qaeda network, Osama Bin Laden, had been able to communicate to terrorists in Nigeria through the media, promising to support the quest to destroy their fellow countrymen. Karon reported that, in February 2003, Osama Bin Laden stated that Nigeria is a country that is ripe for “liberation”; that is, Nigeria is a country worthy of jihad. This statement was made available by Al Jazeera through a video message broad cast.[48] Furthermore, The Guardian newspaper reported in 2004 that Al Qaeda had been communicating to certain terrorist groups in Nigeria through email addresses.[49] In addition, terrorist groups in Nigeria, such as the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), Niger Delta Volunteer Force (NDVF), and other related militants groups were using the internet to communicate to the government by claiming responsibility for attacks on crude oil installations. The Boko Haram sect in Nigeria claimed responsibility through the internet for the Christmas Eve bombings of some parts of Plateau state.

Furthermore, the media have ensured that the objectives of the terrorists in Nigeria are achieved. This is because news of impending terrorist attacks by the mass media creates an atmosphere of fear and suspicion in the country. There had been reported cases of threats by terrorists to attack Lagos, the country’s commercial nerve center, and Abuja. These threats were quickly disseminated, therefore sending a message that the government could no longer protect its citizens from the activities of these terrorists.

Another emerging trend of terrorism in Nigeria is cyber terrorism. Although Nigeria has not reached the desired level of information and communication technology needed to electronically run every activities of the government, the fact that cybercrimes are in existence in the country is a warning sign that the future may be bleak if the government completely goes online. “It is estimated that there are about 40 million computers in Nigeria. Without the owners ever suspecting it, each of these computers can be deployed as foot soldiers, even by an attacker in another country, to do the biddings of some evil geniuses.”[50] Cases abound of how cybercriminals and hackers have swindled companies in and outside the country. Terrorist groups can hire these hackers or cyber criminals, popularly known in Nigeria as “yahoo yahoo boys,” to wreak havoc in the future on the nation’s network system.

CONCLUSION

This article has attempted to establish the link between globalization and terrorism in Nigeria; specifically, how globalization results in terrorism and how globalization has continued to aid terrorism in Nigeria. Pre-modern globalization brought about colonialism in Africa and other parts of the Third World. Colonial authorities established an economic system that ensured the continued subordination of the Nigerian people. Consequently, resistance to these economic policies of the colonial authority has led to the establishment of a culture of violent resistance or domestic terrorism in the country today. Moreover, in the quest to suppress this opposition by the colonial subjects, the colonial authorities applied all manner of state-terrorism upon the people. This period   kicked-off the modern terrorism in Nigeria.  After independence, the ruling elites, trapped by the international economic system they have been prematurely integrated with wherein competition is at its highest, relied on the advice of the western capitalist states, through their forces of globalization such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc., thereby guaranteeing the continued subordination of their economic system. As a result of this, the people reacted through terrorist activities, this time against their own government, whose officials are now perceived as agents of foreign capitals. In another vein, instruments of globalization, such as the mass media, the internet, and mobile phones, have continued to make the activities of terrorists in Nigeria very easy to carry out and difficult for the government to tackle. Terrorists in Nigeria are creating an atmosphere of fear and insecurity through bombings and threats of bombings, and this information is quickly disseminated by the media. The internet has become a useful tool to communicate to the government and the people claiming responsibility of attacks, a similar tactic employed by terrorist networks elsewhere. More so, due to the porosity of the network system in Nigeria, where cyber criminals are everywhere, it portends danger in the future, if the government decides to completely carry out its tasks online.

Notes

1. Cronin, Audrey Kurth Behind the curve. Globalization and international terrorism. International Security. Vol. 27, No. 3 2003.

2. Rourke, John.T. Taking sides. Clashing View on Controversial Issues in World Politics 11th edition. 2005.

3. Ibid, p. 45

4. Hungton, Samuel P. “The Clash of Civilization? Foreign Affairs, Vol 72, No. 3 (summer 1993); Benjamin R. Barber, Jihad vs Mcworld: Terrorism’s challenges to Democracy. New York: Randon House, 1995; Samuel P. Hungton, The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of world order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996)

5. Canadian Minister of Commerce Paul Martins statements after the terrorist attack on the United State of America. 2001

6. Karacasulu, Nilüfer. Security and Globalization in the Context of International Terrorism.” Uluslararasi Hukuk ve Politika Cilt 2, No:5. ss. 1-17 ( 2006). p. 3

7. Sean, K.alic. Combating a Modern Hydra Al Qaeda and the Global War on Terrorism” Global War on Terrorism Occasional Paper 8 Combat Studies Institute Press Fort Leaven Worth, Kansas. 2005

8. US States Department. Patterns of global terrorism 1990

9. Wiotti, R. and Kauppi, M. International Relations,word politics, Security, Economy and Entity 4th ed. Peasrson Educational inc. New Jersey. 2009

10. Wilkinson, Paul. International Relations: A very Short Introduction New York, Oxford University Press Inc. 2007.

11. Ibid, p.33

12. Rensselaer, Lee and Raphael, Pearl, “Terrorism, the Future and US Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade Division (Congressional Research Service. The Library of Congress (Order Code 1B95112) CSR-3. 2002

13. Speigel, Steven L. and Wehling, Fred.L. World Poltics in the New Era (2nd ed) Harcourt Brace College Publishers California. 1999

14. African Union Convention Cited in Omotola, Shola J. Assessing Counter Terorism Measures in Africa: Implications for Human Rights and National Security. 2008

15. The Nation, February 23, 2011

16. International Terrorism and Security Research. 2008

17. The UN Policy Working Group on Terrorism, 2001, 5

18. Alasuutari, Pertti. “Globalization and the Nation-State: An Appraisal of the Discussion.” Department of Sociology and Social Psychology. University of Tampere, Finland. 2000

19. Tomlinson, J. Globalization and culture. Cambrige: Polity Press. 1999

20. Ibid, p.4

21. Ibid, p.2

22. Ibid, p.260

23. Ibid, p.22

24. Ibid, p.8

25. Ibid, p.9

26. Ibid, p.43

27. Ibid, p.463

28. Oyeniyi, AB. “Terrorism in Nigeria: Groups, Activities, and Politics”. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance. Vol.1,No1.1 Quarter I ISSN No.0976-1195 2010

29. Hübschle, Annette. The T-word: Conceptualising Terrorism. African Security Review 15.3 Institute of Security Studies. 2005

30. Ibid, p.8

31. Ibid, p.9

32. Chinweizu, The West and the Rest of Us. Nok Publishers. Nigeria Ltd Lagos. 1978

33. Osaghae, Eghosa.E. and Suberu, Rotimi.T. A History of Identities, Violence, and Stability in Nigeria. Center for Research on Inequality,Human Security and Ethnicity, CRISE working Paper No.6 University of Oxford 2005

34. Falola, T. (2009). Colonialism and Violence in Nigeria. Bloomington: Indiana University Press

35. Ochonu, Moses .E “Colonial Meltdown”. Ohio University Press. 2009

36. Ibid, p.5

37. Ibid, p.7

38. Ibid, p.7

39. Ibid, p.8

40. Libcom.org “The Development of Class Struggle in Nigeria-ICG 2006

41. Ibid, p.3

42. Ibid, p.4

43. Ogundiya, S. and Amzat, J. (2008). Nigeria and the Threats of Terrorism:Myth or Reality. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa (Vol.10, No. 2) ISSN 1520-5509 Clarion University of Pennsylvania, Clarion, Pennsylvania

44. Murphy, D. (2002). “Activated Asian Terror Web Busted” Christian Science Monitor and “Al Qaeda South Asia Reach” Washington Post.

45. Ibid, p.8

46. Pillar, P.R. (2001). Terrorism and U.S Foreign Policy. Washington D.C p.47

47. Ibid, p.47

48. Theohany C.A. and Rollins J. (2011). “Terrorist Use of the Internet: Information Operations in Cyberspace. Congressional Research Service. 7 – 5700

49. Karon, T. (2003) “Why African has Become a Bush Priority. Time Magazine, July 7

50. Guardian, 2004 “suspect Links e-mail Address to Al Qaeda” August 5, p.1

51. www.nigeriabestforum.com/index.php? topic = 90059.0