PERSPECTIVES ON NIGERIA’S PEACE SUPPORT OPERATIONS IN AFRICA, 2009-2019
Luper Angel Nguyilan
Department of International Relations and Diplomacy,
Afe Babalola University Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State.
&
Rotimi Olajide Opeyeoluwa
Department of International Relations and Diplomacy,
Afe Babalola University Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti-State
&
Aderemi Opeyemi Ade-Ibijola, PhD
Department of International Relations and Diplomacy,
Afe Babalola University Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti-State.
Abstract
Nigeria has steadfastly kept faith in supporting peace support operations since 1960 in sync with its avowed commitment to global peace and regional security. Some skeptics have dismissed such efforts as exporting what it doesn’t have and importing what she doesn’t need. It is against this background that this paper examines Nigeria’s peace support operations within the decade 2009-2019. It looks at the implications of Nigeria’s continuous peace support in social, political and economic contexts. The paper employed qualitative approach in its analysis and discussion. In this regard, books, journal articles and newspapers were used in used in interrogating the theme of the paper. In addition, oral interviews were also conducted with relevant academic and none-academic stakeholders. The paper also examines the meagre gains of the peace support operations for Nigeria and concludes that Nigeria should anchor future peace support operations on strategic economic gains. The paper concludes and recommends that future peace support operations should be anchored on strategic, economic, political, cultural and diplomatic gains for Nigeria.
Though the international system is considered a combustible and highly unstable environment given the divergence of interests and power ratio amongst nation-states, the thinking is that the divergence in interest should not be allowed to fester to point of needless conflicts where states will act as adversaries and serially go to war in furtherance of its objectives. However, the phenomenon of conflict is akin to a double-edged sword which could either be used to conquer the world when held by the handle or bleed to death if held by the tip (Sase and Ugber: 2020). In other word, conflict can be a prelude to a chaotic and devastating eruption to war and could galvanize nations to diplomatic engagement. Ason (2002) agrees with the notion that conflict if well-handled could potentially prevent the regress into war; when he asserted, “If conflicts are constructive and positively handled, they can be indices of growth and development”. There is no gainsaying that where peace and stability is absence there can be no development.
According to Pirages (1976), conflicts, violence and warfare have been an enduring feature of organized societies including nations. Whether in the distant past, the history of mankind is awash with conflicts and the attendant quest for security. Conflicts according to Sanda (2005) is the pursuit of incompatible goals by individuals or groups and occur when two or more parties differ on ideas, goals or means of achieving them. It can also be seen as involving an escalated natural competition between 2 or more parties over scarce resources, power and prestige. Conflicts can degenerate into full scale war. Coming into a realization of the eventuality of conflict in a global system with divergence of interests, Zaartman (1994) suggested the need for 3rd party intervention hen conflicts erupt. He alluded that conflict can be mitigated when the belligerents perceive that it is in their interest to seek a negotiated resolution towards restoration of peace.
The complexities which attend international politics and being mindful that divergences will always attend inter-state relation, the foundation of Nigeria’s foreign policy was predicated on certain notions, chief of which is that Nigeria has certain roles to discharge to the world on account of its huge population and strategic importance on the African continent and its self-imposed commitment to global peace, security and solidarity.
This much was articulated by the nation’s maiden and only Prime Minister, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa (1960). In the ensuing decades, the country was regarded with much prestige and honour on account of its undertakings in Africa and the rest of the world, particularly in its avowed opposition to the rabid apartheid regime in South Africa and continued support for peace and stability by donating troops for peace keeping operation in the continent and beyond. Since 1960, when Nigeria initially began its peace support operation activities under the umbrella of the UN, the country has continued to remain steadfast in this regard. According to Oche (2004), Nigeria has contributed personnel in 25 out of the 51 PK operations conducted between 1948 and 1999. This statistic has growth in the intervening years as by 2013, the country had deployed for peace support operation 69 times (Obilor, 2014).
The desire for peace and stability which in turn help fuel development and an oasis of wealth for the greater percentage of humanity made the United Nations and willing states inclined for peace to collaborate. This cannot be otherwise as conflicts in the post-cold era are endemic; mostly driven by poverty, injustices, ethnicity and political exclusion in many countries (Saliu, 2016). In Africa, the flare-ups and attendant wanton destruction of lives and properties have remained a continued source of concern and embarrassment in the ensuing decades (Adedeji, 1999). Not surprising, the devastating conflicts necessitated the United Nations to put the protection of civilians and vulnerable groups on the front burner of global discourse.
Peace-keeping operation is a concept that gained prominence during the cold war era as a tool designed by the international community to mitigate the convoluted international system which is purportedly ‘anarchical, brutish and nasty’. Its history is dated back to the 1948 Arab- Israeli war which was recorded as the first peace-keeping operation to have been executed under the United Nations Mandate, an institution or organization charged with the primary objective of maintaining and keeping the peace and stability of the world.
Peace-keeping developed as an instrument to help countries and their people with sustaining conditions for peaceful and secure environments to thrive in the heat of the cold war as an ad-hoc mechanism (United Nations, 2008). Strictly speaking, the platform for peacekeeping was not present in the UN Charter. The cold war ideological leaning and lack of workability of the principle of collective security made peacekeeping model an alternative and quick fix-it model to meet with the exigencies of competing interests and eruptions of conflicts in the international system. With no available global instrument, the UN found a common ground between Chapter 7 and 8 of its Charter. The global body in its thinking fashioned underlining principles to such as the need for a third-party intervention, a ceasefire mutually agreed upon by the parties to the conflict and the deployment of an interposing force between the combatants.
The UN further elaborated:
A technique designed to preserve the peace, however, fragile where fighting has been halted, and to assist in implementing agreements achieved by the peacemakers. Over the years, peacekeeping has evolved from a primary military model of observing ceasefires and the separation of forces after inter-state wars, to incorporate a complex model of many elements, military, and police and civilians-working together to help lay the foundations for sustainable peace (cited in Sanda, 2012:412).
It is safe to assert that the principle of peace support operation was radically transformation after the Rwandan genocide and upsurge in intra-state conflicts with accompanying bestialities by irregular forces not guided by any modicum of law of armed conflicts or regard for the sanctity of human lives. The concept of Peace- support operations could be said to be a military term used to denote multi-functional and multinational operations conducted impartially in support of UN/OSCE mandate, involving diplomatic effort, humanitarian organizations/agencies and military forces. These mandates include; peace- building, conflict prevention, peace-making, peace-enforcement, humanitarian operations and so on (PSO Handbook, 2000).It could also be defined as those operations, which were or are deployed with or without the compliance of belligerent parties, depending on international legislation and mandate to sustain and implement a peaceful environment impartially and without using combat arms, if not necessary Chan (2011).
Potentially, peace-support operations could be executed at the international level involving member states of the United Nations Organization across borders coming together to contribute resources (material and human) to ensure peace and stability at sub-regional, regional and the world at large when security is threatened. Umbrella international organizations such as United Nations (UN), African Union (AU) and ECOWAS and others of such clout are responsible for mobilizing global or sub-regional initiatives, channeling resources of member states to keep peace and security around the world. Peace keeping operations are carried out where there is a scourge of war or conflict and in areas of violence or insecurity. Conditions for mutual trust and respect has been vitiated
Of particular note, the African continent since the end of colonial rule and subsequently after the end of cold war has been characterized by conflict and insecurity as a result of several factors such as ethnic divide, a major cause of conflict in the African region. This was created by the colonialist who in their effort to project and protect their national interest, created artificial states in Africa by joining together different groups and using the principle of divide and rule to govern them. The colonial masters before their departure however, did nothing to create effective State institutions that will mediate the resulting conflicts between the groups which they forcefully merged together into fragile political entity Nasongo (2015). The political instabilities are also a major factor that continue to compel Nigeria’s effort at responding to douse and end such conflicts particularly in the African continent and at the global levels of analysis.
Nigeria which has to a great extent, given its status as the “African giant and regional hegemon” assumed the responsibility on attainment of independence towards the maintenance of peace, security and stability on the continent. Nigeria’s effort in peace-support operations has been felt not only on the continent but globally. The country’s involvement in peace support operations is one that is very commendable While this noble act has however contributed to some level of peace, stability and order as accrued to Nigeria’s afro-centric foreign policy which came to effect following Sir Tafawa Balewas speech where he stated “where he stated that “very particular attention will be devoted to adopting clear and practical policies with regard to Africa. We shall make every effort to find a way to unite our efforts and prevent Africa from becoming an area of crisis and world tension”. There have been criticisms as regard this noble act by Nigeria, critics have often described this action to keep peace and stability on the African continent as a medium for capital flight where all Nigeria does is to spend money and in return little is being achieved especial in the economic aspect from these countries, further affecting future peace operation. It is on this basis therefore that this study will examine the challenges and implications of this peace support operations for the country.
Nigeria’s peace-support operation in Africa is attributed to her afro-centric foreign policy orientation which is accredited to Nigeria’s First Prime Minister Sir Abubarkar Tafawa Balewa’s speech where he stated that “very particular attention will be devoted to adopting clear and practical policies with regard to Africa. We shall make every effort to find a way to unite our efforts and prevent Africa from becoming an area of crisis and world tension. Ashiru and George, (2013).
Conceptual Framework
The concept of Peace support operations is not a new concept in the field of international relations. The origin of this term or concept is traceable to the creation of the United Nations (1945) and mainly because of the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 which was the first peace-support operation to have been executed under the United Nations platform. Peace-support operations basically were developed as an interventionist instrument to help countries and their peoples with sustaining conditions for peaceful and secure environments when such inclement occurrences for instability to occur (United Nations, 2008).They are designated as a composite approach involving diplomatic efforts and humanitarian agencies generally towards achievement of a long-term peace settlement (PSO Handbook, 2000).
The term Peace Support Operation according to Ekoko is “the use of military, civil police and also civilian personnel for the prevention, containment and termination of crisis or conflict which the UN or any other international or regional organization may perceive as posing a threat to international peace and security” (Gambari, 2012). Peace Support Operation as a term involves “those operations undertaken to aid the creation of an environment devoid of war and strife” (International Alert, 2002:1). It is usually executed under the guide of the three principle of peace –keeping stated in the UN charter; principle of consent, impartiality and non-use of force except in self-defense. To International Alert (2002), Peace Support Operations includes “all dimensions of peacekeeping operations by the international community ranging from the complex multi- dimensional operations to a more direct visible observer operations” regardless of all peace support operation which include; conflict prevention, peace-building, peace-making, peace enforcement, peace keeping, or humanitarian operations, or election monitoring, there are aimed at one “ mandated purpose” which is “to protect lives, safeguard human rights, re-establish conditions for peace, security, stability, increase the people’s capacity to deal with crisis and the reconstruction of their societies” (International Alert, 2002).
There are four levels under which peace support operations can be conducted and they include; grand strategic level, strategic level, operational level and tactical level. The grand strategic level involves the application of multi-national resources by the Security Council in cooperation with its member-states toward achievement of its objectives. The strategic levels also known as military strategy entails the application of military among other resources for the achievement of set goals. Another level of peace support operation is the operational level is the level where the military objectives are being executed or implemented by head of peace missions and force commanders on instructions of the grand military strategic authorities. Lastly is the tactical level which involves deployment of military units and supporting agencies for specific task so as to achieve operational directives (UN, 1945).
Peace-keeping
Peacekeeping according to Onoja (1996), is an operation involving the use of military personnel but without enforcement powers to maintain or restore international peace and security in areas of conflict. He also sees it as a conflict control mechanism aimed at reducing the tension and controlling international disputes or conflicts from escalating out of proportion. It is a ceasefire operation to reduce or stop a conflict from escalating into a war and it is usually done in regards It is usually carry out with respect to three basic principles; principle of consent involving the permission of conflicting parties, principle of impartiality, and non-use of force except in self-defense. It is a third-party intervention which involves the deployment of military troops/military observers/civilian police in a target state in accordance to the specified mandate in multilateral agreements, peace agreements or resolutions of the UN or Regional organizations for the purpose of separating warring parties, monitoring, maintaining buffer zones, as well as assuming responsibility for the security situation between the adversaries (Heldt and Wallensteen, 2004).
Three generations of peace keeping are being highlighted; the first-generation peace keeping which is a tradition form of peace keeping used by the UN to pave way for conflict to cool off by assisting the warring or conflicting parties to observe the agreed terms on a cease fire with the view of encouraging negotiation towards settlement of the dispute. We also have the second-generation peace keeping that involves a more elaborate and an all-inclusive strategy for keeping peace. Lastly is the third-generation peace keeping which implies the salient need of peace keepers to monitor the “humanitarian mandate” in the interest of the public (Adeyemi, 2016).
Peace Building
This refers to a long-term preventive, pre-hostile strategy developed to address the underlining causes of conflict and to strengthen structural stability and social justice in a country with a view of preventing further outbreak of internal armed conflict. It is aimed at creating more sustainable measures to prevent future outbreak of conflict. According to Michael Small (2001:78) defined peace building as “the effort to strengthen the prospect for internal peace and decrease the likelihood of violent conflict”. It seeks to improve the capacity of people in managing conflict without resulting to violence in a society. Measures for peace building include; the re-integration of former combatants into the civil society, improving respect for human rights by monitoring and investigating past and existing abuses, providing technical assistance for democratic development and promoting conflict resolution and reconciliation techniques.
It involves mechanisms to identify and support a structure which enhances peace, build confidence measures and support economic reconstruction. The main focus of peace-building is to address the underlying context and attitude such as; social exclusion, discrimination, marginalization, undue domineering tendencies of the minority group by the majority group and uneven distribution of wealth or resources of the state, unequal access to job opportunities and so on which give rise to conflict or violence (Fisher et al, 2000). Peace-building is a type of peace-support operation that has two phases; the pre-armed conflict phase and the post-hostility phase. At the pre-armed conflict phase, peace-building seeks to reduce or completely stop conflict escalation while at the post-hostility phase it advocates the deployment diplomacy that aims at reducing socioeconomic deprivation and at building responsible political institutions that will keep peace and stability (Reychler, 1994).
Peace building at the post-hostility stage actualizes the following: restores social and political structures as well as institutions capable of preventing the renewal of the conflict; restores trust between the warring parties; provide at least a minimal guarantee that the population will survive; resolve the problem of refugees and others who suffered during the conflict and lastly to restore the economy and effective operation of civilian structures, including those responsible for law and order, health care and education. In summary, peace building entails a wide range of post-conflict measures or actions adopted to strengthen and solidify a political settlement so as to avoid a return to conflict.
Conflict Prevention
This involves those activities which are usually peaceful, channeled toward the prevention of conflict escalation. This include; early warning of conflicting states, careful analysis of the cause of such conflict to ensure that a more sustainable solution to ensure peace is reached, preventive deployment of military, preventive disarmament (arms embargoes) and initiation of conflict prevention programs. There are three principal military activities that contribute to prevention of conflicts or any resurgence of hostilities. Those are early warning, surveillance and stabilizing measures.
Conflict prevention is further categorized into two: the structural prevention and direct prevention. The structural conflict preventive measure includes the building of institutions and development of trust and (longer-term) cooperation among conflicting parties in order to decrease the perceived need to start a conflict as well as the risk of, escalating a potential conflict issue into the level of unstable peace. It is usually applicable at the stable peace stage before the manifest of a conflict. It focuses more on long term measures that address the underlying causes of a potential conflict along with potentially escalating and triggering factors. Examples of structural preventive measures of conflict include: economic development, increase political participation or cultural autonomy. Directive conflict prevention on the other hand is used during the unstable stage when it seems like both parties may start a conflict or may have started the conflict so as to reduce the tension between them and to create trust between the conflicting parties. Examples of direct conflict prevention measures are; sanction coercive diplomacy, dispatch of envoys and so on.
Peace Making
This involves all peaceful measures of addressing an ongoing conflict situation. It makes use of diplomacy to bring conflicting parties towards agreeing to make peace by negotiation. It is aimed at managing conflict. The United Nations Organization described it as using the tools of diplomacy, negotiation and mediation among other peaceful means to discontinue an on-going conflict (UNO, 1995:23).
Peace Enforcement
This entails the use of force or other coercive means which is usually on the authorization of the UN Security Council to enforce peace in a hostile environment. It is used when a ceasefire or all other peaceful means to keep or maintain as well as resolve conflict fail. It involves those operations that are carried out to restore peace between belligerent parties who fail to consent to intervention by peace-making and who may continue to engage in combat activities (war, conflict, struggles and so on) (UNO, 1995). Military forces under peace enforcement are not deployed directly because of the nature of its operation which involves offensive military actions against unruly combatants. Hence, they are usually undertaken as regional security initiatives or given to coalition of willing states on authorization of UN Security Council in line with chapter VII of the charter. An instance of this can be seen during the Ivorian Peace Process when ECOWAS and the French Forces were authorized by the UN Security Council to employ all necessary measures in other to guarantee the security and rights of citizens who are threatened with physical attack on 4th February,2003.
Overview of Nigeria’s Peace Support Operations
Nigeria began to show inclination for peace support operations as early as 1960 in effect to its avowed commitment to global security and manifest destiny and readiness to play a pivotal role in that direction and by providing leadership especially in Africa with a contingent of troops to Congo and other hot spots such as Tanzania. From the early 1960, Nigeria’s commitment to preservation of global peace and security flows from her understanding that a peaceful Nigeria cannot be immune from undercurrents in a combustible environment with capability to undermine the country. It was this thinking and made the country keep faith with the principles and objectives of her foreign policy and her crave for leadership role especially in Africa (Saliu, 2016). Saliu further pointed that, ‘among the principles that guide the country’s foreign policy is multilateralism and that the country would always support and lead in any coalition of international efforts to preserve peace and accelerate development”.
Evidently committed to global solidarity as enunciated in her foreign policy principles and objectives, Nigeria has always been at the vanguard of efforts to preserve global peace and development. Central to this effort is peacekeeping and peace support operations. An innovation to preserve peace, peacekeeping, being largely a multilateral arrangement has attracted the attention of Nigeria (Gambari, 2012). The rash of peacekeeping deployments by Nigeria is in itself in furtherance of her foreign policy objectives. The bottom line is that Nigeria has kept faith with continental and global commitment for peace and has contributed immensely in this regard (Yoroms, 2004).
Scholars have continued to interrogate the actions and plausible inactions of Nigeria in the pursuit of global peace and security using past deployments for analysis. The first school posits that Nigeria’s involvement in crisis is predicated on her national interests. In the case of Liberia, it argued that Nigeria has a vested interest in the sub-region in terms of regional security and therefore maintains a hegemonic interest in ensuring peace and security for the economic development of the region (Hutchful, 1996). It is argued that Nigeria has been advocating the imperativeness to build an African Regional Peacekeeping System to intervene in internal conflicts so as to forestall insecurity from spilling out of control.
The second school of thought argues that such interventions were indeed extraneous to its stated foreign policy principles and objectives. Using the Liberian conflict, it was argued that Babaginda only intervened to save a personal friend who was on the verge on being ousted from power. While the debate rages on, it is incontestable that Nigerian foreign and military policy analysts point out three dimensions of threat perception which are not only complementary but also linked to the country’s survival. Again, Yoroms stated that, “these threats at national, sub-regional and continental frontiers”. In this instance, escalated national crisis in contiguous states in the West African sub-region often reverberates in Nigeria.
Regardless of the sentiments, General Babaginda agrees and noted that Nigeria couldn’t in all good conscience jettison a long-held view that the country has a responsibility to peace and stability, more so, in her sphere of influence. He noted,
There is no doubt that, when certain events occur in this sub-region, depending upon their intensity and magnitude, which are bound to affect Nigeria’s politico-military and socio-economic environment, we should not stand by …we believe that if the events are such that they have the potential to threaten stability, peace and security of the sub-region, Nigeria, in collaboration with others in this sub-region, is duty bound to react or respond in appropriate manner necessary to either avert the disaster or take adequate measures to ensure peace, tranquility and harmony.
The country has been instrumental to almost if not all peace support operations both at the international level under the (UN) and especially at the regional level under regional organizations like; (AU and ECOMOG) which is largely attributed to its position as the “regional hegemon and her foreign policy thrust which included, among others: the principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of other states; respect for existing boundaries which must, in the interest of peace in Africa, remain the recognized boundaries until such a time as the peoples concerned decide of their own free will to merge into one unit or redraw boundaries; peaceful settlement of disputes by negotiation, conciliation and arbitration; equality of States, no matter their size, population, military or economic might; and promotion of functional cooperation throughout Africa (Ashiru and George, 2013).
National interest consists of the clearly stated goals and objectives that define a country’s foreign policy without which a foreign policy is a “vacuum or an empty barrel” in itself. Hans Morgenthau, a scholar of international relations once state, “No nation can have true guide as to what it must do and what it needs to do in foreign policy without accepting national interest as the guide” (Akinboye, Anifowose and Enemuo, 1999:365-366).It is a condiment that adds taste to the execution and implementation of a country’s foreign policy, any country that lacks a clearly stated goal or objectives is likely to be a puppet in the hands of other states and won’t have a direction in its foreign relations with other states. Nigeria on independence highlighted its foreign policy objectives which have serve as a guide in Nigeria’s relations with the outside world.
These objectives or goals of Nigeria foreign policy according to Lamido (2002) include; the promotion of the sovereign and territorial integrity of the Nigerian sates; promotion of economic and social well-being of Nigeria’s; enhancement of Nigeria’s image and status worldwide; the promotion of unity as well as the total political, economic, social and cultural liberation of Nigeria and Africa continent; the promotion of the rights of the black people and others under colonial domination; the promotion of international cooperation, conducive for consolidation of world peace and security; mutual respect and friendship among states ; rectify the imbalance in the global power structure which has undermined the legitimate aspirations of the third world countries, all these has come to shape Nigeria’s peace support operations on the continent as evident in the command of peace operations in Congo , the liberation struggle and decolonization process under the OAU by Nigeria in South Africa, Namibia, Angola, the relentless contributions made by the country in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Darfur, Chad , the creation of ECOMOG a regional peace body to mediate and resolve conflicts, the Joining of the UN among other organizations , the creation of ECOWAS so as to keep Nigeria and her West-Africa neighbors in unity all highlight the role played by national interest in the peace operation process in Africa. The country had made lots of sacrifices be it economically, humanly where lots of lives were lost, the economy of the country suffered and is still suffering because of the poor strategy on the side of Nigeria all for the promotion of peace and stability of the Africa continent which on independence, the country assumed responsibility to protect and promote its interest as the regional hegemon.
Milestones over the Period (1999-2019)
Nigeria’s role in peace operations, especially in Africa as the big brother and regional hegemon is one that is unique and pivotal. Since independence the country has shown unending commitment and devotion towards the peace and security of other regions on the continent even at the expense of its own peace and security as well as welfare of its citizens largely as a result of its Afro-centric policy that places the integration and peace as well as security of the continent at the top of all its actions and inactions. The country through the use of international, regional, or sun-regional organizations such as; AU, UN AND ECOMOG has been able to ensure that peace is being maintained and conflicts prevented. A few countries’ will be used in the examination of Nigeria peace support operations in the continent under the period from (1999-2019), including countries such as; Liberia (1991-1998, 1999-2003-2015), Sierra Leon (1998-2000), Somalia (2011-), Mali (2013-2015), South-Sudan (2011-2015), Darfur (2003-2015), Democratic Republic of Congo (2010-2015) and so on under the auspices of both the UN and AU as well as ECOMOG
Liberia (1991-1998, 1999-2003 and 2003-2015)
Since the 1990’s down to the 21st century, Liberia has been faced with crisis that seem not to be finishing, the country has undergone three phases of crisis the first between (1990-1998, 1999-2003 then 2003-2015) and in all these times, Nigeria has made great contributions either through the UN, AU or ECOMOG in ensuring that peace is being kept in the region. According to Adebajo (2002), Nigeria contributed a total of 12000 out of 16000 troops and about ninety percent of finance under the ECOMOG led peace operation in the sub-region. Nigeria between 1991 and 2003 had contributed a total of $12 billion in the Liberian crisis and military troop of 3,404 first in 2000, then another 1,500 in 2003 and 5,271 between (2007 and2008) in the UN/ ECOMO led peace mission in Liberia. The country went as far as providing all the Brigade Commanders and 90 per cent of the principal staff officers at the ECOMOG headquarters. And the largest number of vehicles and equipment and above all supplied all Petroleum Oil and Lubricants (POL) requirement for all contingents in the Force from the beginning to the end of the operations (Lawrence, 1996). It also provided logistic support during the special elections conducted in the region which restored democracy to that country. This, no doubt, built the foundation of sustainable peace, which Liberia has been enjoying from the end of its civil war to date. The peace support involving Nigeria in the region recorded a number of successes although in the mid-2000’s the country had to withdraw some of its troops for the purpose of the internal security it was facing which included; the Boko- haram insurgency as well as the Niger delta crisis of 2009and 2004 respectively.
Sierra Leone (1998-2000)
Nigeria peace support role in Sierra Leon is one of high esteem. Sierra Leon a neighboring country to Liberia had been faced with spilled –over crisis which was caused by the struggle for political power between the major political parties since independence that led to the remover of president, Dr. Ahmed Tejan Kabbah (Oni, 2013), as well as the diamond found in the region. Nigeria peace operation in the region took effect following a request for help by Dr. Ahmed Tejan Kabbah who through a coup d’état was removed from seat barely a year after of ruling as president. Nigeria role in peace operation in this region include its contribution of a total of 12000 out of 13000 troops to ECOMOG for the operation in Sierra Leone and an amount of 12billion to finance the operation (Adebajo, 2002). Also, the country joined forces with the British mercenary and together restored Kabbah and his government back to power after diplomatic negotiation among other means of keeping peace.
Mali (2012/2013)
Mali had been experiencing series of crisis since the late 1990’s however the one in 2012/2013altered the country’s situation. The crisis began as a result of a coup executed by the opposition coalition known as the “June 5 Movement or the Islamist forces” who took over the country destroying nearly the twenty years of democratic rule in the country, this crisis came as a surprise, it had a religious/ethnic cause and affected the country quite a lot. Nigeria as a regional hegemon couldn’t just seat and watch this happen the country contributed a troop of 1,200 and a sum of USD 5 million to the AU led operation in the country as of 2013 and also promised to contribute 900 troops as at 2015 (Ahmed, 2013). The country has been as always carried the bulk of work in the regional led peace operations in the country but the many losses of its troops as well as the internal security challenge facing the country has made it to withdraw some of its troop from the region. The peace operation in the region hasn’t been successful so far as all effort made are rendered useless by the Islamic forces in the north as well as the protestants.
The crisis in Darfur started in February 2003 when two rebel groups emerged to challenge the national Islamic Front (NIF) Government in Khartoum. The Sudan Liberation Army (SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) whom the government dismissed as terrorist claim that the government of Sudan discriminates against Moslem African ethnic groups in Darfur and has systematically targeted those ethnic groups since the early 1990’s. The roots of the conflict in Darfur are complex. The tribal feuds resulting from desertification and the quest for arable grazing land, the availability of modern weapons, issues relating to identity, governance, and the emergence of armed rebel movements which enjoy popular support amongst certain tribes, played a major role in shaping the crisis (Egwu, 2007).
As a first step in demonstrating Nigeria’s commitment in resolving the conflict in the region, the then president, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo deployed military expedition of 1,500 troop to Darfur as part of AU Mission in Sudan, which was in line with Nigeria’s spirit of good neighborliness (Ahmed, 2013). The country under the UN/AU Hybrid Operation in the region between 2007 and 2015) contributed over 1,000 military observers and 14 battalions of 680 soldiers each. The country sent troops to the region in every six months relentlessly, regardless of the casualties and loss of lives, it also provided the head of the mission, (Ambassador BabaganaKingibe, two Force Commanders (Major General F. Okonkwo and Major General CRU Ihekire) and General Agwai led the UN/AU Hybrid Operation (Agbor, 2009). It hosted series of Peace Talks in Lagos, Abuja and Kano in the late 1980s and early 1990s, all intended to facilitate the resolution of the long raging conflict. The former President of Nigeria and AU Chairman, Olusegun Obasanjo (1999-2003), while in office appointed his predecessor in office, General Abdusalami Abubakar as his Special Envoy to Sudan. This appointment indicated Nigeria’s poise for an active engagement in the Sudan, in a manner that was intended to inject credibility and sound judgment into the peace process. The committed efforts to initiate a peace talk between the Sudanese government and the insurgent group later help to resolve the conflict in the region to a large extent.
Implications of Nigeria’s Continuous Peace-Support Operations in Africa
There is no shared conviction about Nigeria’s continuing peace support operations. Opinions are shaped by perception and orientation. Lipede and Hassan (1998) opined that, “Nigeria’s participation in peacekeeping operations in Africa is quite consistent with the leadership aspiration of the country as well as the Afrocentric focus as the country’s foreign policy. Some others such as Irabor and Akinboye (2000) were dismissive. Irabor is of the view that the burden of administration and logistics suffered during the ECOMOG operations and by implication what the military is suffering is needless and could be channeled into more critical of the armed forces and the country.
The continuous efforts by Nigeria as “regional hegemon and giant of Africa” in keeping and maintaining peace in Africa seem to have done more harm than good to the country and its citizens as little or nothing is being gained from this operation. The country tends to waste its resources in peace operations especially in Liberia and Sierra Leon, Darfur where millions of US dollars were spent yet nothing was achieved in return to compensate the losses incurred by the country, neither have they, in the words of Sagay (2003) received any gestures of gratitude commensurate with the exertions on behalf of brotherly African states including Liberia, who has exhibited ingratitude and hostility to Nigeria.
These implications (Cost of Nigeria’s Peace Support Operations) will be explained in three aspects; social, economic and political aspect respectively.
Social Aspect
The peace support operations executed with support of Nigeria especially those led by the regional bodies (AU, ECOMOG) have had lots of social implications which include; loss of lives of soldiers, illness of soldiers, poor standard of living as a result of weak economy among other social implications. Loss of live under this aspect happened in almost all peace operations involving the country where the lives of many soldiers was sacrificed for peace to be achieved living the country with shortage of peace keepers to be deployed in other peace operations and living the families of those casualties in agony. It was recorded for example that Nigeria loosed 1000 soldiers in the Liberian crisis (1991-2003) with about 500 deaths in 1999 only (Olawale, 2003). The number of deaths incurred in this operation were so much that former ECOMOG boss and former Chief of Staff Nigerian Army, Lt. General Victor Malu while Testifying before a commission of enquiry on communal clashes in the Middle-Belt, noted how unprecedented number of corpses of Nigerian soldiers killed were brought home from Liberia while on the peace mission in Liberia and he had directed that they “be buried secretly in the night to avoid national uproar and panic” (Olawale, 2003).
Another social implication is illness of soldiers which can be physical and mental. A lot of soldiers were recorded to have taken ill and some injured from these peace operations further living their families and country to suffer as some of these diseases were transferable and deadly. The Nigeria army in Liberia for instance recorded that it spendsN135 million to foot the medical bills of about 150 ECOMOG soldiers with bullet and other war injuries from the missions in Liberia. It is speculated that some 400 Nigerian ECOMOG soldiers were infected with HIV/AIDS (Olawale, 2003).
Furthermore, poor standard of living which is usually a result of a weak economy though a social implication has and is still affecting the country and its citizens as we have more than half the population living on less than a dollar per day.
Political Aspect
The political implication of this peace operations is that it limits the interest and opinions of the public from being heard, which further question whether the participation and commitment of Nigeria in its peace operations on the continent is as a result of its afro-centric policy or is because of the selfish interest which members the political leaders have. Lots of resources were spent in the peace operations in Liberia (1991-2003), Sierra Leon (1998-2000) and Darfur (2003) as well as Chad (2008) with little or nothing gained for the welfare of the citizens of the country. The political opinion of the citizens is important in this regard, more so, given the agitation for a shift from the afro-centric posturing of the past.
Economic Aspect
There are agitations that what the country has invested in peace support operations is not commensurate with any tangible gains. Some critics maintain that for the country to keep faith with her strategic peace support operations then the country must be economically buoyant. Today in Nigeria we have more than half the population leaving in abject poverty and hunger, poor standard of living, lack of job opportunities because of the economic crisis which is not only a resultant of this operations but also bad leadership and corruption as well as mismanagement of resources, hence a need for a review. The peace mission in Liberia, Sierra Leon, and Darfur are a good example of the huge economic implication on the country. These peace operations were sponsored basically by Nigeria who provided the eighty percent of ECOMOG’s troop (12,000 out of 16,000 in Liberia and 12,000 out of 13,000 in Sierra Leon) and ninety percent of its funding during the peace support operation on the continent (Adebajo, 2002).
It meant however, be inimical to the aspiration of the country to focus its gaze only on the negatives. Some essential benefits of Nigeria’s Peace Operations in Africa exist also. Benefits or advantages to the commitment shown by the country in keeping and maintaining peace and security in Africa as everything will always have a good and bad effect. Among these benefits include the fact that; Nigeria has made it to the top five as one of the best in peace support operations and most committed to ensuring peace globally and especially in the Africa region. The country has secured global recognition and respect within the comity of nations. Also, the continuous participation of Nigeria in peace operation exposes it to more enhanced skills and training as they get to learn from other peace keepers, further giving them better knowledge on how to carryout peace operations on the continent.
Furthermore, it is from this continuous commitment to its peace operations and its recognition by the UN that the country is able to confidently campaign for a seat as a permanent member of the Security Council. The country as well as its military also has had the economic benefits of getting remuneration or reward particularly in UN led operations for food items, troops allowances from which the revenue is generated, clothing, and so on. This economic benefit which is being derived from UN led operations is usually determined by the success of the goal of such an operation and also depending on contributions made. Nigeria for example is amongst the largest contributors of troops to UN peacekeeping operations, this means that the percentage of troops’ allowance to be given to Nigeria will be based on its contributions and success in the UN led peace operations which when aggregated, provides a considerable amount of foreign exchange earnings for the country. For instance, at the UN led peace operation in Somalia, a troop allowance of US $1, 349 per troop was given every month from which Nigeria paida flat rate of $600.00 to officers and soldiers while retaining for its national treasury US $740 per soldier. The amount retained by the government varies based on the mission. For instance, in Liberia allowance paid to individual peacekeepers was only US $1,000. Overall, the amount retained by the country from UN troops allowance amounted to a significant income for the country (Mitikishe and Maxwell, 2014).
Thus, contrary to the popular impression that Nigeria’s participation in peacekeeping operations is always a drain on the economy, the reality is that such participation, especially in UN operations and missions constitute a source of foreign exchange for the country. It is when participating in African regional and sub-regional peacekeeping missions that Nigeria often “loses” money.
Conclusion
The nature and complexities of wars in the post-cold war era makes it expedient for intervention as a necessary mechanism in contemporary international relations. Nigeria, a sub-regional and respectful country within the comity of nations should align its interest for peace support operations to its strategic interests. These efforts have been commended and recognized by the international community. However, it must be noted that both human and material losses invested in these peace support operations have not yielded any significant economic gain for Nigeria. This is a foreign policy mishap which the country’s leadership and foreign policy makers must address with uttermost urgency. Regrettably, even the countries who receive these good gestures from Nigeria have paid back with ingratitude. As the country’s image is further bolster in the international system, the country should endeavor to draw on it strengthens for essential lessons and possibly benefits.
References
Adedeji, A. (1999)., Comprehending and Mastering African Conflicts, London: Zed Books.
Ason, B. (2002). Violence Crisis and Impact on Community Development: Communal Relation Conflict and Crisis Management Strategies, Makurdi: Aboki Publishers.
Babaginda, I. (1991). “I am the Evil Genius”, Interview in Tell Magazine, Lagos: No. 13.
Gambari, I. (2012). “Nigeria at the United Nations: Prospects and Challenges” in Anyaoku, E. (ed) Review of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: Issues and Perspectives, Lagos: NIIA.
Hutchful, E. (1996). “The ECOMOG Experience with Peacekeeping in West Africa” in Mark Malan (ed,), Whither Peace-making in Africa, ISS Monograph.
Irabor, L. (2003). “ECOMOG Operations: Advocacy for Retrospective Appraisal to Redress Paradigm of Price without Prize, New Soja Magazine, Vol. 27, Issue 4.
Lipede and Hassan (2014). Nigeria’s Participation in Peace Support Operations: A Review for Future Benefits, Being a Project in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of theUnpublished Project Certificate for NAEC Officers Executive Management Course.
Obilor, P.C. (2014). Nigeria’s Participation in Peace Support Operations: A Review for Future Benefits, Unpublished Being a Project in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of the Certificate for NAEC Officers Executive Management Course.
Oche, O. (2004). “Nigeria’s Role in International Conflict Management” in Ezodum AU Peace Support Operations in West the African Sub-region: Implications for the Nigerian Economy.
Peace Support Operations, Joint Warfare Publication 3-50, p.1-1
Pirage, D. (1976). Managing Political Conflict, London: Thomas Nelson Ltd, p.1.
Saliu, H.A. (2016). Nigerian Foreign Policy Underunder the Fourth Republic, Ibadan: College Press
Sanda, J. (2012). “Peacekeeping in Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: An Assessment”. In Imobighe, T. and Alli, W.O. (eds.) Perspectives on Nigeria’s National and External Relations: Essays in Honour of Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, Ibadan: Oxford University Press, pp.411-429.
Sase, M.K. and Ugber, S.A. (2020). “Conflict and Security Challenges in a Democratic State: Nigeria’s Experience 1999-2019. in Kaduna Journal of Historical Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1.
Yoroms, G.J. (2004). “ECOMOG and Nigeria’s Foreign Policy” in Nigeria’s New Foreign Policy Thrust: Essays in Honour of Ambassador Oluyemi Adeniji (ed.), Ibadan: Vintage Publishers Ltd.
Zartman, W. (1994). quoted in Ripeness of Conflict, by MariekeKleiboer (Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 31. No 1.