CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1. BACKGROUND OF STUDY

Nigeria first provided UN peacekeepers to Congo (ONUC) from 1960 to 1964. Since then, Nigeria has been an active participant in UN peacekeeping missions, deploying military contingents, unarmed military observers, military staff officers, formed police units, police advisors and civilian experts to over 25 UN missions. Nigeria is currently one of the largest UN contributing countries with military and civilian personnel deployed in ten UN peacekeeping operations and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) Nigeria has also played pivotal roles in other non-UN missions in Africa. As the preponderant power in West Africa, Nigeria has been the main provider of military and other resources for ECOWAS peace operations to the tune of US$8 billion in its various missions in Cote d‟Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, and Sierra Leone. During the peak of the Liberian and Sierra Leonean civil wars in the 1990s, Nigeria provided over 70% of ECOMOG‟s military and civilian personnel, as well as logistical support. In 2003, it deployed 1,500 troops to the ECOWAS Mission in Liberia (ECOMIL), and a medical and signals team to the ECOWAS Mission in Cote d‟Ivoire in 2003 (ECOMICI). In 2004, 1,500 Nigerian troops were deployed in Darfur as part of the AU Mission in Sudan (AMIS). Recently, Nigeria also provided 1,200 troops to the African-led International Support Mission in Mali (AFISMA), and 200 police officers to AMISOM. Nigeria deployed the first set of individual police officers (IPOs) in Africa in ONUC in 1960 while the pioneer Formed Police Unit (FPU) of 120 officers was deployed in Liberia in 2004.

A peacekeeping venture, by itself, does not resolve a dispute; it is a stop-gap measure or a holding action. The primary purpose and function of peacekeeping is to contain and constrain violence to provide an atmosphere of calm and stability in which peacemaking and peace-keeping efforts may be able to resolve the roots of the conflict. Thus, peacekeeping is essentially a third-party supervised tools that enables a peaceful settlement to be negotiated. Used in isolation, or where other modes of conflict management are ineffective, peacekeeping only freezes the status quo but does not resolve the dispute. The security challenges are increasingly diverse, differentiated and fragmented. It is more evident that developing a conflict resolution mechanism that will contain and Manage conflict as well as its violent effects is more paramount. However, the increasing dispersion and regionalization of threats are not confined to Africa alone. Many of the security challenges are generated within individual societies, spread across borders to their surrounding environment, and exacerbated by unhealthy regional dynamics. In the western hemisphere narcotics syndicates, originate on one side of the world but target and exploit vulnerable societies on the other side. To deep further, the current security threats encompass challenges to human security and a whole series of social and environmental degradation along with traditional military security challenges. And they occur in a time of bewildering connectivity and advancing political complexity as the world becomes increasingly and simultaneously interlinked and multi-centric. During the cold war, there was little official interest in conflict management – that is, the use of non-military means such as a mediation, „good offices‟ or pre-emptive diplomatic engagement to promote negotiated alternatives to violence and political upheaval. Although nuclear deterrence was underpinned by diplomacy and the credible threat to use of force, conflict management was generally viewed in one-dimensional term. The dominant powers in a Bipolar international system sought to „manage‟ their conflicts in order to avoid a loss of face or strategic setbacks and to prevent their conflicts from escalating „out of control‟ (Deibel, 2007). However, they had little interest in using the tools of negotiation, mediation and preventive statecraft more broadly to promote durable settlements, institution- building, good governance, development and the promotion of the rule of law. In history, moments of geopolitical change often produce new institutions as a response to that change. The question is whether the world needs another institutional approach to conflict management and security? Would a new institution be capable of responding to the complex challenges of present day conflict? Do we understand the nature of the challenge well enough to design a capable institution? There may be growing recognition that local, regional and global security are linked and that national security is connected to preventing or managing conflicts, the exact nature of these links remains obscure. Also obscure is the road ahead as far as reform and innovation in global institutions are concerned. There are three reasons for this: first, there are huge political hurdles to real reform, as the example of the UN Security Council makes clear; second, security has become divisible, making the quest for consensus and coherence elusive; and third, many actors prefer that the current institutional endowment remains weak and imperfect. Instead of looking to a new institution or a new set of responsibilities for an existing institution, we need to recognize that new collaborative patterns of behaviour are becoming apparent in the conflict management field. In these new patterns, approaches which depend on only one country or institution have been replaced by a growing network of formal and informal institutional arrangements that operate across national, sub-regional and regional boundaries. These arrangements occur for a variety of reasons – some encouraging, others less so – and the results appear to vary widely. Conflict mitigation and resolution has thus become the dominant governance activity in almost every part of Africa. Many of these conflicts seem intractable; conflict mitigation and resolution initiatives are at best yielding modest success. Even so, such successes typically provide peace in the short term but hardly lay the foundation for the reconstitution of order and the attainment of sustainable peace.

The Recurrence and re-escalation of conflicts in various parts of the world, most especially in the developing states, has indeed made the word „sustainable peace‟ an illusion. A lot can be said on the havoc wrecked by these conflicts on the people and the devastating effects on the natural environment and even on the economic strength of the state involve. Regrettably, all efforts made to put an end to wars, conflict and crises around the globe yield little or no significant results since conflict recur and the proclivity of conflict remained undefeatable (Adegbite et al, 2005:2). Be that as it may, the place of Africa in the New Millennium is characterized by recurring instability, inter/intra-state wars, insecurity, political and economic problems.

The intensity and destructiveness of Africa‟s conflicts accelerated tremendously, posing complex challenges to the peaceful resolution of conflict in particular, and the advancement of peaceful co-existence between groups in general (Adar, 2004:247). Put differently, most visible manifestation of the problems facing the continent is the invidious and intractable proliferation of conflict. Africa continued to witness protracted civil wars which have taken the centre stage in the political lives of the continent, with attendant devastating consequence for peace, security and sustainable development. Undoubtedly, if the idea and practice of searching for peace are as old as humanity, then it follows that the history of wars and conflicts, which are its harbingers, is older (Onoja, 1996).

Africa is the most conflict-ridden region of the world and the only region in which the number of armed conflicts is on the increase. Conflicts have assumed epidemic proportions and an impediment to development. A few facts may help to illustrate the immensity and destructiveness posed by these conflicts. By 1966, average percentage of war related deaths in the world were in Africa. As a result, Africa accounted for over 8 million of the twenty-two million refugees‟ worldwide (World Refugee Survey, 1998). During the 1980s, Africa witness nine wars, numerous other instances of large-scale violent conflicts, and a kaleidoscope of coups, riots and demonstrations. These hostilities exacted a great toll on Africa in terms of the destruction of human life, cultural damage, economic disruption, and lost investment opportunities. Indeed, it is difficult to foresee significant economic and social development over wide stretches of Africa until the burden of violent conflicts is eased. Of the nine wars, Sudan, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique and Uganda – were major, with death totals, including civilian deaths, ranging from 60,000 to 100,000 commonly reported in Angola, and three million in Sudan. In these large wars, the overwhelming majority of victims were civilians, including countless children, who were deprived of food, shelter, and access to healthcare because of the war. Three other wars, in Namibia, Western Sahara and Chad, probably resulted in deaths numbering in the 10,000 to 20,000 range. Since these wars took place in highly populated territories, it seems likely that the civilian toll was less. Little is known about the situation in northern Somalia, although the flight of 350,000 refugees to Ethiopia suggests that substantial fighting has taken place (Africa Watch Committee, Somalia, 1990). A human rights organization estimates that 50,000 to 60,000 civilians have been killed in the above- mentioned conflicts.

Post-colonial governance institutions in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia have been shaped by their domestic and external contexts and circumstances. Among the relevant constituent factors, four seem critical: these include the nature of the colonial experience, the pattern of interaction among internal actors, the structure and response of the regional and international environment within which they operate and the quality of leadership in each country. Although colonial experience initially helped to shape governance structures, other elements have become important since the attainment of independence. The degree of success in aligning and reconciling interests among various elites and the predispositions, orientations and leadership strategies employed by the leaders have elicited domestic and external responses that have not always ensured peace and advanced development .

The League of Nations was created in the aftermath of the First World War. The league’s purpose was to promote international cooperation and to achieve international peace and security. However, the League of Nations was powerless in preventing the world’s descent into a second global war thus leading to the creation of the United Nations (UN) at the end of World War II, in 1945.

The UN Charter is the grand norm or the source of authority for the conduct of all Peace Support Operations (PSO) globally. The first article in the charter states the purpose of the UN thus: “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace”.  In fulfilling this responsibility, Chapter VI of the UN Charter provides for the pacific settlement of disputes by a variety of peaceful measures, these include: negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement (Article 33). Chapter VII on the other hand, is essentially coercive and designed to deal with threats to peace, breaches of peace and acts of aggression perpetrated by sovereign states. Since gaining independence in 1960, Nigeria’s interest and commitment to world peace has put her in the forefront of troop contributing nations to support UN, regional, and sub-regional led PSOs.

The three Armed Services that constitute the main organ of the Armed Forces of Nigeria have now been established for over 50 years. Within this period Nigeria has had the privilege of participating either with a single service or with two or more armed services in a PSO. The earliest test of Armed Forces of Nigeria participation came within a few months of political independence when Nigeria contributed both military forces and police to ONUC, the peacekeeping mission in the Congo that lasted from 1960 to 1964. Since then Nigerian forces have participated in peacekeeping missions across the globe under varying international legal authority executing a variety of operational mandates.

For example, at the sub regional level, Nigeria played a prominent role in the integrative and peace building efforts within the west-African region. At the regional level, she has contributed to various peace building and peacekeeping efforts on the African continent in places such as Somalia, Sierra Leone and Liberia. Globally, Nigeria participated in conflict area such as Lebanon, the area of the former Yugoslavia and in Kuwait. To date, Nigeria has contributed armed military contingents, unarmed military observers, military staff officers, formed police units and police advisors as well as civilian experts to more than 40 UN, OAU/AU and ECOWAS missions.

For this active support of (and participation in) international peacekeeping, Nigeria has been rightly singled out for praise at the highest levels of the UN. However, it must be noted that the human, material and financial losses Nigeria has incurred in these involvements have been significant. Further noteworthy is the view held by some that Nigeria has not taken full advantage of its active participation in the numerous peacekeeping operations around the world by not getting commensurate economic, military and political remuneration for its participation. For example, countries like Ghana, which also participate in numerous UN PSOs, generate funds through this process to defray the costs of sustaining its military, while Nigeria on the other hand has largely deprived itself of such benefits.

Without a very clear understanding of the causation of crises that have been engulfing most of the Third World or the periphery of capital, we would continue to sacrifice men and materials in the cause of blind ally in the name of Peace Support Operations. Alveres (1991:xv) said that the extension of the personality of the West to the non-Western world can be directly correlated with an increase in the sum total of poverty, pain, and destruction in that part of the globe. As such, we are gradually reaching the stage when it will be possible to proclaim the arrival of a new principle: “the greatest unhappiness of the greatest possible number.” Caude Alveres said that he would want to agree with those historians who tend to see the colonial and neo-colonial disruptions of southern nations as having been very often exaggerated. He said he would differ a bit: that the colonial impact has been small precisely because we are at the beginning of the real colonial age. As the comprehensive disintegration of the non-Western societies was yet to come. In his opinion, the traumatic event would only be precluded, if the Western paradigm is checked immediately in its influence over the southern real world and its mind, if it is relativised or relegated to where it once had its origins (Alveres 1991: xvi). Camilleri (1978:7) said, the moral and psychological trauma which the Vietnam War helped to create within the consciousness and institutions of American society has provided perhaps the most explicit revelation of the bureaucratic growth and political polarisation characteristic of all advanced capitalist and even socialist societies. The ensuing pyramid of power reduces most people to (mere) spectators of a profound social disorder which they perceive but cannot correct. As for the small elite situated at the top of the pyramid, it is hardly in a position to take remedial action as its basis of power lies in the maintenance of the status quo. Thus the global infrastructures of violence are laid by the most advanced industrial nations as they dominate the trade flows of the underdeveloped countries, monopolise their manufacturing outlets by channeling their great bulk of investment capital both private and public and also determine the prices of their main exports (Camilleri 1978:9). Thus Joseph A. Camilleri stressed; In spite of the powerful military components underpinning the pyramidal structure of the world economy, it has not been possible thus far – and undoubtedly it will become increasingly difficult in the future for the existing economic disparities to be maintained without violent resistance. However, the forces of the existing order, far from acceding to the increasingly militant demands of distributive justice, appear more determined than ever to defend present institutions and power structures, and where necessary to do so by force.

The international system thus appears set on a collision course which will inexorably lead to more violence (Camilleri 1978:9).

The global economic inequality has been generating global violence which is always more tensed up in the periphery of capital or Third World. It has been the basis of the phenomena of failed states across the Southern hemisphere resulting in civil wars which call for peace-keeping, peace-enforcements, peace-building and Peace Support Operations (PSOs). Boutros Ghali, a former UN Secretary General was cited by UNICEF (1995:3) publication as saying that “…the direct aggression by one country against another has now become rare, the traditional concept of security, the international security of states that was the original purpose of the United Nations – has been largely achieved.” Boutros Boutros Ghali has identified direct aggression or direct violence between one state and another but he did not address the issue of structural violence which is basically a product of the nature of the integration of the Third Word economy into the advanced capitalist system. The then Secretary General did not go beyond ruminating within the traditional Western view which borders on reductionism rather than the causes of insecurity globally. He stressed; there is today a new crisis in human security. And its most obvious manifestations are increasing internal conflicts, mass migration to marginal lands and urban slums, frustrated aspirations, rising social tensions, and the disaffection of large numbers of people from their societies, their value systems, their governments and their institutions. Internationally, the new threats include the increase in the number of failed states and in the need for international intervention… (Boutros Ghali cited in UNICEF 1995:3).

Structural dependence and indeed its features of underdevelopment results in structural violence, a product of the lopsided nature of the global political economy of stack inequality between the industrialised countries and the underdeveloped states of the Southern hemisphere (Camilleri 1978, Offiong 1980; Walshe 1994). The structural violence of the global political economy is an enduring feature of capital which intensity is felt more in the periphery more than in the core of capital. In this respect, Marx and Engels (1977: 289) said, “While, therefore, the crises first produce revolutions on the continent (Western mainland Europe), the foundation for this, nevertheless was always laid in England. Violent outbreaks must naturally occur in the extremities of the bourgeois body since the possibility of adjustment is greater here than there.” These features of capital still remain with us today and not until we bend backward to locate the trends of the political economy of imperialism we would not be able to trace capitalism and its global infrastructures of violence resulting in civil wars that call for Peace Support Operations in most of the Third World.

However, the cult of recency and indeed crude recencism have made us to locate civil wars at the evils of leaders alone and lack of good governance. In as much as the foregoings are true, they are not the primary causal variables of the crises that degenerate to civil wars which call for Peace Support Operations for which Nigerians and Nigeria have made enormous sacrifices which have been “appreciated” by the international community, principally the advanced capitalist world for which Nigerians have been playing sub-imperial roles. Nigeria‟s sub-imperial role which is a negative one and not positive one was expressed by two Federal Ministers, Zanna Buka Dipcharima (Trade) and Waziri Ibrahim (Economic Development) in the House of Representatives debate on government proposals for the 1962-68 National Development Plan and they were against rapid economic changes. According to Osoba (1978:64-9) they were against quick economic changes because of fear of imperialism as they felt that imperialists have got various means to defend their monopoly including the mass media and even assassinations. And so the status quo must be maintained.

 In the area of defence policy of which Peace Support Operations is a sub-set, its aid to Nigeria‟s foreign policy is in much weakened position. It was in this respect for the whole of Africa that Kwame Nkrumah suggested the formation of an African High Command to make Africans more effective to intervene to save the Congo. Nigeria shot that idea or dream in the foot. In the view of Nkrumah, such a Command was essential because separately, African countries did not have the military strength to exercise any real weight in international politics; with a united force their views could not be ignored (Nkrumah 1966:86). Almost fifty years after Kwame Nkrumah floated the idea of an African High Command and was shot down, the neoconservative United States lobbyist scared of its energy security concerns and its anti-terrorism campaign of the Department of Defence have spearheaded the creation of a unified and separate African Command (AFRICOM) reported by Time Magazine of August 2006. In addition Nigeria is seeking a military cooperation with the United States. International Politics is said to be nothing but the struggle for power. The dictum of capitalism is the “survival of the fittest” as such the powerful getting closer to a weaker nation shows a point of weakness and can result in further weakening of the weaker state. This is the crux of the matter that of imperialism and the continuation of Nigeria‟s sub-imperial role which Victor Malu was the only courageous Service Chief to have spoken against it.

1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Most researchers have written on the role of Nigeria in peacekeeping operations within the West African sub-region, since the country’s attainment of independence in 1960, with focus on Liberia and Sierra Leone. Nigeria has played and continues to play pivotal roles in support of countries challenged by political instability. This big brother role lends credence to the assertion that Nigeria remains a significant factor in peacekeeping, particularly within Africa.

However, while the country is being commended by the United Nations missions across the globe, a sizable number of Nigerians hold reservations regarding the huge resources expended on peacekeeping operations at the detriment of the country’s domestic needs which no researcher researched on. it is on this premise that this study will take a critical look into Nigeria peace keeping operations as well as its gains and pains.

1. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The main aim and objective of this research is to examine Nigeria and peace keeping operations: its gains and pains. Other objectives of this study include:

1.to identify the relationship between Nigeria and peace keeping operations.

2. to examine the challenges of Nigeria peace keeping operations.

3. to determine the role of Nigeria in peace keeping operations.

4. to examine the gains and pains of Nigeria and peace keeping operations.

1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is the relationship between Nigeria and peace keeping operations?

2. What are the challenges of Nigeria peace keeping operations?

3. What is the role of Nigeria in peace keeping operations?

4. What are the gains and pains of Nigeria and peace keeping operations?

1. STATEMENT OF RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

1. H0: there are no gains and pains in peace keeping operations in Nigeria.

2. H1: there are gains and pains in peace keeping operations in Nigeria.

1. SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

Since independence in 1960, Nigeria has grown to be widely recognized in the international community as an unrelenting advocate of global peace. This study will serve as record for generations yet unborn to understand the role her Nation played in peace keeping operations. It will also let them know, various Nations Nigeria assisted in peace keeping like Libya, South Africa and others.

More so, the study will serve as detailed information to the gains of peace keeping and pains it has cost Nigeria and Nigerians. It will help other researchers into Nigeria and peace keeping operations and will also be in the archive to be referred to at any time on the several roles Nigeria played in peace keeping, the challenges, its gains and pains as well.

1. SCOPE OF STUDY

The study will cover Nigeria and Peace Keeping Operations: its gains and Pains.

1. LIMITATION O0F STUDY

1. Financial constraint- Insufficient fund tends to impede the efficiency of the researcher in sourcing for the relevant materials, literature or information and in the process of data collection (internet, questionnaire and interview).

2. Time constraint- The researcher will simultaneously engage in this study with other academic work. This consequently will cut down on the time devoted for the research work.

1. DEFINITION OF TERMS

Nigeria: Nigeria was named after the River Niger, derived from a native term “Ni Gir” (meaning River Gir). The name is often misinterpreted as derived from the latin word 'Niger” meaning black, a reference to the dark complexion of the inhabitants of the region.

Peace keeping: the active maintenance of a truce between nations or communities, especially by an international military force.

Operations: the action of functioning or the fact of being active or in effect

Gains: obtain or secure (something wanted or desirable).

Pains: highly unpleasant physical sensation caused by illness or injury.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1. BACKGROUND OF STUDY

Nigeria first provided UN peacekeepers to Congo (ONUC) from 1960 to 1964. Since then, Nigeria has been an active participant in UN peacekeeping missions, deploying military contingents, unarmed military observers, military staff officers, formed police units, police advisors and civilian experts to over 25 UN missions. Nigeria is currently one of the largest UN contributing countries with military and civilian personnel deployed in ten UN peacekeeping operations and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) Nigeria has also played pivotal roles in other non-UN missions in Africa. As the preponderant power in West Africa, Nigeria has been the main provider of military and other resources for ECOWAS peace operations to the tune of US$8 billion in its various missions in Cote d‟Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, and Sierra Leone. During the peak of the Liberian and Sierra Leonean civil wars in the 1990s, Nigeria provided over 70% of ECOMOG‟s military and civilian personnel, as well as logistical support. In 2003, it deployed 1,500 troops to the ECOWAS Mission in Liberia (ECOMIL), and a medical and signals team to the ECOWAS Mission in Cote d‟Ivoire in 2003 (ECOMICI). In 2004, 1,500 Nigerian troops were deployed in Darfur as part of the AU Mission in Sudan (AMIS). Recently, Nigeria also provided 1,200 troops to the African-led International Support Mission in Mali (AFISMA), and 200 police officers to AMISOM. Nigeria deployed the first set of individual police officers (IPOs) in Africa in ONUC in 1960 while the pioneer Formed Police Unit (FPU) of 120 officers was deployed in Liberia in 2004.

A peacekeeping venture, by itself, does not resolve a dispute; it is a stop-gap measure or a holding action. The primary purpose and function of peacekeeping is to contain and constrain violence to provide an atmosphere of calm and stability in which peacemaking and peace-keeping efforts may be able to resolve the roots of the conflict. Thus, peacekeeping is essentially a third-party supervised tools that enables a peaceful settlement to be negotiated. Used in isolation, or where other modes of conflict management are ineffective, peacekeeping only freezes the status quo but does not resolve the dispute. The security challenges are increasingly diverse, differentiated and fragmented. It is more evident that developing a conflict resolution mechanism that will contain and Manage conflict as well as its violent effects is more paramount. However, the increasing dispersion and regionalization of threats are not confined to Africa alone. Many of the security challenges are generated within individual societies, spread across borders to their surrounding environment, and exacerbated by unhealthy regional dynamics. In the western hemisphere narcotics syndicates, originate on one side of the world but target and exploit vulnerable societies on the other side. To deep further, the current security threats encompass challenges to human security and a whole series of social and environmental degradation along with traditional military security challenges. And they occur in a time of bewildering connectivity and advancing political complexity as the world becomes increasingly and simultaneously interlinked and multi-centric. During the cold war, there was little official interest in conflict management – that is, the use of non-military means such as a mediation, „good offices‟ or pre-emptive diplomatic engagement to promote negotiated alternatives to violence and political upheaval. Although nuclear deterrence was underpinned by diplomacy and the credible threat to use of force, conflict management was generally viewed in one-dimensional term. The dominant powers in a Bipolar international system sought to „manage‟ their conflicts in order to avoid a loss of face or strategic setbacks and to prevent their conflicts from escalating „out of control‟ (Deibel, 2007). However, they had little interest in using the tools of negotiation, mediation and preventive statecraft more broadly to promote durable settlements, institution- building, good governance, development and the promotion of the rule of law. In history, moments of geopolitical change often produce new institutions as a response to that change. The question is whether the world needs another institutional approach to conflict management and security? Would a new institution be capable of responding to the complex challenges of present day conflict? Do we understand the nature of the challenge well enough to design a capable institution? There may be growing recognition that local, regional and global security are linked and that national security is connected to preventing or managing conflicts, the exact nature of these links remains obscure. Also obscure is the road ahead as far as reform and innovation in global institutions are concerned. There are three reasons for this: first, there are huge political hurdles to real reform, as the example of the UN Security Council makes clear; second, security has become divisible, making the quest for consensus and coherence elusive; and third, many actors prefer that the current institutional endowment remains weak and imperfect. Instead of looking to a new institution or a new set of responsibilities for an existing institution, we need to recognize that new collaborative patterns of behaviour are becoming apparent in the conflict management field. In these new patterns, approaches which depend on only one country or institution have been replaced by a growing network of formal and informal institutional arrangements that operate across national, sub-regional and regional boundaries. These arrangements occur for a variety of reasons – some encouraging, others less so – and the results appear to vary widely. Conflict mitigation and resolution has thus become the dominant governance activity in almost every part of Africa. Many of these conflicts seem intractable; conflict mitigation and resolution initiatives are at best yielding modest success. Even so, such successes typically provide peace in the short term but hardly lay the foundation for the reconstitution of order and the attainment of sustainable peace.

The Recurrence and re-escalation of conflicts in various parts of the world, most especially in the developing states, has indeed made the word „sustainable peace‟ an illusion. A lot can be said on the havoc wrecked by these conflicts on the people and the devastating effects on the natural environment and even on the economic strength of the state involve. Regrettably, all efforts made to put an end to wars, conflict and crises around the globe yield little or no significant results since conflict recur and the proclivity of conflict remained undefeatable (Adegbite et al, 2005:2). Be that as it may, the place of Africa in the New Millennium is characterized by recurring instability, inter/intra-state wars, insecurity, political and economic problems.

The intensity and destructiveness of Africa‟s conflicts accelerated tremendously, posing complex challenges to the peaceful resolution of conflict in particular, and the advancement of peaceful co-existence between groups in general (Adar, 2004:247). Put differently, most visible manifestation of the problems facing the continent is the invidious and intractable proliferation of conflict. Africa continued to witness protracted civil wars which have taken the centre stage in the political lives of the continent, with attendant devastating consequence for peace, security and sustainable development. Undoubtedly, if the idea and practice of searching for peace are as old as humanity, then it follows that the history of wars and conflicts, which are its harbingers, is older (Onoja, 1996).

Africa is the most conflict-ridden region of the world and the only region in which the number of armed conflicts is on the increase. Conflicts have assumed epidemic proportions and an impediment to development. A few facts may help to illustrate the immensity and destructiveness posed by these conflicts. By 1966, average percentage of war related deaths in the world were in Africa. As a result, Africa accounted for over 8 million of the twenty-two million refugees‟ worldwide (World Refugee Survey, 1998). During the 1980s, Africa witness nine wars, numerous other instances of large-scale violent conflicts, and a kaleidoscope of coups, riots and demonstrations. These hostilities exacted a great toll on Africa in terms of the destruction of human life, cultural damage, economic disruption, and lost investment opportunities. Indeed, it is difficult to foresee significant economic and social development over wide stretches of Africa until the burden of violent conflicts is eased. Of the nine wars, Sudan, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique and Uganda – were major, with death totals, including civilian deaths, ranging from 60,000 to 100,000 commonly reported in Angola, and three million in Sudan. In these large wars, the overwhelming majority of victims were civilians, including countless children, who were deprived of food, shelter, and access to healthcare because of the war. Three other wars, in Namibia, Western Sahara and Chad, probably resulted in deaths numbering in the 10,000 to 20,000 range. Since these wars took place in highly populated territories, it seems likely that the civilian toll was less. Little is known about the situation in northern Somalia, although the flight of 350,000 refugees to Ethiopia suggests that substantial fighting has taken place (Africa Watch Committee, Somalia, 1990). A human rights organization estimates that 50,000 to 60,000 civilians have been killed in the above- mentioned conflicts.

Post-colonial governance institutions in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia have been shaped by their domestic and external contexts and circumstances. Among the relevant constituent factors, four seem critical: these include the nature of the colonial experience, the pattern of interaction among internal actors, the structure and response of the regional and international environment within which they operate and the quality of leadership in each country. Although colonial experience initially helped to shape governance structures, other elements have become important since the attainment of independence. The degree of success in aligning and reconciling interests among various elites and the predispositions, orientations and leadership strategies employed by the leaders have elicited domestic and external responses that have not always ensured peace and advanced development .

The League of Nations was created in the aftermath of the First World War. The league’s purpose was to promote international cooperation and to achieve international peace and security. However, the League of Nations was powerless in preventing the world’s descent into a second global war thus leading to the creation of the United Nations (UN) at the end of World War II, in 1945.

The UN Charter is the grand norm or the source of authority for the conduct of all Peace Support Operations (PSO) globally. The first article in the charter states the purpose of the UN thus: “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace”.  In fulfilling this responsibility, Chapter VI of the UN Charter provides for the pacific settlement of disputes by a variety of peaceful measures, these include: negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement (Article 33). Chapter VII on the other hand, is essentially coercive and designed to deal with threats to peace, breaches of peace and acts of aggression perpetrated by sovereign states. Since gaining independence in 1960, Nigeria’s interest and commitment to world peace has put her in the forefront of troop contributing nations to support UN, regional, and sub-regional led PSOs.

The three Armed Services that constitute the main organ of the Armed Forces of Nigeria have now been established for over 50 years. Within this period Nigeria has had the privilege of participating either with a single service or with two or more armed services in a PSO. The earliest test of Armed Forces of Nigeria participation came within a few months of political independence when Nigeria contributed both military forces and police to ONUC, the peacekeeping mission in the Congo that lasted from 1960 to 1964. Since then Nigerian forces have participated in peacekeeping missions across the globe under varying international legal authority executing a variety of operational mandates.

For example, at the sub regional level, Nigeria played a prominent role in the integrative and peace building efforts within the west-African region. At the regional level, she has contributed to various peace building and peacekeeping efforts on the African continent in places such as Somalia, Sierra Leone and Liberia. Globally, Nigeria participated in conflict area such as Lebanon, the area of the former Yugoslavia and in Kuwait. To date, Nigeria has contributed armed military contingents, unarmed military observers, military staff officers, formed police units and police advisors as well as civilian experts to more than 40 UN, OAU/AU and ECOWAS missions.

For this active support of (and participation in) international peacekeeping, Nigeria has been rightly singled out for praise at the highest levels of the UN. However, it must be noted that the human, material and financial losses Nigeria has incurred in these involvements have been significant. Further noteworthy is the view held by some that Nigeria has not taken full advantage of its active participation in the numerous peacekeeping operations around the world by not getting commensurate economic, military and political remuneration for its participation. For example, countries like Ghana, which also participate in numerous UN PSOs, generate funds through this process to defray the costs of sustaining its military, while Nigeria on the other hand has largely deprived itself of such benefits.

Without a very clear understanding of the causation of crises that have been engulfing most of the Third World or the periphery of capital, we would continue to sacrifice men and materials in the cause of blind ally in the name of Peace Support Operations. Alveres (1991:xv) said that the extension of the personality of the West to the non-Western world can be directly correlated with an increase in the sum total of poverty, pain, and destruction in that part of the globe. As such, we are gradually reaching the stage when it will be possible to proclaim the arrival of a new principle: “the greatest unhappiness of the greatest possible number.” Caude Alveres said that he would want to agree with those historians who tend to see the colonial and neo-colonial disruptions of southern nations as having been very often exaggerated. He said he would differ a bit: that the colonial impact has been small precisely because we are at the beginning of the real colonial age. As the comprehensive disintegration of the non-Western societies was yet to come. In his opinion, the traumatic event would only be precluded, if the Western paradigm is checked immediately in its influence over the southern real world and its mind, if it is relativised or relegated to where it once had its origins (Alveres 1991: xvi). Camilleri (1978:7) said, the moral and psychological trauma which the Vietnam War helped to create within the consciousness and institutions of American society has provided perhaps the most explicit revelation of the bureaucratic growth and political polarisation characteristic of all advanced capitalist and even socialist societies. The ensuing pyramid of power reduces most people to (mere) spectators of a profound social disorder which they perceive but cannot correct. As for the small elite situated at the top of the pyramid, it is hardly in a position to take remedial action as its basis of power lies in the maintenance of the status quo. Thus the global infrastructures of violence are laid by the most advanced industrial nations as they dominate the trade flows of the underdeveloped countries, monopolise their manufacturing outlets by channeling their great bulk of investment capital both private and public and also determine the prices of their main exports (Camilleri 1978:9). Thus Joseph A. Camilleri stressed; In spite of the powerful military components underpinning the pyramidal structure of the world economy, it has not been possible thus far – and undoubtedly it will become increasingly difficult in the future for the existing economic disparities to be maintained without violent resistance. However, the forces of the existing order, far from acceding to the increasingly militant demands of distributive justice, appear more determined than ever to defend present institutions and power structures, and where necessary to do so by force.

The international system thus appears set on a collision course which will inexorably lead to more violence (Camilleri 1978:9).

The global economic inequality has been generating global violence which is always more tensed up in the periphery of capital or Third World. It has been the basis of the phenomena of failed states across the Southern hemisphere resulting in civil wars which call for peace-keeping, peace-enforcements, peace-building and Peace Support Operations (PSOs). Boutros Ghali, a former UN Secretary General was cited by UNICEF (1995:3) publication as saying that “…the direct aggression by one country against another has now become rare, the traditional concept of security, the international security of states that was the original purpose of the United Nations – has been largely achieved.” Boutros Boutros Ghali has identified direct aggression or direct violence between one state and another but he did not address the issue of structural violence which is basically a product of the nature of the integration of the Third Word economy into the advanced capitalist system. The then Secretary General did not go beyond ruminating within the traditional Western view which borders on reductionism rather than the causes of insecurity globally. He stressed; there is today a new crisis in human security. And its most obvious manifestations are increasing internal conflicts, mass migration to marginal lands and urban slums, frustrated aspirations, rising social tensions, and the disaffection of large numbers of people from their societies, their value systems, their governments and their institutions. Internationally, the new threats include the increase in the number of failed states and in the need for international intervention… (Boutros Ghali cited in UNICEF 1995:3).

Structural dependence and indeed its features of underdevelopment results in structural violence, a product of the lopsided nature of the global political economy of stack inequality between the industrialised countries and the underdeveloped states of the Southern hemisphere (Camilleri 1978, Offiong 1980; Walshe 1994). The structural violence of the global political economy is an enduring feature of capital which intensity is felt more in the periphery more than in the core of capital. In this respect, Marx and Engels (1977: 289) said, “While, therefore, the crises first produce revolutions on the continent (Western mainland Europe), the foundation for this, nevertheless was always laid in England. Violent outbreaks must naturally occur in the extremities of the bourgeois body since the possibility of adjustment is greater here than there.” These features of capital still remain with us today and not until we bend backward to locate the trends of the political economy of imperialism we would not be able to trace capitalism and its global infrastructures of violence resulting in civil wars that call for Peace Support Operations in most of the Third World.

However, the cult of recency and indeed crude recencism have made us to locate civil wars at the evils of leaders alone and lack of good governance. In as much as the foregoings are true, they are not the primary causal variables of the crises that degenerate to civil wars which call for Peace Support Operations for which Nigerians and Nigeria have made enormous sacrifices which have been “appreciated” by the international community, principally the advanced capitalist world for which Nigerians have been playing sub-imperial roles. Nigeria‟s sub-imperial role which is a negative one and not positive one was expressed by two Federal Ministers, Zanna Buka Dipcharima (Trade) and Waziri Ibrahim (Economic Development) in the House of Representatives debate on government proposals for the 1962-68 National Development Plan and they were against rapid economic changes. According to Osoba (1978:64-9) they were against quick economic changes because of fear of imperialism as they felt that imperialists have got various means to defend their monopoly including the mass media and even assassinations. And so the status quo must be maintained.

 In the area of defence policy of which Peace Support Operations is a sub-set, its aid to Nigeria‟s foreign policy is in much weakened position. It was in this respect for the whole of Africa that Kwame Nkrumah suggested the formation of an African High Command to make Africans more effective to intervene to save the Congo. Nigeria shot that idea or dream in the foot. In the view of Nkrumah, such a Command was essential because separately, African countries did not have the military strength to exercise any real weight in international politics; with a united force their views could not be ignored (Nkrumah 1966:86). Almost fifty years after Kwame Nkrumah floated the idea of an African High Command and was shot down, the neoconservative United States lobbyist scared of its energy security concerns and its anti-terrorism campaign of the Department of Defence have spearheaded the creation of a unified and separate African Command (AFRICOM) reported by Time Magazine of August 2006. In addition Nigeria is seeking a military cooperation with the United States. International Politics is said to be nothing but the struggle for power. The dictum of capitalism is the “survival of the fittest” as such the powerful getting closer to a weaker nation shows a point of weakness and can result in further weakening of the weaker state. This is the crux of the matter that of imperialism and the continuation of Nigeria‟s sub-imperial role which Victor Malu was the only courageous Service Chief to have spoken against it.

1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Most researchers have written on the role of Nigeria in peacekeeping operations within the West African sub-region, since the country’s attainment of independence in 1960, with focus on Liberia and Sierra Leone. Nigeria has played and continues to play pivotal roles in support of countries challenged by political instability. This big brother role lends credence to the assertion that Nigeria remains a significant factor in peacekeeping, particularly within Africa.

However, while the country is being commended by the United Nations missions across the globe, a sizable number of Nigerians hold reservations regarding the huge resources expended on peacekeeping operations at the detriment of the country’s domestic needs which no researcher researched on. it is on this premise that this study will take a critical look into Nigeria peace keeping operations as well as its gains and pains.

1. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The main aim and objective of this research is to examine Nigeria and peace keeping operations: its gains and pains. Other objectives of this study include:

1.to identify the relationship between Nigeria and peace keeping operations.

2. to examine the challenges of Nigeria peace keeping operations.

3. to determine the role of Nigeria in peace keeping operations.

4. to examine the gains and pains of Nigeria and peace keeping operations.

1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is the relationship between Nigeria and peace keeping operations?

2. What are the challenges of Nigeria peace keeping operations?

3. What is the role of Nigeria in peace keeping operations?

4. What are the gains and pains of Nigeria and peace keeping operations?

1. STATEMENT OF RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

1. H0: there are no gains and pains in peace keeping operations in Nigeria.

2. H1: there are gains and pains in peace keeping operations in Nigeria.

1. SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

Since independence in 1960, Nigeria has grown to be widely recognized in the international community as an unrelenting advocate of global peace. This study will serve as record for generations yet unborn to understand the role her Nation played in peace keeping operations. It will also let them know, various Nations Nigeria assisted in peace keeping like Libya, South Africa and others.

More so, the study will serve as detailed information to the gains of peace keeping and pains it has cost Nigeria and Nigerians. It will help other researchers into Nigeria and peace keeping operations and will also be in the archive to be referred to at any time on the several roles Nigeria played in peace keeping, the challenges, its gains and pains as well.

1. SCOPE OF STUDY

The study will cover Nigeria and Peace Keeping Operations: its gains and Pains.

1. LIMITATION O0F STUDY

1. Financial constraint- Insufficient fund tends to impede the efficiency of the researcher in sourcing for the relevant materials, literature or information and in the process of data collection (internet, questionnaire and interview).

2. Time constraint- The researcher will simultaneously engage in this study with other academic work. This consequently will cut down on the time devoted for the research work.

1. DEFINITION OF TERMS

Nigeria: Nigeria was named after the River Niger, derived from a native term “Ni Gir” (meaning River Gir). The name is often misinterpreted as derived from the latin word 'Niger” meaning black, a reference to the dark complexion of the inhabitants of the region.

Peace keeping: the active maintenance of a truce between nations or communities, especially by an international military force.

Operations: the action of functioning or the fact of being active or in effect

Gains: obtain or secure (something wanted or desirable).

Pains: highly unpleasant physical sensation caused by illness or injury.