



































EVAIA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS AND VALUES Volume 1, Number 1,  May, 2020


EVAIA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS AND VALUES Volume 1, NO. 1,  July, 2020 

 

Obijekwu,  Enemuo, & Chidebe                                                                                                                                             Page 42 

 

TERRORISM AND USE OF MILITARISM IN CONFLICT 

RESOLUTION: A CRITICAL STUDY OF NIGERIA’S EXPERIENCE 

 

 

Matthew Ike Obijekwu,PhD1 . Johnpaul Chinedu Enemuo2 and Evelyn 

Amaka Chidebe3 
1Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University, Igbariam, Anambra State 

 Email: mi.obijekwu@coou.edu.ng 
2Department of Philosophy, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Anambra 

State, Email: reachbaron@yahoo.com 
3School of General Studies, Anambra State Polytechnic, Mgbakwu, Anambra 

State 

 

Abstract 
This paper critically considers the use of militarism as an option in conflict 

resolution in Nigeria. Over time now, Nigerian government and her security 

agencies have been using militarism in tackling the challenges of terrorism in 

Nigeria which was orchestrated by Boko Haram and herders. This approach 

has been causing Nigerian government a lot (both fund, destruction of lives 

and properties). Instead of curbing the terrorism, it has led to its escalation. 

Suffice to say that this method is counterproductive, and has deepened the 

problems of insecurity, national instability and underdevelopment. Hence, it 

has made the quest for a better option obvious. Analytically, therefore, the 

paper advocates for dialogue and at the same time rejects militarism as a 

model for a sustainable conflict resolution in Nigeria. This paper suggests that 

Nigerian government and her security agents should first and foremost 

identify the bases of conflict in Nigeria and address them. While addressing 

them, they should forthwith engage the disputed members of the society in 

dialogue. This paper therefore concludes that only dialogue anchors on the 

principles of humanness and common good, rather than extremely economic 

or political interests, can ensure stability and mutual co-existence in multi-

cultural society like Nigeria. 

 

Keywords: Militarism, terrorism, critical study, conflict resolution, Nigerian 

experience  

 

Introduction  

The problem with Nigeria government and her security agencies is that they 

often leave the substance and pursue the shadow. They leave the cause(s) of 

security challenges and always pursue the aftermath or the consequences of 

the long time security negligence in Nigeria. They seemed to have not taken 

time to ask some fundamental questions on how best to embark on apolitical 

security issues. The problem is that almost every situation in Nigeria is 

politicized, even the security issues. This oftentimes does create political 



EVAIA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS AND VALUES Volume 1, NO. 1,  July, 2020 

 

Obijekwu,  Enemuo, & Chidebe                                                                                                                                             Page 43 

 

divides amongst the political parties. Sometimes, members of the opposition 

party accuse the ruling party of sponsoring terrorism and vice verse. 

 

No matter the level of accusation, the fact remains that Nigeria is currently 

faced with security challenges ranging from Boko Haram militants, herders, 

Niger Delta militants, and other security issues like kidnapping, armed 

robbery, etc. Since the emergence of Boko Haram insurgence and herders 

attack in July 2009 in Nigeria, many Nigerians have been living in fears. 

Maianmwa and Uzodike (2012) in Obiefuna and Adams (2017, p.10) and 

Afeno (2012) agreed that Boko Haram insurgents waged destructive attack on 

the ethnically mixed state like Bauchi and others.  

 

With the activities of Boko Haram, Nigeria has been designated as a terrorist 

nation, and as well included in the terrorist list (The Global Terrorism Index, 

2017). With these attacks here and there, Nigeria has been finding it difficult 

to address the security issues. The fact remains that terrorism has really 

claimed many lives and destroyed millions worth of properties; it has affected 

the economic and social activities in many states, especially in the northeast of 

Nigeria. 

 

To curb these challenges, Nigerian government and her security agents have 

employed a method - militarism or military force, which often is considered a 

better option or a model for counterinsurgency. This method has been 

observed to be counterproductive. Reports and other research conducted so far 

have proven that this approach can never resolve the security challenge. 

Rather, it will continue to escalate the problem. In this paper therefore, we 

argue that military force or militarism can never stop terrorism rather it will 

make it more violent and dreadful. This paper will identify the causes of 

terrorism in Nigeria, which include injustice, poverty, illiteracy, ethnicity or 

tribalism, religious fundamentalism. This paper contends that to end terrorism, 

these fundamental problems must be addressed. As these problems are being 

addressed, the perpetrators of these terrorist acts should, at the same time, be 

engaged in humanistic dialogue that is devoid of extremely political interest.  

 

Conceptual analysis  

Conflict: conflict is synonymous with crisis, strife, dispute, or clash, but in a 

more escalated for is terrorism. The term conflict means a serious 

disagreement or argument typically a protracted one. Merriam-Webster 

(https://cambridge.org) defines conflict as an active disagreement between 

people with opposing opinions or principles. Ajit (2010) in Rakhim (2010, 

p.16), opines that there is no single universal acceptable definition of conflict. 

He states that one issue of contention is whether the conflict is a situation or a 

type of behaviour. This is very important in conflict resolution. We shall 

elaborate on this later in the work. Corroborating with Rakhim, Robert A. 

https://cambridge.org/


EVAIA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS AND VALUES Volume 1, NO. 1,  July, 2020 

 

Obijekwu,  Enemuo, & Chidebe                                                                                                                                             Page 44 

 

Baron (1990), in his work “Conflict in Organization”, having understood 

conflict as that which flows from peoples’ interaction, defines it as an 

interactive process manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance 

within or between social entities (Rakhim, 2010, p.16). Commenting further, 

Rakhim notes that a conflict may be limited to one individual, who is 

conflicted within himself. With this, one can easily say classify conflict into 

internal conflict (intra-conflict), when it occurs within an individual and 

external conflict (inter-conflict), when it occurs between individuals, groups, 

or nations.  Further on the definition of conflict, Michael Nicholson(1992, 

p.11) defines conflict as an activity which takes place when conscious beings 

(individuals or groups) wish to carry out mutually inconsistent acts concerning 

their wants, needs, or obligation. The emphasis here is the idea of “mutually 

inconsistent acts” of needs, wants or obligations. Conflict comes in 

immediately there is divergence of interests among members of a group. It is 

important to note that the basis of conflict often varies. It could be political, 

race, caste, and international.  Roy Eidelson and Judy Eidelson (2003, p. 182-

192) list five beliefs that often give rise to conflict, and among them include 

superiority, injustice, vulnerability, distrust and helplessness.  

 

Terrorism: The concept terrorism, though with different and controversial 

definitions, has one common feature which is “to instill fear in people or the 

entire society”. The controversy which associated with the term lies on the 

fact that “one person’s terrorist might be another person’s freedom fighter” 

(Kaarbo & Ray, 2011, p. 238). The reason is that terrorism is considerably a 

political term often used by people to refer to political violence or any other 

related political occurrence which they disapprove. In defining terrorism, 

effort will be made to bring to bear its global understanding. In this view, The 

Institute for Economics & Peace(IEP, 2017), in the “Global Terrorism Index” 

(GTI)” asserts that defining terrorism is not a straightforward matter. There is 

no single internationally accepted definition of what constitutes terrorism and 

the terrorism literature abounds with competing definitions and typologies. 

IEP accepts the terminology and definitions agreed to by the Global 

Terrorism Database(GTD) and the National Consortium for the Study of 

Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). The GTI therefore defines 

terrorism as ‘the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a 

non‐state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through 

fear, coercion, or intimidation.’ 

 

Terrorism, according to BBC Dictionary (1992, p.1211) is the use of violence 

for political reason. For the Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary (2005, p. 

1528), terrorism means the use of violent action in order to achieve political 

aims or to force the government to act. These definitions, so to speak, are 

restrictive. As a result, concentration will be on exploring other views or 

definitions of terrorism by different scholars. Ilechukwu (2017, p. 207) 



EVAIA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS AND VALUES Volume 1, NO. 1,  July, 2020 

 

Obijekwu,  Enemuo, & Chidebe                                                                                                                                             Page 45 

 

defines terrorism as the deliberate commission of an act of violence to create 

an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance 

of political and social agenda. According to Henslin (2006, p. 296) terrorism 

is the use of violence to create fear to try to bring about political objectives. 

We can say that terrorism is an unaddressed conflict in its escalation form 

when non-states actors have disagreements or are incompatible with the 

authority or government. Conflict, when it is not properly addressed or 

managed at the initial stage of its manifestation, may turn to terrorism. This is 

actually the case of Nigeria with regard to Boko Haram insurgence. We shall 

discuss this later when discussing terrorism and Nigeria’s experience. 

 

From the definitions, it is clear that terrorism is not conscripted to only 

political reason. Rather, it embraces other classifications; namely,  state 

terrorism, religious terrorism, right wing terrorism, left wing terrorism, 

pathological terrorism, issue-oriented terrorism, separatist terrorism, and 

narco-terrorism. Each of these types of terrorism has its specific goal(s) 

(Obiefuna and Adams, 2017).  

 

Terrorism sometimes is associated with a moral judgment. From this 

perspective, it is considered a deliberate, systematic murder, maiming, and 

menacing of the innocent to inspire fear in order to gain political ends (Kaarbo 

and Ray, 2011, p.238). These authors note that considering terrorism as a 

moral term becomes problematic, because the concept of morality in itself is a 

problematic concept among moralists, and even among the world leaders. In 

this way, justifying some acts considered terrorist acts become an issue 

(Kaarbo and Ray, 2011, p.238). For instance, the France Resistance and the 

Polish Underground, according to Kaarbo and Ray, were considered terrorists 

by Germany in World War I, but were considered by others who believed that 

resisting Nazi occupation was a moral cause (Kaarbo & Ray, 2011, p. 238). 

The United States (U.S) occupation of Vietnam (Vietnam War in 1955-1975), 

which led to the death of millions of peoples, was justified by her allies until 

Martin Luther King, Jr. criticized their actions and military activities in 

Vietnam (Presbey, 2014, p.218-222). 

 

Terrorism in Nigeria 

In Nigeria, the challenges of Boko Haram and its sinister, herdsmen attacks, 

remain a typical example of this fact. Series of attacks have been launched by 

Boko Haram, which has led to the death of many Nigerians. Boko Haram has 

claimed many lives in Nigeria. Before the hydra-headed monster known as 

Boko Haram in Nigeria, which emerged in 2009, there has been a radical 

Islamic fundamentalism like the Maitatsine movement, which began around 

1980s. Even before this sect emerged, Nigeria has been involved in various 

religiously, socio-politically, economically, and culturally motivated violence. 

The pre-independence period around 1950s was known for different tribal 



EVAIA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS AND VALUES Volume 1, NO. 1,  July, 2020 

 

Obijekwu,  Enemuo, & Chidebe                                                                                                                                             Page 46 

 

motivated conflicts or riots, coupled with the colonial domination, which was 

also a problem during the period. Again, the post-independence period, which 

started in 1960 till date, was not without its own problems starring before 

Nigerians. Accusations and counter accusations of corruption, 

misappropriation of public funds, unhealthy competitions etc., coupled with 

the dreaded tribal affiliations among the Nigerian nationalists, led to coups 

and countercoups by the military. All these also created a lot of prejudices 

among the Nigerian elites, who turned out to be using the poor, unemployed 

youths, or locally put, the street boys and girls to perpetuate evil and achieve 

their targeted goals (Obiefuna and Adams, 2017).  

 

Rogers, cited in Obiefuna and Adams (2017), states that, “…following 

independence in 1960s, the rise of the radical Maitatsine movement in the 

1970s, which engaged unemployed urban youths, led to clashes with the 

police in Kano in 1980, leaving many hundreds dead”. The Maitatsine 

movement then later metamorphosed to what is known today as Boko Haram. 

Connell, in Obiefuna and Adams (2017), traces the origin of Boko Haram to 

1995, when it was founded by Abubakah Lawan under the original name of 

Ahlulsunna wal’jama’ah hijira. Connell (2012); Faleti (2016); and Obiefuna 

and Adams (2017) maintain that the original mission of this group was to 

draw the attention of the government to the level of poverty and economic 

hardship in the society. It was also meant to look at the problems like political 

and economic exclusion, injustice, poverty, disease, exploitation, and 

inequality. So, Lawan mission was to address most of these problems. Under 

the leadership of Muhammed Yusuf, Lawan’s Ahlulsunna wal’jama’ah hijira 

was changed to Boko Haram with a different ideology. We shall discuss the 

ideology in the later part of this work. It is proper to note that Boko Haram is 

today considered as the most dreaded terrorist group in the world due to its 

activities and affiliation with Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), even its 

sinister, herdsmen, which is yet to be proscribed as a terrorist group in 

Nigeria, poses security challenge to Nigeria security.  

 

As Boko Haram and herders have posed and continued to pose serious 

security challenges in Nigeria, Nigerian government has considered militarism 

or military force as the best option to address the security issue. The question 

is whether military approach has solved the security issue? Has Boko Haram 

and herder challenge eradicated?  

 

Militarism model: A misplaced conflict resolution model 
Militarism or counterinsurgency is an action taken against a group of people 

trying to take control of a country by force. The term, militarism is defined as 

the spirit or tendencies of a professional soldier. BBC Dictionary (1992, 

p.731) defines it as the desire to strengthen and use the armed forces of a 

country in order to make it more powerful. It is all about using force as a 



EVAIA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS AND VALUES Volume 1, NO. 1,  July, 2020 

 

Obijekwu,  Enemuo, & Chidebe                                                                                                                                             Page 47 

 

means of achieving peace in the world (Obijekwu & Okafor, 2017, p. 240). 

We can easily say that militarism goes with the concept force, which implies 

that both words can be interchangeably used or applied. The word force has 

other connotations. In Physics, a force means any interaction that if not 

intercepted will change the motion of an object. A force causes motion or 

acceleration in an object. Force as used here is not force as used in Physics, 

but force as a means of achieving peace or as a means of countering 

insurgence. It may also be understood as militarism or application of military 

force in conflict resolution. 

 

This paper maintains that using militarism or military force in resolving 

conflict is counterproductive anywhere it is to be used in the world and 

Nigeria in particular. The word, conflict resolution is defined as ….the 

methods and processes in facilitating peaceful ending of conflict and 

retribution (Forsyth, 2009). The entire world and Nigeria in particular has 

been in chaos and anarchy despite trillions of money budgeted annually by 

different countries of the world to acquire ammunitions for fighting terrorism 

in order to achieve peace. They forget to understand that peace achieved 

through conflict, even through militarism is war suspended.  

 

Globally, militarism has not solved any terrorist problem or challenge. The 

world till today is still under attack by different terrorist groups. Some 

countries despite the huge amount of money invested in security are still under 

attack. There is always a face-off between America and Iran. Few months ago 

were between the President of America, Donald Trump and his counterpart, 

the President of North Korea with regards to weapon inspection. It is all about 

exhibition of military might or power. The point is that American has made 

himself the soldier of the world. The face-off between the United States of 

America and North Korea is seriously threatening the world peace. 

Meanwhile, the effects of the First 1914- 1918 and Second World War 1939-

1945 have not been completely forgotten. Willmott (2003, p.307) First World 

War (WW1) was one of the deadliest conflict in history within an estimated 

nine million combatant and seven million civilian deaths, while resulting 

genocide and the related 1918 influenza pandemic cause about 17-50 million 

death worldwide. These wars were fought due to egocentrism and selfishness 

of the powerful nations; where national interest were place above the global 

interest and common good. This WW1 might be fought with the intention that 

after the war, the world would be in peace. But that was not case. Some years 

after the war, Second World War occurred. In all these wars human lives were 

wasted. Even the present time where terrorists are fought with military force, 

the world has not known peace; peace has been eluding the entire world. The 

death of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other people who were killed 

by US have never brought peace in the world. At this point, we may wonder 

why using militarism as an option for conflict resolution? 



EVAIA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS AND VALUES Volume 1, NO. 1,  July, 2020 

 

Obijekwu,  Enemuo, & Chidebe                                                                                                                                             Page 48 

 

 

In Nigeria, therefore, given the origin of Boko Haram in the northeastern 

Nigeria, was originally not violent, but was meant to purify Islam in northern 

Nigeria. But due to the military approach used by the then state government 

by killing the founder Mohammed Yusuf in 2002, the group since then has 

turned violent. The New York Times reported that Boko Haram has killed tens 

of thousands and displaced 2.3 million from their homes (The New York 

Times, 2015). This was after the military actions taken by Nigerian military 

force to counter their deadly activities. Since then, their activities have taken 

different forms such as suicide bombings, bombing churches, police stations, 

kidnapping of prominent people from the north, rapping and committing other 

atrocities. In 2011, the United Nations office in Abuja was burnt; and in 2014, 

more than 6,600 people were killed (Buchanan, 2015). In 2014, the group 

kidnapped 276 schoolgirls from Chibok. Nigerian government, over the years, 

has been fighting Boko Haram as if the country is fighting another country in 

defence of her territory. This should have been well managed if the 

government was calculative enough. In 2019, President Muhammadu Buhari 

claimed that Boko Haram is “technically defeated” (Dionne, 2019). At 

present, even as Nigeria is battling with the global pandemic disease – Covid-

19, Boko Haram has continued killing Nigerians. Suffice to say that 

militarism-model is never the best model in conflict resolution. Therefore, it is 

proper to toe a better model as we desire to achieve peace in Nigeria.  

 

Dialogue model: Anoption for conflict resolution 

The question is: Can dialogue resolve a conflict? Under what condition is 

dialogue an option or alternative to militarism? Answering these questions 

depends on what the government or the parties involved in dialogue want to 

achieve. Of course, every society wants peace and harmony. How do we 

achieve it? Is it by military force or dialogue? We argue here that dialogue 

remains the alternative to militarism in conflict resolution.  Dialogue, as it is, 

is among the methods of conflict resolution, which among others include 

mediation and negotiation. Conflict resolution as the definition goes is a way 

for two or more parties to find a peaceful solution to a disagreement among 

them. This disagreement may be personal, financial, financial, political, or 

emotional. Meanwhile, the definition of dialogue has been difficult to offer. 

Pernille Rieker, in the introduction of the book titled, Dialogue and Conflict 

resolution: The potentials and limits of dialogue as a tool for conflict 

resolution” asserts that “dialogue has become one of the new buzzwords in 

international politics today” (Rieker, 2015). Even at this, we can still give a 

working definition of dialogue. Merriam-Webster defines dialogue as a 

discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at 

resolution.  

 



EVAIA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS AND VALUES Volume 1, NO. 1,  July, 2020 

 

Obijekwu,  Enemuo, & Chidebe                                                                                                                                             Page 49 

 

Dialogue can be classified into political-oriented dialogue, economic-oriented 

dialogue, cultural-oriented dialogue, religious-oriented dialogue and 

humanistic-oriented dialogue, and most important. Cherished and valued 

among these classifications is humanistic-oriented dialogue. Political-oriented 

dialogue is a situation where a person or a group of persons who are to go into 

dialogue pay much interest in their political differences or disagreements; 

economic-oriented dialogue is where the interest for the dialogue lies on the 

economy; this is where the opposition or rebels (or non-state actors) are 

threatening the economic growth of the other that needed the dialogue. The 

typical example here is Nigeria-Niger Delta militants. Other types are 

cultural-oriented dialogue where cultures which are in dispute needs to be 

reconciled; religious-oriented dialogue that focuses of doctrinal differences 

such Christianity, Islam and Traditional religion. The most conflicting ones in 

Nigeria today are Christianity and Islam.  

 

Above all is humanistic-oriented dialogue that considered human person, 

human life and dignity; where person is the basis of the dialogue not political 

interest, economic interest, religious interest, or any other related interest. It is 

necessary therefore that before one or a group embarks on the process of 

dialogue; the individuals should first and foremost understand the basis of the 

dialogue and the cause(s) of the conflict. Understanding the basis of conflict 

and the aim of dialogue is the first step to conflict resolution.  

 

In one time or other, Nigeria has entered or being involved in one, two or 

more of these dialogues mentioned above. It was to resolve the political 

conflict and differences in Nigeria that led to the division of Nigeria into six 

geopolitical zones by General Sani Abacha. This was done in order to carry all 

zones or regions along in the political, economic and educational resources 

across the zones.   The 2014 National Conference (2014 Confab) was another 

form of dialogue motivated or oriented conference. The Conference was 

inaugurated by the then Nigerian President Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan on 

17 March, in Abuja, Nigeria and was headed by Chief Justice Idris Legbo 

kutigi (Oluata, 2014). About 492 delegates were selected across the six 

geopolitical zones. Other professional bodies and groups were also 

represented. The conference considered those challenges that have kept 

Nigeria apart for so long. Among the thing discussed include: 

 

Devolution of power, political 

restructuring and forms of government, 

national security; environment; politics 

and governance; law, judiciary, human 

rights and legal reform; social welfare; 

transportation;  agriculture; society; 

labour; electoral matters; foreign 



EVAIA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS AND VALUES Volume 1, NO. 1,  July, 2020 

 

Obijekwu,  Enemuo, & Chidebe                                                                                                                                             Page 50 

 

policy; and Diaspora matters;  land 

tenure matters, and national boundary, 

trade and investment, energy; religion; 

public finance and revenue generation, 

science, technology and development 

immigration (Oluata, 2014).  

 

This national conference was convoked to address so many challenges facing 

the country then. Unfortunately, the outcome of the conference was not 

implemented. This is another challenge one can hold against dialogue model 

in conflict resolution. The point we are looking at is the ability of coming 

together of the disputed parties to settle and harmonize their difference to 

further progress. 

 

We can also make reference to the July 2009 Presidential Amnesty 

programme in Nigeria Delta area.  This amnesty programme came to be when 

there was fracas in Niger Delta. Despite the contribution of the Niger delta 

area to Nigeria economy, the area for several years was abandoned, 

completely forgotten.  Until the youths of the area (Niger Delta) woke up one 

day, took to arms to challenge the government that they were remembered by 

Nigerian government. At this period, Nigeria lost about one million barrels of 

crude oil per day (bpd) which was estimated to be about N8.7 billion ($58m) 

as at May 2009. This really affected other sectors of Nigeria’s economy. 

There was reduction of the daily production from 2.2 million bpd to a 

700,000bpd when the problem escalated due to military approach employed 

by then President (OSAPND, n.d). Between January, 2008 to January, 2009 

many workers were killed and kidnapped especially foreign expatriates. If not 

that the government engaged those Niger Delta militants in a serious dialogue 

it would not have reduced that situation. Suffice to say that dialogue model 

can still work in the areas of Boko Haram and herders in Nigeria.  

 

However, the primary thing would be to address the possible causes of 

conflict in Nigeria which include social injustice, illiterate, poverty, hunger, 

exclusion, marginalization and discrimination. Every region or geographical 

zones in Nigeria is faced with one problem or the other. Over the years, most 

of them have calling government attention to these problems but government 

has failed to pay attention to their plight. As the insecurity is still a challenge 

in Nigeria, it is earlier now to start to pay attention in order to avoid future 

escalation. Just like national dialogue conference was organized in 2014 to 

avert the impeding dangers then,   though the outcome of the conference was 

not implemented, but the mere fact it was convoked reduced the tension in the 

country then. So if the intention of a group that is to engage in dialogue is to 

improve human life, protect human life and sustain human life, this paper 



EVAIA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS AND VALUES Volume 1, NO. 1,  July, 2020 

 

Obijekwu,  Enemuo, & Chidebe                                                                                                                                             Page 51 

 

suggests that dialogue should be of humanistic-oriented dialogue, where 

everyone’s interest gears to preserve human life and dignity.  

 

Conclusion 
Every action has a cause and effect. But often, the cause is forgotten, and only 

the effect is pursued. Hardly had the world powers sincerely pursued the cause 

of conflict or terrorism in the world. The cause can be addressed through 

dialogue not by militarism. Boko Haram’s demand for abolition of western 

education can be re-addressed, but should not be through military might. If not 

for the military disillusionment, some violence or terrorist attack experienced 

in Nigeria would not have occurred. Many Nigerians have been killed because 

Mohammed Yusuf was killed, which would not have occurred if Nigerian 

security agents applied dialogue to find out the cause of the agitation. As the 

nation government is currently fighting terrorism, it is important to avoid the 

old mistakes. Some known social problem such as injustice, poverty and 

illiteracy should be addressed; tribalism, discrimination, marginalization and 

exclusion of some sections of Nigeria should be avoided.  

 

Reference 

Buchanan, R. T. (18 November, 2015). “Isis overtaken by Boko Haram as 

world’s deadliest terror organization.The Independent.Retrieved 21 

April, 2020. 

CNN.(2000).US Comes Clean About the Coup in Iran. 

Conflict.Cambridge Dictionary.https://cambridge.org. Retrieved 19 April, 

2020. 

Connell, S.(2012). “To be or not to be: Is Boko Haram a Foreign Terrorist 

 Organization?” Global Security Studies, 3, 3, 187-93. 

Eidelson, R. & Eidelson, J. (2003, p. 182-192). “Dangerous ideas: Five beliefs 

that propels  groups towards conflict”. American Psychologist. 

58(3): 182-192.  https.doi:10.1037/0003.066X.58.3.182. 

Faleti, S.A. (2016). “Theories of Social Conflicts.” In Best, S. G (Ed.), 

 Introduction to Peace  and Conflict Studies in West Africa. Ibadan: 

 Spectrum, pp.35-60. 

Gasiorowsk, M.J (2004). Writing in Mohammed Mossadeq and the 1953 

Coup in Iran, Goiorowski, M. J and Byne, M. (ed,): Syracuse 

University press. 

Ilechuhwu, G.C (2017). “Literature, Terrorism and Counter-insurgency in 

Africa:, Imenda, U.E et al (ed.), NOCEN International Journal 

of Arts and  Social Sciences, Vol.  1 No.2. Onitsha: St. Stephen’s 

Press.pp.206-224. 

Jones, R. A. (2014). “Martin Luther King Jr.’s Agape and World House”. 

Birt,  R. E (ed,), The  Liberatory Thought of Martin Luther 

King Jr: Critical Eassy  on the Philosopher  King. Maryland: 

Lexington Books, pp.135-156. 

https://cambridge.org/


EVAIA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS AND VALUES Volume 1, NO. 1,  July, 2020 

 

Obijekwu,  Enemuo, & Chidebe                                                                                                                                             Page 52 

 

Kaarbo, J. and Ray, J. L.(2011). Global Politics (Tenth Edition). USA: 

 Wadsworth.  

Kinzer, S, (2003). All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of  

 Middle East Terror.  John Wiley and Sons. 

 

Nicholson, M. (27 March, 1992). Rationality and the Analysis of International  

Conflict. Cambridge university Press. P.11. ISBN 978-0-521-

39810-7.Retrieved 19 April, 2020. 

 

Nwoko, M. (1988).Basic World Political Theories. Nekede: Claretian Institute  

 of Philosophy. 

 

Obiefuna, B. A. C and Adams, P. A. (2017). “Terrorism and Peace-

building in  Nigeria:  Lesson from Boko Haram Insurgency”. 

In Imenda, U.E  et al (ed.),  NOCEN International Journal of 

Arts and Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No.2.  Onitsha: St. Stephen’s 

Press,pp.1-29. 

 

Obijekwu, M. I. & Okafor, A. (2017). Love and Nonviolence in Nigeria: 

Martin Luther King Jr’s  Perspective. ”. In Imenda, U.E et al 

(ed.), NOCEN International Journal of Arts and  Social Sciences, 

Vol. 1 No.2. Onitsha: St. Stephen’s Press, pp.237-258. 

 

Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary (2005) 

 

Oluata, J. National Conference 2014.  Archive from the original on 27 May 

 2014. Retrieved 22 April, 2020. 

 

OSAPND .(n.d). Presidential Amnesty Programme. 

https:www.osapnd.gov.ng. 

 

Paddock, R.C, Sang-hun, C. and Wade, N. (2017).Kim Jong-nam’s Death: 

North Korea Lets Loose a Weapon of Mass Destruction. New 

York Times, February.  

 

Presbey, G.M. (2010). “Martin Luther King Jr. on Vietnam: King’s Message 

 Applied to the  U.S. Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan”. In Birt, R. E 

(ed,), The Liberatory  Thought of Martin Luther King Jr: Critical 

Essay on the  Philosopher King. Maryland: Lexington Books. Pp. 

215-242. 

 

Rakhim, M. A. (31 October, 2010). Managing Conflict in 

 Organization.Transaction Publishers.p.16. ISBN 978-1-4128- 

1456-0. Retrieved 19 April, 2020. 



EVAIA: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS AND VALUES Volume 1, NO. 1,  July, 2020 

 

Obijekwu,  Enemuo, & Chidebe                                                                                                                                             Page 53 

 

 

Rohn, A. (2012). “What Countries involved in the Vietnam War? The 

  Vietnam War. Accessed  July, 30, 2018) 

 

Schweizer, R. 2020. Aerospace and Defence Director, Cowen Washington 

 Research Group www.cnbc.com.Accessed 17/93/2020. 

 

Searcey, D. (13 September 2019). “Boko Haram Is Back. With Better 

Drones”.The New York Times.ISSN 0362-4331.Retrieved 21 April 

2020. 

 

Siteadmin. (2014). Is the Niger Dealta Region the Epicenter of Electoral 

Fraud in Nigeria? Africa Check.Sahara Report.Retrieved 22 April, 2020. 

 

Spreeuwenberg; P., et al. ( 1 December, 2018). “Reassessing the Global 

Mortality Burden of the  1918 Influenza Pandemic”.American 

Journal of Epistemology. 187(12): 2561-2567. 

Doi:10.1093/aje/kwy19. PMID 30202996). 

 

Stumpf, E. (1994). Philosophy, Problems and History.New York: McGrew-

Hill. 

The New Times.Associated Press. 18 November, 2015. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20151121020206/http://www,nytimes.com/aponli

ne/2015/11/17/world/africa/ap-af-boko-haram.html?-r=0. Retrieved April, 

2020. 

 

Tim, R. (2002). How US Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal. London: The 

Sunday Times.  Retrieved 09/08/2018. 

 

Turakr, N. (2020). “The Puppet Master Is Dead: Iranian Gen. Qasem 

Soleimani’s Power, and Why His Death is such a Big Deal”. In 

Politics.www.cnbc.com. Accessed 17/93/2020 

 

United States Department of State. (2009). State Sponsor of Terrorism of 

 United States List. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/.../state_Sponsors_of_Terrorism_(U.S_list).

 Retrieved  04/08/2018. 

 

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20151121020206/http:/www,nytimes.com/aponline/2015/11/17/world/africa/ap-af-boko-haram.html?-r=0
https://web.archive.org/web/20151121020206/http:/www,nytimes.com/aponline/2015/11/17/world/africa/ap-af-boko-haram.html?-r=0
http://www.cnbc.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/.../state_Sponsors_of_Terrorism_(U.S_list)

