Nigeria and African Union Peacekeeping Missions in Burundi, Sudan and Somalia


1.1       Background to the Study

The African Union (AU) has pledged to create a continent of peace and solidarity. However, dozens of socio-ethnic conflicts occur across the continent despite the AU’s best efforts to prevent them. In this thesis, case studies of Sudan and Congo will be used to assess the efficacy of the AU in the realm of peacemaking and peacekeeping. Within each of these case studies, AU impediments to peacemaking and peacekeeping on financial, political, and socio-cultural fronts were analyzed.

One of the main basic reason for the transformation of the former Organization of African Unity (hereinafter the OAU) 1 to the brand new African Union (hereinafter the AU) is the need to shift from maintaining colonial independence of African states to a more pragmatic aspects of securing the realization of human rights, democracy, good governance and economic development of the African continent.

Contextualizing Sudan in the Study

There are many reasons Sudan is a compelling country to study. Sudan, until recently, was Africa’s and the Arab world’s largest country. It is also the cradle of the worlds’ longest river, the Nile, and the Sudanese government exerts authority over the river’s tributaries, the Blue and White Niles.2 Additionally, the country is endowed with astonishing resources ranging from fertile land to minerals and oil. Sudan’s oil reserves were estimated to be among the richest in the continent and its potential agricultural products are considered enough to eradicate hunger in all of Africa. 

Sudan’s location makes it an intriguing country. Located in northeast Africa, the country is where the Islamic-Arab civilization and the African ones intersect. By disposition, the country was predestined to house diverse groups of people. The advent of British colonizers and the European missionaries added to this diversity. This made the Sudanese national an African, an Arab, a Muslim, a Christian, and animist, a secular, and/or a Shariah-law observant.

The politicisation of some of these identities led to international ramifications that placed Sudan at the centre of the ‘War on Terror.’ Since Sudan’s independence in 1956, polarization of ethnic identities was common. This polarization was the most severe in the last two decades when the ruling party politicized the Islamic identity and affiliated itself with radical Islamist ideologues. In the early-mid 1990s, Sudan provided a sanctuary for Bin Laden as his Saudi government banished him. Subsequently, the U.S. claimed that the country was hosting terrorists and establishing Islamist terrorist links.  This led to Sudan’s 1993 designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.3

Other than the Sudanese involvement in the ‘War on Terror’, historically the leaders of the country have participated indirectly or directly in the Arab-Israeli conflict, in regional affairs including the birth of neighbouring Eritrea and in the Cold War.

Wars and conflict faced Sudan on every front, not only internationally but also nationally. Internally, Sudan has been ravaged by two civil wars. The first is the North-South civil war, also known as Africa’s longest civil war, and the second is the conflict in Darfur. Khartoum’s involvement in the Darfur conflict resulted in an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC)for the president of Sudan, Omar Al-Bashir, for crimes against humanity. Omar Al-Bashir’s authoritarian prolonged rule is said to eclipse the hopes for a democratic Sudan. Yet, the country underwent four democratic governments in the past five decades and therefore the spirit of revival persists. Sudan also experienced a few federal arrangements that are worth examining.

Additionally, Sudan is one of the first few states to experience secession by a referendum in the world. In January 2010, South Sudan exercised its right to self-determination and in June 2011, declared itself as Africa’s youngest nation.

Conceptualising Burundi in the Study

The Burundian Civil War was an armed conflict lasting from 1993 to 2005. The civil war was the result of long standing ethnic divisions between the Hutu and the Tutsi tribes in Burundi. The conflict began following the first multi-party elections in the country since independence from Belgium in 1962, and is seen as formally ending with the swearing in of Pierre Nkurunziza in August 2005. The estimated death toll stands at 300,000 killed.4

Before colonization,  Burundi had been a strong, organized kingdom for centuries. Society consisted of four groups: the Twa potters, hunters and entertainers, the Ganwa the ruling aristocracy (today regarded a Tutsi subgroup), the Tutsi mainly cow herders and the Hutu mostly cultivators . Society was a hierarchical network  of patron and client ties, with   the princely Ganwa enjoying the highest status, and the Twa the lowest. How Hutu and Tutsi related was not clear, but actually the history of their relationship is much politicized. A rich Hutu could come to be regarded as a Tutsi, and an impoverished Tutsi as a Hutu. Hutu and Tutsi with merits and high achievements in the society could be elevated at the Ganwa status. Intermarriages among the groups were tolerated. All groups spoke and still speak the same Swahili language, shared the same culture, and practiced the same religion”.5

On October 21, 1993, Burundi’s first democratically elected Hutu president, Melchior Ndadaye, was assassinated by Tutsi extremists. As a result of the murder, violence broke out between the two groups, and an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 people died within a year.6 They were followed by a long civil war that killed both Hutu and Tutsi leading to the Rwandan Genocide with influx of hundreds of thousands of Rwandan refugees and the activities of armed Hutu and Tutsi groups further destabilized the regime.6

The civil war, however, continued, despite the efforts of the international community to create a peace process. Ceasefire talks were held in Tanzania in 2000, facilitated by Nelson Mandela. The Arusha agreement which established a transitional government, where the presidency and vice-presidency would be rotated every 18 months, sharing power between the Hutus and Tutsis was reached. While the government and three Tutsi groups signed the ceasefire accord, two leading Hutu rebel groups refused to participate, and the fighting continued. The Arusha talks closed with little progress made on November 30, 2000.9  In 2005, many developments were made in the peace process. The president signed a law in January 2005 to initiate a new national army, consisting of Tutsi military forces and all but one Hutu rebel groups. Matters continued to look prosperous after Burundi’s last rebel group, the Forces of National Liberation (FNL) signed a ceasefire deal in Tanzania, “solidifying the end of a 12-year civil war.”10

Conceptualising Somalia in the Study

The Somali Republic gained independence on 1 July 1960. Somalia was formed by the union of British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland, while French Somaliland became Djibouti. A socialist state was established following a coup led by Major General Muhammad Siad Barre. Rebel forces ousted the Barre regime in 1991, but turmoil, factional fighting, and anarchy ensued. The Somali National Movement (SNM) gained control of the north, while in the capital of Mogadishu and most of southern Somalia, the United Somali Congress achieved control. Somalia had been without a stable central government since dictator Mohamed Siad Barre fled the country in 1991.11

The Somali Civil War is an ongoing civil war taking place in Somalia. It grew out of resistance to the Siad Barre regime during the 1980s. By 1988–90, the Somali Armed Forces began engaging various armed rebel groups, including the Somali Salvation Democratic Front in the northeast,the Somali National Movement in the northwest, and the United Somali Congress in the south.12 This coalition of clan-based armed opposition groups eventually managed to overthrow the nation’s long-standing military government in 1991.13

Various factions began competing for influence in the power vacuum that followed, which precipitated an aborted UN peacekeeping attempt in the mid-1990s. A period of decentralization ensued, characterized by a return to customary and religious law in many areas as well as the establishment of autonomous regional governments in the northern part of the country.

The early 2000s saw the creation of fledgling interim federal administrations, culminating in the establishment of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in 2004.14 In 2006, the TFG, assisted by Ethiopian troops, assumed control of most of the nation’s southern conflict zones from the newly formed Islamic Courts Union (ICU). The ICU subsequently splintered into more radical groups, notably Al-Shabaab, which have since been fighting the Somali government and the AU-mandated AMISOM intervention force for control of the country.15 In 2011, a coordinated military operation between the Somali military and multinational forces began, which is believed to represent one of the final stages in the war’s Islamist insurgency.

This study investigates not only the basic causes of the civil wars in Burundi, Sudan and Somalia, but also the response of the AU to these wars that have resulted in the deaths of millions of people in the region.

1.2       Statement of the Problem

At present, the efforts of the African Union in peacekeeping in Burundi, Sudan and Somalia, are yet to receive the attention of scholars. Meanwhile, these case studies illuminate the financial, political, and socio-cultural trials the AU faced when engaging in peacemaking and peacekeeping. Hence, analyzing the adequacy and efficiency of the AU intervention to the civil wars in Burundi, Sudan and Somalia,as well as exploring the major factors that have affected, undermined and influenced the responses of AU are one of the major points which will be extensively discussed in this study.

Also, taking in to account the main socio-economic, demographic and political factors behind the occurrence of the civil wars in Burundi, Sudan and Somalia,, the thesis will proffer some concrete suggestions for the AU and its member states to tackle the causes of future civil wars, unrests and instabilities in Africa. So, having all the above mentioned points in consideration, the main research questions to be addressed by this study are listed below:.

1.3       Research Questions

It will examine questions stemming from three quintessential areas of AU peacemaking and peacekeeping: economical, political, and socio-cultural.

  1. How is the AU tackling African civil wars?
  2. If the purpose of peacekeeping is to broker peace through compromise between opposing parties, is it within the interest of member states that are the subject to peacekeeping measures to contribute state funds to the AU Peace Fund?
  3. Why do Governments such as Burundi, Sudan and Somalia prefer the intervention of an AU peacekeeping mission than UN peacekeeping forces?
  4. Is AU peacekeeping more acceptable because of its African origin, or is it because of its widespread record of lame-duck peacekeeping missions that offer little threat to the offending government?
  5. Has the AU been able to offer lasting solution to the crises in Burundi, Sudan and Somalia?

This study will attempt to address these questions within three case studies of Burundi, Sudan and Somalia.

1.4       Justification of the Study

The Burundi, Sudan and Somalia conflicts were chosen for analysis due to their high level of AU involvement and therefore offer sufficient evidence of AU peacemaking and peacekeeping capabilities. Although, Somalia civil war was subject to more outside peacemaking and peacekeeping assistance rather than driven by a high level of AU involvement, nevertheless, it will provide a background to AU peace efforts in areas that have multiple peacekeeping interventions as it occurred in Rwanda. Hence, the Burundi, Sudan and Somalia case studies, will offer sufficient data for greater understanding of the AU peacemaking machine due to the AU’s deep involvement in each of these conflicts. Moreover, the comparison of the two cases will offer a more balanced understanding of the AU’s capacity for peacemaking and peacekeeping efforts in Africa.

1.5       Scope of the Study

A number of parameter need to be established for the study. First, the period covered is from 1999 to 2005. Second, the African Union (AU) intervention in Burundi, Sudan and Somalia is critically examined based on their peace and solidarity efforts. Third, the civil wars are to be examined primarily from the perspective of African Union’s peacekeeping initiatives despite the involvement of other international organisations such as the United Nations as well as regional third party interventions.

1.6       Literature Review

Removed (buy the complete project for N5000)

1.7       Research Methodology

Through the use of primary sources such as UN and AU publications and secondary sources such as periodicals, books, articles, and newspapers, I will address the issue of AU peacemaking and peacekeeping efficacy by analyzing two case studies: the Darfur crisis and the Western Sahara stalemate. The analysis will focus on whether or not economic, political, and cultural factors have stymied AU peacemaking and peacekeeping efforts in these two distinct African regions.

End Notes

Removed (buy the complete project for N5000)

Call 08077447220, 08074472654






1.1       Background to the Study

1.2       Statement of the Problem

1.3       Objectives of the Study

1.4       Research Questions

1.5       Scope of the Study

1.6       Limitations of the Study

1.7       Significance of the Study



2.0       Introduction

2.1       Background information on Nigeria

2.2       Theoretical Framework

2.2.1    Federalism as a Theoretical Framework

2.3       National Integration

2.4       Integrative Mechanisms and the Failure of National Integration in Nigeria

2.5       Failure of National Integration and Rise of Boko Haram Terrorism

2.6       Boko Haram Insurgency

2.6.1    Dimensions of Boko Haram Terrorism in Nigeria

2.6.2    Targets/Opponents

2.6.3.   Group Affiliations/Training

2.6.5    Finance/Funding

2.6.6    Recruitment



3.0       Introduction

3.1       Research Design

3.2       Population of the Study

3.3       Sample and Sampling Procedure

3.4       Instrument of Data Collection

3.5       Validity of the Instrument

3.6       Procedure for Data Collection

3.7      Procedure for Data Analysis




Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation

1.1       Background to the Study

Nigeria is a large multi-ethnic country where intra-ethnic cleavages remain a critical problem and ethnic violence has erupted periodically. Among the prominent conflicts in Nigeria were: Ife-Modakeke Crisis in Osun State; Yoruba-Hausa Clashes in Sagamu, Ogun State; Eleme-Okrika Conflict in Rivers State; Zango-Kataf in Kaduna State; Tiv-Jukun in  Wukari, Taraba State; Ogoni-Adoni in Rivers State; Chamba-Kuteb in Taraba State;  Itsekiri-Ijaw/Urhobo in Delta State; Aguleri-Umuleri in Anambra State; Ijaw-Ilaje  conflict in Ondo State; Basa-Egbura in Nassarawa State; Hausa/Fulani-Sawaya in Bauchi, among others. These conflicts have provided a pattern that makes scholars to attribute their causes to greed, power and wealth distribution.

The year 2014 marked one hundred years of the British amalgamation of Northern and Southern protectorates to form one political entity which is officially known and addressed as Nigeria. Two personalities were important in Nigeria’s integration process– Lord Frederick Lugard the then Governor General and Flora Shaw (later wife of Lugard), former correspondent of the London Times, who suggested the name- Nigeria.  Ever since this merger, the polity has been characterized by ethno-religious crises which have affected national unity.

Campbell (2014) is of the view that bad governance and corruption gave rise to religious extremism, poverty, corruption and ethnic rivalry. Given this background, Boko Haram founder, Mohammed Yusuf (1970 –2009) exploited the situation by criticizing the Nigerian government of deliberate persecution of poor Muslims (Vangaurd, 2009). Since Boko Haram’s foundation in 2002, the group has attacked churches, mosques, markets, banks, telecommunication facilities, military barracks, police stations, schools, local government secretariats, among others.

National integration is defined by these political scholars as “the unification or bringing together of diversified components either at international, regional, sub-regional, national or state/local community level.” (Philip  and  Henry, 1964). In Nigeria, the various integrative mechanisms put up by different administrations include the amalgamation of 1914, the Nigerianisation policy of 1960-1966, the National Youth Service Corps, the Unity Schools, the National Language policy, the principle of Federal Character and the creation of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. All of these were meant to promote national unity in Nigeria.

Between 2009 and 2017, Nigeria witnessed the height of Boko Haram terrorism The study shall proceed to examine the rise of Boko Hara, within the framework of a failed national integration process.

1.2       Statement of the Problem

Boko Haram is a transnational terrorist group whose operations in northeastern Nigeria, southern Niger and northern Cameroon have led to the killing of over 30,000 civilians and displacement of 2.3 million people. Between 2009 and 2014, Boko Haram insurgency promoted extreme poverty, food crises, mass migration, fragile governance, corruption, illicit trafficking and terrorist-linked security threats. It did not only affect people in northeastern states but had a significant impact on national integration.  While efforts have been made by scholars to investigate the problems of national integration in Nigeria, none has done so within the purview of Boko Haram terrorism. This study therefore seek to examine the impact of Boko Haram terrorism on national integration in Nigeria.

1.3       Objectives of the Study

The general aim of this study is to examine theImpact of Boko Haram Terrorism on National Integration in Nigeria from 2009 to 2017. Specifically, the study seeks to achieve the following objectives:

  • Provide a historical background to the Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria;
  • Examine the concept of national integration;
  • Analyse impact of Boko Haram attacks on integrative mechanisms in Nigeria
  • Examine the impact of Boko Haram attacks on intra-ethnic relations in Nigeria

1.4       Research Questions

  • What is the historical background to the Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria?
  • What does national integration mean?
  • How has Boko Haram attacks affected  integrative mechanisms in Nigeria?
  • What effect has Boko Haram attacks had on intra-ethnic relations in Nigeria?

1.5       Scope of the Study

  • This study covers theimpact of Boko Haram Terrorism on national integration in Nigeria from 2009 to 2017. Although, outside of the scope, the study made efforts to  look at the emergence of Boko Haram in 2002 as well as the patterns of attacks in northeastern states of Nigeria. Furthermore, the concept of  national integration was examined with focus on how Boko Haram insurgency has affected the implementation integrative mechanisms in Nigeria; as well as intra-ethnic relations in Nigeria.

1.6       Limitations of the Study

In producing such a work like this, the problem confronting the researcher is subjective nature of available materials. Moreso, this research work is contemporary and politically sensitive.  The researcher therefore is confronted with the problem of interpretation of the actions of Nigerian leaders towards the democratisation process of Nigeria as some of the policies initiated are still an on-ongoing process. Lastly, there is the question of time and fund which may serve as impediments to this research.

Nevertheless, these limitating factors will greatly be managed to make the research work more objective in its presentation.

1.7       Significance of the Study

The problem of national integration in Nigeria is central to this research. This study therefore is an attempt towards finding a theoretical solution to the problems militating against national integration in Nigeria. It is on this basis that this study is important for certain reasons.

First, the study is of paramount importance to decision makers and the would-be leaders for it traces the historical development of the challenges that confronted Nigeria from 2009 to 2017.

Second, it re-affirms the bold attempt made by the Nigerians in sustaining national integration through the war on terror.

Third, this research work will help in providing information on the internal factors that has continually hindered good governance in Nigeria as well as the practise of democracy.

Fourth, it is useful to scholars’ especially diplomatic historians, political scientists, economists and international relations experts who are conducting research in related field.

Finally, the political and military class will learn, through this study, the need for them to be patriotic and develop Nigeria.


Background to the Study

The last twenty-five years have witnessed the intensification of intrastate conflicts in Africa. The region’s leaders have tried to resolve these conflicts using various traditional conflict resolution mechanisms. These mechanisms have included commissions of mediation, ad-hoc committees, mediation by African Heads of State and the use of the Chieftaincy Institution. Recent conflicts in the region have, however, revealed that the use of these mechanisms alone has not helped much in resolving the conflicts and preventing the outbreak of violence. Since 1960, Nigeria has, through multilateral organizations such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), African Union (AU) and United Nations (UN) resorted to employing military intervention forces as a major part of its conflict resolution mechanisms. These interventions have created an atmosphere conducive for diplomatic means and the traditional conflict resolution means to be employed to resolve conflicts in the region.

Generally, some of the peace initiatives that Nigeria have been involved in includes: Congo (ONUC) 1960-1964, Battalion operations; New Guinea (UNSF) 1962-1963, Military Observers; Tanzania (Bilateral agreement) 1964, Battalion operations; India-Pakistan (UNIPOM) 1965-1966, Military Observers; Lebanon (UNIFIL) 1978-1983, Battalion operations and Staff Officers; Chad (HARMONY I, bilateral agreement) 1981-1982, Battalion operations and Staff Officers; Chad (HARMONY II, OAU) 1982-1983, Brigade operations; Iran-Iraq (UNIIMOG) 1988-1991, Military Observers; Liberia (ECOMOG) 1990- Division (-) operations; Iraq-Kuwait (UNIKOM) 1991, Military Observers; Angola (UNAVEM II) 1991-1992, Military Observers; Sierra Leone (NATAG) 1991, Training Team; Angola (UNAVEM III) 1992-1995, Detachment; Namibia (UNTAG) 1989-1990, Military Observers; Western Sahara (MINURSO) 1991, Military Observers; Cambodia (UNTAC) 1992- 1993, Military Observers; Somalia (UNOSOM) 1992-1994, Battalion operations and Staff Officers; Former Republic of Yugoslavia (UNPROFOR) 1992, Battalion operations and Staff Officers; Mozambique (ONUMOZ) 1992 Military Observers; Rwanda (UNAMIR) 1993, Battalion operations; Gambia (NATAG) 1993, Training Team; Aouzo Strip (UNASOG) 1994, Military Observers; Israel (UNTSO) 1995, Military Observers; Liberia – ECOMOG; Sierra Leone – UNMIL; and Dafur peace initiative.

The end of the Cold War witnessed intensification of intrastate conflicts in the West African subregion. Prior to this era, the West African subregional body, Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), had used traditional conflict resolution mechanisms to resolve conflicts. These notwithstanding, with the outbreak of conflict in Liberia in November 1989, ECOWAS employed ECOWAS Ceasefire Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), a military intervention force, in August 1990 as another conflict resolution mechanism. The endstate of ECOMOG was to stop the carnage, destruction of property, and create the conditions for diplomacy and dialogue to be employed hopefully resulting in a long-term political settlement. Since then, ECOMOG has been employed on four subsequent intervention operations in the countries of Sierra Leone, Guinea Bissau, Côte d’ Iviore, and Liberia for a second time.

The history of Nigeria’s involvement in peacekeeping in West African States is based on its foreign policy approach which since 1960 has constantly been changing, though the principles guiding its foreign relations remain the same.[1] Nigerian leaders are largely responsible for these unstable external relations. Since Nigeria’s foreign policy is deeply rooted in Africa with strategic emphasis on political and economic cooperation, peaceful dispute resolution, and global nonalignment,[2] Nigerian leaders also have their attention fixed on the successful implementation of these principles.

Over the years, implementation of Nigeria’s foreign policy show that her leaders operate within four “concentric circles” of national interest. The innermost circle represents Nigeria’s own security, independence and prosperity and is centered on its immediate neighbours – Benin, Cameroon, Chad and Niger; the second circle revolves around Nigeria’s relations with its West African neighbors; the third circle focuses on continental African issues of peace, development and democratization; and the fourth circle involves Nigeria’s relations with organizations, institutions and states outside Africa.[3] With this in mind, each Nigerian head of state or president work to ensure that no single part is defected in pursuing the country’s foreign policy. Evidences abound on how past Nigerian heads of state or presidents have worked within these four concentric circles.

The African-centeredness of Nigeria’s foreign policy stemmed from the various speeches made by Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa in the House of Representatives on August 20, 1960; Independence Day Address on October 1, 1960; and Acceptance Speech of Nigeria’s admission into the United Nations in New York on October 8, 1960. These famous speeches became the fundamental principles that guided different Heads of State and Presidents of Nigeria towards other West African states for more than 50 years.[4] More important is that the overall operation of Nigeria’s foreign policy since 1960, whether conservative, dynamic or confrontational, was conducted based on shared pre-colonial and colonial experiences, intra-African cultural relations and post-colonial geopolitics. Hence, the problems of West Africa are not only shared by Nigeria, but are seen as a priority which has made its leaders to sometimes severe relations with other countries, particularly the western powers.[5]

Several factors have continually driven Nigeria’s foreign policy towards its West African neighbours. One of them is centered on the protection of over 160 million Nigerians who might be negatively affected by the spill-over of wars from ‘ring countries’ such as Chad, Niger, Cameroon and Republic of Benin.

Added to the above is the boom and bull of ‘Petro-Dollar’ which have significantly shaped the way in which Nigeria implements its foreign policy towards West African states. Nigeria is the largest donor to the ECOWAS as well as one of the largest donors to the African Union.[6] Again, the military strength of Nigeria which soared after the civil war plays important role in the conduct of foreign policy on the African soil. Nigeria dominates the ECOMOG, and remains one of the largest contributors of military personnel to different United Nations peacekeeping missions in the sub-region.

Thus, between 1960 and 2014, Nigeria has been actively involved in various ways in the struggle against disintegration of the West African sub-region. This made her to champion the establishment of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS in 1975) and other sub-regional organizations concerned with bringing peace to the sub-region and peoples across the West African sub-region.

In all, Nigeria’s contributions to the economic development and socio-political stability of the West African sub-region call for scholarly attention. This is because the country’s significant financial backing, troops and resources that made ECOWAS as well as ECOMOG’s creation possible, cannot be separated from the African-centeredness of Nigeria’s foreign policy.

Nigeria’s reputation as a regional stabilizer, conciliator, and peace builder in the West African sub-region remains unmatched. Nigeria’s positive and successful intervention in the Sierra Leonean civil war, Liberia, Niger, makes Nigeria to be a major player towards global peace, security and stability. Nigeria’s long-term leadership of peacekeeping missions in Chad (1979-82), Liberia (1990-98), Sierra Leone (1991-2000), Guinea Bissau (1998-00) and Cotê d’Ivoire (2000-Date) are all reflections of its commitment and role to peace building, peace keeping, conflict resolution, economic development and political integration of the West African sub-region.

1.2       Objectives of the Study

This study seeks to achieve the following objectives:

(i) Provide a detailed background to Nigeria’s role in multilateral peacekeeping operations in Africa with focus on civil wars in Sierra Leone (Nigeria, ECOWAS and UN), Sudan (Nigeria and AU);

(ii) Examine the factors that shaped Nigeria’s mediatory role in these bodies;

(iii) Analyse the peacekeeping operations of  Nigeria; and

(iv) Discuss the contributions of Nigeria under the various administrative governments to the security and peace—building in Africa

1.3       Scope of the Study

This study examines the factors that shaped Nigeria’s peacekeeping operations through mulitalateral bodies i.e ECOWAS, AU and the UN. The key achievements of various administrations in sub-regional economic integration, political stability, sub-regional security were covered in this research. However, the research is limited to case studies of Nigeria’s  involvement in civil wars across Africa

In producing such a work like this, the problem confronting the researcher is not the scarcity of materials but its availability some of which are bias in their presentation. Finally, there is the question of time and fund which may serve as impediments to this research. Nevertheless, these imitating factors will greatly be managed to make the research work more objective in its presentation.

1.4       Periodisation

This study begins from 1990 and terminates in 2014. Specifically, the period covered includes Nigeria’s peacekeeping operations through ECOMOG Operations/UNOMSL) in Sierra Leone,and African Union Mission in Sudan (from 2003 -2009).

1.5      Literature Review

Buy the complete project (cost 10,000 – call 08077447220, 08074472654)

1.6       Significance of the Study

The significance of this research project is to determine the relevance and importance and future role of Nigeria in ECOMOG peacekeeping operations in West Africa. The study will seek to establish the need for Nigeria to continue employing multilateral organisations by reviewing its security protocol, to include establishing a standing headquarters for the force. Since the evolution of ECOMOG, it has been hailed as a model for sub-regional intervention operations. It has also served as a stop-gap in containing conflicts in the subregion before the U.N. gets involved. Against this background, the research will determine how Nigeria can overcome its internal problems and continue to play that vital role in the subregion

1.7       Research Methodology

Historical research method was used in carrying out this study. However, a critical examination of the dramatic relations between Nigeria and other West African countries since independence was analyzed using findings from both primary and secondary sources.

The primary sources include written documents such as government publications, letters, correspondence, documentaries and newspapers. Oral interviews were conducted to complement the other sources.

Furthermore, this research work depends largely on archival materials to gather relevant materials on the study. Field trips will also be employed to access information from the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to get relevant information regarding the research work.

Moreover, this study depends on secondary sources such as books, journals, conference proceedings and internet sources which are to be explored to enrich this work.

[1] I. A. Gambari, Theory and Reality in Foreign Policy Making: Nigeria After the Second Republic, Atlantic Highlands, New]ersey: Humanities Press International, 1989, p.21.

[2] M. B., Ogunbanjo, “Theoretical Perspectives on Nigeria Foreign Policy” Monograph Series, Department of Political Science and Sociology, Babcock University, Ilisan Remo, 2002, No. 2, p.2 I

[3] A. Adebajo and A.  Mustapha, eds. Gulliver’s Troubles: Nigeria’s Foreign Policy after the Cold War. Scottsville, South Africa: University of KwaZulu Natal Press, 2008.

[4] Ajaebili, C.N. “The Option of Economic Diplomacy in Nigeria’s Foreign Policy”. International Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, Vol. 1 No. 17, 2011, p. 227  

[5] Ajetunmobi, R.O. and Omotere, T.F. (2012) “African-Centeredness of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: Moving from Anthropological Diplomacy to Citizen Diplomacy”. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Diplomatic History organized by the Department of History, University of Abuja, Abuja, 25th – 28th, September, 2012.

[6] Ajetunmobi, R.O. and Omotere, T., African-Centeredness Of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: Moving From Anthropological Diplomacy To Citizen Diplomacy, p. 8

Nigeria Presidential Candidates for 2019 Elections

APC (All Progressives Congress) – Muhammadu Buhari, born 17 December 1942. Has Masters Degree in Strategic Studies from the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, in the United States, He fought in the Nigerian Civil War and served as former Head of State and currently the President of Nigeria. No criminal or corrupt records with police or EFCC.

PDP (Peoples Democratic Party) – Atiku Abubakar, born 25 November 1946. Has Diploma in Law from the Ahmadu Bello University Institute of Administration and owns the American University of Nigeria. He served as Custom Officer for 20 years and then, as the former Vice President of Nigeria. He has been contesting for the Office of the President of Nigeria since 1993. He is a billionaire and currently employs over 50,000 people in his businesses. No criminal or corrupt records with police or EFCC

ACP (Allied Congress Party) – Oby Ezekwesili, born April 28, 1963. She holds master’s degree in International Law and Diplomacy from the University of Lagos, as well as a Master of Public Administration degree from the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. She served as the former Federal Minister of Solid Minerals, Nigeria; former Federal Minister of Education, Nigeria; and former Vice-President of the World Bank’s Africa Division. No criminal or corrupt records with police or EFCC.

SDP (Social Democratic Party) – Donald Duke born 30 September 1961. He holds Master’s degree in Business Law and Admiralty from the University of Pennsylvania. He served as the former Governor of Cross River State, Nigeria during which he initiated Calabar Carnival, Obudu Ranch International Mountain Race, and Tinapa Resort. No criminal or corrupt records with police or EFCC.

YPP (Young Progressives Party) – Kingsley Chiedu Moghalu, born May 7, 1963. Has Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) at the University of London, UK. He was the former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria; former United Nations official, and currently Professor in International Business and Public Policy from The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. No criminal or corrupt records with police or EFCC.

Courtesy: http://www.4MyResearch.Com