عنوان
پدید آورنده
موضوع
رده
کتابخانه
محل استقرار
TLpq2387609159
انگلیسی
A Comparative Analysis of the American and Nigerian Civil Wars
[Thesis]
Okorafor, Okorafor Ike
Sheppard, Simon
Long Island University, The Brooklyn Center
2019
107
M.S.
Long Island University, The Brooklyn Center
2019
There is significant extant literature within the sphere of conflict studies on why civil wars occur, and what leads to secession within a federation. While much of this literature has helped provide an understanding of why civil wars occur and how they unfold, most authorities have generally treated civil wars in a non-strategic manner by focusing on national attributes or the structural features of the state rather than underlying specifics. The inadequacies of the literature in discussing the underlying specifics of civil wars has made it difficult to arrive at definitive answers as to why civil wars occur and what are the foundational causes behind their proliferation in federal states, as the underlying motivations are often opaque. In understanding the dynamics of civil wars and the motivation for secession in some states, this thesis offers a comparative study of the civil war of 1861-65 in the United States of America and the civil war of 1967-70 in Nigeria. These two states were chosen because although both nations are very different, they share a number of similarities that offer grounds for a comparative study. Both countries are federal states that experienced bloody civil wars which were products of underlying internal economic, political and developmental issues. The ultimate casus belli for civil war in both cases was contestation over primary natural resources-cotton (and its associated driver, slavery) in the case of the U.S. and oil in the case of Nigeria. The significance of this economic focus has however been sometimes obscured in favor of arguments that the civil wars in both cases were mostly limited to primary causal variables such as sectionalism, political competition, social and humanitarian factors, class or religious struggle, military anomie and elitist infighting, personal, ethnic and regional divergence among various power groups, or disenchantment with unrealized national ambitions in the aftermath of colonialism. Consequently, this thesis carried out an analysis of both wars based on the conviction that limiting the explanation for the outbreak of civil war to primary causal variables might be quite inefficient in shedding significant light on the fundamental causes of the wars, and the crises that heralded it in either case. In achieving the central aim of the thesis, the following objectives of the study were to: critique the established explanations of the American and Nigerian Civil wars and highlight their inadequacies in explaining the dynamics of the wars; explain what was at stake in both the US and Nigeria that fueled the desire for secession (cotton and slavery in the U.S. and oil in Nigeria) and how successful was the fight against secession in both cases; analyze the responses to secession in the American and Nigerian civil wars and the legitimacy of the use of force; and examine U.S. and Nigerian civil war diplomacy, and how both states were able to keep outside powers from intervening in their respective wars. From the nature of questions and objectives of the research, the thesis adopted a comparative approach using content and document analysis methodology sourced from valid, reliable and current secondary data such as published books, textbooks, referred online academic journals, conference papers, academic books and government publications and a wide variety of publications relating to civil wars that were considered most appropriate. Through the use of a qualitative method, empirical evidence on civil war dynamics, particularly the similarities and differences between the American and Nigerian civil wars, and the interactions of the primary moderating forces that laid the foundation for secession in both the American and Nigerian civil wars were analyzed. The comparative approach was deemed fit for the research as it allowed for a more developed analysis of the research questions and objectives and a more holistic approach in bringing to the fore salient issues through an evaluation of different combinations of causal conditions responsible for conflict and secession in both the American and Nigerian Civil Wars with the aim of enhancing an understanding of each specific case or theme raised under the research questions and objectives. Following the use of comparative analysis, the study concluded that underlying factors such as colonialism shaped the war in both the United States and Nigeria as it generated animosity over economic issues and concerns. In the case of the U.S., these concerns centered on cotton/slavery, while in the case of Nigeria, it was about oil. The study also concluded that the peculiarities of contesting parties in the U.S. and Nigeria influenced the diplomatic measures and strategies used in both civil wars. In the case of the U.S., the Union's diplomatic effort was focused on the preservation of the United States of America as a whole. That of the Confederacy. on the other hand was focused on the incitation of foreign intervention and possible recognition. While in the Nigerian case, a diplomatic war strategy was used by the Federal Military Government. Biafra on the other hand used propaganda. Using a comparative analysis, the study concluded that although the American and Nigerian civil wars were very different in how they were fought and in why they were fought, they share conflict-related dynamics. In particular, they share common aspects such as a legacy of colonialism, which impacted the post-colonial political and economic dynamics of both nations and brought about deep-seated animosities between power blocks and groups. Each civil war also had different effects on human development. While in the US. the Civil War helped in strengthening existing political institutions and ultimately increased the legitimacy of the power of weakened existing political institutional structures, in the case of Nigeria, existing political systems were further weakened, and the legitimacy of power become questionable. Additionally, the US. was able to build a strong nation because its power base was derived from a common nationalistic fervor. The social structures in Nigeria on the other hand were considerably weakened because the power base relied mostly and heavily on ethnic arrangements. Because of better governing structures and a more stable society, GDP expanded, life expectancy increased, and quality of life improved in the U.S. after the war. In Nigeria on the other hand, GDP deteriorated, quality of life stagnated and the country experienced a decrease in life expectancy. In conclusion, this study agrees with those strands of literature which emphasize that civil wars are contingent on actors ' perceptions and decisions in terms of their initiation, perpetuation and resolution. Thus, any dynamic analysis of civil war must take into consideration structural factors and the broad parameters that shape political and economic systems. Such a dynamic model allows for flexibility in understanding variations and variables that cause, sustain and conclude civil wars.
African history
Political science
Okorafor, Okorafor Ike
Sheppard, Simon
مطالعه متن کتاب p
[Thesis]
276903
a
Y
