" Ethnic Conflicts in Nigeria Today"

  The spectre of ethnic cleansing, it has already signalled it's approached. This take form in ever-increasing act of violence between diverse ethnic groups in Nigeria. What give rise to this? What is the way forward to this situation in Nigeria? What causes Nigeria civil war in 1967 after colonial amalgamation? Which region declared war against other region and territory? Which regions started the first coup plans in Nigeria that lead to the conflations  against the regions in Nigeria? This article will answer and explain the problems to this questions. 

Conflicts In Northern Nigeria      

It's important to note that most ethnic conflicts in Every country were caused by colonialism, which compounded inter-ethnic conflicts by capitalising on the isolation of ethnic groups the divide-and-conquer method was used to pit ethnicities against each other, keeping the people from rising up against colonisers. distribution of economic resources was often skewed to favour a particular group, pushing marginalized groups to use their ethnicity to mobilise for equality like;

1. The demand for ethnic and cultural autonomy 

2. conflicts taking place between Rival ethnic groups

3 competing demands of lands, money and power. 

The history of ethnic conflicts in Nigeria today is also traced back to the colonial transgressions that force the ethnic groups of the Northern and southern provinces to become an entity called Nigeria in 1914. Since the various ethnic group living in these provinces were not consulted regarding the merger, the British colonial policy was autocratic and undemocratic, and led to conflicts. It denied the people's basic needs of participation, equality and social well-being.

An administration that endorse segregation for it's people does not have the unity of the country at heart. Rather the separate government introduced in the North and the South were designed to strengthen the colonial grip on Nigerian society and weaken the people's potential for resistance.

The Introduction of indirect rule in Nigeria by Lord Fredrick Lugard, the chief administrator was not  the appropriate mechanism of managing tribal animosities in the colony. The system not only reinforced ethnic divisions, it has complicated the task of welding diverse elements into a Nigerian nation. Lugard gave power to the traditional rulers who corruptly used it in the villages to amass wealth, land and establish patronage networks which encourage tribalism and nepotism. 

The segregation of the Nigeria colony was also reinforced by the colonial law that limited the mobility of christian southerners and to the Muslim North,created a separate settlement for non-ingenious citizen in the North, and  even limited the purchase of land outside one's own region. Unequal and differential treatment of ethnic group was responsible  for the intense competition in Nigeria society. It created disparibility in education achievement and widened the political and economic gaps between southern and Northern Nigeria.

During this period, there was significant scarcity of all goods, evident in the economic social and political areas of life. it affected employment,political participation and the provision of social service to the population.

In 1947, a colonial constitution divided Nigeria into three political regions: East, West and North. The North which was predominately Hausa-Fulani, was the largest and most populous region. The Igbos dominated in the East and the Yoruba in the West.

Hausa-Fulani (North): The origins and traditions of Hausa people of Nigeria created strong ethnic identity that has been the unifying force against domination by other ethnic groups.

Igbo (East): The igbo were egalitarian people who lived in small, self-contained groups of villages organised according to a linage system that did not allow social stratification.

Yoruba (West): The Yoruba people of Nigeria developed a strong ethnic identity as a result of their belief of descending from one mythical hero Oduduwa, the founder of the ethnic Yoruba kingdom at Ife, a traditional religious-political center ruled by the Oni (the king) and famous of its beauty sculpture associated with this tradition. 

With the three major ethnic group in dominance, the minority groups rebelled and Nigerians started fighting for ethnic dominance at the nation marched toward independence.

                                                       Nigeria Ethnic Group            

The creation of the three ethnic region did not take into account the needs of the ethnic minority groups for autonomy and self-determination. Instead, they were lost within the majority.

The years between 1952 and 1966 brought change in the political culture of the Nigeria, transforming the three regions into three political entities, the struggle of independence was reduced to the quest of ethnic dominance. At this time, ethnic and sub-ethnic loyalties threatened the survival of both East and West, while North was divided into religiously between Christianity and Islam. This was a period of politicized ethnicity and competition for resources, which worsened the relationships  between ethnic groups. There was a high degree of corruption, nepotism and tribalism. The national Interest was put aside while politicians used public money to build and maintain patronage networks. since Independence in Nigeria, the situation in Nigeria has been fraught with ethnic politics whereby the elite from different ethnic groups schemed to attract as many federal resources to their religions as possible, neglecting issues that could have unite the country. 

Independent did not unite the amalgamated traditional African States that constitute the modern Africa state of Nigeria. The ethnic divisions that resulted from disagreement on the composition of state within Nigeria were due essentially to the passionate adherence of the various regional political groups to the ideology of ethnocentrism, the ideology that fueled the political strategy of regionalism. Regionalism was political means to protect ethnic identity , avoid political domination and prevent economic marginalization. After Nigeria independence, the attitude of the major parties towards formation of new states that could accommodate minority aspirations varied widely. To consolidate their power in the Eastern region of Nigeria and to break the national power of the Hausa-NPC, which was acquired because of the population size, the Igbo-NCNC espoused self-determination for ethnic minorities but only in accordance with it's advocacy of a unitary state. Similarly, to dilute the power of the Hausa-NPC and to consolidate their power in the Western region of Nigeria, the Yoruba-Action Group also supported self-determination for ethnic minorities, including the restoration of the Northern Yoruba to the Western Region, but as part of a multi-state federal Nigeria.

The anarchy, competition and insecurity led to the demise of the Nigeria First republic. Military intervention culminated in the gruesome ethnic war from 1967-1970, when the mistreated Igbos in Eastern Nigeria threatened to secede from the federation. The igbo's grievances were caused by denial of there basic human needs of equality, citizenship and freedom. While the politicians tried to cope with the colonial legacy that lumped incompatible ethnic groups together into one country, the military staged coups, making a mockery of democracy in Nigeria. Corruption, ineptitude and confusion that marked the military era plunged Nigeria economic problems, poverty and ethno-religious  conflicts until the 1990s. In Nigeria, where politics still follow ethnic lines, there is always disagreement about the rules of the game. The military intervened because they viewed the civilian leaders as inept and indecisive. However, the Southerners distrusted the military regime because they felt it was trying  to maintain a Hausa-Fulani hegemony in Nigeria.

On june 12, 1993, Chief Moshood Kashimawo Abiola, a Yoruba from Southwestern Nigeria, won Nigeria's presidential election, but this presidency was annulled by the military regime. In retaliation, Southerns Nigerians began to form militant organization to protect unfair treatment and demand a democratically-elected government. During the Authoritarian rule of General Sani Abacha, a Muslim from the North part of Nigeria, southerners increasingly feared political marginalization and demanded an end to the Hausa-Fulani domination of the political arena. This development  signified the weakness of the government and their lack of effective  mechanisms to manage ethnic conflicts in Nigeria.

Nigeria's population of more than 170 Million people is made up of 250 ethnic groups, It is however very disturbing that Nigeria's have becomes slaves of their ethnic origins instead of harnessing the diversities towards national development. Nigerians are very fanatics when it comes to ethnicity. It is therefore not surprising for a Nigerians to get angry because he/she is wrongly associated with another tribe. Whatever is done in Nigeria always has an ethnic undertone be it, politics, employment and provision of social amenities, marriage. 

   In Nigeria today, the people of Nigeria Delta threatened to go to war if their demands for a bigger slice of Nigeria's oil wealth and greater autonomy from the Ijaw people, the people of Ijaw threatened are now attacking the Nigeria oil facilities and personnel in the Niger Delta and  declared that an all time war in Nigeria, Other social groups of the Niger Delta are also demanding real autonomy and common control of the resources of there lands.

'Types Of Conflicts In Nigeria'

Conflicts is an aspect of Life that is very often avoided for the fear of loss of lives or properties. With several coups, general strikes and civil war, Nigerians have had to experience some of the most sordid tragedies arising from difference of opinions and disputes. In Nigeria today, Tribalism, Religion, resource control, land Disputes are major cause of conflicts in Nigeria. 
Conflicts afflicting Nigeria are brought by a number of factors, in an attempt to produce a typology of which is identifiable by sectors.

Regional Conflict; Over the years, since Nigeria independence in 1960 there have been cases of ethnic violence resulting from allegiance to one's ethnic group and this has not work well for the development of the country. For example. Igbo/Yoruba Conflict in West, Yoruba/Hausa conflict in West, Igbo/Hausa conflict in North, Hausa/Igbo crisis in East. 

Yoruba/Hausa Conflict;  The Yoruba and Hausa are among the largest, politically active and commercially inclined ethnic groups in Nigeria. The Hausa live in the Northern Part of Nigeria, the Yoruba dwell in the Southwest of the country. The trade of cattle and Kolanut brought the Hausa/Fulani to settle in the Western Region. Over the years, this trade became an avenue for both ethnic groups to develop a cordial and an harmonious relationship until the conflicts  which brought about far reaching impact not only on the western region, but also on the hitherto existing peaceful relationship between the two ethnic groups. The cause of the Yoruba/Hausa conflicts  has also been given a political explanation, the Oodua People's Congress (OPC) which is a pan-Yoruba grouped arrived in the West to Defend their Yoruba kinsmen who were being attacked by the Hausa.

Igbo/Hausa Conflicts;  In Nigeria today, most Hausa handles call igbos 'baby factory',wife killer','armed robbers','traitors',criminals', and the like on the other side whereby the igbo-sounding handles labeling Hausa as, 'Fulani cattle rearers','illiterates','Boko Haram','terrorist'. Many agreed that the igbo have been significantly sideline in Nigeria's governance history, and the Hausa are the poorest of Nigerian's despite being accused of having held on to power the longest. But the truth is that the British purposefully sowed seed of tension between the two ethnic groups during the amalgamation of Nigeria in 1914, there is much that happen between the two region, political appointment and army predominance's. In 1966 Kaduna Nzeogwu from the East, plans coup and assassination of Northern top elite, which was the first post-colonial episode of serious aggravation and has been viewed by some as a major trigger that provoked Hausa-Igbo sentiments.

Revolutionary conflicts; This pose a basic threat to the validity of state power and constituted and offer alternative political visions guided by clearly defined set organising principle. Nigeria has the potential for this type of conflicts, given the high graduate unemployment, poor standard of ;living, marginalisation of the peasants, emasculation of labour and many other unresolved social ills. So far in Nigeria, most of the groups have not been able to carry out the more violet strategies that they espouse, primarily because the government have generally responds to these movements by jailing their leaders, and closing the opportunities for the expression of such form of dissent.

Elite Conflicts; This is conflicts within the political leadership are among the most common form of political strife. they have occurred in almost every region in Nigeria. Elite conflict is normally of a low intensity but it does significantly impact on the polity. The key means of dealing with elite demands have often been through the manipulation of appointments and policy shifts often, distribution of bureaucratic posts is used as a means of appeasement, which partly accounts for the rapid growth of state machinery, such as the creation of numerous states within Nigeria.

Foreign Intervention; The history of Nigeria since colonisation includes a series of self-interested foreign interventions and ruthless exploitation of Nigeria conflicts by the United Kingdom and the United states. During the Uncertainty caused by Yar'Adua's absence in 2009, the Unites State joined France and Britain to issue a joint statement stated:

 "We commend the determination to address the current situation through appropriate democratic institutional. Nigeria's continued commitment and adherence to its democratic norms and values are key to the addressing  the many challenges it faces. We are committed to continue working with Nigeria on the internal issues if faces while working together as partners on the global state".

  A week after this statement was made, both bodies of National Assembly, with the support of the state governors, declared Goodluck Jonathan Nigeria's acting president. The US, nonetheless, immediately praised Nigeria for its democratic handover and on the very day that he was declared acting president, Jonathan was visited by tr US assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.
At the event honouring 50 important Nigerians in Abuja, Former American Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice towed the America line, stating that;

'Nigeria need a strong, healthy, and effective leader to ensure the stability of the country and to manage Nigeria's many political economic, and security challenges'.

This continue to suggest that Yar'Adua's health remain fragile and that he may still unable to fulfil the demands of his office.  Beyond this and other strongly worded statements, news reports now allege that Yar'Adua's return was spurred by American intervention. Specifically, it appears that American officials advised their Saudi allies to send Yar'Adua back to Nigeria. Because a Nigerian envoy was Prevented from seeing Yar'Adua while in Jeddah, America allegedly warned of the 'major international and diplomatic problems' that could arise from that action. Additionally, the air ambulance used to transport Yar'Adua to Nigeria was allegedly provided by an American medical firm.

Furthermore, Johnnie Carson and US Ambasador to Nigeria Robin Sanders held a two-hour visit with former military dictator Ibrahim Babangida while Yar'Adua was in Saudi Arabia. This action has raised ire and suspicion in the press, with reports that the Obama administration wants Babangida to replace Yar'Adua, assuming he resigns or is impeached. A comment by an American spokesperson only stoked the flames when an anonymous State Department official clarified that the US government does not refer to Babangida as a 'former military dictator… We see him as a former head of state and an influential leader in the northern part of the country.' The US government officially stated that the visit was to commiserate with Babangida on the recent loss of his wife since he is a former head of state and member of the Nigerian Council of State.

By dabbling so openly in Nigeria's political affairs, the US will likely increase certain tensions. Specifically, Johnnie Carson's visit to Jonathan on the day he became acting president must be interpreted as the US government's support of the act. While that in itself is not an issue, such support lends credence to the belief among many that the Obama administration disliked President Yar'Adua and his supporters. The continuous statements about Yar'Adua's return by the US only make matters worse because even though Jonathan was made acting president, the constitutionality of that act is in question and has forced the National Assembly and state governors to begin modification of the constitution. The US being seen to take sides will only increase the friction between various interests in the matter.

On August 23 2016, The United State (US) secretary state, John Kerry's visit to Nigeria is described as a discriminatory, personal and divisive. Kerry during the Visit had only visited the Sultan of Sokoto, Sa'ad Abubakar III and met with other 19 Northerners governors in Nigeria, 16 are Muslims while 3 are Christians. His visit shows that the United State governments is another cause of ethnic conflicts in the country. My question to this issues is that, why will the US secretary state John Kerry visit the Northern Governors and the Nigeria president who is also from North without visiting or having same meeting with the Southern and Western regional governors? There is something Fishy to this issue. In my idea, Kerry's choice is unfortunate, The United state government lack respect for the heterogeneous nature of Nigeria, amounted to favouring  Northern Nigeria and the Muslims to determine of the Christian community.
Secondly, The United State has causes lot of conflicts to many countries in the world either through religion or resource control. For example, conflicts in Ukraine, Yemen, Syria and Georgia was caused by the United State and up till date Nothing good has come out of this countries and the most important part is that;
 "The United State has never win civil or cold war in any country they've destroyed, but Instead they Keep moving  from One country to Other like HAWKS to hunt  for food". 
    
Resource Control;  resource-rich country like Nigeria  is plagued by a phenomenon called "dutch disease", This illness afflicts both well-governed and poorly-governed countries in Africa but the former have more ways of allaying the consequences. Like I said in my old article, "Nigeria has the problems of this world", countries like Nigeria with weak governance and abundant nature resources are prone to armed violence, for example;  Nigeria, where oil rents amount to almost 40% of GDP, have been plagued by conflicts.

Resource control  is the control and management of resources by local governments or state from whose jurisdictions the resources are extracted, The state or local governments will manage  the resources from a regional territory under federal guidelines.

In Nigeria today, people have realised that there are disparities in income, and in the short and medium term, they will have to get used to some states performing better than others. Each states in Nigeria should tap the resources it has. be it Port authority, fishing, agricultural, manufacturing etc. States in Nigeria should control the bulk of their revenues, this ideas was touched  a long time ago back when the leaders of the oil producing states in Nigeria said they should keep 50% of there wealth. Then over each year, their allocation would increase by 5% until it reached 100%, to allow time for the non-oil producing states to adjust. This argued was ignored, then the violence (militancy) came and they received a little more (in revenue), but still not enough. It is a big shame that this points of view is not more widely held amongst the Nigerian youths

Nigerians Youths today are more likely to demand for accountability and transparency if they were funding the government through there money(taxes),than if the government were being run through a trust-fund, as in the case now. i am sure people agree that the present arrangements have to be guaranteed accountability and transparency. Once people demand for probity the government would have no choice but to give in. The reason Nigerians cannot act against government now is because they don't  feel robbed. For example, Northerners has been appointed to head the Port Authority in Lagos. Lagos state Citizens are not benefiting from the Millions that Nigeria government is getting from the Port Authority. But instead all this money are taken to Abuja which is another region.

There are certain rights and responsibilities the governments is meant to uphold. It goes the other way also, Citizens are meant to act within the laws of their land. At the state level, once people realize that the buck stop at the state house, They can exert more pressure and control on the government, given the proximity of the seat of power. They need no longer look to faraway Abuja for their problems or solutions. The reason Nigerians youths are not putting there state governors under pressure is simply because they do not believe that state governments have the power or freedom to make a difference. Nigerians believe power is concentrated at the center. Only resource control can change this. The main reason there is so much mutual suspicious between Nigerians, is because there is pot of oil to fight over.

In Nigeria today, the government of Delta State, Ondo, Akwa Ibom, River, Bayelsa have formed state-owned oil prospecting companies, and these companies along with other indigenous companies have been favoured with Marginal Oil fields to exploit and explore. My suggestion is that, the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), should substantially divest it's interest in the oil majors and allow the States in which these minerals are found to become the majors stakeholders.