TERRORISM: ITS GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE, THREATS AND IMPLICATIONS

ON THE NIGERIAN EVOLVING DEMOCRACY

Abstract

The global threats being posed by terrorism in recent times

is quite alarming. The fact that the world is fast becoming

borderless makes this phenomenon not just a concern to a few

countries of the world, but an international plague that

demands a collective and collaborative effort of both

developed and developing countries to effectively address.

While the developed countries may have the technological

know-how to cope with the devastating effects of terrorism,

the case is different with the developing countries like

Nigeria; whose economic, social and political adventure are

under a perpetual threat from the aftermath of terrorists’

activities.

This paper therefore, against the backdrop of General Strain

Theory, discusses the global perspectives of terrorism, its

concepts and nature as well as its implications on the

Nigerian evolving democracy. Suggestions are also made on

how to effectively curb the global consequences of

terrorism.

Key words: Terrorism, Globalization, Developed

countries, Developing countries, Democracy.

1

2

INTRODUCTION

The world is fast becoming borderless. The geographical

barrier that was the bane of movement and communication

among people of different countries or continents is no

longer there. This is the end result of globalization;

powered by the efforts of information technology driven by

the internet. With this new development, people of diverse

ethnic and national background now see themselves as one.

However, the other side of this breakthrough is that as we

try to foster our relationship so hatred and enmity develop

simultaneously with it. Religious, political and cultural

intolerance are now the orders of the day.

One major thing we need to take note of is that all this

will surely tell, directly or indirectly, on our economic

and political development. Though we might say that we have

not experienced a major terrorist attack in Nigeria, but we

must remember that the whole world is now a global village.

Hence, whatever happens to America is bound to affect the

whole world. So if there is a terrorist attack in any part

3

of the world, the impact of it is bound to affect the rest

of the world.

In this wise, scholars and researchers in the developing

countries are expected to throw themselves into the research

field in order to come up with some tangible recommendations

that will help in minimizing the negative impacts this new

menace is having on the economic and political development

of developing countries.

Researchers need to understand that the developed countries

have a strong economic and political bases that can cope

with the negative impacts of terrorism but the economic and

polity of the developing countries are so weak that they

will find it very tasking to cope with the negative impacts

of terrorism.

.

THE CONCEPT OF TERRORISM

We have heard of crime of various dimensions ranging from

organized to white-collar crime. We have heard of murder,

theft, rape and many other forms of crime being perpetrated

all over the world. Again, sociologically speaking, the term

4

“Crime” is relative because what constitutes crime in one

society might not be so in another society. In this wise,

can we now say that terrorism is synonymous to murder or

rape? Or in a broader term, can we say that terrorism can be

likened to mass murder or genocide? The truth of the matter

is that terrorism is what affects the whole world at large.

Due to this, the definition and explanation of it should be

left for the international organizations.

Many international organizations have given many definitions

of the phenomenon. Among these organizations is the African

Union. Whatever its motivations – whether political,

economic, religious, or ideological terrorism constitutes a

serious negation of human rights and national security. The

African Union (AU) defines terrorism as “any act which is a

violation of the criminal laws of a state party and which

may endanger the life, physical integrity or freedom of, or

cause serious injury or death to, any person, any member or

group of persons or causes or may cause damage to public or

private property, natural resources, environmental or

cultural heritage”. The AU’s decision to evolve and embrace

5

such a definition stemmed from both internal and external

forces. The bombing of cities in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998

set the tone of the response. This may have been due to the

security implications of such attacks and its wider effects

on Western interests, as American embassies were affected in

the attacks.

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,

and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a

precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions

of “terrorism”. The fact that international organizations

have not been able to accept a particular all encompassing

definition of terrorism makes it very difficult for us to

limit our definition to that of AU alone.

Bruce Hoffman (1998), a well-known scholar, has noted that

“It is not only individual agencies within the same

governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single

definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established

scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a

consensus”. In the first edition of his magisterial survey,

“Political terrorism: A Research Guide,” Alex and Schmid

(1998) devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more

6

than a hundred different definitions of terrorism in an

effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably

comprehensive explication of the concept. Four years and a

second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of

his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised

volume that the “search for an adequate definition is still

on” Walter Laqueur (1994) despaired of defining terrorism in

both editions of his monumental work on the subject,

maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor

worthwhile to make the attempt.”

According to George P. Fletcher (2006), the concept of

terrorism fulfils multiple functions; the better way to

think of terrorism is not as a crime but as a different

dimension of crime, a higher, more dangerous version of

crime, a kind of super-crime incorporating some of the

characteristics of warfare. There are at least eight primary

factors that bear on terrorism: the factor of violence; the

required intention; the nature of the victims; the

connection of the offender to the state; the justice and

motive of their cause; the level of organization; the

element of theatre; and the absence of guilt- George P.

(2006). However, one cannot draw from these variables a

simple (or indeed even a complex) definition of terrorism.

The reason is that not all the factors apply all the time.

Any proposed definition produces counterexamples. The way to

think about terrorism is, therefore, to become aware of all

7

the relevant factors but not to expect that they will all be

fulfilled in any particular case. The specific cases of

terrorism are related the way the members of a family are

related. Most, but not all, might have the same eye shape.

Others might have hair colour or the shape of their nose in

common; still others might be tall or short. One should try

to picture a series of overlapping sets in which no set

intersects with all the others. That is the way our

intuitions of terrorism operate.

A statement by Ambassador Chief Arthur C.I. Mbanefo, MFR

(2001), Permanent Representative of Nigeria to the United

Nations, "Terrorism is a global menace. It is, indeed, a scourge which needs

to be frontally confronted. It is a violation of our fundamental human rights,

especially the right to life and that of peaceful coexistence. The terror and

tragedies that terrorists unleash on innocent and unsuspecting citizens pose a

serious threat to the stability of all societies. It threatens existing democratic

institutions. Emerging democracies are very vulnerable to tragedies which such

terrorist attacks cause. That is why the international community must be very

determined and firm in their resolve to confront and defeat terrorists, their

network and collaborators."

THE NATURE OF TERRORISM

Terrorism can come in many forms. Since we have no generally

accepted definition of terrorism, the only way we can

understand what terrorism entails is by examining the

various types of acts we can call terrorism. Again, this can

8

be done on the basis of the magnitude of the act; hence, we

have the common ones as well as the less common forms of

terrorism.

The most common types of terrorist incidents include:

Bombings: These are the most common type of terrorist acts.

Typically, improvised explosive devices are inexpensive and

easy to make. Modern devices are smaller and are harder to

detect. They contain very destructive capabilities; for

example, on August 7, 1998, two American embassies in Africa

were bombed. The bombings claimed the lives of over 200

people, including 12 innocent American citizens, and injured

over 5,000 civilians. Terrorists can also use materials that

are readily available to the average consumer to construct a

bomb. This form of terrorism is now well pronounced in

Nigeria. Many electoral rallies have been bombed in Nigeria.

There was also a bombing incident on the 1st October, 2010

when Nigeria was celebrating her 50th year anniversary at

the FCT.

Kidnappings and Hostage-Takings: Terrorists use kidnapping

and hostage-taking to establish a bargaining position and to

elicit publicity. Kidnapping is one of the most difficult

acts for a terrorist group to accomplish, but, if a

kidnapping is successful, it can gain terrorists money,

release of jailed comrades, and publicity for an extended

period. Hostage-taking involves the seizure of a facility or9

location and the taking of hostages. Unlike kidnapping,

hostage-taking provokes a confrontation with authorities. It

forces authorities to either make dramatic decisions or to

comply with the terrorist’s demands. It is overt and

designed to attract and hold media attention. The

terrorists’ intended target is the audience affected by the

hostage’s confinement, not the hostage. This is also common

in Nigeria. Many Nigerians and foreigners have been captured

in the past by hostage-takers; most especially in the Niger-

Delta region of the country.

Armed Attacks and Assassinations: Armed attacks include

raids and ambushes. Assassinations are the killing of a

selected victim, usually by bombings or small arms. Drive-by

shootings is a common technique employed by unsophisticated

or loosely organized terrorist groups. Historically,

terrorists have assassinated specific individuals for

psychological effect. This type is never an exception to the

case of Nigeria. Many political office holders have been

killed in Nigeria without knowing the reasons. The former

attorney-general of the country Late Chief Bola Ige was

assassinated by gunmen and none of such perpetrators has

been found or brought to book.

Arsons and Fire-bombings: Incendiary devices are cheap and

easy to hide. Arson and fire-bombings are easily conducted

10

by terrorist groups that may not be as well-organized,

equipped, or trained as a major terrorist organization.

Arson or firebombing against a utility, hotel, government

building, or industrial center portrays an image that the

ruling government is incapable of maintaining order. There

have been many cases of arsons in the country recently. Many

public places as well as government buildings have been set

ablaze in recent times.

Hijackings and Skyjackings: Hijacking is the seizure by

force of a surface vehicle, its passengers, and/or its

cargo. Skyjacking is the taking of an aircraft, which

creates a mobile, hostage barricade situation. It provides

terrorists with hostages from many nations and draws heavy

media attention. Skyjacking also provides mobility for the

terrorists to relocate the aircraft to a country that

supports their cause and provides them with a human shield,

making retaliation difficult. Though this is not a common

occurrence in the country

Other Types of Terrorist Incidence: In addition to the acts

of violence discussed above, there are also numerous other

types of violence that can exist under the framework of

terrorism. Terrorist groups conduct maiming against their

own people as a form of punishment for security violations,

defections, or informing. Terrorist organizations also

conduct robberies and extortion when they need to finance

11

their acts and they don’t have sponsorship from sympathetic

nations. Cyber-terrorism is a new form of terrorism that is

ever-increasing as we rely on computer networks to relay

information and provide connectivity to today’s modern and

fast-paced world. Cyber-terrorism allows terrorists to

conduct their operations with little or no risk to

themselves. It also provides terrorists an opportunity to

disrupt or destroy networks and computers. The result is

interruption of key government or business-related

activities. This type of terrorism isn’t as high profile as

other types of terrorist attacks, but its impact is just as

destructive.

Historically, terrorist attacks using nuclear, biological,

and chemical (NBC) weapons have been rare. Due the extremely

high number of casualties that NBC weapons produce, they are

also referred to as weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

However, a number of nations are involved in arms races with

neighboring countries because they view the development of

WMD as a key deterrent of attack by hostile neighbors. The

increased development of WMD also increases the potential

for terrorist groups to gain access to WMD. It is believed

that in the future terrorists will have greater access to

WMD because unstable nations or states may fail to safeguard

their stockpiles of WMD from accidental losses, illicit

sales, or outright theft or seizure. Determined terrorist

12

groups can also gain access to WMD through covert

independent research efforts or by hiring technically

skilled professionals to construct the WMD.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that crime theories can shed much

light on the cause(s) of terrorism (Rosenfeld, 2002).

Following that suggestion, this article applies general

strain theory to the explanation of general terrorism. The

research on general strain theory has focused almost

exclusively on “common crimes”, such as interpersonal

assault, theft, and illicit drug use (Agnew et al., 2009).

But as argued later in this article, GST can contribute much

to the explanation of terrorism, although the theory needs

to be extended to account for this type of crime.

The first aspect of this theory provides a brief overview of

GST, pointing to those key elements which can help address

these problems. Again, it presents a general strain theory

of terrorism, (that is, a refined general strain theory in

order to concentrate more or solely on the explanation of

terrorism rather than crime in general) designed to explain

why some people are more likely than others to form or join

terrorist organizations and commit terrorist acts.

A brief overview of general strain theory (GST)

13

GST states that certain strains or stressors increase the

likelihood of crime (Agnew, 1992, 2001, 2006a, 2006b).

Strains refer to events or conditions that are disliked by

individuals. They involve negative or aversive treatment by

others (receive something bad); the loss of valued

possessions (lose something good), and/or the inability to

achieve goals (fail to get what is wanted). Those strains

most likely to increase crime are high in magnitude, seen as

unjust, associated with low social control, and create some

pressure or incentive for criminal coping. Examples of such

strains include parental rejection, harsh discipline, peer

abuse, work in the secondary labor market, chronic

unemployment, criminal victimization, discrimination based

on ascribed characteristics, and the failure to achieve

goals such as masculine status and monetary success.

A distinction is made between objective strains, which refer

to events and conditions disliked by most people in a given

group; and subjective strains, which refer to events and

conditions disliked by the particular person or persons

experiencing them. Much data suggest that people often

differ in their subjective evaluation of the same events and

conditions; for example, divorce may be a devastating event

to some and a cause for celebration to others (Wheaton,

1990). There is reason to believe that subjective strains

may be more strongly related to crime than objective strains

(Froggio and Agnew, 2007). Again, a distinction is made

14

between strains that are personally experienced, those that

are anticipated in the future, and those that are

vicariously experienced (i.e. strains experienced by others

around the individual, particularly significant others such

as family and friends). In certain cases, anticipated and

vicarious strains may contribute to crime (Agnew, 2002;

Eitle and Turner, 2002).

Strains of the above type increase the likelihood of crime

for several reasons.

Most notably, they lead to a range of negative emotions,

including anger, frustration, humiliation, and fear. These

emotions create pressure for corrective action; individuals

feel bad and want to do something about it.

Crime is one possible response. Crime may be a way to reduce

or escape from strains. For example, individuals may steal

the money they desperately desire or run away from abusive

parents. Crime may be a way to seek revenge against the

source of the strain or related targets. For example,

individuals may assault those who have mistreated them. And

crime may be a way to alleviate the negative emotions that

result from strain. For example, individuals may use illicit

drugs in an effort to make themselves feel better. Strains

may also lead to crime for additional reasons; for example,

the continued experience of strains may increase

irritability or ‘negative emotionality’, reduce social

control (e.g. emotional ties to parents), foster the belief

15

that crime is excusable or justifiable, and lead to

association with other criminals.

Most strained individuals, however, do not cope through

crime. They endure their strain and/or employ legal coping

strategies, such as negotiation and exercise. Crime is more

likely when people lack the ability to cope in a legal

manner. In particular, they lack coping skills, such as

problem-solving skills; they lack coping resources, such as

money; and they are low in social support. Crime is more

likely when the costs of crime are low. For example, people

are in environments where crime is seldom sanctioned, they

have little to lose if they are sanctioned, and they do not

believe that crime is wrong. And crime is more likely when

individuals are disposed to crime.

For example, they possess personality traits conducive to

crime, such as negative emotionality; they hold beliefs

favorable to crime; and they associate with others who model

and reinforce crime. With some modification, these ideas can

form the foundation for a more refined strain theory of

terrorism.

Terrorism has certain special features that deserve to be

explained. Terrorism is more complex than most common

crimes, since it often involves the commission of serious

violence against unarmed civilians who have done nothing to

directly provoke their victimization. Also, terrorists

16

typically commit their acts with the support of counter-

cultural groups, while most adult offenders act alone.

Moreover, terrorism is committed wholly or in part for

political, social, or religious reasons. Most common crimes,

by contrast, are committed for reasons of self-interest.

GST, then, must devote special attention to explaining the

extreme and collective nature of terrorism.

Strains most likely to contribute to terrorism

Terrorism is most likely to result from the experience of

‘collective strains’ or strains experienced by the members

of an identifiable group or collectivity, most often a

race/ethnic, religious, class, political, and/or territorial

group. Only a small percentage of collective strains

increase the likelihood of terrorism, however. These strains

are:

(a) High in magnitude, with civilian victims;

(b) Unjust; and

(c) Caused by significantly more powerful others, including

complicit civilians, with whom members of the strained

collectivity have weak ties. (Agnew, 1992, 2001,).

Collective strains are high in magnitude to the extent that

they have the following characteristics: they involve acts

which cause a high degree of harm, such as death, serious

physical and sexual assault, dispossession, and major

17

threats to core identities, values, and goals. They are

frequent, of long duration, and expected to continue into the future. However,

strainful events—experienced in the context of persistent

strains—may increase support for terrorism and precipitate

terrorist acts (Hamm, 2002; Oberschall, 2004: 28; Bjorgo,

2005). And they are widespread, affecting a high absolute

and/or relative number of people in the strained

collectivity, including many civilians, defined as individuals

not directly involved in hostile actions against the source

of the collective strain.

Case studies of terrorist organizations provide preliminary

support for these arguments. Consider those strains

associated with the emergence of several major terrorist

groups: the Tamil Tigers, Basque Homeland and Liberty,

Kurdistan Workers Party, Irish Republican Army, Shining

Path, Hezbollah, Hamas, Revolutionary Armed Forces of

Columbia, and al Qaeda. Such strains involved serious

violence—including death and rape, major threats to

livelihood, dispossession, large scale imprisonment or

detention, and/or attempts to eradicate ethnic identity.

Further, these strains occurred over long periods and

affected large numbers in the collectivity, including many

civilians (Callaway and Harrelson-Stephens, 2006; Hoffman,

2006; Post, 2007).

There are certain terrorist groups that do not seem to have

experienced strains of high magnitude. Examples include the

18

Red Brigades in Italy and the Red Army Faction in West

Germany, which included current and former university

students; many left and right-wing terrorist groups in the

United States; and certain groups made up of Muslim

immigrants in western countries. Case studies of these

groups, however, suggest that the group members believe that

they or those they identify with are experiencing strains of

the highest magnitude (Hoffman, 2006; Post, 2007). For

example, many rightwing terrorists in the USA believe that

the ‘Zionist Occupation Government’ and others pose a

fundamental threat to all that they value, including their

livelihood, status, and freedom (Blazak, 2001; Hamm, 2002).

There is, of course, good reason to believe that these

threats are imagined or greatly exaggerated.

Nevertheless, it is perception of strain that is critical in

motivating action (Agnew, 2006a; Froggio and Agnew, 2007).

Further, there is evidence that the members of these groups

were in fact under significant objective strain. For example,

the Red Brigades and Red Army Faction emerged at a time when

university students typically found that only unskilled

factory work was available to them (Post, 2007: 129). Also,

students in both

Germany and Italy were subject to harsh government

crackdowns and other strains (Post, 2007). Blazak (2001) and

Hamm (2002) provide excellent discussions of those strains

contributing to the emergence of contemporary right-wing

19

groups in the USA, including threats to the employment

prospects and social standing of working-class, white,

heterosexual males.

Are seen as unjust, involving the voluntary and intentional violation of

relevant justice norms by an external agent (reason for the strain)

Collective strains may result from several sources other

than the voluntary and intentional acts of an external

agent. For example, they may result from the acts of members

of the strained collectivity (e.g. some lower-class

individuals victimize other lower-class individuals), from

natural disasters (e.g. hurricanes, epidemics), or from

‘reasonable’ accidents (e.g. airplane crashes, fires). In

addition, collective strains may be seen as the result of

‘bad luck’ (Merton, 1968) or supernatural forces, such as an

angry god (see

Smelser, 2007: 65). Terrorism is much less likely in these

cases, even though the collective strain may be high in

magnitude.

Furthermore, the voluntary and intentional infliction of

collective strain by an external agent is unlikely to result

in terrorism unless it also involves the violation of

relevant justice norms. Several such norms appear to be

applicable across a wide range of groups and cultures

(Agnew, 2001, 2006a). In particular, the voluntary and

20

intentional infliction of collective strain is more likely

to be seen as unjust if:

The strain is seen as undeserved. Strains are more

likely to be seen as deserved if they result from the

negatively valued behavior or characteristics of

members of the strained collectivity that are deemed

relevant in the particular situation. Further, the

strain must not be seen as excessive given the

behaviors or characteristics. To illustrate, members of

a particular group may receive low pay for their work,

but they may not view this as unjust if they believe

they work in less demanding jobs and/or they have lower

levels of education.

The strain is not in the service of some greater good.

Members of a collectivity, for example, may experience

much loss of life during a war, but not view this as

unjust if the war is seen as necessary.

The process used to decide whether to inflict the

strain is unjust. Among other things, victims are more

likely to view the process as unjust if they have no

voice in the decision to inflict the strain, they do

not respect and trust those inflicting the strain, and

21

no rationale is provided for the infliction of the

strain.

The strain violates strongly held social norms or

values, especially those embodied in the criminal law.

The strain that members of the collectivity experience

is very different from their past treatment in similar

circumstances and/or from the treatment of similar

others (i.e. members of the collectivity are subject to

discriminatory treatment).

Collective strains are likely to be viewed as unjust if the

first and second conditions are satisfied or if one of the

other conditions is satisfied.

Explanations of terrorism commonly make reference to the

perceived injustice of the strains that are experienced. For

example, Ahmed’s (2005: 95) account of Palestinian terrorism

states that: ‘the fact is unmistakable and the message comes

over loud and clear: a deep sense of injustice beyond the

stage of profound frustration and despair stands at the

heart of the issue.’

22

Are caused by more powerful others, including ‘complicit’ civilians, with

whom members of the strained collectivity have weak ties (the relationship

between those in the strained collectivity and the source of strain)

These ‘others’ most commonly differ from members of the

strained collectivity in terms of some salient social

dimension, such as religion, race/ethnicity, class,

territorial location, nationality, and/or political

ideology. They are more powerful because of their greater

resources, including numbers, military equipment and skills,

and/or support from others. The strain they inflict may be

partly attributed to civilians for several reasons (see the

excellent discussion in Goodwin, 2006). Civilians may play a

role in creating the

Government or organization that inflicts the strain (e.g.

through voting); they may support the

Government/organization through acts such as paying taxes,

public expressions of support, and service in government

agencies; they may benefit from the infliction of the strain

(e.g. occupying land formerly held by those in the strained

collectivity); and they may fail to take action against

those who inflict strain when such action is seen as

possible ( Pape, 2005: 137). Goodwin (2006) roughly measures

civilian complicity in terms of whether the source of strain

is a democratic state; the argument being that terrorists

are more likely to believe that civilians in democratic

23

states play major roles in electing and influencing their

governments.

Finally, members of the strained collectivity have weak

emotional and material ties to the source of strain. These

weak ties may stem from lack of contact, strong cultural

differences (e.g. differences in language, values, beliefs,

norms), and/or large differences in wealth/status/power,

which tend to limit positive interaction and mutually

beneficial exchange (Senechal de la Roche, 1996; Black,

2004; Goodwin, 2006).

Conclusively, several characteristics related to the nature

of the collective strain, reason for the strain, and the

relationship between the recipients and source of strain

influence the likelihood of terrorism. Most of these

characteristics vary even when the focus is on a particular

type of strain, such as material deprivation. Researchers

sometimes take account of certain of these characteristics,

but rarely consider all of them. And this is a major reason

for the weak quantitative support for strain theories of

terrorism.

24

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN TERRORISM AND DEVELOPMENT

It is no longer news to us that there is a cost or economic

implications for both the terrorist country as well as the

target country. What we need to examine now is an in-depth

analysis of how the implications develop. The implications

are bound to have effects on both the economy as well as the

politics of both the terrorist country as well as the target

country. As we have mentioned earlier, the developing world

of which Nigeria is a part is at the receiving end of the

effects. This is because the developed countries have all it

take, both financially and politically, to cope with the

effects of terrorist. Again, they have the power to transfer

the effects to other parts of the world. In the light of

this, we need to examine what effects are likely to emanate

from the incidence of terrorism.

Some of the major effects of terrorism are as follows:-

1. FINANCIAL IMPLICATION: This implication or effect is

bound tell on both the terrorist country and the target

country. This is because to perpetrate a crime of that

25

magnitude, big cost must be incurred. This cost could

have been used in the area of development. For

instance, money paid to suicide bombers is not little.

Again, on the side of the target country, many things

like houses, human beings and even machineries would be

destroyed thereby affecting the growth as well as the

development of the target country. Moreover, the cost

of embarking on rebuilding process could be useful in

the process of development consolidation. The direct

cost of the September 11 attack has been estimated at

somewhat over $20 billion. Paul Krugman cites a

property loss estimate by the Comptroller of the City

of New York of $21.8 billion, which he has said is

about 0.2 % of the GDP for a year ("The Costs of

Terrorism: What Do We Know?" presented at Princeton

University in December, 2004).

2. ECONOMIC IMPACT: Another important impact that can

result from terrorism is its economic implications.

Economists also assess terrorism's impact on global

supply chains. (A supply chain is the sequence of steps

26

that suppliers of goods take to get products from one

area to another.) These steps can become extremely

costly in terms of time and money when extra layers of

security at ports and land borders are added to the

process. According to the OECD, higher transportation

costs could have an especially negative effect on

emerging economies that have benefited from a decrease

in costs in the last decade, and thus on countries'

ability to combat poverty.

It does not seem entirely farfetched to imagine that in

some instances, barriers meant to safeguard populations

from terrorism would actually amplify the risk: poor

countries that might have to slow exports because of

the cost of security measures are at a greater risk,

because of the effects of poverty, of political

destabilization and radicalization among their

populations.

3. IMPLICATION ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSHIP: The

relationship between the country accused of instigating

terrorist attack and the rest of the world will

definitely become weakened. No country will want to

27

associate itself with a country tagged as a terrorist

country. The aftermath of the September 11 incidence

made many countries to leave Afghanistan on her own

when America was attacking her territory. When the

incidence of the infamous under-pant Christmas plane

highjack, Abdul Mutallab happened, many countries

wanted to sever their relationship with Nigeria because

he is a Nigerian. This development is not good for

global development and peace.

4. IT CAUSES POLITICAL INSTABILITY: This point is very

common in any case of terrorism. The country or

countries affected often find it difficult to cope when

they are struck by terrorism. The case of Afghanistan

is a good example. After the September 11 attack, the

US attacked Afghanistan in a bid to capture Osama Bin

Laden. As a result of this, the then government was

disrupted until recently when they changed to

democratic system of government.

5. CREATION OF DUMPING GROUND: The aftermath of terrorism

will surely generate some scraps. Electronics devices

28

and machineries partially destroyed as a result of

terrorist attack are often sent to the developing

countries thereby making them (developing countries)

dumping grounds for the West. Developed countries that

are not affected can also take the advantage to dispose

their unwanted and harmful materials.

6. EFFECT ON SOVEREIGNTY: As a result of terrorism, the

independence of the country involved is often tampered

with. The powerful countries are often responsible for

this. They take advantage of the upheaval that is most

likely to follow the incidence of terrorism to probe

into the internal politics of the countries involved.

They might even seize the opportunity to propagate

their own system of government in those countries if

they discover that the system of government they

(affected countries) are practicing is not in line with

their (developed countries) ideology. The case of

Afghanistan after the September 11 incidence is a good

example.

29

7. EEFECT ON DEMOCRACY: It is not really necessary that

terrorism has to be between countries. It can be

perpetrated internally. At times, we can have what we

call ‘political terrorism’. This has to with the act of

threatening or causing injuries or even killing of

unharmed or civilians with harms with the aim of

achieving some political goals. This incidence is very

common in Nigeria. In a country where this is rampant,

their process of democratic transformation is bound to

suffer. Many incidents of this nature were very rampant

before and after the 2011 general elections in Nigeria.

8. EFFECT ON POTENTIAL MIGRANTS: As a result of terrorism,

citizens of the country with one form of affiliation

with terrorism or the other are bound to be facing some

difficulties when they want to migrate out of their

countries to another. Nigerians travelling to some

other countries are facing various kinds of

embarrassment because of the fact that a Nigerian

attempted to blow-up an American plane on a Christmas

day.

30

9. SOCIAL EFFECT: Terrorism causes undue stereotype and

paranoid. Even when no harm is intended nations and

peoples will be having sense of insecurity. Hence, when

they see someone who is from a country labeled as a

terrorist country they will want to take to their

heels.

These and many more are the effects that can emanate from

the advent of terrorism.

CONCLUSION

The fact that terrorism is not really common in Nigeria does

not mean we should take it with levity. Looking at all these

aforementioned effects, we will discover that they are

things we can observe in Nigeria. In the light of this, what

to do in order to reduce the effects to the lowest minimum

should be our watchword. In order to do this, the following

part of the work intends to give some recommendations that

could help in achieving this goal.

RECOMMENDATIONS

- GOOD ACCULTURATION: This entails the process of

inculcating our children with the culture of the

31

society. Norms and values are embedded in our cultures.

In the light of this, acceptable ways of behavior is

given to our children. Through this process, we can

teach and tell our children to do away with crime of

which terrorism is a part. This process gives identity

and personality to the child so it should not be taken

with levity.

- ACTIVITY OF THE MASS MEDIA: The mass media can also

help in reducing the level at which people engage in

terrorism. They can help by broadcasting to them

(people) the hazards posed by the act of terrorism as

well as the implications or punishments that await any

terrorist caught. Again, it can assist in making people

to be aware of how terrorism is been perpetrated so

when a scene that resembles terrorism is observed, they

would know what to do. Again they (mass media) can help

in presenting the image of the country in a positive

manner so that bad notions or beliefs other countries

are having about the country with respect to terrorism

can be corrected.

32

- RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY: Religious institution is one of the

pillars that hold the society together. In fact, the

religious institution helps in strengthening social

solidarity or social cohesion in the society according

to Emile Durkheim. In the light of this, since it is

widely believed that terrorism emanates from hatred and

enmity, the religious leaders can help, with their

power of dogmatism, by enlightening their congregations

about the need for peace and tolerance in the global

world.

- EDUCATIONAL CURRICULAR: The educational institution can

also help in winning this battle. The world is fast

becoming the world of the literates. Hence, virtually

everybody now goes to school to learn. By the virtue of

this, if the academic curricular of schools can be

rearranged in a way that studies or subjects that will

be devoted to cleaning of the minds of the students are

accommodated into them, a positive result can be

correctly imagined. Again, the teacher and lecturers in

schools are models for the students so they tend to

33

copy from the behaviour of their teachers and believe

whatever their teachers or lecturers tell them.

- STRONG INTERNATIONAL TIES: By extending the

international ties or relationship with other

countries, they (other countries) are bound to know

what the country is up-to. So when a case of terrorism

comes up, they would not demand much explanations or

investigation before they get convinced that the

country is innocent. This is because much of the

information about the country would have been known to

them pre-hand.

- FUNCTIONAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT: This aspect is very

important in a bid to curb or control terrorism. This

unit is saddled with the responsibility of monitoring

everything going on in the country. They keep

confidential information about the country. They are

armed with well-trained intelligent set of people who

work silently in the country. In addition to this, they

are equipped with many types of machinery that will

assist then in discharging their duties. As a result of

34

this, they can detect potential terrorists even before

they strike.

- FUNCTIONAL AND CREDIBLE JUDICIAL SYSTEM: One major

problem we have in Nigeria is the problem of impunity.

Offenders are often allowed to walk away unpunished

which is not good for a country that wants to develop.

In the light of this, the judicial system should be re-

examined so as to become a functional one. If this is

done, anybody caught perpetrating any form of terrorism

should be made to face the wrath of the law. This will

serve as a deterrent to others who are having the same

mind.

These are the recommendations this work has been able to

generate. Terrorism is like a monster. If it is allowed into

the town nobody is safe. Owing to this fact, all hands are

expected to be on deck so as to make it impossible for it to

have its way into our dear country.

35

REFERENCE

Agnew, R. (2001)., ‘Building on the Foundation of General

Strain Theory: Specifying the Types of Strain Most

Likely to Lead to Crime and Delinquency’, Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency 38(4): 319–61.

Agnew, Robert (1992)., ‘Foundation for a General Strain

Theory of Crime and Delinquency’, Criminology 30(1):

47–87.

Agnew, Robert (2002)., ‘Experienced, Vicarious, and

Anticipated Strain: An Exploratory Study Focusing on

Physical Victimization and Delinquency’, Justice

Quarterly 19(4): 603–32.

Agnew, Robert (2006a)., Pressured into Crime: An Overview of General

Strain Theory. New York: Oxford.

Agnew, R, Nicole L. P., and Francis T. C., (2009)., ‘General

Strain Theory and White-Collar Crime’, in Sally S.

Simpson and David Weisburd (eds) The Criminology of White-

Collar Crime, 35–60. New York: Springer.

Ahmed, Hisham H. (2005)., ‘Palestinian Resistance and

“Suicide Bombing”’, in Tore Bjorgo (ed.) Root Causes of

Terrorism, pp. 87–101. London: Routledge.

Arthur M., (2001)., Defining Terrorism & its Root Causes:

References to the definition of terrorism and the

root causes as discussed in the UNGA debate

36

"Measures to eliminate international terrorism"

October 1-5, 2001, United Nations, New York.

Bjorgo, Tore (2005)., ‘Introduction’, in Tore Bjorgo (ed.)

Root Causes of Terrorism, pp. 1–15. London: Routledge.

Black, Donald (2004)., ‘Terrorism as Social Control’,

Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance 5: 9–18.

Blazak, Randy (2001)., ‘White Boys to Terrorist Men’,

American Behavioural Scientist 44(6): 982–1000.

Callaway, Rhonda L. and Julie Harrelson-Stephens (2006).,

‘Toward a Theory of Terrorism: Human Security as a

Determinant of Terrorism’, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism

29(7): 679–702

Eitle, David J. and R. Jay Turner (2002)., ‘Exposure to

Community Violence and Young Adult Crime: The

Effects of Witnessing Violence, Traumatic

Victimization, and Other Stressful Life Events’,

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 39(2): 214–37.

Froggio, Giancinto and Robert Agnew (2007)., ‘The

Relationship between Crime and “Objective” versus

“Subjective” Strains’, Journal of Criminal Justice 35(1):

81–7.

George P. (2006)., “The indefinable Concept of Terrorism”,

Oxford University Press, 2006

Goodwin, Jeff (2006)., ‘A Theory of Categorical Terrorism’,

Social Forces 84(4): 2027–46.

37

Hamm, Mark S. (2002)., In Bad Company: America’s Terrorist

Underground. Boston, MA: Northeastern University

Press.

Hoffman, B. (1998)., "Inside Terrorism" Columbia University

Press 1998 ISBN 0-231-11468-0. p. 32. See review in

The New York Times Inside Terrorism.

Hoffman, Bruce (2006) Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Krugman P. (2007)., "The Costs of Terrorism: What Do We

Know?" presented at Princeton University in

December, 2004).

Merton, Robert (1968)., “ Social Theory and Social Structure”. New

York: Free Press.

Mazrui, Alamin M. (2007)., ‘Africa’s Role in America’s ‘War

on Terrorism’: Some Political Implications’ in

Okumu, Wafula & Botha, Anneli (eds.) Understanding

Terrorism in Africa: in Search for an African Voice, Pretoria:

Institute of Security Studies (ISS), pp. 67-74.

Oberschall A. (2004)., ‘Explaining Terrorism: The

Contribution of Collective Action Theory’, Sociological

Theory 22(1): 26–37.

Omotola, J. S. (2008)., Assessing Counter-Terrorism

Measures in Africa: Implications for Human Rights

and national Security.

Pape, Robert A. (2005) Dying toWin: The Strategic Logic of Suicide

Terrorism. New York: Random House.

38

Paul Krugman. (2004)., "The Costs of Terrorism: What Do We

Know?" presented at Princeton University in

December, 2004.

Post, Jerrold M. (2007)., The Mind of the Terrorist. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Senechal de la Roche, Roberta (1996) ‘Collective Violence as

Social Control’, Sociological Forum 11(1): 97–128.

Smelser, Neil J. (2007)., The Faces of Terrorism: Social and

Psychological Dimensions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Walter L. (1994)., “The Dream That Failed: Reflections on the Soviet

Union”, Oxford University Press, London.

39