YOU ARE DOWNLOADING DOCUMENT

Please tick the box to continue:

Transcript
Page 1: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

Journal of Asian and African Studies2015, Vol. 50(4) 387 –411

© The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0021909614530082

jas.sagepub.com

J A A S

Transformational Strategy or Gilded Pacification? Four Years On: The Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the Nigerian Amnesty Programme

Daniel E AgbiboaUniversity of Oxford, UK

AbstractMy central aim in this paper is to evaluate the outcomes of the amnesty programme established in mid-2009 by the Nigerian government as a way of resolving the groundswell of violence in the oil-rich Niger Delta region. In particular, I focus analytic attention on the planning and implementation of the Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) process of the amnesty. I argue that while the amnesty promotes non-killing alternatives to conflict resolution and opens a door for stabilisation, its current planning and implementation is flawed and unable to reduce the long-term potential for armed conflict in the Niger Delta. Far from been a transformational strategy, I argue that the amnesty programme has become a strategy of gilded pacification essentially targeted at buying off militants and re-establishing oil and gas production in the Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region.

KeywordsNiger Delta, armed conflict, amnesty, Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration, multilayered causes

IntroductionSince the end of the Second World War, the incidence of intrastate armed conflict1 (internal con-flicts fought between a government and a non-state group) has increased in number and intensity compared to interstate conflict (conflicts fought between two or more states), which has been rela-tively rare (Buhaug et al., 2007; Harbom and Wallensteen, 2009; Lotta and Wallensteen, 2012). Figure 1 shows the trend in the number of armed conflicts since 1946. Despite the significant increase in conflicts from 2010 to 2011 – the largest increase in the number of active armed con-flicts between any two years since 1990 (Lotta and Wallensteen, 2012: 566) – the pattern is one of relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years (Goldstein, 2011; Pinker, 2011).

Corresponding author:Daniel E Agbiboa, School of Sociology, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. Email: [email protected] [or] [email protected]

530082 JAS0010.1177/0021909614530082Journal of Asian and African StudiesAgbiboaresearch-article2014

Article

Page 2: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

388 Journal of Asian and African Studies 50(4)

In 2011, the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) recorded 36 active intrastate armed conflicts compared to only one interstate conflict: Cambodia-Thailand2 (Lotta and Wallensteen, 2012: 565). This level of disparity is not unexpected if we recall the forecast of the Hart-Rudman Commission (Hart and Rudman, 1999: 6) that ‘Interstate wars will occur over the next 20 years, but most vio-lence will erupt from conflicts internal to current territorial states’. This report was predated by Holsti’s (1996: 19–20) apt observation that recent wars have by and large been fought by ‘loosely knit groups of regulars, irregulars, cells, and not infrequently by locally-based warlords under little or no central authority’ rather than by ‘the organised armed forces of two or more states’. It is instructive to note that most intrastate armed conflicts are now fought in Asia or Africa (see Figure 2) and these continents have not contributed much to the appreciable decline in armed con-flict in recent years (Buhaug et al., 2007; Lotta and Wallensteen, 2012).

Despite the fact that intrastate conflict is the most frequent form of armed conflict (see Figure 1), the vast bulk of data-based research has focused on interstate conflict (Buhaug et al., 2007; Hensel, 2001; Wallensteen and Sollenberg, 2001 and 2002). The intrastate nature of armed con-flicts calls for a set of peacekeeping concepts and approaches that transcends traditional statist diplomacy (Hegre and Sambanis, 2006; Lederach, 1997). Conflict analysts have argued that effec-tive peacebuilding initiatives in the contemporary world should incorporate a wide range of activi-ties and functions that both precede and follow formal peace accords (Fox and Hoelscher, 2012 ), including ‘processes, approaches, and stages needed to transform conflict toward more sustainable, peaceful relationships’ (Kriner, 2011: 1). Subsequently, recent peacebuilding literature has focused on the many institutional alternatives available to build peace, such as power-sharing (Hartzell and Hoddie, 2007; Jarstad and Nilsson, 2008), security sector reform (Toft 2010), peacekeeping forces (Doyle and Sambanis, 2006), and post-conflict justice (Bell, 2009; BinningsbØ et al., 2012). These processes represent the melange of options for government and oppositions to address violence from a previous conflict (Elster, 2004). Of all these options, however, the process of disarmament,

Figure 1. Armed Conflicts by Type, 1946–2011.Source: Lotta & Wallensteen (2012).

Page 3: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

Agbiboa 389

demobilisation, and reintegration (DDR) of ex-combatants, a critical aspect of amnesties, have become increasingly integral to UN practices in conflict and post-conflict societies (Berdal, 1996; Jennings 2008; Muggah, 2009; Söderström, 2013; UN, 2000).

Briefly, disarmament describes the ‘collection, documentation, control and disposal of small arms, ammunition, explosives, and light and heavy weapons of combatants and often also of the civilian population’ in a post-conflict context (UN-SG, 2005). Disarmament also includes the development of a ‘responsible arms management program’ (UN-SG, 2005). The driving force of disarmament is ‘to reduce or control the number of weapons held before demobilisation in order to build confidence in the peace process, increase security and prevent a return to conflict’ (UN-SG, 2005). Demobilisation describes a planned process by which the armed forces of the government and/or opposition or fractional forces either downsize or completely disband; it is the ‘formal and controlled discharge of active combatants from armed forces and other armed groups’ (UN, 2006). Last of all, reintegration describes the process whereby ex-combatants and their families are inte-grated into the socioeconomic and political life of (civilian) communities (Knight and Ozerdem, 2004: 500; cf. Jennings 2008).

The DDR has repeatedly proven to be vital to stability in a post-conflict situation (Söderström 2013; UN, 2000). Countries like Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, DR Congo, El Salvador, Cambodia, Côte d’Ivoire, Uganda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Liberia, Russia, Angola, Sierra Leone, Guatemala, India, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Colombia, Mozambique, Burundi, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, have all applied DDR to armed conflicts with some levels of success. Two factors are critical to the suc-cess of any DDR programme: (1) the political context in which it is carried out; and (2) the political will among the belligerent parties (Knight and Ozerdem, 2004: 500). In addition, experience sug-gests that the ways in which DDR is operationalised have significant implications for the reintegra-tion of ex-combatants and for keeping the peace. So conceived, it is important to evaluate any implemented DDR programmes in order to gain insight into what has worked and what has not. As

Figure 2. Armed Conflicts by Region, 1946–2011.Source: Lotta & Wallensteen (2012).

Page 4: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

390 Journal of Asian and African Studies 50(4)

Jennings (2008: 5) cogently argues, ‘examining how DDR plays out on-the-ground would likely enable future programming to be formulated and implemented more effectively, improving out-comes and mitigating potential unintended and harmful consequences’.

The central purpose of this paper is to evaluate the outcomes of the so-called Nigerian version of DDR, established in mid-2009 by the federal government as a way of resolving the groundswell of violence in the oil-rich Niger Delta region and its crippling effects on the oil industry in Nigeria. In exchange for the surrender of arms and cessation of fighting, the amnesty – conceived in this paper as a promise or formal legislation on the part of the ruling party to not prosecute or punish past violators (Binningsbo et al., 2012: 735) – guaranteed Niger Delta combatants freedom from prosecution and a disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration process with monthly stipend payments (Nwajiaku-Dahou, 2010). This paper argues that while the amnesty promotes non-killing alternatives to violence and opens a door for stabilisation through the tactics of political dialogue, its current planning and implementation are flawed and incapable of reducing the long-term poten-tial for violence in the Niger Delta because they fail to address the multilayered causes of peace-lessness in the region. At best, the amnesty offers a cosmetic and short-term panacea to the conflict.

Literature reviewThere is no single cause of a conflict. Nor is there any single precondition for sustainable peace. Different factors vary in importance and reinforce or neutralise each other. The analysis of the situation must therefore include assessing the relative importance of the different indicators and their inter-relationship (Forum on Early Warning and Early Response (FEWER), 2001: 7).

The scramble by groups to wrest away rights and to break asunder from the shackles of the state are found in a number of conceptual castings (Ross, 2002: 4). One perspective attributes the onset of intrastate violence to variation in political–institutional arrangements, specifically the terms of executive recruitment and the degree of political participation (Fox and Hoelscher, 2012; Suberu, 1996; Uzodike et al. 2010). Huntington (2006: 1) argues that the maintenance of political order requires ‘strong, adaptable, coherent political institutions’ and that ‘the differences between democracy and dictatorship are less than the differences between those countries whose politics embodies consensus, community, legitimacy, organisation, effectiveness, stability, and those countries whose politics is deficient in these qualities’. Toeing a similar line, Fox and Hoelscher (2012: 431–444) hypothesize that countries with coherent political orders, whether autocratic or democratic, are more prone to lower levels of social violence than ‘hybrid’ ones. They further argue that ‘where political participation exists in limited form, competition between rival parties, and between marginalised and non-marginalised groups, may present a further risk of political contestation being channelled into acts of social violence’ (Fox and Hoelscher, 2012: 434; cf. Gates et al., 2006; Goldstone et al., 2010; Hegre and Sambanis, 2006). In Africa, for example, public participation in politics has tended to be hemmed in by discordant struggles among rival groups over power and resources (Sklar 1986: 115). Fearing increased marginalisation and politi-cal underrepresentation, subordinated groups tend to rally around shared lines of affinity in an attempt to agitate vigorously for redress (Agbiboa, 2011: 3). As former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan pointedly notes, ‘in extreme cases, rival communities may perceive that their security, perhaps their very survival, can be ensured only through control of state power’ (cited in Agbiboa, 2011: 3).

The traditional view of civil war breakout posits that the higher the grievances, the higher the chances of organised violence (Birrel, 1972; Daly, 2012: 473; Gurr, 1970).

Page 5: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

Agbiboa 391

Granted that every country contains groups with grievances that may inspire rebellion, Goldstone et al. (2010: 191) powerfully argue that ‘it is where regimes are paralysed or undermined by elite divisions and state-elite conflicts that revolutionary wars can be sustained and states lose out to insurgencies’. Taking the traditional view further, scholars like Fearon and Laitin (2003) and Collier, Hoeffler and Rohner (2009) explore why motivations for rebellion exist everywhere and yet insurgency breaks out only in some places. They conclude that ‘what is critical is not whether people actually have reason to commit violence, but what enables them to carry it out in particular circumstances… feasibility is a rare phenomenon’ (Sherman, 2001: 28). The particular circum-stances include poverty, rough terrain, weak states, lootable natural resources, and large, sparsely distributed populations (Blattman and Miguel, 2010; Daly, 2012; Collier and Hoeffler 2007: 1–27; Hegre and Sambanis, 2006).

Ethnicity has also been identified as one of the core threats to institutional stability, politi-cal order and state cohesion in pluralistic societies (Diamond, 1987; Gurr, 1993; Hall, 2001; Suberu, 1996). However, authors have differed in their explanations of the sources and nature of these conflicts. A number of variables have been adduced to explain ethnic conflicts. They include: (1) the emotional power of ‘primordial givens’ or cultural ties; (2) the struggle for relative group worth; (3) mass-based resource competition; (4) electoral mobilisation; (5) elite manipulation; (6) false consciousness; (7) defective political institutions and inequitable state policies (Diamond, 1987; Doornbos, 1991; Suberu, 1996:4). In his work entitled ‘Minorities at Risk,’ Gurr (1993: 5–11) advances the central thesis that ethnic groups are ‘at risk’ only to the degree that they are discriminated against economically, socially, culturally, or politically. He implicates several conditions in the mobilisation of ethnic minority grievances since 1945. These include: (1) unequal treatment of minority communities by dominant or ‘mainstream’ groups; (2) competition with other groups for access to power in new states; (3) the contagious effect of ethnopolitical activism elsewhere; (4) patterns of state-building, political power and economic development that channel communal energies into either protest or rebellion; and (5) the emergence of new ethnic minority elites who are willing to, and are adept at, mobilis-ing their constituents in response to changing political developments, opportunities and resources (Gurr 1993: 23). A similar study by Rummel (1997: 170) suggests that ‘when politi-cal power is centralised, nondemocratic and highly dependent upon one’s social group mem-bership, be it race, religion, ethnicity, or some cultural division, then collective violence is also highly likely’.

Moving on, the positive relationship between poverty and the likelihood of conflict is one that is discussed ad nauseam in the conflict literature (Collier and Hoeffler, 2004; Fearon and Laitin, 2003; Goldstone et al., 2010; Gurr, 1970; Hegre and Sambanis, 2006). In his recent personal account of the Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970), the late Professor Achebe (2012: 231) argues that ‘[e]conomic deprivation and corruption produce and exacerbate financial and social inequi-ties in a population, which in turn fuel political instability’. Similarly, Evans (1994: 2) contends that:

a downward spiral of economic decline, often exacerbated by official corruption and mismanagement, has created governments that are at or near the point of collapse and that are being challenged often violently, by their own citizens. Economic decline has hastened the process of national disintegration, and vice versa.

Furthermore, Evans argues that it is no accident that ‘those countries whose economies are declining… should also be the ones experiencing the greatest amounts of violence and turmoil (Evans,1994: 2). Similarly, in their book Breaking the Conflict Trap, Collier et al. adopt an eco-nomic approach to the causes of intrastate conflict. They argue that:

Page 6: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

392 Journal of Asian and African Studies 50(4)

Countries with low, stagnant, and unequally distributed per capita incomes that have remained dependent on primary commodities for exports face dangerously high risks of prolonged conflict. In the absence of economic development, neither good political institutions, nor ethnic and religious homogeneity, nor high military spending provide significant defences against large scale violence. (Collier et al., 2003: 53)

Explanations such as these are anchored on the human needs theory of social conflicts, which holds that all humans have basic needs that they seek to fulfil and failure to meet these needs could lead to the outbreak of violent conflict (Rosati et al., 1990). The theory resonates with the frustration–aggression theory of violence, which argues that the occurrence of aggressive behaviour presup-poses the existence of frustration (McNeil, 1959; Pear, 1950). The frustration–aggression theory provides the psychological dynamic for the relative deprivation theory – the proposed nexus between the intensity of deprivation and the potential for collective violence (Davies, 1962; Gurr, 1970).

The link between economic deprivation and the onset of violence seems simplistic and no longer particularly useful or interesting, because it fails to explain why some poor people or places do not participate in violence, and because it offers very little in the way of clear recommendation for policymakers. Following a detailed review of the relevant empirical literature on terrorism causes, Krieger and Meierriek (2011: 3) conclude that ‘there is only limited evidence to support the hypothesis that economic deprivation causes terrorism… poor economic conditions matter less to terrorism once it is controlled for institutional and political factors’. Instead, they argue that terror-ism is closely linked to political instability, sharp divides within the populace, country size and further demographic, institutional and international factors (Krieger and Meierriek, 2011: 3). Also, the frustration–aggression theory is narrowly framed as it ignores the salience of rational choice theory and capacity for the mobilisation of resources.

The conflict literature also stresses the impact that the nature of political regimes has on the mode and scale of state repression. A rehearsed view in the literature is that democracies repress much less than authoritarian regimes (Poe and Tate, 1994: 860). However, this hypothesis has been questioned on account of its inability to explain wide variations in levels of violence across coun-tries with the same political regimes. Other variables frequently adduced to explain the scale of state-sanctioned violence include: the presence of authoritarian ideologies that justify the use of violence (Rummel 1997); various aspect of political culture (Daly, 2012); a record of state repres-sion in the past (Gurr, 1970); state complicity in a civil war (Collier and Hoeffler, 2004); the level of socioeconomic inequality (Stewart, 2003); international monitoring of human rights (Amnesty International 2009; Doyle and Sambanis, 2000); and state weakness (Osaghae, 1995; Rotberg, 2002).

Framework for analysisOne of the major research findings in the conflict literature is that natural resources,3 especially those that are easily exploited, increase the likelihood of conflict (Auty, 1998; Buhang and Gates, 2002; Collier and Hoeffler, 1998, 2004; De Soysa, 2002; Doyle and Sambanis, 2000; Fearon and Laitin, 2003; Keen, 1998; Reynal-Querol, 2002; Ross, 2002 ). This research also argues that envi-ronmental pressure and resource scarcity escalate violence and affect both national and interna-tional security (Homer-Dixon, 1999). Two main lines of explanation have emerged: first, natural resources provide the motivation and means for rebel uprisings. Second, abundant natural resources lead to poor policy choices and a weak state, exposing the society to violent conflict (Lujala, 2010: 15). In addition, abundant resources provide easily accruable rents that can sustain political struc-tures, such as corruption and nepotism, which would not persist without those resources (Agbiboa,

Page 7: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

Agbiboa 393

2012; Auty and Gelb, 2001). Rustad and Binningsbo (2012: 532) identify three different mecha-nisms linking natural resources to conflict: (1) disagreements over natural resources (revenue) distribution may motivate rebellion; (2) revenues from natural resources may create funding opportunities for rebels; and (3) natural resources may aggravate ongoing conflict acting either as motivation or opportunity for rebels, but through other roles than as distributional claims or as funding sources. Following a careful study of the duration of post-conflict peace periods, Rustad and Binningsbo (2012: 531–546) argue that natural resource conflicts are more likely to recur than conflicts unaffected by natural resources.

Theoretical explanations of the link between natural resources and civil conflict have typically followed two approaches. Theories of ‘relative deprivation’ link rebellion to atypical severe griev-ances arising from high levels of inequality, government repression and lack of political rights, or ethnic and religious divisions (Borjas, 1992; Cramer, 1999; Goodhand, 2003). On the other hand, rationalist theories focus on the economic opportunities for rebellion that arise from availability of resources (Oyefusi, 2008). These models bear a semblance to Becker’s (1968) economic model of crime and law and draw heavily on Grossman (1995) and Hirshleifer (1995). In these models, greed is the underlying motivation for rebellion which is assumed to occur only when it is profit-able for rebels. There is now a consensus, however, that the greed-grievance dichotomy stops short of explaining the link between natural resources and civil war (Ballentine and Sherman, 2003; Collier et al., 2009; Oyefusi, 2008: 541).

In an insightful paper, Ross (2002: 1–40) argues that resource dependence can promote civil war through four types of effects: (1) by harming a country’s economic performance; (2) by mak-ing its government weaker, more corrupt, and less accountable; (3) by giving people who live in resource-rich regions an incentive to form an independent state (for example, the Aceh separatist rebellion in Indonesia); and (4) by helping to finance rebel group movements. Added to this, resource-inspired insurrections have several common elements. One is that before the resource was exploited, people in these regions had a distinct identity – whether ethnic, linguistic, or religious – that set them apart from the majority population. Another was the widespread belief that the central government was unfairly appropriating the wealth that belonged to them, and that they would be richer if they were a separate state. Finally, in most cases local people bore many of the costs of the extraction process itself – due to land expropriation, environmental damage, and the immigration of labour from other parts of the country (Ross, 2002: 15). According to Ross (2003), the Niger Delta region of Nigeria contains the key ingredients for a resource-based conflict. It accounts for over 90 percent of the nation’s oil revenue, and its gas reserves are now touted as the next great potential revenue-earner for the nation (cf. Oyefusi, 2008: 540). It is important to note that natural resource dependence never makes conflict inevitable; resource wealth heightens the danger that conflict will break out (Ross, 2002: 4).

Armed conflicts marked by natural resource distribution mechanisms include both high-value natural resource conflicts (such as oil in the Niger Delta in Nigeria) and conflicts over land owner-ship (such as the civil war motivated by rural landlessness in El Salvador). Many rebel groups such as the insurgents in Nepal point to asymmetrical distribution of natural resource revenues and ownership as their casus belli (Murshed and Gates, 2006: 188–206). Not infrequently, conflicts with distribution mechanisms subsume an element of horizontal inequality; that is, where some groups think that others are receiving more than they are, or groups in natural resource-rich areas expect to get a bigger share of the resource revenues than they realistically can get (Ostby, 2006; Ostby et al., 2009). Authors like Mancini (2005), Ostby (2008), and Stewart (2003) argue that hori-zontal inequalities (i.e. inequality between groups) can lead to the politicisation of group identities and stimulate intergroup (as opposed to interclass) violence. High levels of inequality have two effects that are likely to contribute to grievances. First, high levels of inequality exacerbate the

Page 8: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

394 Journal of Asian and African Studies 50(4)

redistributive claims that minorities are likely to make on the central state. Second, as the prospec-tive costs of such redistribution climb, the central government may be less likely to meet them. Ethnicity and/or religion are likely to accentuate these dynamics (Acemoglu and Robinson, 2000; Boix, 2003). For example, the Niger Delta of Nigeria is populated by minority ethnic groups that have borne a disproportionate share of the cost of oil extraction for which they believe they have not been adequately compensated (Agbiboa and Maiangwa, 2012; Oyefusi, 2008).

Building on the above, some scholars have applied a ‘motivation framework’ to explain the nexus between natural resources and conflict (Collier and Hoeffler, 2004; Doyle and Sambanis, 2000; De Soysa, 2002; Elbadawi and Sambanis, 2001; Fearon and Laitin, 2003; Hegre, 2002; Keen, 1998; Reynal-Querol, 2002; Ross, 2002). From the perspective of the rebel groups, the grievance and aggression against the government is motivated by ‘unfair access to natural resources, unsatisfactory distribution of benefits from natural resources, and lack of control over such resources’. Their motivation writ large is to ameliorate the skewed distribution of natural resources in terms of revenues, control, and access. From the perspective of the govern-ment, the motivation to use violence is to avoid ceding control over valuable natural resources. Some have also attributed the widespread use of repression, especially by authoritarian regimes, to the need to instil fear into those it needs to control; to attain compliant behaviour from citi-zens or to maximise power, with the constraint of the citizen’s loyalty (Agbiboa, 2011; Fox and Hoelscher, 2012).

In Africa, the struggle for scarce resources has become the real stuff of contemporary politics (Reno, 2001). This is evident in the fact that most conflict and wars in the continent tend to occur around resource-rich regions (Ikelegbe, 2005: 210). Keen (2003: 67) observes that the violent struggles in Sierra Leone occurred largely in the diamond-rich areas. The same can be said of Liberia and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) where the emergence of personal militias and armed networks is ‘underpinned by the struggle for control of external commerce and social and trade networks’ (Agbiboa, 2011: 3; Ikelegbe, 2005: 210). In Nigeria, the resource-rich Niger Delta region has been the site of armed conflict and violence for decades.

The above review offers a sufficiently nuanced framework for analysing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the Niger Delta. In particular, the resource–conflict nexus, in combination with the horizontal inequality-cum-motivation framework, offers a useful framework for analysing the root causes of peacelessness in the Niger Delta and for uncovering the underlying motivations of the three stakeholders in the conflict – the local inhabitants, the oil multinational companies, and the Nigerian government (Omotola, 2006).

Multilayered causes of peacelessness in the Niger DeltaThe Niger Delta region is ranked among the 10 most important wetland and coastal marine eco-systems in the world and is home to some 31 million people (Ibeanu, 2006; Obi, 2009). Officially, it is made up of nine states (Abia, Akwa-Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Edo, Imo, Ondo and Rivers). Six of these states (excludes Abia, Imo and Ondo) form the South–South geopolitical zone (SSZ) of Nigeria, an area predominated by several minority ethnic groups (Agbiboa, 2011; Suberu, 1996). Some authors refer to these as the ‘geographical Niger Delta’ in contradistinction to the official Niger Delta (Oyefusi, 2008: 540). Importantly, the Niger Delta is also the site of massive oil deposits, which have been extracted for decades by the oil multinationals in the region. Although an estimated US$600 billion has been generated by the oil industry in Nigeria since the 1960s (Onuoha, 2009), the majority of Niger Delta inhabitants are mired in poverty while their region is engulfed by a jolting sense of neglect (Agbiboa, 2012; Ibeanu, 2006; Osha, 2006). According to Watts (2008: 44), ‘by any measure of social achievement the oil states are a

Page 9: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

Agbiboa 395

calamity’, characterised by ‘nestled shacks, broken down canoes, and children who will be lucky to reach adulthood’.

In 2006, a UNDP report on the Niger Delta described the region as suffering from ‘administra-tive neglect, crumbling social infrastructure and services, high unemployment, social deprivation, abject poverty, filth and squalor and endemic conflict’ (UNDP, 2006: 16). The report added that ‘the prevailing situation not only explains the increasing waves of restiveness in the region, it also presages a grim future for the region and the country’ (UNDP, 2006: 16). In a recent empirical study – entitled Rethinking Conflict in the Niger Delta – published in 2012, Joab-Peterside et al. (2012: 18) underscored the uneasy stasis in the Niger Delta. The report stated that 90 percent of rural Niger Delta inhabitants still fall below the conventional poverty line of US$1 per day. Furthermore, ‘the ratio of doctor-to-population is 1: 27,000 in Delta State (and 1 to 282,000 in some of the local government areas in Bayelsa State)’ (Joab-Peterside et al., 2012: 18). Thus, they conclude that the Niger Delta remains a classic example of the ‘resource curse’ (Joab-Peterside et al., 2012: 2). But how can we appropriately locate the armed conflict in the Niger Delta?

The causes of the Niger Delta conflict are essentially multilayered (see a useful article on this topic by Idemudia and Ite, 2006: 391–406). In this section, I identify five core layers of conflict in the Niger Delta. The first is what I call the ‘centralisation problematic’. The problem here is that the Nigerian government has centralised the ownership and control of oil resources in such a way that nearly all component states and local government areas depend primarily on transfers. Many in the Niger Delta often adjudge the transfers to be done so unfairly that the north – with apparent control of political power and, as such, resource-sharing power – is unduly favoured (Joab-Peterside et al., 2012; Uzodike et al., 2010). According to Suberu (1996: xi), these processes legitimised ‘the expro-priation of the resources of the oil-producing communities as part of the official strategy of central-ised cake-sharing’. A second layer is what I describe as the ‘derivation problematic’. Rather than having a right to 50 percent of oil revenues on the basis of the derivation principle of revenue alloca-tion, the Niger Delta share was progressively de-emphasised until it dropped to a mere 3 percent in the early 1980s (Obi, 2009). It was only in 1999 that it was again reviewed upwards, to 13 percent derivation. In 2005, during the proceedings of a National Political Reform Dialogue Conference, representatives of the Niger Delta had demanded an immediate increase in derivation revenue from the current constitutionally prescribed 13 percent to 25 percent and gradually up to 50 per cent (Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, section 162(2), cited in Ebeku, 2008). But the proposal was contemptuously rejected4 at a plenary session of the entire representatives (mostly opposed by northern delegates) and this led the Niger Delta representatives to walk out from further participation in the proceedings (Omotola, 2009).

A third layer is what I describe as the ‘ownership problematic’. The Niger Delta people have no legal claim to the ‘ownership’ of oil produced from under their lands and waters (CLO, 1996; Omotola, 2009). A military decree by fiat was established that vested ownership and control of all petroleum in, under or upon any lands in the Nigerian state (Ebeku, 2007; Obi, 2001). In particular, the provisions of the 1979 and 1999 constitutions and other legislations such as the Territorial Waters Act (1967), the Petroleum Act (1969), the Exclusive Economic Zone Act (1978) and the Land Use Act (1978) served to firmly entrench the nationalisation policy that vested the ownership and control of land and the resources therein in the federal government (Agbiboa, 2011: 125). This contravenes the common law doctrine of quic quid plantatur solo cedit (what is attached to the land accrues to the land and belongs to the owner). A fourth layer is what I call the ‘environmental problematic’. Decades of oil operations in the Niger Delta have impacted disastrously on the region’s environment, massively threatening the subsistent peasant economy and hence the entire livelihood and basic survival of the people (Eteng, 1997; Omotola, 2006). According to a recent empirical study by a team of international environmental experts, ‘The damage from oil operations

Page 10: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

396 Journal of Asian and African Studies 50(4)

is chronic and cumulative, and has acted synergistically with other sources of environmental stress to result in a severely impaired coastal ecosystem and compromised the livelihoods and health of the region’s impoverished residents’ (Amnesty International, 2011: 9).

A final layer is the ‘governance problematic’. This concerns how the spectacular failure of the Nigerian government to properly and promptly address the grievances of the Niger Delta people, combined with the brutal and incendiary response of government security forces, have led to the internationalisation and radicalisation of local resistance in the region (Agbiboa, 2011). All of these conflict layers, individually and/or collectively contributed to the appreciable shift in approach in the Niger Delta (from non-violence to violence) in the pursuit of resource control (Ebeku, 2008; Okonta and Douglas 2003: 16).5 As Douglas, environmental lawyer and leading activist member of the Ijaw Youth Council (IYC), puts it:

There is a big debate in the Niger Delta right now about what is the best means of removing the yoke of oppression visited on our people, and the overwhelming position is that non-violent struggle is preferred… But the government has adopted a very violent strategy of suppression that angers people like Dokubo, who see the strategy of negotiation [non-violence] failing woefully and are crying out for armed struggle. (Ebeku, 2008: 27)

Resistance movements in the Niger DeltaThe latent manifestation of the Niger Delta conflict starts with the Niger Delta minorities’ delega-tion to London on the eve of independence that raised the issue of minority domination in the emerging entity called Nigeria. However, the violent manifestation of the conflict starts with the 1966 Isaac Adaka Boro’s led armed revolt popularly known as the ‘twelve days revolution’. This was the first serious attempt to secede in Nigeria and to confront the oil multinationals. With about 150 volunteer forces, Isaac Boro declared the Niger Delta Republic (NDR) on 23 February 1966 at Tantonabau in the Riverrine areas of the former Eastern region. In his autobiography, published posthumously, Boro explained his motivation for the revolt when he writes that ‘year after year we are clenched in tyrannical chains and led through a dark alley of perpetual political and social dep-rivation. Strangers in our country!’ (Omotola, 2009: 132). Addressing his army before the revolt, Boro declared:

Today is a great day, not only in your lives, but also in the history of the Niger Delta. Perhaps it will be the greatest day for a very long time. This is not because we are going to bring haven down, but because we are going to demonstrate to the world what and how we feel about oppression. Before today, we were branded robbers, bandits, terrorists or gangsters but after today, we shall be heroes of our land. (Tebekaemi 1982: 112)

…remember your seventy-year-old grandmother who still farms before she eats; remember also your poverty stricken people; remember too your petroleum which is being pumped out daily from your veins, and then fight for your freedom. (Tebekaemi, 1982: 117)

Although the 12 days revolution was quashed by the federal government, it set the stage of the Niger Delta struggle for autonomy, resource control and development. As Omotola (2009: 134) notes, the first revolt ‘succeeded in awakening the ethnic consciousness of the minorities of the Niger Delta as much as the establishment of several civil society groups of various types’ (notably the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP)). Boro’s rebellion points to the depth of ‘republican sentiments’ felt in the region and the tensions between the growing recogni-tion of oil in the delta and political marginalisation (Joab-Peterside et al., 2012: 7). After the

Page 11: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

Agbiboa 397

routing of the Boro’s revolt by the Nigerian military there was a period of quietness as resistance was mainly by community associations and non-violent in nature, until the early 1990s when the Ogoni non-violent social movement started under the banner of MOSOP.

MOSOP was established in the early 1990s under the leadership of playwright and environmen-tal activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and traditional heads of various Ogoni clans. MOSOP, which became an instant rallying point for the Ogonis, planned to take action against the state and oil multination-als for the oil exploitation and attendant environmental dislocations in Ogoniland (Omotola, 2009: 134). MOSOP’s mandate was to campaign non-violently to: (1) promote democratic awareness; (2) protect the environment of the Ogoni people; (3) seek socioeconomic and physical develop-ment for the region; (4) protect the cultural rights and practices of the Ogoni people; and (5) seek appropriate rights of self-determination for the Ogoni people (Na’Allah, 1998). In October 1990, MOSOP presented the Ogoni Bill of Rights (OBR) to the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Therein, MOSOP demanded: (1) political control of Ogoni affairs; (2) the right to control and use a fair proportion of Ogoni economic resources for Ogoni development; (3) the right to protect the Ogoni environment and ecology from further degradation; and (4) adequate and direct representation in all Nigerian national institutions (MOSOP, 1992). These demands suggest that what the Ogonis desired was ‘a right to self-determination through the creation of an exclusively Ogoni state’ (Omotola, 2009: 134). As Osaghae (1995: 329) argues, the formation of MOSOP could be said to have spelt a salient shift in Ogoni identity-formation when they were radically transformed from an ‘ethnic group-in-itself’ to an ‘ethnic group for-it-self’.

MOSOP linked up with transnational rights advocacy networks such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Rainforest Action Group, Sierra Club, and Friends of the Earth in an attempt to internationalise its local resistance and increase its pressure on the government and on Shell, the largest multinational oil operator in the Niger Delta. The OBR was presented to various interna-tional organisations, including the United Nations sub-committee of human rights on the Prevention of Discrimination Against and Protection of Minorities and the African Human Rights Commission. The OBR was also presented at various international gatherings, including the tenth session of the working group on Indigenous Population in Geneva in 1992 and at the General Assembly of the Unrepresented Nations and People’s Organisation at the Hague in 1993. The internationalisation of the Ogoni struggle greatly unsettled the Nigerian government and oil multinationals as it exposed their human rights abuses against oil-producing ethnic minorities (Agbiboa, 2011).

Beginning in December 1992, the conflict intensified on the back of fresh demands by MOSOP from the three major oil stakeholders in Ogoniland – Shell, Chevron, and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). These demands included: (1) payment of US$6 billion for accu-mulated rents and royalties for oil exploration since 1958; (2) payment of US$4 billion for dam-ages and compensation for environmental pollution; (3) immediate cessation of environmental degradation, especially gas-flaring in Yorla, Korokoro, and Bornu; (4) immediate covering of all exposed high-pressure oil pipelines; and (5) initiation of negotiation with the Ogoni people. To meet these demands, MOSOP announced a 30-day ultimatum (Omotola, 2009: 135). It was in this phase of the conflict that overt violence was applied on a large scale by the Nigerian government. For the Nigerian government, so heavily dependent on oil revenues, the example set by the Ogonis was likely to embolden other oil-bearing minority groups in the region. As a result, the Nigerian government, in complicity with the oil multinationals, chose to repress the Ogoni struggle.

The Nigerian government imposed draconian laws designed to instil fear and command com-pliance in the Niger Delta, particularly in Ogoniland. These included: (1) the proscription of ethnic minority associations; (2) the confinement, detention, arbitrary conviction and/or impris-onment of outspoken oil minority elites; (3) the violent suppression, by military force, of protests, demonstrations and uprisings by oil minority communities; and (4) the official declaration of

Page 12: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

398 Journal of Asian and African Studies 50(4)

ethnic minority agitations for self-determination, or any disturbances of oil production activities for that matter, as a seditious or treasonable offence punishable with the death penalty! (Suberu, 1996: xii). At the end of the 30-day ultimatum, the Ogonis staged a mass rally at Bori on 3 January 1993. The mass action peaked when MOSOP led a total Ogoni boycott of the 12 June 1993 presi-dential elections. Following mass protests that were designed to stop contractors from laying a new pipeline for Shell in Ogoniland, state security forces raided the area to quell the unrest. In the ensuing chaos, 27 villages were allegedly raided, resulting in the death of 2000 Ogoni people and the displacement of 80,000 (Obi 2009). These attacks virtually sounded the death knell of the mass action phase of the Ogoni struggle, which would seem to have been the reason for state involvement in these attacks.

The Ogoni struggle suffered a fatal blow on 21 May 1994 when Saro-Wiwa and eight of his colleagues were found guilty of inciting Niger Delta youths to murder four left-wing Ogoni chiefs and, consequently, sentenced to death by hanging (Agbiboa, 2011). The chicanery and hanging of Saro-Wiwa was a deliberate attempt by the Nigerian government to eliminate the pivotal figure of opposition around which a united Niger Delta front could emerge (Soyinka, 1996). Moreover, the execution was not so much a sign of disrespect for international opinion but more ‘a sign to Nigerians themselves that there was no escape from the state’s totalitarian apparatus and that nobody in the whole world could save them’ (Na’Allah, 1998: 75). Following Saro-Wiwa’s death, the Ogoni struggle declined, aided by state repression and leadership bickering. The establishment of MOSOP, the hanging of the ‘Ogoni 9’, and the militarisation of the region between 1990 and 1998 represented a fundamental watershed. It marked not simply the proliferation of a large num-ber of forms of ethnic mobilisation across the region but by a passing of the political torch to a generation of more militant and activist youth (Joab-Peterside et al., 2012: 7).

In December 1998, the Ijaw Youth Council (IYC) was formed at a meeting of Ijaw activists and representatives from 40 Ijaw clans from across the coastal states of southern Nigeria. It comprises a confederation of youth associations of the Ijaw ethnic group of the Rivers, Bayelsa and Delta states of the Niger Delta. Its overriding goal was to ‘fight against the marginalisation, neglect, underdevelopment, militarisation, and repression of the minorities in the Niger Delta by the federal government and multinational oil companies’ (Omotola, 2009: 136). Perhaps, the major achieve-ment of the IYC was the famous Kaiama Declaration of 11 December 1998, made at a meeting of 5000 youths drawn from 500 communities, 40 clans, and 25 organisations, held at Kaiama in Bayelsa State (Agbiboa, 2011). The Kaiama Declaration insisted that ‘we cease to recognise all undemocratic decrees that rob our peoples/communities of the right to ownership and control of our lives and resources, which were enacted without our participation and consent’ and demanded the ‘Ijaw control of Ijaw oil’. For the IYC, ‘any oil company that employs the services of the armed forces of the Nigerian State to “protect” its operations will be viewed as an enemy of the Ijaw people’ (IYC 1998, cited in Agbiboa, 2011). Like MOSOP, the IYC appealed to the youth and ordinary people by drawing upon Ijaw traditional beliefs about justice and resistance, including the use of Egbesu, an Ijaw deity of war, whose real significance lay in Ijaw cosmology as a symbol of spiritual protection.

In late December 1998, the IYC mobilised the Ijaw through Operation Climate Change, a pro-gramme of non-violent protest demanding that all oil companies leave the Niger Delta before the end of the year (Nwajiaku-Dahou, 2010). Rather than engaging the IYC in a political dialogue or responding to the demands made in the Kaiama Declaration, the military government sent in troops backed by warships that forcefully quelled the protests in January 1999 (Obi, 2009). Under the democratic rule of Olusegun Obasanjo (1999–2007), the practice of deploying soldiers to shoot-to-kill protesting indigenes, and to raze down communities, became a standard state response mechanism. A prime example is the invasion of Odi (a town populated by the Ijaws) by

Page 13: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

Agbiboa 399

state security forces in revenge for the murder of 12 policemen by youths in the town on 20 November 1999. Over 2000 Odi inhabitants were killed and several thousands displaced in the state-sanctioned massacre (Omotola, 2009). Obasanjo justified this dastardly action by arguing that the brutal measure was necessary to deter communities from killing security officials as a way of pressing for their demands (OMCT & CLEEN, 2002). In his reaction to the Odi massacre, Felix Tuodolo, the IYC president, declared:

It is clear to us that the whole operation was designed to instil fear on the Ijaw and stop the mass of our suffering people from continuing our peaceful struggle to end the degradation of our lands and creeks by transnational oil companies and the Nigerian state. (IYC Press Release 1999, cited in Agbiboa, 2011: 132)

The continued militarisation of the Niger Delta region contributed to the feeling in some circles that the state and the oil multinationals would neither listen to the demands of the local people nor respect their human rights. Such views were informed by the apparent ‘failure’ of peaceful protest to effect any meaningful change (Na’Allah, 1998; Omotola, 2009).

The return to violence in the Niger Delta reminiscent of Boro’s revolt came on the back of the Kaiama Declaration. The declaration set the scene for armed resistance, with the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) being the most formidable (Obi, 2009). MEND’s emer-gence has been located within ‘the lethal cocktail of economic deprivation, military dictatorship and worsening environmental crisis’ in the Niger Delta, and its tapping into ‘the fifty year Ijaw quest for social and environmental justice in the Niger Delta’ (Obi, 2009: 122; Okonta, 2007: 1–11). According to several sources, MEND is not a well-defined entity but rather a coalition of armed groups operating in the Niger Delta (Obi, 2008: 424; The Jamestown Foundation 30 October 2009). In April 2011, an article published by Le Monde describes MEND as a ‘nebulous group’ [translation] that lacks a command structure and a clear number of members (16 April 2011). According to Jomo Gbomo, MEND’s spokesperson, ‘MEND is an amalgam of all arm bearing groups in the Niger Delta fighting for the control of oil revenue by indigenes of the Niger Delta who have had relatively no benefits from the exploitation of our mineral resources by the Nigerian government and oil companies over the last fifty years’ (cited in Obi, 2009: 123).

MEND first became the cynosure of international eyes in 2006 through its kidnapping of for-eign oil workers (Onuoha, 2009). The group initially emerged to demand the release of two key Ijaw leaders – Asari Dokubo and Diepreye Alamieyeseigha. However, its demands later extended to political issues such as resource control. MEND has gained most attention internationally from its threats to ‘cripple the Nigerian oil exports’ (IRIN News, 17 January 2006). To this end, MEND launched back-to-back attacks on oil installations and abducted several dozen oil workers begin-ning in December 2005 and January–February 2006 (Watts, 2007: 637–660). One reliable source notes that within the first three months of 2006, around 29 members of the Nigerian military had been killed and US$1 billion in oil revenues had been lost due to attacks by MEND. By July 2007, ‘700,000 barrels per day were shutdown due to growing political instability and insurgent attacks’ (Watts, 2007: 637). Another source claims that beginning from January 2006 there were at least four kidnappings a month and numerous battles between the state security services and militia groups, with significant impact on world oil prices by locking 800,000 barrels per day (Omotola, 2009: 46). Some estimates point to losses of US$100 billion to the Nigerian treasury between 2003 and 2008 as a result of conflicts (Nwajiaku-Dahou, 2010). According to a ‘Report of the Technical Committee of the Niger Delta’ released in late 2008, the Nigerian government lost a staggering US$23.7 billion in oil revenues due to MEND attacks and sabotage (Joab-Peterside et al., 2012). By April 2009, crude oil exports had fallen to 1.6 million barrels per day, down from 2.6 million in 2006. Between January 2006 and summer 2009, over 400 expatriate oil worker hostages were

Page 14: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

400 Journal of Asian and African Studies 50(4)

taken (Joab-Peterside et al., 2012: 8). The increasing waves of attacks on the oil industry by MEND and the abduction of (foreign) oil workers pointed to the urgent need for a truce.

The Niger Delta Amnesty Programme: A source of hope or hopelessness?In April 2009, the idea of an amnesty for repentant militants in the Niger Delta was first mooted by the late President Yar’Adua in an escalating bid to curb relentless MEND attacks on oil facilities in the region (Omeje, 2004). In June 2009, Yar’Adua signed an offer of unconditional amnesty for militants operating in the Niger Delta (AFP, 25 June 2009). According to Ndutimi Alaibe, National Coordinator of the Amnesty Programme:

The amnesty programme was a response to security conditions in the Niger Delta at the time. It was a response by the then President to reduce fundamentally the violence that was taking place. After consultation with stakeholders, it was decided that there was a need to get the militants to lay down their weapons. That was the basis of the amnesty which was meant to stabilise, consolidate and sustain the security conditions in the Niger Delta region, as a requisite for promoting economic development in the area. (Interview, Daily Independent, June 3, 2012)

Although the Nigerian government claims to execute a ‘home grown DDR’, Joab-Peterside et al. (2012: 11) argue that ‘the Amnesty Programme draws from international standards and principles that are consistent with national context’.

The amnesty policy stated that militants who freely surrender their arms within 60 days (6 August 2009 to 4 October 2009) will not be prosecuted for the crimes committed in the process of disrupting the Nigerian oil industry. President Yar’Adua made clear that the amnesty deal was aimed at reintegrating and rehabilitating militants willing to surrender their arms into the Nigerian society (Onuoha, 2011: 52). A member of the presidential amnesty plan, Dr Timiebi Koripamo-Agary, noted that militants were expected to make their way to the nearest screening centre, turn in their arms and ammunitions, take the oath of renunciation (of armed violence) and receive presi-dential amnesty and unconditional pardon, and then register for a rehabilitation and reintegration programme (Nigerian Tribune, 11 July 2010). According to Korpamo-Agary, the disarmament and subsequent reintegration of the militants is only a first step towards bringing the urgently needed development to the Niger Delta region since there cannot be development without peace (Agbiboa, 2013). In writing about the amnesty’s objectives and deliverables, the Nigerian government identi-fied the following three phases:

(1) A disarmament phase to take place between 6 August 2009 and 4 October 2009 and to include the collection of biometric data;

(2) A demobilisation and rehabilitation phase to last six to 12 months and to include the provi-sion of, among other things, counselling and career guidance for the participants;

(3) A reintegration phase to last up to five years and to include the provision of, among other things, occupational training and microcredits for the participants (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 2011).

The DDR was a policy recommended by the Niger Delta Technical Committee (NDTC) estab-lished in 2008 by the Nigerian government to determine appropriate peacebuilding strategies in the restive region (Ibaba and Ikelegbe, 2010: 219–255). Made up of scholars and opinion leaders drawn from the region, the 40-member committee consulted widely with stakeholders, including

Page 15: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

Agbiboa 401

the combatants, before making its recommendations. In part, the policy recommendations on DDR states that the federal government should:

(1) Establish a credible and authoritative DDR institution and process, including international negotiators to plan, implement, and oversee the DDR programmes at regional, state and local government levels;

(2) Grant amnesty to all Niger Delta militants willing and ready to participate in the DDR programme;

(3) Work out long-term strategies for human capacity development and reintegration for ex-militants; and

(4) Exclude from amnesty and criminalise the activities of those militants committed to the DDR process and unwilling to surrender their arms (NDTC, 2008: 66).

In particular, state governments were required to support the rebuilding of communities destroyed by military invasion, and establish youth development centres and community demobilisation and reintegration committees to enhance reintegration and capacity-building (Ibaba, 2011). State gov-ernments were also required to provide social amenities, including health centres and schools at the site of former militant camps (NDTC, 2008).

In July 2009, a budget of N52 billion (US$145 million) was controversially announced for the amnesty deal intended for 20,192 registered militants. There was an appreciable lack of clarity about exactly how the budget was to be spent, and the proportion that was to be allocated to monthly allowances versus the proportion allocated to a broader reintegration and rehabilitation package. Former combatants who registered for the 42-month period of training, reintegration and rehabilitation in government-designated residential training centres received monthly allow-ances of N65,000 (US$413), the payment of rent, and vocational training over the same period. This was more than three times the average salary for a young public sector worker in Nigeria but just a little higher than the foot soldier salary, which stood at N50,000 (US$400) in 2006 (Nwajiaku-Dahou, 2010). However, the criteria used to establish eligibility for inclusion were largely unclear, with the numbers of intended ‘beneficiaries’ widely believed to have been inflated (Joab-Peterside et al., 2012).

The disarmament phase of the Niger Delta amnesty covered a period of 60 days. This period saw over 15,000 militants surrender their weapons at the expiry date of the Disarmament and Demobilisation phase (). Weapons surrendered to the Presidential Amnesty Committee included ‘2,760 assorted guns, 287,445 ammunitions of different calibre, 18 gun-boats, 763 dynamite sticks, 1,090 dynamite caps, 3,155 magazines and several other military accessories, such as dynamite cables, bulletproof jackets and jack-knives’ (Agbiboa, 2011; Onuoha, 2011: 52). Many militants also turned themselves in as well, albeit major militant groups like MEND viewed the amnesty with suspicion since it made less room for dialogue and it does not address the root causes that gave rise to the struggles in the first place (RFI, 12 July 2009). In an interview posted in the Daily Independent newspaper (3 June, 2012), Ndutimi Alaibe noted that ‘these militants… wanted assur-ances… Some of them went to the mundane level of committing me to take an oath with them’. The popular belief is that militants only handed in a small fraction of their arms as most of them doubted the government’s genuine commitment to the amnesty deal (Onuoha, 2011). According to the Nigerian government, some 26,000 ex-militants enrolled in the amnesty programme (Reuters, 8 October 2009; The Nation, 26 June 2011).

The demobilisation phase commenced with putting militants into camps at temporary centres with support packages to cover their basic needs and those of their families (including food, clothes, shelter and medical services). This phase also involved non-killing and non-violence

Page 16: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

402 Journal of Asian and African Studies 50(4)

transformational trainings, ending with graduation and demobilisation. According to Joab-Peterside et al. (2012: 11), ‘23,358 ex-militants have been successfully demobilised between June 2010 – December 2011’. The demobilisation phase of the DDR officially ended on 24 September 2011. The United States’ ‘Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2010’ stated that, between June and December 2009, an estimated 20,000 ex-militants had completed training pro-grammes in non-violence, in a camp in Obubra, in Cross River State (US, 8 April 2011, Sec. 1g.). According to the Special Adviser to the President of Nigeria on the Amnesty Programme, between June 2010 and May 2011, 15,434 people had participated in the training programme offered (The Nation, 26 June 2011).

The aim of the reintegration phase is to enable the ex-militants to acquire real civilian status by providing them with training that will help increase their capabilities to responsibly take control of their lives. These skills are meant to help them gain sustainable employment and income as well as reconcile with local communities. According to a statement released on 11 December 2011, 7556 ex-militants (at home and abroad) have graduated from the programme (Agbiboa, 2013). In addi-tion, the Minister of Niger Delta Affairs stated that the Ministry had organised a job fair meant to link the youths in the amnesty programme with potential employers (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 2011).

Although the amnesty has led to a lull in violence in the Niger Delta and an increase in oil pro-duction (from 700,000 barrels to 2.4 million barrels per day) since 2009, especially since President Goodluck Jonathan, a native of the Niger Delta, assumed power, this paper argues that the pro-gramme affords only a cosmetic and short-term panacea to the protracted conflict.6 Specifically, cash payouts to armed militants and proposals to give oil-bearing communities a 10 percent stake in state oil revenues fail to seriously address the underlying issues of government corruption, polit-ical sponsorship of violence and environmental degradation that continue to fuel resistance in the Niger Delta (Nwajiaku-Dahou, 2010). According to Omeje (2004), what prompted the proposal of the amnesty programme was not the environmental tragedy in the Niger Delta region but the urgent need to stem the tide of MEND’s crippling attacks on oil facilities in Nigeria, which has negatively affected the country’s oil productivity. In short, ‘the prime concern by the Nigerian state in the management of the oil conflicts in the Niger Delta has been to maximise oil revenues’ (Omeje, 2004: 425). However, recent reports from the Nigerian National Petroleum Corp show that attacks on Nigerian oil pipelines are rising again (Hinshaw, 2012; see Figure 3). In a May 2011 report, Human Rights Watch stated that despite the amnesty programme, some criminal groups and mili-tants operating in the Niger Delta have carried out ‘kidnappings, bombings and attacks on oil facilities’ (HRW, 28 May 2011). According to a human rights defender, these attacks (with particu-lar reference to the March 2010 bombing of the city of Warri, Delta State, near a meeting to debate the amnesty programme) ‘are enough to inform the whole world that the post-amnesty rehabilita-tion programme is not working’ (UN-IRIN, 2010).

The Amnesty Programme itself is bedevilled by a number of challenges. This is despite the dubious claims by the Special Adviser on the Amnesty Programme that peace, security and sustain-able development have returned to the Niger Delta and that this stems from the successful manage-ment of the post-amnesty programme (The Nation, 26 June 2011). A human rights activist cited by the United Nations Integration Regional Information Networks (IRIN) noted that ‘the rehabilita-tion centres… do not have essential equipment… the programme is failing’ (UN-IRIN, 2010). Similarly, an analyst of the International Crisis Group bemoaned the insufficient effort invested in the rehabilitation and reintegration of the Niger Delta militants (UN-IRIN, 2010). Le Monde argues that ‘a new outburst of violence should not be ruled out [in the Niger Delta] in the short or long term because the amnesty program did not resolve anything politically’ ([translation], 16 April 2011). In April 2011, an online press release by MEND stated that ‘with billions of naira spent, the

Page 17: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

Agbiboa 403

amnesty and reintegration programme… is an obvious failure, given that the initial programme objective was overlooked for political ambitions and personal interests’ (cited in PANA, 3 April 2011). At the administration level, Joab-Peterside et al. (2012: 11) draw attention to:

the slow paced process in deployment of ex-militants offshore as a result of complexities in funds transfer and immigration matters, the random emergence of groups queuing up for benefits associated with the amnesty process, a lack of adequate and specialised training centers in Nigeria, low availability of jobs after training, low level of involvement of oil and gas companies in the program and reconciling those ex-militants who have been outlawed by their communities and village and justice issues.

In an interview posted in the Daily Independent newspaper (3 July, 2012: 1–2), National Coordinator of the Amnesty Programme, Ndutimi Alaibe, noted that:

Some of the challenges facing the programme today have to do with the background of some of the militants themselves and the initial process of de-briefing. You may take them abroad, and on arrival find that the individual is not even psychologically prepared and then indulge in negative habits and in the process, they get deported. There is therefore need to properly engage the ex-militants to determine their career aspirations before re-integration. The programme has recorded fundamental success in terms of some of them who have been trained in specialised disciplines; and more can still be achieved. There are those who have graduated as pilots. Managing 26,000 ex-militants through reintegration can be very challenging. The cooperation of all stakeholders is imperative.

ConclusionAlmost four years into the amnesty programme, oil-bearing communities in the Niger Delta con-tinue to lack basic infrastructural facilities such as paved roads, pipe-borne water, and stable power supplies; unregulated oil pollution continues to lay waste to land and water – the major source of livelihood in the region. The 2011 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report bears witness to the enduring environmental problems in the Niger Delta, estimating that it would take 30 years to clean the waters of the region that once sustained fisheries (Hinshaw, 2012). Despite the fact that there is an Environmental Remediation Committee established to study the root causes of oil pollution and proffer solutions on how the region can be reintegrated,

Figure 3. More in the pipeline: Attacks on Nigerian oil pipelines are rising again after a fall during a 2009 amnesty for militants.Source: Nigerian National Petroleum Corp, The Wall Street Journal.

Page 18: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

404 Journal of Asian and African Studies 50(4)

the committee is yet to produce any report. For all the hopes it raised, Yar’Adua’s announcement of a presidential pardon is essentially conceived in this paper as a means of buying off militants and re-establishing oil and gas production in the Niger Delta without dealing with the multilay-ered causes of peacelessness in the region. This gilded pacification strategy of the Nigerian gov-ernment is untenable and sends the message to youths in the Niger Delta, nay Nigeria, that militancy promises more rewards than risks.

Moreover, the illness and subsequent death of Yar’Adua – the main architect of the amnesty – meant that little real progress was made on the reintegration and rehabilitation front. Former militants complained bitterly that promised training was either not forthcoming or ill suited to their needs. Furthermore, the allowances promised to ex-combatants were often delayed, or less than designated, or not paid to them by their commanders. As Oluwaniyi (2011: 50) writes, ‘The commanders benefitted from the largesse and state patronage while their foot soldiers were short-changed’. Many of these un(der)paid foot soldiers continue to pursue prosperity by tapping pipe-lines, even as the former kingpins profess to have left the oil-theft business. The report of a panel set up in January 2010 to review the rehabilitation aspect of the DDR reveals that about 80 percent of the budget has been used to pay the commanders of ex-militants, the managers of the pro-gramme, and the rising number of consultants, leaving just 20 percent for the rehabilitation of ex-militants. To improve ties with former Delta warlords, the Nigerian government invited the top ‘generals’, as they call themselves, for extended stays on the uppermost, executive floors of Abuja’s Hilton hotel. According to fresh reports, the Nigerian state oil company is giving US$3.8 million-a-year apiece to two former rebel leaders – General Ebikabowei ‘Boyloaf’ Victor Ben and General Ateke Tom – to have their foot soldiers guard Delta pipelines they once attacked. Another General ‘Tompolo’ Ekpumopolo, maintains a US$22.9 million-a-year (N3.614 billion) contract to do the same (Hinshaw, 2012). The recent acknowledgement that the federal government paid US$40 million in the past 12 months to four Niger Delta warlords to guard the country’s oil pipe-lines has led some to describe the amnesty as a ‘lucrative business’ rather than a ‘transformational strategy’ (Oluwaniyi, 2011: 52).

In the light of the above, it would seem that the amnesty poses serious challenges that may jeopardise the possibility of future peace, security and development, and possibly exacerbate the crisis in the Niger Delta rather than abate it. According to Dimieari Von Kemedi, a former govern-ment mediator, ‘Everybody seems to believe… that the Niger Delta problem is over. It’s just on pause. The challenge is to move from pause to stop’ (cited in Hinshaw, 2012). Despite its short-comings, especially its flawed planning and implementation, the amnesty remains a laudable pro-ject because it pursues a tactic of negotiation that promotes non-killing alternatives to intrastate conflict and paves the way for achieving sustainable peace and development. As Golda Meir, for-mer Prime Minister of Israel once remarked, ‘the only alternative to war is peace and the only road to peace is negotiations’.7

FundingThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes1. Drawing on the definition from the UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict dataset, I define armed conflict as a

contested incompatibility over government or territory between two organised parties, of which at least one is the government of a state, in which the use of armed force between the parties has resulted in at least 25 battle-related deaths in a calendar year (Buhaug, et al. 2007).

2. The two countries have a long history of disagreements over their common border, and the conflict dates back to 1954 when both countries claimed sovereignty over the temple of Preah Vihear.

Page 19: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

Agbiboa 405

3. The ‘natural resources’ that cause these problems are largely oil and hard-rock minerals – including oil, gold, coltan, diamonds, and other gemstones. Sometimes other types of resources are also implicated – notably timber (Ross, 2002). And if drugs are considered a natural resource, they too have played an important role in several conflicts.

4. The Conference agreed only to an increase from 13 percent to 17 percent.5. There were other contributory factors such as the heavily rigged and internationally condemned 2003

elections in Nigeria. Asari Dokubo, leader of the Niger Delta People’s Volunteer Force (NDPVF) has explained that he decided to go the violent way after witnessing fraud in the 2003 elections, which returned President Olusegun Obasanjo and the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to a second term of office. In his words:

I issued a statement on behalf of the IYC [of which he was then president] saying there was no election…we are fighting against a government which rigged elections, which doesn’t have the mandate of the people… the oppressed people of Nigeria will rise one day, this is only the beginning.

(IRIN, 16 July 2004)6. According to Nwajiaku-Dahou (2010: 2), the amnesty was ‘essentially a short-term strategy for taking

militants out of the creeks and minimising the potential damage they could cause around election time’.7. Remarks made during peace negotiations with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, 1977 (Shenkar, 1978).

ReferencesAcemoglu D and Robinson J (2000) Why did the West extend the franchise? Democracy, inequality, and

growth in historical perspective. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(4): 1167–1200.Acbebe, C (2012) There was a Country: A Personal History of Biafra. London: Allen Lane.Agbiboa DE (2011) The Internationalisation of an Internal Resistance: Ethnic Minority Conflicts and the

Politics of Exclusion in the Niger Delta. MA Thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal Research Space, Pietermaritzburg. Available at http://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za/xmlui/handle/10413/8283 (accessed 2 April 2013).

Agbiboa DE (2012) Between corruption and development: The political economy of state robbery in Nigeria. Journal of Business Ethics 108(3): 325–345.

Agbiboa, DE (2013) Armed Groups, Arms Proliferation and the Amnesty Program in the Niger Delta, Nigeria. Journal of Third World Studies XXX(2): 39–63.

Agbiboa DE and Maiangwa B (2012) Corruption in the underdevelopment of the Niger Delta in Nigeria. Journal of Pan African Studies 5(8): 108–132.

AFP (Agence France-Presse) (2009) Nigéria: Le president offer l’amnistie aux groups armés du delta du Niger. 25 June 2009. (RTL Info.be) Available at: www.rtl.be/info/monde/international/252566/nigeria-le-pr-sident-offre-lamnistie-aux-groupes-arm-s-du-delta-du-niger (accessed 24 June 2011).

Amnesty International (2009) Nigeria: Petroleum, Pollution and Poverty in the Niger Delta. London: Amnesty International Publication.

Amnesty International (2011) UN Confirms Massive Oil Pollution in Niger Delta. 4 August. Available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/un-confirms-massive-oil-pollution-niger-delta-2011- 08-04 (accessed 3 April 2014).

Auty, RM (1998) Resource Abundance and Economic Development: Improving the Performance of Resource-Rich Countries (WIDER Research for Action No 44), Helsinki: UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research.

Auty R and Gelb AH (2001) Political economy of resource-abundant states. In: Auty RM (ed.) Resource Abundance and Economic Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.126–144.

Ballentine K and Sherman J (eds) (2003) The Political Economy of Armed Conflicts: Beyond Greed and Grievance. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, for the International Peace Academy.

Becker GS (1968) Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy 76: 169–217.Bell C (2009) Transitional justice, interdisciplinarity and the state of the ‘field’ or ‘non-field’. International

Journal of Transitional Justice 3(1): 5–27.

Page 20: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

406 Journal of Asian and African Studies 50(4)

Berdal MR (1996) Disarmament and Demobilisation after Civil Wars (Adelphi Paper 303). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Binningsbo HM, Loyle CE, Gates S, et al. (2012) Armed conflict and post-conflict justice, 1946–2006: A dataset. Journal of Peace Research 49(5): 731–740.

Birrel, D (1972). Relative Deprivation as a Factor in Conflict in Northern Ireland. Sociological Review 20(3): 317–343.

Blattman C and Miguel E (2010) Civil war. Journal of Economic Literature 48(1): 3–57.Boix C (2003) Democracy and Redistribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Borjas G (1992) Ethnic capital and intergenerational mobility. Quarterly Journal of Economics 107(1): 123–

150.Buhaug H and Gates S (2002) The geography of civil war. Journal of Peace Research 39(4): 417–433.Buhaug H, Gates S, Hegre H, et al. (2007) Global Trends in Armed Conflict. Oslo: Centre for the Study of

Civil War, International Peace Research Institute (PRIO).Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO) (1996) Ogoni: Trials and Travails. Lagos: Civil Liberties Organisation.Collier, P and Hoeffler, A (1998) On the Economic Causes of Civil War. Oxford Economic Papers 50(4):

563–573.Collier P and Hoeffler A (2004) Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic Papers: New Series

56(4): 563–595.Collier P and Hoeffler A (2007) Unintended consequences: Does aid increase military spending? Oxford

Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 69(1): 1–27.Collier P, Hoeffler A and Rohner D (2009) Beyond greed and grievance: Feasibility and civil war. Oxford

Economic Papers 61(1): 1–27.Collier PV, Elliott VL, Hegre H, et al. (2003) Breaking the Conflict Trap. Washington, DC: Oxford University

Press for the World Bank.Cramer C (1999) Civil War is Not a Stupid Thing: Exploring Growth, Distribution and Conflict Linkages.

Working Paper No. 73. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. Available at http://mercury.soas.ac.uk/economics/workpap/adobe/wp73.pdf (accessed 20 March 2013).

Daly SZ (2012) Organisational legacies of violence: Conditions favouring insurgency onset in Colombia, 1964–1984. Journal of Peace Research 49(3): 473–491.

Davies JC (1962) Towards a theory of revolution. American Sociological Review 27(1): 5–19.De Soysa I (2002) Paradise is a bazaar? Greed, creed, and governance in civil war 1989–1999. Journal of

Peace Research 39(4): 395–416.Diamond L (1987) Issues in the constitutional design of a third Nigerian republic. African Affairs 86(343):

209–226.Doornbos M (1991) Linking the future to the past: Ethnicity and pluralism. Review of African Political

Economy 18(52): 53–65.Doyle M and Sambanis N (2000) International peacebuilding: A theoretical and quantitative analysis.

American Political Science Review 94(4): 779–801.Doyle M and Sambanis N (2006) Making War and Building Peace: United Nations Peace Operations.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Ebeku, KSA (2007) Oil, Niger Delta and the New Development Initiative: Some Reflections from Socio-

Legal Perspective. Sri Lanka Journal of International Law 19(1): 1–50.Ebeku KSA (2008) Niger Delta, development of the Niger Delta and the New Development Initiative:

Some reflections from a socio-legal perspective. Journal of Asian and African Studies 43(4): 399–425.

Elster J (2004) Closing the Books: Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eteng IA (1997) The Nigerian State, Oil Exploration and Community Interest: Issues and Perspectives. Choba: University of Port Harcourt Press.

Evans G (1994) Cooperative security and intrastate conflict. Foreign Policy 96: 1–8.Fearon JD and Laitin DD (2003) Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review

97(1): 75–90.

Page 21: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

Agbiboa 407

FEWER (Forum on Early Warning and Early Response) (2001) Conflict analysis and response definition (abridged) methodology. Available at: www.fewer.org/research/index.htm (accessed 16 March 2013).

Fox S and Hoelscher K (2012) Political order, development and social violence. Journal of Peace Research 49(3): 431–444.

Gates, S Hegre, H Jones, MP, and Strand, H (2006) Institutional Inconsistency and Political Instability: Polity Duration, 1800–2000. American Journal of Political Science 50(4): 893–908.

Goldstein JS (2011) Winning the War on War: The Decline of Armed Conflict Worldwide. New York: Dutton.Goldstone JA, Bates RH, Epstein DL, et al. (2010) A global model for forecasting political instability.

American Journal of Political Science 54(1): 190–208.Goodhand J (2003) Ending disorder and persistent poverty: A review of the linkages between war and chronic

poverty. World Development 31(3): 629–646.Gurr TR (1970) Why Men Rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Gurr TR (1993) Minorities at Risk: A Global View of Ethnopolitical Conflicts. Washington, DC: United States

Institute of Peace Press.Hall TD (2001) Ethnic conflict as a global social problem. In Ritzer G (ed.) Handbook of Social Problems: A

Comparative International Perspective. London: Sage Publications, pp.139–155.Harbom L and Wallensteen P (2009) Armed conflicts, 1946–2008. Journal of Peace Research 46(4): 577–

587.Hart G and Rudman WB (1999) New world coming: American security in the 21st century: Major themes

and implications. Phase 1 Report of the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century. Available at: www.nsssg.gov/Reports/New_World_Coming/new_world_coming.htm (accessed 12 March 2013).

Hartzell CA and Hoddie M (2007) Crafting Peace: Power Sharing Institutions and the Negotiated Settlement of Civil Wars. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Hegre, H (2002) Some Social Requisites of a Democratic Civil Peace: Democracy, Development, and Armed Conflict. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston Marriott Copley Place, Sheraton Boston and Hynes Convention Center, Boston, MA. August 29-September 1. Available at file:///C:/Users/Danny/Downloads/60b7d51a85badc31de.pdf (accessed 3 April 2014).

Hegre H and Sambanis N (2006) Sensitivity analysis of empirical results on civil war onset. Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(4): 673–680.

Hensel PR (2001) The more things change: Recognizing and responding to trends in armed conflicts. Available at: www.paulhensel.org/Research/cmps02.pdf An earlier version of this paper was presented at the conference on The study of future war and the future study of war, State College, PA, March 2001. (accessed 12 March 2013).

Hinshaw D (2012) Niger Delta Amnesty Programme fails to end militancy. The Wall Street Journal. September 4, 2012. Available at: http://nigerdeltapolitics.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/niger-delta-amnesty-program-fails-to-end-militancy/ (accessed 12 March 2013).

Hirshleifer J (1995) Anarchy and its breakdown. Journal of Political Economy 103(1): 26–52.Holsti KJ (1996) The State, War, and the State of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Homer-Dixon T (1999) Environment, Scarcity, and Violence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.HRW (Human Rights Watch) 28 May 2011. Nigeria: President should make rights a priority. Available at:

www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/05/28/nigeria-president-should-make-rights-priority (accessed 16 March 2013).

Huntington SP (2006) Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Ibaba SI and Ikelebge A (2010) Militias, pirates, and oil in the Niger Delta. In: Okumu W and Ikelegbe A

(eds) Human Security and State Crises in Africa. Pretoria: ISS, pp.219–255.Ibaba SI (2011) Amnesty and peace-building in the Niger Delta: Addressing the frustration–aggression trap.

Africana: The Niger Delta (Special Issue) 5(1): 1–34.Ibeanu O (2006) Civil Society and Conflict Management in the Niger Delta. Lagos: CLEEN Foundation.Idemudia U and Ite UE (2006) Demystifying the Niger Delta conflict: Towards an integrated explanation.

Review of African Political Economy 33(109): 391–406.

Page 22: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

408 Journal of Asian and African Studies 50(4)

Ikelegbe A (2005) The economy of conflict in the oil rich Niger Delta region of Nigeria. Nordic Journal of African Studies 14(2): 208–234.

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (2011) Nigeria: Government Amnesty Program for Niger Delta militants, particularly with respect to the movement for the emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND). NGA103789.FE. Available at: www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/50740a192.html (accessed 5 April 2013).

IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks) (16 July 2004) Nigeria self-styled rebel seeks independence for oil-producing Niger Delta. Available at: www.irinnews.org/report.asp?R…country=NIGERIA. (accessed 3 April 2014).

IRIN News (2006) Nigeria: Militants threaten to cripple oil exports if demands not met. 17 January 2006. Available at: www.irinnews.org (accessed 12 March 2013).

Jennings KM (2008) Seeing DDR from below: Challenges and dilemmas raised by the experiences of ex-combatants in Liberia’s New Security Programme. Fafo-report 03. Available at: www.fafo.no/pub/rapp/20045.pdf (accessed 12 March 2013).

Joab-Peterside S, Porter D and Watts M (2012) Rethinking conflict in the Niger Delta: Understanding conflict dynamics, justice and security. Economies of Violence Working Paper No. 26: Niger Delta. Washington DC: The United States Institute of Peace; Berkeley, CA: University of California, Institute of International Studies.

Keen D (1998) The economic functions of violence in civil wars. Adelphi Paper 320. London: International Institute of Strategic Studies.

Keen D (2003) Greedy elites, dwindling resources, alienated youths: The anatomy of protracted violence in Sierra Leone. International Politics and Society 2(3): 67–70.

Knight M and Ozerdem A (2004) Guns, camps and cash: Disarmament, demobilization and reinsertion of former combatants in transitions from war to peace. Journal of Peace Research 1(4): 499–516.

Krieger T and Meierriek D (2011) What causes terrorism. Public Choice 147(1): 3–27.Kriner M (2011) Intrastate conflict resolution: Case studies and applications for a globalized world. Global

Studies Student Papers 26: 1–84. Available at: http://digitalcommons.providence.edu/glbstudystu-dents/26 (accessed 16 February 2013).

Lederach JP (1997) Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Le Monde [Paris] (2011) Delta du Niger: l’insoluble conflict? 16 April 2011. Available at: www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2011/04/15/delta-du-niger-l-insoluble-conflict_1502612_3212.html (accessed 15 June 2011).

Lotta T and Wallensteen P (2012) Armed conflict, 1946–2011. Journal of Peace Research 49(4): 565–575, based on the UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict dataset.

Lujala P (2010) The spoils of nature: Armed civil conflict and rebel access to natural resources. Journal of Peace Research 47(1): 15–28.

McNeil ED (1959) Psychology and aggression. Journal of Conflict Resolution 3(6): 195–294.Mancini L (2005) Horizontal inequality and communal violence: Evidence from Indonesian districts. CRISE

Working Paper 22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.MOSOP (Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People) (1992) Ogoni Bill of Rights. Port Harcourt: Saros

International Publishers.Muggah, R (2009) Security and Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Dealing with Fighters in the Aftermath of War.

New York: Routledge.Murshed SM and Gates S (2006) Spatial horizontal inequality and the Maoist insurgency in Nepal. In: Kanbur

R, Venables A and Wan G (eds) Spatial Disparities in Human Development. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, pp.188–206.

Na’Allah AR (1998) Ogoni’s Agonies: Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Crisis in Nigeria. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.

NDTC (Niger Delta Technical Committee) (2008) Report of the committee established by the Nigerian gov-ernment to review the recommendations of the reports of previous commissions and committees and determine appropriate policy options for the resolution of the Niger Delta Crisis, November 2008.

Page 23: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

Agbiboa 409

Nwajiaku-Dahou K (2010) The Politics of Amnesty in the Niger Delta: Challenges Ahead. Paris, Bruxelles: Note de l’lfri.

Obi, C (2001) The Changing Forms of Identity Politics in Nigeria under Economic Adjustment: The Case of the Oil Minorities Movement of the Niger Delta. Research Report No. 119. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikaininstitutet.

Obi, CI (2008) Enter the Dragon? Chinese Oil Companies and Resistance in the Niger Delta. Review of African Political Economy 35(117): 417–434.

Obi C (2009) Nigeria’s Niger Delta: Understanding the complex drivers of violent oil-related conflict. Africa Development XXXIV (2): 103–128.

Okonta I and Douglas O (2003) Where Vultures Feast: Shell, Human Rights, and Oil in the Niger Delta. London: Verso.

Oluwaniyi OO (2011) Post-Amnesty Programme in the Niger Delta: Challenges and prospects. Conflict Trends 4: 46–54.

OMCT (World Organisation against Torture) and CLEEN (Centre for Law Enforcement and Education) (2002) Hope Betrayed? A Report on Impunity and State-Sponsored Violence in Nigeria. Lagos: OMCT & CLEEN.

Omeje K (2004) The state, conflict and evolving politics in the Niger Delta. Review of African Political Economy 31(101): 425–440.

Omotola JS (2006) The next Gulf? Oil politics, environmental apocalypse and rising tension in the Niger Delta. ACCORD Occasional Paper Series 1(3): 3–31.

Omotola S (2009) Liberation movements and rising violence in the Niger Delta: The new contentious site of oil and environmental politics. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 33(1): 36–54.

Onuoha, FC (2011) Small Arms and Light Weapons Proliferation and Human Security in Nigeria. Conflict Trends. Accord Paper 1: 50-56. http://www.accord.org.za/images/downloads/ct/ct_2011_1.pdf (accessed 3 April 2014).

Onuoha G (2009) Energy and security in the Gulf of Guinea: A Nigerian perspective. South African Journal of International Affairs 16(2): 245–264.

Osaghae EE (1995) The Ogoni uprising: Oil politics, minority agitation and the future of the Nigerian State. African Affairs 94(376): 325–344.

Osha S (2006) Birth of the Ogoni protest movement. Journal of Asian and African Studies 41(2): 13–38.Ostby G (2006) Horizontal inequalities, political environment, and civil conflict: Evidence from 55 develop-

ing countries. CRISE Working Paper, No. 28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ostby G (2008) Polarization, horizontal inequalities and violent civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research

45(2): 143–162.Ostby G, Ragnhild N and Jan KR (2009) Regional inequalities and civil conflict in 21 sub-Saharan countries,

1986–2004. International Studies Quarterly 53(2): 301–324.Oyefusi A (2008) Oil and the probability of rebel participation among youths in the Niger Delta of Nigeria.

Journal of Peace Research 45(4): 539–555.PANA (Panapress) (2011) Le MEND suspend ses attaques prévues contre les installations pétrolieres. 3

April 2011. Available at: www.panapress.com/Le-MEND-suspend-ses-attaques-prevues-contre-les-installations-petrolieres-12–767013-lang1–30-index.html (accessed 2 April 2013).

Pear TH (1950) Psychological Factors of Peace and War. London: Hutchinson.Pinker S (2011) The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. New York: Viking.Poe SC and Tate CN (1994) Repression of human rights to personal integrity in the 1980s: A global analysis.

The American Political Science Review 88(4): 860.RFI (Radio France Internationale) (2009) Le leader du MEND accepte l’amnistie présidetielle. 12 July 2009.

Available at: www.rfi.fr/actufr/articles/115/article_82617.asp (accessed 2 April 2013).Reno W (2001) How sovereignty matters: International markets and the political economy of local politics

in weak states. In: Callaghy T and Latham R (eds) Intervention and Transnationalism: Global-Local Networks of Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.197–215.

Reuters (2009) Up to 15,000 Nigerian gunmen took amnesty – govt. 8 October 2009. (ReliefWeb). Available at: http://reliefweb.int/node/328004 (accessed 4 August 2012).

Page 24: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

410 Journal of Asian and African Studies 50(4)

Reynal-Querol M (2002) Ethnicity, political systems, and civil wars. Journal of Conflict Resolution 46(3): 29–54.

Rosati JA, Carroll DJ and Roger AC (1990) A critical assessment of the power of human needs in world society. In: Burton J and Dukes F (eds) Conflict: Readings in Management and Resolution. Basingstoke: B Press, pp.156–159.

Ross M (2002) Natural resources and civil war: An overview with some policy options. Draft report prepared for conference on The Governance of Natural Resources Revenues. Sponsored by the World Bank and the Agence Française de Developpement, Paris, 9–10 December, pp. 1–40.

Ross ML (2003) Nigeria’s oil sector and the poor. Paper prepared for the UK Department for International Development (DFID) ‘Nigeria: Drivers of Change’ Programme. Available at: www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/ross/NigeriaOilpdf (accessed 12 March 2013).

Rotberg IR (2002) Failed states in a world of terror. Foreign Affairs LXXXI: 1–13.Rummel RJ (1997) Is collective violence correlated with social pluralism? Journal of Peace Research 34:

163–175.Rustad SA and Binningsbo HM (2012) A price worth fighting for? Natural resources and conflict recurrence.

Journal of Peace Research 49(4): 531–546.Shenker I (1978) Golda Meir: Peace and Arab acceptance were goals of her 5 years as premier. Available at:

www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0503.html (accessed 6 April 2013).Sherman J (2001) The Economics of War: The Intersection of Need, Creed, and Greed. A Conference Report.

Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars.Sklar R (1986) Democracy in Africa. In: Doro ME and Newell MS (eds). Governing in Black Africa. New

York: Africana. pp.111–120.Soderstrom, J (2013) The Political Consequences of Reintegration Programmes in Current Peace-building: A

Framework for Analysis. Conflict, Security and Development 13(1): 87–115.Soyinka W (1996) The Open Sore of a Continent: A Personal Narrative of the Nigerian Crisis. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.Stewart F (2003) Horizontal inequalities: A neglected dimension of development. CRISE Working Paper 1.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suberu RT (1996) Ethnic Minority Conflicts and Governance in Nigeria. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited.Tebekaemi T (1982) The Twelve Day Revolution. Benin, Nigeria: Umeh Publishers.The Jamestown Foundation (2009) Will Nigeria’s Amnesty Campaign have a lasting impact on the delta

insurgency? Terrorism Monitor 7(32). Available at: www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=35674&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=26&cHash=74043836db (accessed 16 February 2013).

The Nation (2011) Jonathan to present new vision for Amnesty Programme. 26 June 2011. Available at: www.thenationonlineeng.net/2011/index.php/news/1054-jonathan-to-present-new-vision-for-amnesty-programme.html (accessed 6 April 2013).

Toft MD (2010) Securing the Peace: The Durable Settlement of Civil Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

UNDP (2006) Niger Delta Human Development Report. Abuja: UNDP.UN-IRIN (United Nations Integrated Regional Information Networks) (2010) Nigeria: L’amnistie

dans le Delta risqué d’être mise à mal-analyse. Available at: www.irinnews.org/fr/ReportFrench.aspx?ReportID=88924 (accessed 15 March 2013).

United Nations (2000) Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration of Ex-Combatants in a Peacekeeping Environment: Principles and Guidelines. New York: United Nations.

United Nations (2006) Integrated Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration Standards (IDDRS) Framework. New York: United Nations.

United Nations Secretary-General (2005) Note to the General Assembly, AC.5/59/731. United Nations General Assembly Security Council. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Available at http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/262/03/PDF/N0526203.pdf?OpenElement

Page 25: Niger Delta Armed Conflict and the DDR Process of the ......Niger Delta without addressing the multilayered causes of peacelessness in the region. Keywords Niger Delta, armed conflict,

Agbiboa 411

United States (US) (2011) Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2010. Nigeria. New York: Department of State. Available at: www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/af/154363.htm (accessed 6 March 2013).

Uzodike UO, Allen F and Wetho A (2010) Making Nigerian federalism work: Fixing the democracy deficit. Loyola Journal of Social Sciences XXIV(2): 161–185.

Wallensteen P and Sollenberg M (2000) Armed conflict, 1989–1999. Journal of Peace Research 37(5): 635–649.

Wallensteen P and Sollenberg M (2001) Armed conflict, 1989–2000. Journal of Peace Research 38(5): 629–644.

Watts M (2007) Petrol-insurgency or criminal syndicate? Conflict and violence in the Niger Delta. Review of African Political Economy 34(114): 637–660.

Watts, M (2008) Sweet and Sour. Working Paper No. 8. Available at http://oldweb.geog.berkeley.edu/ProjectsResources/ND%20Website/NigerDelta/WP/18-Watts.pdf (accessed 3 April 2014).

Author biographyDaniel E Agbiboa is a Doctoral Scholar in the Department of International Development, University of Oxford, UK. He holds a double master’s degree in Development Studies and International Relations from University of Cambridge, UK, and the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. His research interests are in the field of corruption, security and development in sub-Saharan Africa. Email: [email protected]


Related Documents