Wednesday, January 27, 2010

The Challenges of Corruption

The only way corruption could be fought with success is to make the police and the judiciary more accountable to the people and not the government. In most developing countries, the two bodies are weakened by corruption too, thus making it very difficult to checkmate those that are corrupt. The politicians also compound the problem of corruption through their illicit engagements through scheming for contracts and becoming overnight contractors for contracts they do not know anything about. Africa, especially has been given bad names about corruption. But corruption is a global phenomenon. There is no country in the world where corruption does not take place. Corruption as a matter of fact is presently being redefined daily by those who have made it good for their existence. For example, in the U.S Congress, cases which would have been corruption have been redefined as 'violation of ethics' or code of conduct. If I may ask, where is the boundary between ethics and corruption? These require a much clearer clarification or explanation. As a researcher of corruption and having defined corruption based on its perpetration. It is the 'use of public or private office for personal gain or benefit. We really need to do more in the area of anti-corruption. Because those who are supposed to bear the banner of fighting corruption are themselves very corrupt. If this is the case, then how do we solve this problem which has become a monster that has refused to die? The world in general witnessing dynamism of corruption, as it unfolds daily. People are becoming more daring and they damn whatever consequences. If this is the case, it is then left for those committed to the cause to innovate a way to tame the malaise.

Dr. Etuka C. Obinwa

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Managing Corruption in Africa

Managing corruption has been very difficult from both the developed and developing countries perspectives. The problem of managing corruption has often been traced to poor dispensation of appropriate laws to reprimand those found to be corrupt. The connivance of corrupters, middlemen and corruptees also constitute a huge problem in this regard. If I may ask, when funds are looted from the developing countries treasuries, where precisely are the funds kept? If this is solved, it will be the first instance in managing corruption. Corruption in Third World countries have always been encouraged by the developed countries, through their business contacts, interests and political influence. The same people accusing Africa of corruption are sponsoring and supporting corruption in Africa. Just take a cursory look at what is going on around the world, and see how the connivance is building up, as more businesses and interests are explored/exploited in Africa, the tendency of corrupters conniving with corruptees will continue until countries start fighting corruption holistically as it used to be in the past. Where can human rights be applied in this regard, because in China people are paid not to be corrupt and also people receive the stiftest punishment when they steal public money. The same judgment should be taken on board in Africa and other developing countries. This will to an extent reduce the free-for-all looting of the public treasury for on-ward transmission to countries that are still making life very unbearable for Africans and the continent.

Dr. Etuka C. Obinwa

Sunday, October 25, 2009

M.A Terrorism and Security Summative Essay 2 (University of Reading, U.K)


Why is the United States and the West in general the target of Islamist terrorism?


One of the greatest complications in understanding the Islamists threats today derives from multiplicity of different terrorist groups we find within what has become a global social movement. The world is made up of cultural identities, ethnic, national, religious and civilisation. All these are central and they shape the alliances, antagonisms, and policies of states, no country is exempt. Islam, United States and the West have often battled militarily, and the tension has existed for hundreds of years, during which there have been many periods of peace and even harmony (Zakaria, 2001).

Until the 1950s, for example, Jews and Christians lived peaceably under Muslim rule (El Sawy, 2001). What has gone wrong in the world of Islam that explains not the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 or siege of Vienna of 1683 but the attacks on America on Sept. 11, 2001. According to Benjamin and Simon (2002), all has changed in the past few decades. To understand the roots of anti-American and the West rage by the Islamic terrorists, El Sawy (2001) points out that one needs to plumb the past 30 years of history. Islam vs. the United States and the West, history is filled with military battles between Christians and Muslims (and Jews), from the crusaders to the Colonial era to the 20th century’s intifadas and Balkan nightmare.

The Afghan War was the first successful resistance of Islam to foreign power (Huntington, 1996)
[1]. Blanchard (2004) revealed that the Afghan cum Soviet Union war left behind strong coalition of Islamist organisation intent on promoting Islam against non-Muslim forces[2]. To the United States and the Westerners generally, Afghanistan was the final decisive victory, the waterloo of Cold War (Zakaria, 2001). Also, that war left a collection of experts and experienced fighters, camps, training ground and logistical facilities which are still being put unto use against the U.S. and the West in general (Freedman, 2002).

Gold (2005) argues that the Afghan War became a civilisation war because the Islamists everywhere saw it as such and rallied against the Soviet Union. Similarly, the Gulf War (desert storm) of 1991 became a civilisation war because the West intervened militarily in an Islamic conflict (Heffelfinger, 2006; Richardson, 2006). Westerners supported the U.S. overwhelmingly; as a result, the Islamists throughout the world see that intervention as a war against them and rallied against what they was as one more instance of Western imperialism, notwithstanding the initial division between the Arab and Islamic governments over the war (Huntington, 1996). According to Sengupta and Cockburn (2007), the Arabs and other Islamists, inasmuch as Saddam Hussein might be a bloody tyrant; he is their ‘bloody tyrant’. Also, Huntington (1996) revealed that a Palestinian Professor pointed out that people cannot condemn Iraq for standing up to Western military intervention, just as the Muslims in the U.S. and the West condemned the presence of non-Islamic troops in Saudi Arabia and for the ‘desecration’ of the Islamic holy sites.

This essay will explore why the United States and the West in general are the target of Islamic terrorists. It will also highlight and discuss the goals of the Islamic terrorists and countries which have larger population of Muslims and also argue that the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq by the Americans, British and coalition forces has exacerbated the tendency for targeting them. There is also a belief that some Islamic countries abhor the U.S. and the Western ways of life, but some of them tend to cooperate with the U.S and the West when it is absolutely necessary (Richardson, 2006)
[3]. In global fight for terror, for instance, Jordan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia gives their support to an extent to America in particular and the West in general. Bin Laden declared that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq as new crusades by the U.S. and its allies (Benjamin, 2007). Also, Zakaria (2001) revealed that, that was why Ayman Al Zawahiri had criticised the population and governments of the Islamic world for failing to answer their calls to arms and for cooperating with the United States and its allies on war on terror.

Islam has adapted a religious ideology for mobilising support, and Muslim definition of the war as the West vs. Islam facilitated antagonism within the Muslim world (Blanchard, 2004). Old differences among Muslims receded in importance compared to the overriding differences between Islam, the U.S. and the West in general. The defeat of Saddam Hussein by the U.S. in 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan are still fresh in the minds of many Islamist terrorists and their animosities have been total ‘jihad’ (Hoffman, 2006). Since the terrorists’ attacks on America on Sept 11 2001, Islam has been in the spotlight through leaders such as George Bush and Tony Blair (Zakaria, 2001). The Islamic terrorists come out of a culture that reinforces their hostility, distrust and hatred of America and the West in general (El Sawy, 2001)
[4]. Some of the largest Muslim nations show little of anti-American and Western rage, when one gets to the Middle East, does the person see all the dysfunctions that people conjure up when they think about Islam (Heffelfinger, 2006)?

Also, since after the horrendous attacks by Islamic terrorists on America and much later British Subway system, the terrorist threat has become more complicated, difficult to understand and varied in any time in history. One of the greatest difficulties in comprehending the Islamic terrorists from other terrorist groups is the multiplicity of different terrorist groups and the terrain they operate from. Iraq, for example, has become an important melting point for al Qaeda and the radical Islamic jihad movement (Hoffman, 2006). No wonder that it now parades legion of Islamic terrorists that have not only political intentions of foreign power occupation but religious and ethnic undertone. The anti-Americanism and the West in general by the Islamic terrorist borders on some of issues amongst others raised by Laqueur (2003) in chapter 8, why the U.S and the West in general are hated globally?
The resentments raised for the hated of America and the West are:

As big powers they tend to disregard the legitimate interests of its smaller neighbours and other countries
They imposition of their wills intentionally or unthinkingly
The impact of their culture and economies are enormous on smaller or poor countries
Political dominance which tends to make globalisation rhetoric
Provision of regional security as a safeguard and their military strength since after the Cold War when they emerged as superpowers.

All the points highlighted and others which will be discussed later in this essay must have contributed in a significant measure to why the United States and the West in general is the target of Islamic terrorists. Also the speeches given by the U.S. officials raise the resentment for targeting the U.S. and its allies by the Islamic terrorists. For example, the US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright in her speech about US threat to bomb Iraq in 1998, stressed that:

“If we have to use force, it is because we are American. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.”

Also, Newt Gingrich, former GOP Speaker in 2002 emphasised that the US does not need allies to win the war on terror. Similarly, Dick Cheney, US Vice President, opined that after the buffing and puffing, the Europeans would fall into line.

The above three statements have something in common as they reveal distinctive voices in US foreign and defence policy and how imposing the statements are. The war by Islamic terrorists on the United States and the West in general had begun prior to 9/11 and 7/7 (Pena, 2006). Also, according to George Bush, September 11 is not only a crime but an act of war. War has been declared on both ends (Islamist terrorists vs. the U.S. and the West in general. Some issues are advanced why the antagonism exists. For example,
Booth and Dunne (2002) argue that the U.S and the West tended to believe that their institutions and values such as democracy, individual rights, the rule of law and prosperity based on economic freedom - represent universal aspirations that will ultimately be shared by people all over the world. The imposition of policy by the U.S. and the West has drawn the ire of Islamic countries in the Middle East, Asia and North Africa (Acharya, 2005).

The US President, George Bush, foreign policy termed ‘global reach’ simply reflects the dominate interests of the United States (Political Science Quarterly, 2002). Nonetheless, the occupation of Islamic lands or a secessionist movement and overthrow of certain Arab governments, and the creation of Islamic states uncorrupted by the West, became the reason why the US and the West in general are the targets of Islamic terrorism (Dershowitz, 2002). Islam is a great religion but within it are people utterly unable to make the transition to modernity that is where the problem lies, that is why Islam being the world’s major culture has problems of modernity acceptance and its antagonism of the Western way of life contributes to their jihad against the U.S. and the West in general (Booth and Dunne, 2002; Fukuyama, 2005; Huntington, 1996). Nonetheless, some Islamist terrorists completely oppose modernism, but some of them in Islamic countries have been affected by Western ideas advertently or inadvertently (Huntington, 1996; Richardson, 2006).

It is a fact that in recent years, Islam has mainly produced radical movements that rejects not only Western policy but some aspects of modernity itself and religious tolerance (Fukuyama, 2005). Freedman (2002) argues that the Islamic fundamentalists have seen their past generations with large population uprooted from their traditional villages or tribal lives in the past; and Western demoralising cultural influence as much as economic predominance. According to Laqueur (2003), it became the individual duty of every able-bodied Islamist until the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and the Haram mosque in Mecca were freed from their grip and their armies shattered and broken, until they would depart from all the lands of Islam, incapable to threaten any Muslim
[5]. Furthermore, when enemies attack Islamic lands jihad became every Islamist’s personal duty. Cases that need to be cited are the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq by not only the American and British forces but allied forces as well (Hoffman, 2006). The Islamists (jihads), who claim they fight holy war, feel that their holy lands have been polluted and taken away from them through occupation by the U.S. and the West. This is one of the major grievances of Islamic terrorists targeting the US and the West in general. Also, the pernicious America’s interference in the affairs of Muslim countries must have continuously escalated America’s and the West be targeted by Islamic terrorists (Freedman, 2002). In another vein, Benjamin (2007) argues that attacks against the United States and European nations have declined greatly. For instance, Syria has avoided targeting Westerners and its proxies, and has not attacked United States assets in the last two decades (Benjamin, 2007).

The Islamic radical Palestinian groups have made it no secret that they do not only want to liberate the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 but to destroy the state of Israel (Laqueur, 2003 and Table A) see explanation too. Israeli domination of the holy places and its unwillingness to share control with the Muslims has been a cause of deep resentment in the Muslim world and this has been a source of danger of a further spread of the conflict, for there is always the possibility that a religious madman or fanatic, not necessarily Jewish, will try to burn or bomb one of the Muslim holy places (Booth and Dunne, 2002; Laqueur, 2004; Hoffman, 2006). It is pertinent to mention that in the middle 1990s, there were few terrorists’ attacks against American and the West interests by Islamic terrorists (Richardson, 2006).

A review of wars and other contemporary conflicts show indeed a greater incidence of violence and aggression in Muslim societies than most others – including tribal and religious warfare in Africa (especially Islamic factors in Nigeria, Somalia and Sudan) (Booth and Dunne, 2002; Laqueur, 2003)
[6]. As mentioned earlier, many Muslims today habour a deep sense of humiliation and resentment over the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the bloodshed in Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, among other places; the ill treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo with other myriad reasons Islamists have for hating the US and West in general (Hoffman, 2006)[7]. This is also echoed by Kheiber (2006) that allegations of prisoner’s abuse have dogged the U.S.-led forces, the highest profile at Abu Ghraib incident was in 2004 when photographers emerged of Iraqi detainees being sexually humiliated, threatened with snarling dogs. In another light, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was the embodiment of the U.S and the West’s hostility to revolutionary Islam; America was generally perceived as the great nemesis behind the problems of the region, due to its support for Israel and many local reactionary regimes, and because it distanced itself from all causes of Liberty and freedom in the area (Hoffman, 2006)[8].

On clash of civilisation between the Islamic nations, U.S and the West, while declaring jihad on the U.S, Bin Laden in September 1996 released a series of statements that expanded the vision and goal of his self-declared conflicts with the U.S and specified his political prescriptions for reformation of Islamic societies (Blanchard, 2004). Al – Jazirah Television (11 February, 2003) revealed that Bin Laden raised the presence of the U.S troops in the Arabian peninsular as ‘one of the worst catastrophes to befall Muslims since the death of the prophet Mohammed. Bin Laden’s self –professed goal is to move, incite and mobilise the Islamic nation until it reaches a revolutionary ignition point (Al-Jazirah Television, 11 February, 2003).

Since late 2001, according to the Al-Jazirah Television (11 February, 2003), public opinion poll and media monitoring in the Middle East and broader Islamic world indicate a significant dissatisfaction with the U.S and its foreign policy tailored and imposed within many Muslim societies. According to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (called 9/11) of 22 July, 2004, all attacks on the U.S. and the West in general were in consistent with the mission statement of al-Qaeda. What propels the present Islamist was set out in a 1998 fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu-Yasir Rifa’I Ahmad Taha, Shaykh Mir Hamzah, and the (Amir of Jihad movement in Bangladesh, Fazlur. The fatwa lists three “crimes and sins” committed by the Americans:

U.S. military occupation of the Arabian Peninsula
U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people
U.S. support of Israel

Bin Laden in characterising the new crusade led by America and the West against Islam, stressed that the war is between the Islamic world and the U.S and its allies (Al-Jazirah Television, 2003). This is why many Islamist terrorists have declared jihad against the U.S. and the West in general. For instance, Zarqawi’s signature violence has been kidnapping and beheading of Westerners in Iraq, he was personally believed to have decapitated Nicholas Berg, an American businessman killed in 2004 (The Economist, 10 June, 2006). In order for the Islamists to associate and carry out holy war against the infidels interdependently, Bin Laden advised that the Islamic world should see itself as a seamless community and that Muslims were obliged to unite and defend themselves (Zakaria, 2001)
[9]. Similarly, El Sawy (2001) revealed that Bin Laden’s statement from the mid - 1990s up until now indicate that he has continued to see himself and his followers as the vanguard of an international Islamic movement primarily committed to ending U.S. and West interference in the affairs of Islamic countries (Al-Jazirah Television, 2003). According to Sengupta and Cockburn (2007), Iraq has become a catalyst for ferocious Islamic fundamentalists and has been a recruiting and radicalising factor for al-Qaeda, and it is shaping a new generation of Islamist terrorist leaders and operative. Also, the Iraqi war has greatly increased the spread of al-Qaeda ideological virus, as shown by a rising number of Islamist terrorist attacks in the past three years from London to Kabul, and from Madrid to the Red sea (Benjamin, 2007).

In the survey conducted my Independent Newspaper on Iraq, it found that the discredited claims by the U.S. and British governments about Saddam Hussein’s weapon of mass destruction, had led more young Islamist engaging in extremist activity than the invasion of Afghanistan two years previously (Sengupta and Cockburn, 2007). In the Middle East both Iran and Syria, support Palestinian rejectionist groups and from the look of things, it seems it is likely to continue (Benjamin, 2007). It is worthy to spell out some of the main types of terrorism the U.S. and the West in general faces.

The first is the familiar ethno-nationalist groups which are diverse such as the in the Basque region of Spain and Sri Lanka while the second is state-sponsored terror, for example, Iraq, Iran, Palestinian and Syria; the third and most dangerous form of terror is that of radical Islamist (Benjamin, 2007). The 9/11 debacle and a number of other conspiracies are evident. This type of terrorism possesses a desire and enigma to kill on a grand scale (Benjamin, 2007). Benjamin (2007) further argues that a large majority of Islamist terrorist groups ‘jihadists’ have demonstrated an interest in indiscriminate killing, including with weapon of mass destruction back in the early 1990s and this type of terrorists see violence in a different way than others. Richardson (2006) echoes that all kinds of terrorist organisations use revenge on the U.S. and the West in general in order to make known their primary and secondary motives; such as the hijacked TWA 847; and the storming of the Branch of Davidson Compound IN WACO, Texas. Also, at times the Islamist terrorists target the U.S and the West in general in order to obtain concessions for release of comrades imprisoned either in the country in which the incident occurs or by an ally of that country (Richardson, 2006). A case which needs to be cited is the release of 145 passengers on board flight 847 in return for Israeli’s agreement under intense pressure from America to release 766 detained Lebanese (Laqueur, 2003; 2004; Hoffman, 2006; Richardson, 2006).

[1] The cohesive gathering of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda around Afghanistan and Pakistan border has been the torn in the flesh of the U.S and Coalition forces. Bin Laden and his colleagues may have been motivated first by the desire for revenge and what they saw as justice. The U.S. and the West in general had committed great crimes and had to be punished (see Political Science Quarterly, 2002)
[2] Russia has given the U.S. great support and facilitating its gaining bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in return for tacit Western approval of its attacks on Islamic terrorists in Chechnya and their supporters in Georgia (Political Science Quarterly, 2002).
[3] Huntington (1996) ‘Clash of Civilization illumines this fact. Al-Qaeda leaders believe that regular attempts to characterize al-Qaeda’s actions and defensive and religiously motiivated will increase tolerance ofand support for their broader ideological campaign.
[4] Fanaticism can spring from misguided excess in any religion and the Muslims who kill in the name of their beliefs are not true Muslims; aggression is not a tenet of Islam but something rather condemned except on self-defense
[5] For Islamists, Israel is a symbol and catalyst of their rage, rather than the cause and the spread of Islamic terrorism globally. The US military aggression in the post-war world, especially its occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq is bound to lead to oppression and armed resistance.
[6] Islamist terrorist use religion as a camouflage to kill and cause collateral damage
[7] For the radical Islamist terrorist, killing Americans and their Western allies is essential tasks, by doing so, they have demonstrated their bona fides are the only ones determined to stand for Islam. The presence of Coalition forces in Iraq thus provides an irresistible invitation.
[8] A 1985 communiqué from a Lebanese Shi’a terrorist group of the same name declared, ‘consider ourselves a part of the world Islamic community, attacked at once by the tyrants and arrogant of the East and West, our way is one of radical combat against depravity, and America is the original root of depravity
[9] Call for holy war (jihad) by Bin Laden, is to unify the Islamic course to defeat the Western enemies who have not only occupied their lands but have polluted them.
Islamic Terrorists and their Goals

Ultimate Goals
Abu Nidal organisation; Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigade Palestinian Liberation Front (PLF); Palestinian Islamic Jihad; Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement)
Destroy Israel; establish Palestinian state
Ansar al - Islam
Evict United Sates from Iraq; Establish Islamic state
Asbat al Ansar
Establish Islamic State in Lebanon
Anum Shinrikyo
Seize power in Japan; hasten the Apocalypse
Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
Secede from Spain
Irish Republican Army and Red Irish Republican Army
Evict Britain from Northern Ireland; unite with Eire
Al-Gama al- Islamiyya (Islamic Group) and Al Jihad
Establish Islamic state in Egypt
Harakat ul Mujahidin and Jaish-e-Mohammed (Army Mohammed
Evict India from Kashmia, unite with Pakistan
Islamic Jihad Group
Establish Islamic state in Uzbekistan; reduce US influence
Jemaah Islamiya
Establish Islamic state in Indonesia
Kahane Chai (Kach)
Expand Israel
Establish Islamic states in Middle East, destroy Israel; reduce U.S influence
Al-Qaeda in Iraq (Zarqawi group)
Evict United States from Iraq; establish Islamic state
Revolutionary Organisation 7 November
Establish Marxist State in Greece
Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front
Establish Marxist state in Turkey
Source: Office of Counterterrorism, U.S Department of State (2005) “Foreign Terrorist Organisation”, Fact Sheet (11 October)

The networks of Islamic terrorists are expansive and cover many countries globally (9/11 Commission). For example, Indonesia has the largest Muslim population, followed by Pakistan and Bangladesh. Turkey, a sixth largest Muslim country in the world is a close ally of the West (Being a member of NATO). Iran, Egypt, Syria, Iraq habour virulent Islamic fundamentalists, and raw anti-Americanism seem to be everywhere. This is the land of the suicide bombers, flag-burners and fiery mullahs.

Al-Qaeda organisation seems to be waxing strong, strengthening with its leadership based either in Pakistan or the Afghanistan border. The most recent indicator of al-Qaeda’s renewed efforts to attack the U.S and the West in general, has been the ‘Heathrow plot’ in which Barot, a British Islamist who was al-Qaeda terrorist pleaded guilty on 6th November, 2006 of a botched massive lethal explosive attacks on thousands of air passengers on both sides of the Atlantic (Britain and the U.S.) (BBC 1, 6 November, 2006). The bombs made with liquid explosives and were assembled on board, and were to be used on as many as 10 U.S commercial jetliners. The plot was disrupted at its planning cycle. If Barot’s plan had succeeded, the 9/11 attacks on America would have been a child’s play. Since this incident, security checks particularly at the all the British and American international airports have been intensified. Passengers are currently not allowed to travel with any liquid in their carry-on bags.

It is important to emphasise here that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have been on the lips of those who carried out bombings in Madrid in 2005 and London in 2005 as well as on those of Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutch Islamist murderer of Theo van Gogh. Also, the February 2007 arrest of six British Islamist soldiers indicate similar the murder of van Gogh (who was first shot and then decapitated). The tactical influence that the events in Iraq have exerted on some home-grown Islamist terrorists need to be taken seriously not only by the U.S. and Britain but by Western governments in general.


In concluding, Laqueur (2003) traces with authority the roots and development of Islamist fanaticism, illuminating above all – in an analysis echoing what he sees as its truly uncompromising hatred of the West. Just like Fukuyama (2005) points out that modernity will transform Islam, Laqueur (2003) argues that modernity will transform Islamist terrorists, but until it is complete, that process will exacerbate the very forces most antagonistic to the U.S. and the West in general. The greatest national security question ever to face the United States may well be: will that transformation occur before religious fanatics acquire biological and nuclear weapons. Laqueur’s analysis is right, the United States and the West in general are in a race for their lives because of the main grievances/hatred such as American occupation of Saudi Arabia, interference in Islamic doctrine, lost of territory and Mujahidin’s belief that they could use their means to defeat conventional war and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, raised by many authors in this essay. Also, in another vein, Benjamin (2007, p. 4) points out that:

“The leading figures in the United States administration have often spoken of the terrorists’ ideology of hatred; U.S. actions have too often lent inadvertent confirmation to the terrorists’ narrative. In its most barebones formulation, that narrative holds that United States and its allies seek to occupy Muslims’ lands, steal their oil wealth and destroy their faith. Radical Islamists interpret most of the history through this prism: from the Sykes-Picot redrawing of borders in the Middle East after World War 1 to the creation of Israel to the U.S. deployment to Saudi Arabia and Invasion of Iraq in Operation Desert Storm. Radical Islamists believe moreover that the U.S. supports the autocrats of the Muslim world as a way of keeping the believers down and undermining their faith.”

Chris E. Obinwa


Al – Jazirah Television (2003) “Osama Bin Ladin’s Message to Iraq”, (11 February, 2003)

Acharya, Amitav (2005) “Civil Society, Religion and Global Government: Paradigms of Power and Persuasion, Paper presented at the International Conference 1-2 September, Canberra, Australia.

BBC 1 (2006) “Barot Pleaded Guilty” (6 November)

Benjamin, Daniel and Steven Simon (2002) “The Age of Sacred Terror”, New York: Random House.

Benjamin, Daniel (2007) “The Nature of Terrorist Threat”, Centre on United States and Europe. Brookings Institution House. Armed Service Committee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee (14 February)

Blanchard, Christopher M. (2004) “Al Qaeda: Statement and Evolving Ideology”, Congressional Research Service Report

Booth, Ken and Dunne Tim (2002) “Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order. Palgrave Macmillan Publishers, New York.

Combs, Cindy C. (2003) “Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century”, Pearson Education Inc. New Jersey, U.S.A.

Dershowitz, Alan M. (2002). “Why Terrorism works: Understanding the threat, responding to the challenges.” Publishers: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., Inc.

El Sawy, Nada (2001) “Yes, I Follow Islam, But I’m not a Terrorist”, Newsweek (15 Ocotober).

Fox News (6 March, 2007) “George Bush on Iraq”

Freedman, Lawrence (2002) “A New Type of War”, in Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order (ed.) Booth, Ken and Dunne, Tim (2002). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Fukuyama, Francis (2005) “State Building: Governance and World Order in the Twenty-First Century. Profile Books, London.

Gold, David (2005). “The Causes and Underlying Factors of Terrorism” Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security International, held from 8 – 11 March, Madrid, Spain.

Heffelfinger, Chris (2006) “The Ideological Voices of the Jihad Movement”, Terrorism Monitor. Vol. IV, Issue (14 December).

Hoffman, Bruce (2006). “Inside Terrorism” Columbia University Press: New York.

Huntington, Samuel (1996) “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order”, Simon and Schuster Publishers, UK.

Kheiber, Faleh (2006) “Is Iraq on the Brink of Civil War?” Reuters (17 October)

Laqueur, Walter(2003). “No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century. Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.

Laqueur, Walter (2004). “Voices of Terror” Reed Publishers: New York.

Office of Counter Terrorism (2005) “Foreign Terrorist Organization”, U.S Department of State, Fact Sheet (11 October).

Pena, Charles (2006) “Winning the Un-war: A New Strategy of the War on Terrorism”, Washington, DC. Potomac Books, p. 241.

Political Science Quarterly (2002) “The Terrorism is Senseless”, The Academic of Political Science, Vol. 117, no. 1 (spring, 2002).

Political Science Quarterly (2002) “A New World?”

Richardson, Louise (2006) “What the Terrorists want: Understanding the Terrorist Threat”, John Murray Publishers, London.

Sengupta, Kim and Patrick Cockburn (2007) “How the War on Terror made the World a more Terrifying place”, The Independent (28 February), pp. 1-2.

The Economist (2006) “Will it Make a Difference”, (10 June).

Zakaria, Fareed (2001) “Why They Hate Us: The Roots of Islamic Rage and what we can do about it”, Newsweek (15 October).

9/11 Commision

Terrorism and Security M.A Summative Essay (University of Reading, U.K)



What are the difficulties faced by states in producing effective structures to counter terrorism?

Terrorism today has both local and trans-state causes and costs; therefore, it requires coordination of local, state and global policy responses (Gold, 2005). The 9/11 terrorists attacks of the ‘Twin Towers’ in New York opened another phase towards taking global terrorism seriously. There has been much attention paid to the United States war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq that the world has forgotten the spread and rise of terrorism in other states especially in Africa, South America and South Asia. There is concrete evidence that the ‘threat from terrorism is real (US Congress Report, 2003). When the history of old and new terrorism are examined, it puts forward the difficulties that confront states in producing effective structures to counter terrorism. The difficulties faced by states are myriad. According to Sheffer (2005), the terrorists of today are the ones who attacked rich and poor, old and young, believers and non-believers. They did so to more effectively kill men, women and children who had done nothing to them. The new terrorism’s mode of attacks is complex and this poses difficulties to states in producing effective structures to counter them (Spencer, 2006).

The use of military force by the world powers, especially the United State to counter terrorism, has further made the terrorist to be more resistant and mindless in their modern day attacks (Laqueur, 2004). This is because they want to inflict maximum death and injury to their victims. The International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security, held in Madrid from 8 – 11 March, 2005 revealed many difficulties that confront a state in producing effective structures to counter terrorism. Because of the difficulties inherent in some states in producing effective structures to counter terrorism, with regards to intelligence and law enforcement, Australia sought closer intelligence and law enforcement cooperation with Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. This was echoed by U.S Congress Report (2003) that:

“Countering terrorism requires close cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence agencies; some terrorists will need to be brought to justice in courts, but others are dealt with by military forces or covert actions. In recent years, important steps have been taken to encourage closer cooperation between communities, but some believe terrorist acts may have been facilitated by continuing poor information exchanges between intelligence and law enforcement agencies and by blurred lines of organizational responsibility.”

Gathering information about the plans, composition, location, capabilities and objectives of terrorist groups is a difficult task for any state; therefore meeting the challenge would require different skills than were needed for normal functioning of government (U.S Congress Report, 2003). Also lack of uniform law enforcement and development of national strategy to counter terrorism is one of the difficulties which confront most states. Tunisia has a multinational and comprehensive policy in counter-terrorism.

It has been found that states that harbor terrorism such as the ‘Rogue States’ were encouraging terrorism to thrive because of poor intelligence collection and collation (Dershowitz, 2002). For example, before 9/11, lack of universal consensus between Christian and Islamic states on the legislation to counter terrorism was one of the difficulties faced by states in producing effective structures to counter terrorism. Lebanon is a classic case. Dershowitz (2002, p.31) argue that:

“Terrorism worked because those who sponsored it too often benefited from the terrorist acts. The sponsors were rewarded because the dramatic nature of the acts got our attention and brought their perceived grievances to the forefront of public consciousness.”

“The more brutal and repressive we are towards the terrorists, the more we make them martyrs to be emulated by other potential terrorists.”
(Dershowitz, 2002, P.32)

The use of military force by states to counter terrorism is still common and conceived by many developed nations such as the United Kingdom and United States. The use of military force by Pakistan to repress the people of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a problem for Pakistani government, and this constituted a problem in countering terrorism at the state level. The action of the U.S and Britain in invading Iraq buttresses the fact. Richardson (2006) pointed out that with the experience from other countries, the military cannot successfully be deployed to democracies to defeat terrorism. The post 9/11 terrorist attacks on America and the immediate action by the U.S unilaterally without the backing of other Security Council members was a mistake (Gurr and Bjorgo, 2005). This invariably cost the republican their seats in the November 2006 elections.

The problem of distinguishing the difference between terrorism and legitimate struggle against oppression by the state or colonial domination or foreign occupation is one of the difficulties the states face in producing effective structures to counter terrorism. Zimmermann (2005) argues states in the developing countries are still suffering from the consequences of the colonial administration with regard to the demarcation of their boundaries. Kashmir is a typical example. Legitimate struggle to end occupation has often being termed terrorism. For example, the former South African President, Nelson Mandela, was fighting for the liberation of Black majority from the yokes of minority whites in South Africa but he was declared a terrorist and imprisoned for 28 years, when he came out of the prison, he became a president of South Africa just like Menachem who was called a terrorist in the 1940s but later became Israeli Prime minister in late 1970s and early 1980s (Dershowitz, 2002; Richardson, 2006). Some people have been termed terrorists while fighting for illegal occupation of their countries by imperialists (Richardson, 2006). No legitimate struggle to end occupation should be labeled as ‘terrorism’, for instance the case of American occupation of Saudi Arabia and some Islamic countries testify to this.

Sheffer (2005) explains that building structures to counter terrorism by the state requires clarity of vision, unanimity of views and seriousness of purpose. After the 9/11 attacks, many states have to adopt resolution 1373 of the Security Council, in order to have the cooperation of other states globally in tackling the menace of terrorism. How many states have been able to do so, considering the clandestine and complex nature of terrorism? For instance, Yemen, for one refused to accept the formula that did not recognize the right to legitimate struggle against oppression and foreign occupation (Gunning, 2005; Sheffer, 2005). The issue of lack of consensus between states on how best to tackle the issue of terrorism is still one of the difficulties faced by states in producing effective structure in countering terrorism. It is of course when ‘terrorism’ is clearly and precisely defined that states could be able to devise or fashion structures that can counter terrorism. Presently, as mentioned earlier, there are conflicting concepts of what terrorism is and what it is not (Laqueur, 2003; 2004). Also, the idea of extreme left and right wing terrorism and the complexity of their ideologies are what most states that experience terrorism have to grapple with. This was common in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, France in 1980s, early in 1930s on Nazi movements (Laqueur, 2003), and also in Ireland (Richardson, 2006).

Richardson (2006) posits that the clash of ethnic groups and religion in most of the terrorist states such as Indonesia, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India, further escalates the occurrence of terrorist attacks. A classic example is Iraq, where ethnic and religious issues have escalated since American and British invasion. The three ethnic groups comprising the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are at each others throat daily. How on earth could Iraqi state produce effective structures to counter terrorism or should it better be put this way, could the state of Palestine with all the avalanche of terrorism ever produce effective structures to counter terrorism again the state of Israel? Or will Israel ever stop amassing the Palestinian land? This would continue to remain one of the difficulties they would be facing in producing effective structures to counter terrorism.

In another vein, Gunning (2005) argues that in Africa and the Middle East, some Muslim states have de-globalised over the last 25 years, this has catapulted the gap between rich and poor. Gunning (2005) further argued that the general effect is that inequalities will continue to leap and with time lead to more terrorist acts. Liqueur (2003) opined that structured inequalities among groups and between men and women with states have become breeding grounds for terrorism in particular and political movement generally. In addition, Liqueur (2003) confirms that conflicts, deprivation and oppression of the people by the state affect the effectiveness of producing a durable structure to counter terrorism. Hoffman (2006) echoed that within states, the groups that support and give rise to terrorist movements are relatively disadvantaged because of class, ethnic, or religious cleavages (Hoffman, 2006). For example, terrorism in 19th century Europe took it root among marginalized urban workers and some of the intelligentsia.

In another light, Rotberg (2002, p.85) argue that:

“Economic chaos and generalized neglect that is endemic to failed states can lead to regular food scarcities and widespread hunger – even to episodes of starvation and resulting international humanitarian relief efforts.

These are some of the difficulties both developing and transitional states face in producing effective structures to counter terrorism. Also, Rotberg (2002) revealed that some ruling elites have knowingly siphoned and empted the competencies of their states. It has been found that once the state capacity deteriorates and what is left is devoted largely to a few or to a favoured ethnicity or community, then there is every reason to expect less loyalty to the state on the part of the excluded and the disenfranchised (Acharya, 2005). This is why the legitimacy of the state plummets (Acharya, 2005; Rotberg, 2005). Similarly, Richardson (2006) elucidates that where a state has undermined its legitimacy by not protecting its citizens internally, very often terrorists act. In addition, Rotberg (2002) argued that within a failed state there is disorder and anarchic mentality in the use of guns and drugs that are compatible with terror.

The interception of financial resources of the terrorists by states has not been successful because the terrorists have other alternative avenues where they could obtain funds to finance their acts (Eckert, 2005).Two cases to be cited are America Versus Al Qaeda in Iraq and America versus Taliban in Afghanistan. In spite of America’s action in freezing all the money in both American and other banks, the Taliban and the insurgents in Iraq are still fighting the Americans, British and the allied forces. Nowadays, funds have been raised through other sources such as the sale of ‘opium’ and secret funding from friends and relatives. Eckert (2005) confirmed that any attempt to cut off all international funds to disadvantaged groups linked to terrorism is impossible and that policies that attempt to do so are likely to be counterproductive. Laqueur (2004) and Hoffman (2006) confirmed this. The issue of new terrorism and new threats where states are continually faced with faceless terrorist groups has made it difficult for them to produce effective structures to counter terrorism (Dershowitz, 2002). For example, in Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Lebanon, many faceless terrorist groups are emerging daily as their acts pose great concern to the states.

The difficulties faced by states in producing effective structures to counter terrorism as summarized in 9/11 Report (2003), Laqueur (2003; 2004) and Hoffman (2006) are as follows:
New terrorism and new threat
The evolving nature of the new terrorism
Over reliance on the use of military force by U.S and Britain
Lack of synergy between the security apparatus such as the police, intelligence gathering and media
dearth of funds by the state for training and capacity building to rehabilitate those that have denounced terrorism
Non-commitment the top ranking officers for combating terrorism
There is lack of coordination in information gathering. This has affected how the information on terror is collected

In order for states to surmount the difficulties they face in producing effective structures to counter terrorism, some states have liaised with countries that have the knowledge and tools, to combat terrorism (National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, 2003). Joint action on combating terrorism should ultimately create an international environment that is habitable (National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, 2003). In addition, according to Laqueur (2003), most terrorists are still sponsored and funded; therefore, denying or cutting their source (s) of funding will make a great difference in the war against terror. States should be allowed the willingness to build their capacities since all states are not economically equal (Dershowitz, 2002). States should increase the funding of the ordinary people’s project on ‘Poverty Alleviation’. Also, good monitoring is necessary in order to make sure that any fund allocated to the project is utilized judiciously; this would hopefully reduce the incidents of corruption which might arise (Abrahms, 2006).

According to Richardson (2006, p. 22):

“If we want to contain terrorism, we must first understand it.”

Modern terrorists rely heavily on internet and they use it to communicate, to proselytize, to recruit, to raise funds and to research, plan, and carry out their attacks (Richardson, 2006). This actually constitutes difficulties for states to produce effective structures to counter terrorism. Even the U.S with its enormous Information and Communication Technology (IC&T) could not detect the positioning of the terrorists when they attacked the World Trade Centre (Twin Towers) and their after. Furthermore, many states such as Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya, have sponsored terrorism abroad because they did not want to incur the risk of overtly attracting more powerful countries (Richardson, 2006). Also Richardson (2006) posits that Great Powers too supported terrorist groups abroad as a way of engaging in proxy warfare or covertly bringing about internal change in difficult countries without openly displaying their strength (Richardson, 2006). This spontaneously would be one of the difficulties in the countries to produce effective structures to counter terrorism.

Some of the causes of terrorism have often being linked to the politics of a state, religion and the advent of extremist groups (Hoffman, 2006). Therefore, drawing enough line between terrorism and other forms of political, non-political groups or violence are major difficulties faced by states in producing effective structure to counter terrorism (Laqueur, 2003; Hoffman, 2006; Richardson, 2006). The advent of extremist white supremacist citizens, militias and Christian Patriot, paramilitary groups and hate crimes in Palestine, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, and especially the U.S, encourages and facilitates the act of terrorism (Hoffman, 2006). According to Huntington (2002, p.119), Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia confirmed that:

“The greatest threat to his country was the rise of Islamic fundamentalism amongst its youth.”

In Oklahoma, U.S, 1995, due to hate crime, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Office Building and killed more than 120 people (Hoffman, 2006). This type of problem is one of the difficulties faced by states in producing effective structure to counter terrorism. States should be able to minor any type of group formation which falls out of the ambit of state control or groups that are violent in nature.

Drug trafficking has recently blurred the line of detection of terrorism by states (Hoffman, 2006). Because powerful people often back the drug traffickers up, they limit the states from producing effective structure to counter them. Afganistan, Colombia and Mexico are classic examples states that cannot control terrorism because the money realized from sale of drugs boost their economies.

In conclusion, for a state to produce effective structures to counter terrorism, terrorists and the act of terrorism need to be studied in the broader contexts of political conflict, taking into account both governing state and opposition parties and their allies in society (Schmid, 2004). It is when the states know about those that perpetrate terrorism and their cause, would they be able to produce effective structures to counter them. Also, countering terrorism requires cooperation, not only from within but also internationally. This is because the new terrorism has taken a global dimension and needs to be countered globally (U.S Congress Report, 2003). Therefore, any action taken by a state to produce effect structures to counter terrorism, will first and foremost address the root cause of terrorism. It is pertinent to tackle all manifestation of poverty, if the states presume that poverty or its allied factors are the problems they face in producing effective structures to counter terrorism. States should work devotedly to eliminate causes of frustration and deprivation, in order to settle all the major issues that could be exploited by terrorist groups (Dershowitz, 2002). See Box 1 for the summary of the findings of International Summit on the causes and underlying factors of terrorism.

Summary of the findings of International Summit on ‘the Causes and Underlying Factors of Terrorism

Findings and Summary

Poverty, per se, is not the cause of terrorism. Movements draw support from disadvantaged or marginalized groups through group leaders and activists. Extremist ideologies blending with traditional norms, social patterns and identity. Reduction of Structured inequalities. Promoting the growth of civil society. Supporting political compromise in states which marginalized groups have not yet resorted to terrorism e.g. supporting power sharing pacts and regional autonomy agreements for minorities. Providing opportunities for individual and collective disengagement from terrorism. Developing tools to increase transparency. Counter regional trans-state and cross-border terrorism by encouraging regional organizations to take the lead in counter terrorist initiatives in Africa, the Balkans and Middle East (Source: Gurr, Ted Robert and Bjorgo, 2005) “Economic Factors that Contribute to Terrorism in Social and Political Context.” International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and security (1st May).

The finding of Gurr and Bjorgo (2005) and Richardson (2006) revealed that poverty is not the cause of terrorism but has an indirect link to terrorism to an extent. This was defended by Walter (2003; 2004) and Hoffman (2006) that poverty is one of the causes of terrorism. The act of terrorism does not really discriminate between the poor and rich because if this is the case, it means there would be more terrorists in Africa which is the poorest continent than the Middle East (Richardson, 2006). According to Kofi Anna, the UN Secretary General:

“The poor of this world suffer enough; one should not in addition brand them as potential terrorists.”

Dershowitz (2002, p.25) echoes that:
“To focus on such factors as poverty, illiteracy and disenfranchisement and others all too common around our imperfect world is to fail to explain why so many groups with far greater grievances and disabilities have never resorted to terrorism.”

Terrorism has been practiced by the left as well as the right, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and atheists but no single state can lay claims to terrorism because terrorism is not limited to any part of world or confined to one religion or political ideology (Richardson, 2006). Although, some countries are committed to producing effective structures to counter terrorism but many still lack the capacity to fulfill their social responsibilities because they lack legal framework, law enforcement, intelligence or military capability to combat terrorism (National Strategy for Combating terrorism, 2003).

It is only when terrorism is acceptably defined, enforceable laws put in place and there are consensus and synergy amongst states could it be possible for states to surmount the difficulties they faced in producing effective structures to counter terrorism. Also, there should be a binding international system of law on terrorism because presently, the laws preventing the act seem to be lax. For instance, more terrorists are discharged and acquitted than are prosecuted. In spite of the rampage of terrorism this era it seem the UN have not come up with the type of law or punishment that can deter terrorism. As it looks now, it seems it is only America and Britain that have taken the war to the lion’s den. The intervention also ignited a lot of criticisms from the international community. Tony Blair was fortunate to have won his reelection than the U.S Republican Party that conceded several seats in November 2006 to the democrats because of America’s invasion of Iraq.

Chris E. Obinwa


Abrahms, Max (2006) “Why Terrorism Does not Work” International Security, Vol. 31, no.2, pp. 42-78.

Acharya, Amitav (2005) “Civil Society, Religion and Global Government: Paradigms of Power and Persuasion, Paper presented at the International Conference 1-2 September, Canberra, Australia.

Andrew, H. Kydd and Barbara, Walter (2006) “The Strategies of Terrorism”. International Security. Vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 49-80.

Dershowitz, Alan M. (2002). “Why Terrorism works: Understanding the threat, responding to the challenges.” Publishers: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., Inc.

Eckert, Sue (2005). “The Causes and Underlying Factors of Terrorism” Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security International. 8 – 11 March, Madrid, Spain.

Hoffman, Bruce (2006). “Inside Terrorism” Columbia University Press: New York.

Gold, David (2005). “The Causes and Underlying Factors of Terrorism” Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security International, held from 8 – 11 March, Madrid, Spain.

Gunning, Jeroen (2005) “The Causes and Underlying Factors of Terrorism” Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security International held from 8 – 11 March, Madrid, Spain.

Gurr, Ted Robert and Bjorgo (2005). “Economic Factors that Contribute to Terrorism in Social and Political Context.” International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and security (1st May).

Huntington, Samuel (2002). “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remarking of World Order. Simon and Schuster Inc.

Rotberg, Robert I. (2002). “The New Nature of Nation-State Failure. Washington Quarterly. Vol.25, no.3, pp. 85-96.

Rotberg, Robert I. (2003). “Africa’s Discontent: Coping with Human and Natural Disasters. World Peace Foundation. No. 33.

Schmid, Alex (2004). Framework of Conceptualizing Terrorism”. Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 16, no. 2 (April-June), pp.197 -221

Sheffer, Gabriel (2005). ) “The Causes and Underlying Factors of Terrorism” International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security International held from 8 – 11 March, Madrid, Spain.

Spencer, Alexander (2006). “Questioning the Concept of New Terrorism” Peace conflict and Development Issue, no.8 (January).

Stohl, Michael (2005). “The Causes and Underlying Factors of Terrorism” International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security International held from 8 – 11 March, Madrid, Spain.

UN Security Council (2002). “Terrorists Threats to International Peace, Security.” 4618th Meeting. Press Release SC/7522

U.S Congress Report (2003). “Intelligence to Counter Terrorism: Issues for Congress. Ed Richard Best, Jr. Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

Laqueur, Walter(2003). “No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century. Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.

Walter, Lacqueur (2004). “Voices of Terror” Reed Publishers: New York

Zimmermann, Ekkart (2005) “The Causes and Underlying Factors of Terrorism” International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security International held from 8 – 11 March, Madrid, Spain.

National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (2003)

9/11 US Commission Report (2003)

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Types of Corruption in Health Care Provision

Types of Bribery and Corruption found in Health care

1. Payment of bribe for all emergency cases

2. Collection of bribe for free immunization of infants

3. Administration of fake/adulterated drugs to patients

4. Nurses and doctors steal drugs from the dispensary

5. Doctors and nurses refer patients to their private clinics and medicine stores

6. Payment of bribe to see a doctor and to receive prescription drugs

7. Direct embezzlement of funds meant for healthcare

8. The collection of health workers salaries and paying them into the private accounts to
yield interest

9. Faking sickness by civil servants in order to collect money from the government

10. Private doctors connive with patients to claim fictitious medical allowances

11. Doctors collect money from patients in order to grant them sick leave

12. Bribe must be paid before a corpse can be deposited or taken away from the general
hospitals and the University College Hospital’s mortuaries. Due to this reason, many
poor families usually abandon the corpses of their loved ones.

Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2004

Key Practices of Bribery and Corruption in Schools

Key Practices of Bribery and Corruption observed by the Respondents, Key and area
Informants in Primary Schools, Colleges, Polytechnic, Monotechnic and University

1. Bribing lecturers, authorities to gain admission

2. Coercing female students by lecturers on sex-for-marks and the use of sex by female
students to bribe or lure the lecturers for admissions, score high and pass exams

3. Students buy gifts such as Mobile phones, sim cards, car tires and fuel for

4. The collusion of lecturers/teachers mercenaries to influence invigilators during exams

5. Compulsory sale of Handouts by lecturers to students to pass their exams

6. Bribing lecturers by students to have good grades after exams

7. Manipulation of grades and results by teachers

8. Sitting for an examination for an absentee student that is out of the country

9. Hiring of mercenaries to sit examinations on behalf of students

10. The use of mobile phones to communicate answers during examinations through text

11. Sale of bed space from its original price of N690 to N100,000, in connivance with some
lecturers and administrative staff

12. Occult students terrorize students and threaten lecturers to award them marks

13. Students are asked to contribute N20 every month for unidentified project

14. Teachers demand N5 – N10 for purchase of brooms, cane and cutlasses from pupils

15. Direct embezzlement of funds meant for infrastructure and teaching aid in schools

16. Alteration of birth dates by students in order to secure employment after graduation

17. The allocation of spots to the Vice Chancellor, lectures and staff of educational institutions

Source: Researcher’s Field Survey, 2004

Measuring corruption (Extent and Impact)

Corruption has become not only an economic and social problem, but a political and religious problem (Acha, 1993). This makes corruption a function of countries’ policy and institutional environment (Dike, 2003). Studies in corruption have started to draw identifiable indicators that are measurable (Gambetta, 2000; Berg, 2001). There is a need to measure corruption in countries based on the socio-economic and political factors. Also, measurement helps to reveal the extent of corruption so that it could be checked for the improvement. It is hoped that this research will address the measurement of the extent of corruption in education and health, of some income households in Apata, Ibadan.

Daniel Kaufman, the World Bank Institute’s global governance director, in Odious Debts (CIOB, 29 September 2004, p.1) argues that:

“Until very recently, it was virtually impossible to venture an estimate of the extent of annual corrupt transactions. Only few years ago, corruption was regarded as impossible to measure. But thanks to the explosion in measurement approaches and actual data in this field, it is now possible to estimate rough orders of magnitude.”

For instance, Rijikeghem and Weder (1997) investigated the extent to which the level of public sector salaries is linked to the amount of corruption in 28 developing countries. Similarly, the Economic Intelligence Unit (former Business International Corporation [BI]) conducted surveys of levels of corruption in different countries. They rated these countries based on data collected from a network of correspondents and analysts around the world. Its first publication covers a period 1981–83. Berg (2001) and Jain (2001) point out that Mauro (1995) may have been the first to use BI data for empirical analysis because he found a stronger impact of corruption perceptions on investment than growth. This may be because perceived corruption level is a poor indicator of true corruption.

Aina (1982, p.6) based his methodology on judgments derived from study, observations, laws and regulations, newspapers and experience:

“Hence there may be some persons who from their own experiences, would disagree with them. I would venture to add, nevertheless, that a great many people who have had working experience or intensive exposure to Nigerian bureaucracy would support my observations.”

The measurement of the extent of corruption until now is extensively theoretical and full of anecdotes, because according to Miller et al. (2001, p. 26):

“The trouble with over reliance on the anecdotes and perceptions’ approach is not just that it is insufficiently quantitative, and not just that it exaggerates the extent and importance of low-level corruption, but it fails to discriminate sufficiently.”

But Miller et al (2001), argue that official corruption statistics are less reliable because no party to the transaction has much incentive to report it. Since corruption is carried out clandestinely, there is still more information about corruption that is hidden and cannot be known. What the public read about the extent of corruption, hear and experience helps them in drawing individual judgements

However there is still difficulty in knowing the precise extent of corruption (Corey, 2004). The extent of corruption cannot be precisely measured because a large proportion of it is never detected, nor reported (Monteiro, 1966; Caiden et al. 2001; Corey, 2004).

Even if the extent of corruption were measured exactly, there would still be a problem of measuring an act which is clandestine and elusive (Miller, 2001). According to David Silverman (2002), many crimes such as embezzlement are not reported because they are not committed openly but behind closed doors. It is an act that is taken seriously only when the culprit is caught (Agedah, 1993). Hence, everyone is in the dark about the real extent of corruption (Lambsdorff, 1999). It is not only the definition of corruption that is problematic: existing literatures focus on cross-country analysis and data on corruption derived from perception indices. For instance, even bribes paid by various households to access education and health care and other social services can never be correctly measured because so far the extent of corruption has been measured so far from mainly the payer’s perspective. The researcher in the survey in Apata, Ibadan, Nigeria, was able to conduct a survey at a household level for the first time, to assess the extent of corruption on the livelihood of the income groups in education and health care services.

Therefore studying corruption has some analytical problems. Johnston and Wood (1985) identified viable collection of data as a problem, the loaded colourful rhetoric that accompanies it, the emotive nature and the fact that often there is no immediate victim. Similarly, there is conflicting empirical evidence about how the extent of corruption is measured. Caiden et al. (2001) argue that corruption cannot be measured because of its often indeterminate and conspiratorial nature. Berg (2001) and Jain (2001) posit that empirical study on corruption requires a measure for corruption as well as measures for a larger number of social, economic and political variables.

The lack of research on the links between corruption and the cost of misdirected public policies, and lack of a precise management tool, constitute a problem on how the extent of corruption is measured (Jain, 2001, p. 74). Similarly, another problem of measuring corruption according to Morse (2004, p. 133) is that:

“Those benefiting from corruption are unlikely to say so and even more unlikely to say how much they received. Those on the the ‘giving end (ie the payers) are less reticent to talk about the extent of corruption.”

In spite of the initial difficulties encountered by researchers in trying to measure the extent of corruption, there has not been a breakthrough in this regard (Gambetta, 2000; Berg, 2001; Jain, 2001). Gupta et al. (2000) were able to measure the impact of corruption on the provision of health care and education services in countries where private markets for social services were limited.

For example, see Table 4. Transparency International uses a corruption perception index [CPI] to gauge levels of corruption in countries (Lambsdorff, 1999). The objective of the CPI is to provide data on the perception of corruption in countries by applying surveys of businesspeople, risk analysts and the general public on the degree of corruption among public officials and politicians (Eigen, 2001; 2002; 2003). Every country is given a CPI score between 10 (highly clean) and 0 (highly corrupt). TI used 15 sources for data collection and collationin order to authenticate its reliability (Transparency International, 2002). The Corruption Perception Index 2001 reveals that corruption is prevalent in those countries which score less than 2, for example Bangladesh, Nigeria, Uganda, Indonesia, Kenya, Cameroon, Ukraine and Russia. According to the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index 2002, Angola, Madagascar, Paraguay were added to countries with a score of less than 2 points. Argentina, where it is perceived that corruption has greatly increased, joins Panama, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Haiti with a score of 3 or less.

Source: Transparency International, Corruption Perception Index [CPI], 2001; 2002; 2003; 2004, and 2005

Note: Haiti scored 1.5 and ranked 145 in 2004 to become the most corrupt country in the world, thus displacing Bangladesh which equally scored 1.5. Chad ranked 158 and scored 1.7 in 2005 to become the most corrupt country in the world, thus displacing Haiti and Bangladesh with 1.8 and 1.7 respectively.

The methodology used by TI to generate data used for the CPI to a large extent does not reflect thorough sampling, because the information collected was based on the perception of a few elites who did not necessarily reflect the true corruption experience. For example, the number of surveys used for countries differ, also the extent and impact of corruption varies from one country to the other. The variation in using a uniform methodolody to survey the extent and impact of corruption still poses a problem. Whatever information collected by TI may be biased.

Bribe Payers Surveys are comprehensive research conducted on bribe- paying in international trade. They examine the factors influencing corruption, unfair business practices, private and industrial sectors. The Bribe Payers Index [BPI] addresses the tendency of companies from top industrialized countries to bribe in the emerging global market (Eigen, 2002). The first ever detailed BPI was released by Transparency International in May 2002. The BPI was based on surveys conducted in 15 emerging markets by Gallup International Association on behalf of TI. The BPI was carried out in the following countries: Philippines, South Korea, Indonesia, Russia, Colombia, Nigeria, Poland, Morocco, Hungary, Argentina, Mexico, Poland, South Africa and Thailand (Lambsdorff, 2002). These countries as described by TI (2002) are among the largest emerging markets involved in trade and investment with multinational firms. From Table 5, it can be deduced that there are very high levels of bribery in developed and developing countries.

Source: Transparency International, Bribe Payers Index and Bribery in Business Sector 2004
Note: 10 .0 is perceived to be a perfect score (for example, least corrupt). It reduces as a country is perceived to have the propensity to pay bribe. This reveals heavy bribe paying by domestic firms in developing economies. TI (2002) agrees that there is a global problem of corporate bribe paying.

Also, TI claims that this study consists of reliable and credible sources that apply different methodologies in order to understand and reveal how corruption is perceived from one country to another. According to TI (2001; 2002; 2003; 2004 and 2005) for example, it used many sources and independent institutions for the surveys covering all the countries highlighted in the Corruption Perception Index (CPI). The data are based on people’s perception. Since these data were specific on interpretation of perceptions and the understanding about corruption, actual levels of corruption cannot be determined precisely. Perception may act as a guide to understand the extent (TI, 2002).

TI has used the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) over the years to inculcate a consciousness of greater accountability and transparency in many countries. That notwithstanding, according to Osuji (2004), Fredrick Galtung observed some flaws such as the CPI which focuses on receivers of bribes; questionable respondents’ base; biased sampling framework; irregular coverage of countries and disregard for conscious reform efforts of governments. How genuine is the conscious reform effort? For example, the efforts made by the Nigerian government to combat corruption through anticorruption agencies seems genuine to outsiders; but to insiders, that is Nigerians, it is not a conscious reform effort, not that the legislators and anticorruption agencies are incapacitated to function effectively, many of them are alleged to be corrupt.

Kaufman (2004, p. 1) futher argues that:

“There is a margin of error in all estimates and they should be regarded as preliminary orders of magnitude. For example, the $1,000 billion estimate of annual worldwide surveys does not include the extent of embezzlement and tainted procurement in the public sector.

For example, Berg (2001) points out that most of the current studies on corruption have concentrated more on one or more perception-based measures of corruption, which are on surveys or polls asking respondents how they perceive the level of corruption in a country. He further points out that the surveys are typically valid and truth worthy, but may not be accurate and are often imprecise. Similarly, Berg (2001), identifies problems associated with the accuracy of perception-based indices as: the perception of general corruption in a country lag behind the actual level, resulting in low sensibility to policy changes and problem that perception indices may be endogenous, for instance media coverage of published corruption ranking may influence people’s perception of corruption in the country.

Treisman (2000, p. 438) supports that:

“Its many likely determinants interrelate in complicated ways. Some can change quickly and may be caused by corruption as well as the reverse. As with other types of criminal activities, it is hard to observe directly, and so researchers must rely on surveys of corruption’s victims, the accuracy of which is often difficult to assess.”

The problem of measuring corruption is linked to the fact that the methods used by various researchers are not explicit and more so majority of them use indicators that measure the perception of corruption rather than the true level of corruption. Svensson (2005, p. 21) argues that:

“Measuring corruption across countries is a difficult task, both due to the secretive nature of corruption and the variety of forms it takes.”


The measurement of impact of corruption according to Miller (2001) is as difficult as measuring its extent. Since the mid 1970s, corruption has been the focus of increasing legions of researchers in various fields cutting across all disciplines such as Social Anthropology, Geography, Economics, Political Science, Law, History and Accountancy (Corey, 2004). In trying to understand corruption better researchers have involved themselves with cross-country analysis on professional inquiry of the impact of corruption in many countries (Gambetta, 2000; Lambsdorff, 1999).

According to Berg (2001) the methodological differences between these disciplines have markedly made it problematic for researchers to benefit from or coordinate research from other disciplines. Van Roy Edward (1971, p.10) points out that:

“The heart of the matter thus remains unclear: Corruption appears to maintain systematic stability and yet also reflects change; it seems to be both functional and dysfunctional, equilibrating and dis-equilibrating, a permanent fixture of an ongoing arrangement and transient symptom of changing times.”

Tanzi (1994), Ades and DiTella (1997), Mauro (1997), Gray and Kaufmann (1998), Klitgaard (1998) and UNDP (1997, p. 36) have shed light on the problems encountered by researchers in trying to obtain valid data on the impact of corruption with methodologies which are not transparent, because they are based on the opinions of people knowledgeable about the countries concerned. People’s perceptions are commonly used (Miller et al., 2001). For example, the World Value Service surveyed 1000 randomly selected people in each of the 40 countries in the 1980s based on their perceptions, and again in the 1990s, by asking them:

“Would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?”

Leite and Weidemann (1999) carried out a survey in 72 countries in order to measure the first variable of a country’s exports of fuels and minerals as a share of GNP. Leite and Weidemann (1999) found significant increase in the variables, which increases the level of corruption in a cross section of the countries.

Mauro (1995) analysed the effects of corruption by focusing on the relationship between investment and corruption. Mauro (1995) used Business International [BI] Index of corruption on GDP for the period between 1960 and 1985 for a cross section of 67 countries. His findings reveal that corruption lowers investment. Countries with high levels of corruption have difficulties attracting investors (Cote-Freeman, 1999). For instance, the U.S. Ambassador cautioned that corruption should be tackled in the Philippines or it would lose investors (The Strait Times, 18 July 2002).

Miller et al. (2001) used a combination of methods such as in-depth interviews, large-scale structured-interview surveys and focused-group discussions, and these were used on over three hundred participants spread widely across the regions of Ukraine, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Czech Republic. The focus group discussions were free-ranging, involving typically 6 and 12 participants and lasting between one and two hours and was loosely guided by a prepared schedule of topics. The in-depth interview was carried out in private instead of the usual round table discussion (Miller et al., 2001). The Miller et al (2001) sample covered a wide range of the public, such as ethnic minorities and members of the titular nationality living within the ethnic minority area; and nation-wide quota sample of street-level officials in health, education, social services, the police and legal services. The number of focus-group discussions commissioned was 26 with 187 participants and 136 semi-structured in-depth interviews in December 1996. In 1997 –98, 4778 fully structured interviews with representative samples of the public with another 1272 interviews were added, using a fully structured questionnaire. Miller et al (2001) interviewed about 1,307 junior officials with many of the same questions of “perception, gossip and actual experience” used in 1998 in interviewing the public.

The research reported in this thesis is the first to measure the extent and impact of corruption truly from the perspective of the real payers at household level in education and health care, not only in Ibadan, but Nigeria in general. In the light of these methodological arguments, there is a burning need for more studies that measure extent and impact.


There is commonality in all the definitions of corruption because of its condemnation. The definitions of corruption in this study centres on the notion of ethical functioning of public concern. Good organizational conduct is the sine qua non to every undertaking. The implementation of rules and regulation constitutes a problem in tackling corruption. This has often hinged on the complexity of rules and regulations. For instance, McMullan (1961) and the New Vision (31 March 2003) posit that multiplication of laws could multiply the possibilities of corruption. Similarly, Skeel and Stuntz (2002) argue that those who break laws escape from punishment because they invest in creative ways to circumvent the law.

It could be seen from what is happening daily that corruption is very widespread and has numerous impacts, not only on socio-economic but political aspects of people’s lives. It is a fact that there is diversity of opinion on what corruption is, but everyone condemns it. Although some argue that corruption is beneficial, the negative aspects far outweigh the positive aspects because of its direct consequences. Furthermore, the measurement of impact and extent of corruption is highly problematic. There is a need for more work to be done in this area, especially at the household level in developing countries.