THE IMPACT OF CONFLICT ON HUMANITARIAN SITUATION IN NIGERIA
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Conflict was defined by Harrison (2012) as an argument between people brought on by differences in viewpoints, attitudes, understanding, interests, requirements, and, in some situations, perceptions. A fight results in argumentative conversations, physical abuse, and surely the destruction of harmony and tranquility. A quarrel can change relationships (Fang, Hipel, Kilgour 1993).
Not just between people, but also between nations, political parties, and states can there be war. If a small problem is not resolved at the right time, it could grow into a major conflict and cause rifts between nations, which would cause a great deal of unhappiness and strife. Conflicts between neighboring nations are also possible. Consider India and China as an example, or even India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan are similar to one another in terms of their cultures, faiths, climatic conditions, and eating habits, but they are frequently at conflict for unclear reasons. A battle that has grown into a major source of concern for both nations began as a result of minor disagreements between the two nations. Misunderstandings and ego conflicts are other factors that lead to conflicts. Each person sees the world differently and responds to different events in a different way (Harrison, 2012).As a result of lethal conflict and political turmoil, human suffering is at an unparalleled level. Due to conflict and bloodshed, almost 65 million people have been forced to leave their homes, and nearly 74 million are suffering from severe hunger. Although war and political violence have escalated over the past ten years, other factors are also contributing to this trend. Notwithstanding the loss of human life, many actors, including leaders, governments, and non-state armed organizations, purposefully cause harm to civilians or engage in military or political operations. With its reporting and activism, Crisis Group aims to broaden understanding of these dynamics and inform policy to reduce the human costs of conflict. The armed conflict in Syria, which started as anti-government demonstrations in March 2011 and has since escalated into a brutal war involving regional and international powers, has come to symbolize both the state of conflicts today and the difficulties facing humanitarian action, encapsulating many of the key trends and characteristics of both. As a result, even if it is just one of many internal conflicts wreaking devastation on the world, extra attention should be paid to it (Espejo, Harnden 1989).The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) reports that although there have been fewer armed conflicts globally in recent years, the number of fatalities appears to have increased significantly (in 2008, a global total of sixty-three armed conflicts resulted in 56,000 fatalities, whereas in 2014, a global total of forty-two armed conflicts resulted in 180,000 fatalities). Even with the warnings that estimating the number of combat victims is notoriously difficult and frequently contested, and that data should generally be viewed with caution, there seems to be a persuasive case that armed conflicts have become more deadly in recent years.
Malnutrition, disease, injuries, torture, harassment of certain populations’ groups, disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and forced population displacement are some of the negative effects of conflicts. Aside from the direct effects on the people affected, it is important to think about how these disasters will affect local systems: the destruction of crops and culturally significant sites, the collapse of the economic infrastructure, the closure of hospitals, etc.
As shown by the examples below, Fang, Hipel, and Kilgour (1993) emphasized that the effects of armed conflict on people and systems that are essential to their survival can take many different forms.
Large-scale relocations frequently result in sharp increases in malnutrition rates.
Almost 40% of Sierra Leone’s population was compelled to flee their homes during the five-year conflict. By the end of 1995, more than one million people were living in camps near Freetown, Bo, Kenema, Segbwema, and Daru, with hundreds of thousands more fleeing to Guinea and Liberia.
“The economic and social structure no longer exists,” Somalia, 1991. Schools are closed, communications are down, and there is no power. Everything essential to the survival of the nation has been destroyed. There are many causes for this terrible state, including insecurity, conflict between clans, and even internal strife within groups.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Although there are enormous humanitarian needs in Nigeria now as a result of the number and complexity of concurrent conflict-driven crises, the gap between those needs and the ability of humanitarian donors to meet them appears to be wider than at any other time in recent memory (Harrison, 2012). While widely considered as a positive and necessary development, the rising influence of local terrorists and armed groups poses special challenges for international humanitarian players operating in conflict zones. At the same time, a startling number of non-State armed groups may be dismissive of both conventional (i.e., Western) and traditional (i.e., humanitarian) standards and practices, rejecting what they see as the imposition of Western ideals and omitting to grant access and provide security.Governments have occasionally refused access to aid organizations for diplomatic considerations, which has had a significant negative impact on the lives of refugees and internally displaced persons. The emergence of Boko Haram in Nigeria’s northern region has resulted in an unusually high number of displaced persons, an upsurge in insurgency, and an increase in refugee camps. Humanitarian organizations are currently overburdened with duties, so they can only do as much as they can (Espejo, Harnden 1989).
Leave a Comment