Oil Transnational's, the State and the Spatial Contexts of Local Militancy in Nigeria.

Social instability, poor local governance, competition for economic resources and environmental degradation has taken a toll . . . . The delta today is a place of frustrated expectation and deep-rooted mistrust . . . [where] [l]ong years of neglect and conflict have fostered a siege mentality (UNDP, 2006, p. 16).

The grievances of those living in the Delta are well founded. The population suffers from environmental contamination resulting from the operations of oil companies and the oil bunkering (illegal tapping of oil pipelines) of armed groups. Oil spills and gas flaring have negatively affected agricultural land, water sources, and air quality. In return, the population has received very little from the government, which benefits from the high revenues earned from selling oil overseas. Legally, the population has no control over the oil that sits beneath their land, and no claim to the profits accrued through its sale.

The percentage of revenue received by oil-producing states has increased to 13 per cent from less than 2 per cent under military rule, but this funding goes to state coffers, with few visible signs of it being spent to improve the lives of people in local communities. Although the incidence of poverty is said to have declined since 1996 in the Delta (UNDP, 2006, p. 58), the lack of roads, the limited health care and education facilities, high unemployment, and limited future prospects underline the neglect by the state and federal governments.

While there are legitimate grievances in the Delta, not all violence can be equated with a fight for justice, development, or equitable distribution of oil revenues. The Delta has witnessed the emergence of a plethora of armed groups over the past decades. Some of these groups agitate for change in the political situation and in the distribution of resources. More often, the push is not for democratic governance or an even distribution of oil revenues, but rather a call for the right to all oil revenues for oil-producing areas. In other words, it is a claim for resource control and financial revenue to be ceded to the oil producing states where decisions about distribution can then be made, thereby taking this decision-making power out of the hands of the federal government.

Other groups merely take advantage of the lack of law and order in the area to engage in criminal activities and oil bunkering aimed at profit or territorial control. Although many groups use the legitimate problems in the Delta to justify their actions, no group has come forward with a political and economic plan of its own on how to resolve the concerns of the Delta communities. Given the difficulty in obtaining information on armed groups, as well as the fluidity with which they evolve, it is difficult to obtain an exact figure for the number of these groups active in the Delta today or accurate information about their activities.

The numbers continue to change as groups emerge, merge, or disappear. While smaller groups certainly have an impact at the local level, there are perhaps only a handful of groups large enough to affect the dynamics of the region as a whole. The most prominent group currently active in the Niger Delta is the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND). Other active groups include the Coalition for Militant Action in the Niger Delta (COMA), the Joint Revolutionary Council (JRC), the Niger Delta People’s Volunteer Force (NDPVF), and a number of cult groups, such as the Outlaws and Icelander.

Armed groups have increased their use of violent tactics over the past year in the form of kidnappings, battles with security forces, clashes with one another, and car bombs, which is a more recent tactic. Such groups are demonstrating increasingly sophisticated tactics and weaponry, raising concerns about future violence. Those groups with more purely economic motives have joined the fray by tapping into the illegal oil-bunkering trade and kidnapping international oil and construction workers for ransom.

The response of the government has been an increase in the militarization of its approach to the Delta crisis, but this strategy has not yielded the dividends intended. Instead, this heavy-handed approach seems to have spurred on the armed groups, solidified their commitment to armed struggle, encouraged recruitment, oil pipeline Vandalization, and raised public support for some of these groups.

“Those who proclaim the death of sovereignty misread the history. The nation state has a keen instinct for survival and has so far adapted to new challenges, even the challenge of globalization” (Krasner, 2001: 20). He also argues that globalization is not a new challenge or phenomena. Even though I agree that globalization is not something of today, the question that remains is whether contemporary globalization is likely to have a different impact on the nation state then that of the past? For today’s globalization distinguishes itself from that of the past in terms of rapid communication, market liberalization and the global integration of goods, services and production.

Taking the example of the European supremacy era in world trade, and its relation with the Far East, we can speak of a global trade and exchange of goods and services. This explains the difference between modern globalization and that of the past. Even though it might not be appropriated to compare the ancient world with today’s modern nation states, as we did not have independent and sovereign states then; we had independent regions. For example, China was not dependent on economical relations with Europe in the past; nor was Europe on China. But today there is an increasingly growing interdependency between them. The nation states are compelled to build relations with other states in order to sell their goods, services and develop a stronger and larger economy. So due to this interdependency we can undermine one of the three-fold capacities of a sovereign state -the absolute freedom from any external force, which shapes the conduct of the nation states. Although states are not literally forced to modify their conduct toward the international society or other states, it is in their interest to do so.

Part of the sovereignty is also the ability of a state to solve its domestic problems on its own. But since problems and threats are getting more globalized, it is almost impossible for a state to act alone and entirely independent. Taking the international crime as an example, let’s assume there is a weapon trade between two criminal organizations rooted in Germany and in The Netherlands. In order to demolish this crime network The Netherlands is dependent on the assistance of Germany and vice versa. This undermines the second notion of sovereignty, which is absolute supremacy over internal affairs within its territory.

Also seen from a philosophical point of view, there is a demising process in the sovereignty of nation state. The emergence of International Human Rights Organization, which is based on the Kantian philosophy that views the world as a community of free individuals; a community where nations and borders are no longer relevant or of any meaning.

According to this philosophy one can speak of a world, which is going toward a global civil society. It might be worth mentioning what the notion of global civil society stands for. Originally the notion of civil society referred to, or was characterized by, a social contract. “Civil society was a type of state on the