Date Published: 01/10/10

Re-defining Nigeria’s National in World Diplomacy By Idumange John  

By any acceptable measure, Nigeria deserves to be called “Giant of Africa” by virtue of its stupendous resource endowments and population. In her 49 years of nationhood, the influence wielded by Nigeria through the instrumentality of foreign policy can better be assessed within the context of its regional and continental leadership aspirations. This ambition is the underpinning philosophy and consuming impetus for adopting the theory of four “concentric circles” as a defining parameter for Nigeria’s national interest. The inner most circles typify the defense of Nigeria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity by ensuring peace around the contiguous states. The second platform is the West African sub-region while continental Africa constitutes the plank of the third circle. Nigeria seeks to  promote peace, security and development within the context of democratic institutions. Using Africa as a launching pad, the fourth circle seeks to manage Nigeria’s multilateralism in the conduct of her foreign policy. 

Nigeria derives her foreign policy objectives from two main sources namely: the Nigerian Constitution and the actions of the leaders, which are dynamic and reflective of the policy thrust of any administration in power. Thus Section 19 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria states five foreign policy objectives. These include: 

Foreign policy objectives into core, middle range and long range objectives. Core values are the foreign policy aims that are related to the survival of the state and its citizens. The protection of the sovereign and territorial integrity of the nation and the lives and property of Nigerians at home and abroad remain the cardinal values that constitute her national interest. Middle range objectives within the framework of Nigeria’s foreign policy include such broad matters as economic development and social welfare, promotion of international cooperation, respect for fundamental rights and mutual respect among nations. On the other hand, long-range objectives are the dreams and aspirations of the state in the international system. While other objectives are subject to constant flux, core objectives are constant because they represent the national interest of the country. National interest is therefore, the core, concrete and constant objectives of a nation which translate into actions and define the relationship between independent States.

In most countries, Nigeria is represented by diplomats who have no idea of their functional responsibilities hence they cannot defend Nigeria’s national interest feverishly even in the face of brazen violations. There are serious allegations by Nigerians at home and in Diaspora that Nigeria’s foreign policy is designed to be benevolent to other nations but ruthless to fellow Nigerians. There seems to be consensus among critics that Nigeria’s foreign policy lacks internationalism and even fails on Pan-African measure. The foreign policy has historically exhibited stagnancy, political favouritism and cronyism contradiction about this foreign policy posturing. Generally, Nigerians do not even enjoy social welfare, and basic fundamental rights within the country yet Nigeria spent tens of billions of dollars to restore peace in Liberia and Sierra Leone without any tangible economic benefits to the nation. Nigeria parades a robust profile of peace keeping experience, yet peace has eluded the nation at home. 

Our false generosity abroad and penury at home are proof that we are pretending to be what we are not, because in reality we have been overstretching ourselves. Nigerian is presently making huge efforts at peace- keeping ending the twenty-year old war in the Sudan. In Africa, Nigerians suffer rejection wherever they go.  Nigeria’s were subjected to xenophobic attacks in South Africa, tortured by the Gabonese security agents, and brutalized by the Libyan Government before deportation. While it may be asserted that Nigeria’s national interest tends to promote the core values and objectives of her diplomacy in principle, there is now an urgent need to forge a more pragmatic approach to issues rather than engage in populist and unrewarding ideological loyalty and nebulous diplomatic permutations. As Nigeria progressively loses its competitive edge in Africa, the nation needs to provide a more viable framework to articulate and implement a diplomacy that positively affects the collective esteem of the people and trigger socio-economic development in a sustainable manner. 

The generally acceptable view is that national interest is a manifestation of the core values, objectives and philosophy underlying the actions of the leaders. Whereas the grundnorm provides a veritable basis for the collective actions of leaders the preferences, predilections and sentiments of leaders. There are two schools of thought on the subject matter of national interest: namely the subjectivist and the objectivists. The objectivists’ school argues that “the best interest of a state is a matter of objective reality. The subjectivists contend that what constitutes the national interest of a state depend on the preferences of the leaders, their idiosyncrasies and priorities. This national interest is inextricably wedded to the leadership of a nation. Apparently, leadership itself depends on the aggregate need disposition, ideology and perceptions of the role incumbents. 

Using Africa as the centre-piece as Nigeria’s foreign policy is rationalized on the basis that Nigeria is better positioned in Africa to identify with and defend the legitimate interest of Africa than any other nation. The assumption has been that the independence of Nigeria would be meaningless if it does not lead to the total liberation of all African States. Nigeria had wished to use her population, size and resources as advantage to contribute and facilitate the collective interest of Africa and this mandate was consummated as Nigeria’s historic mission.  While some Nigerians advocated that Nigeria should play in Africa the type of role which the USA is playing in the Organization of American States, some advocated reciprocity, since Nigeria should not be the ‘beast of burden” of all African states. 
 

The non-alignment movement was formed in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in 1962 by developing countries. The aim was to ensure that developing countries do not come under the influence of either the Western bloc or Eastern bloc. The objectives of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) include: opposition to the ideological division of the World into antagonistic power-blocs; eradication of racism and Zionism and all forms of discrimination on the basis of sex, colour, class religion or creed; elimination of all vestiges of colonialism, neocolonialism and all forms imperialism and opposition to nuclear weapons and halting the arms race. 

In theory, Nigeria has succeeded in subscribing to the objectives of NAM. In practice however, successive governments had showed some degree of inconsistency in the pursuit of the foreign policy. While it is difficult to define the national interest of Nigeria, it is even more difficult to redefine it because of the variegated diplomatic permutations and ideologies Nigeria has adopted over the years. Some foreign policy experts believe that Nigeria has no clear-cut political ideology and national interest. Part of the policy vacillation is attributable to the fact that foreign policy is inextricably linked to its domestic policy.  

Nigeria’s unhealthy domestic policy environment has narrowed down the menu of policy choices at the multilateral level. Nigeria is the 6 th greatest oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, but the State of the domestic economy and the prevailing social conditions are not desirable. Nigeria is characterized by mass poverty, grave insecurity, dilapidated economic and social infrastructure, which has triggered the forces of corruption, marginalization ethnicity and pre-bendal politics. Why would Nigeria still adopt a foreign policy principle that is restricted within the confines of Africa in this era of globalization?. The contention is that because of Nigeria’s over-concentration on African issues, Nigeria’s foreign policy outside continental Africa is vague and not anchored on principles that would confer on Nigeria robust political or economic advantage. This foreign policy leaning has vitiated Nigeria’s ability to attract foreign investment from trusted nations in Western Europe, Australia, Asia, Israel and North America. 

Nigeria’s Concentric Circle Policy within the West African sub-region needs to be complimented. A nation cannot play a super power role in outside when her citizens are plagued by insecurity, spiraling inflation, high unemployment index and macro-economic instability. Nigeria has restored peace in war torn Liberia, Liberia, Togo Sierra Leone, and restored stability in Sao Tome Principe. 

There are very strong indications that Nigeria has not adequately funded her foreign missions. Whereas this trend may be attributed to politics of funding, it is proper to state that Nigeria’s foreign policy establishment is yet to enhance sectoral legitimacy by adopting a pro-active stance in explaining the fundamental objectives to stakeholders in the Nigerian project.  The leadership appears not to have a defined role for her Diaspora citizens in terms of their participation in the economic, scientific and technological development of the nation. Perhaps, the Diaspora intelligentsia has no role to play because the Nigerian leadership has not taken any step to stem the tide of “brain drain” of the critical segment of the populace. 

During the second Republic, Shagari described Nigeria’s national interest as commitment to an Afro-centric foreign policy even though Nigeria was passive and unable to mobilize support for the OAU summit in Tripoli in 1981. The Buhari administration re-defined national interest as the development of mutual self help by states in the West African Sub region in the areas of economic development and national security. This foreign policy objective is predicated on the Concentric Circles Theory. Also, Nigeria’s active intervention in inter-African affairs and conflicts in the border wars between Mali and Burkina Faso. 

When democracy re-surfaced in 1999, Nigeria intervened in the crises in Sao Tome and Principe, Togo, Guinea Bissau and Madagascar. Nigeria also provided the largest number of troops and police officers in the UN-AU hybrid force in Darfur, which is under Nigerian command.  During the period, Nigeria through its diplomatic efforts secured debt relief in October 2005 from the London and Paris clubs. This diplomatic bold initiative has been hailed as a diplomatic triumph with the nation. This is a classic case of how good diplomacy reinforces the implementation of Nigeria’s economic development agenda. 

The first circle pertains to the defense of the territorial boundaries of Nigeria and the states that are contiguous, which would constitute a basis for the defense of West Africa and Africa. Under this paradigm African Continental interest assumes a third position while the first position goes to the defense of Nigeria and relations with the contiguous states. The Concentric Circle Theory advocates a foreign policy of reassessment, self-appraisal and defense of Nigeria’s strategic interest before West Africa and then the continent. 

Nigeria’s  foreign policy is based on three basic pillars; the concept that Nigeria is an African nation; it is part and parcel of the continent of Africa and therefore it is so completely involved in anything that pertains to that continent… we are independent in everything, but neutral in nothing that affects the destiny of Africa. The peace of Africa is the peace of Nigeria, its tribulations are our tribulations and we cannot be indifferent to its future. Nigeria demonstrated her Afro-centric diplomacy more in the area of the liberation of Africa. In 1961, Nigeria played a crucial role in the events that led to the suspension of South Africa from the Commonwealth. Nigeria made generous donations to the Special Funds of the OAU Committee. Under the Gowon administration, South Africa received robust moral and financial support. This was the era Gambari aptly described as “Naira Spraying Diplomacy”. 

During the Murtala-Obasanjo era, recognition was given to the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) led by Agostinho Neto. Nigeria liquidated British economic interest by nationalizing the British Petroleum and the Barclays Bank, over the latter’s refusal to support Zimbabwe’s independence. The Buhari regime also donated money to SWAPO and the ANC, if the role of Nigeria in Liberia, Sierra Leone and other African Countries is estimated Nigeria’s Afro-centric diplomacy still remains a constant. The Buhari administration also recognized the Polisario in Western Sahara, and the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR). It should be noted without doubt that the internal security threat compounded by religious dichotomy and over-dependence on crude oil and gas as the largest foreign exchange earner have posed intractable problems to the national interest of Nigeria.

Recently, Nigeria seems persuaded to adopt citizen-centered diplomacy in which her collective actions will be based on “reciprocal niceness”. The concept of reciprocity is conceived to have a broader meaning as it has assumed an audacious connotation, animated by the postulation that the international community should take responsibility for its actions towards Nigeria. But Nigeria’s political economy is characterized by a cocktail of negative statistics such as a rapidly declining economy, deteriorating infrastructural base, unbridled violence, poor external image and internal insecurity. Now we have added terrorism as an essential ingredient of our diplomatic menus.

The nitty-gritty of economic diplomacy is the management of Nigeria’s bilateral and multilateral economic relations to expand areas of mutually beneficial. Economic diplomacy has guided Nigeria’s external relations with African countries and this is manifest in the areas of trade, economic co-operation and technical assistance. Nigeria played invaluable role in the eradication of colonialism and apartheid in South Africa. But what economic or social dividend has the nation reaped for liberating Africa? Today, the dynamics of world diplomacy have made it imperative for Nigeria to adopt multilateralism, with the welfare of her citizens and the health of her economy as her overriding national interest. The re-definition of the Nigeria’s national interest  and the pursuance of such objectives is by far more potent in engineering change than rebranding especially of the Dora Akunyili variety.

Nigeria exhibits false generosity abroad in order to create a wrong impression that the political economy is healthy. In Africa, Nigerians suffer rejection, deportation, imprisonment and other forms of maltreatment in other countries. The Citizens Diplomacy adopted by the present administration does not seem to have changed the poor perception about the country. Most scholars have attributed this to the inability of Nigeria’s leadership to define her national interest. With the recent listing of Nigeria as a State sponsor of terrorism, most jobless youths may be recruited into Al Qaeda or Boko Haram to unleash terror domestically and internationally. This could easily happen if Already, statistics show that there are 39 Million Nigerian graduates who are unemployable. When this number is added to the recent sacks going on in the banking sector, the looming incursion of the Taliban-style terrorism can better be imagined. Nigeria’s foreign policy should now include some training in rebranding and techniques that would contain the looming danger of Al Qaeda penetration and some strange and dangerous kind of  fundamentalist movements unknown to the people.  
 

Idumange John