Redefining Nigeria’s Foreign Policy under President Bola Tinubu: The Challenge of a World in Crisis
INTERNATIoNAL
Bola A. Akinterinwa
Nigeria’s foreign policy under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, (PBAT), GCFR, is still evolving, especially in terms of tactical approaches: some foreign policies and principles have a non-negotiable character since the time of independence in 1960. Protection and defence of territorial integrity and political sovereignty is a desideratum. So is the Protection of the African and Black man in any part of the world a desideratum. Principles like non-alignment, Africa as centrepiece, Professor Bolaji Akinyemi’s Consultation Doctrine, Professor Ibrahim Agboola Gambari’s Foreign Policy Concentricism and Ambassador Oluyemi Adeniji’s beneficial and Constructive Concentricism, etc. have remained constant in the conduct and management of Nigeria’s foreign policy since their adoption.
One first domestic foundation of Nigeria’s foreign policy under PBAT emerged on June 1st, 2023 when he renamed some federal airports as part of efforts to ‘reform the aviation Sector.’ Reportedly, the Akure Airport became Olumuyiwa Bernard Aliu; Benin Airport became Oba Akenzua II. Dutse Airport was renamed Muhammad Nuhu Sanusi; Ebonyi Airport is now Chuba Wilberforce Okadigbo; Gombe Airport is now Brigadier Zakari Maimalari. Ibadan Airport is now Samuel Ladoke Akintola, Ilorin Airport is henceforth General Tunde Idiagbon Airport, Kaduna Airport has become Hassan Usman Katsina Airport, while the Maiduguri Airport is renamed General Muhammadu Buhari Airport.
Three points are noteworthy about the renaming of the airports: purpose, message, and effect. As regards the purpose, deductively speaking, it makes the dead a living name, it shows gratitude to the living, and reflects a semblance of national solidarity. On the message, PBAT is consciously suggesting that the private individual names are more significant than the existing geo-political names. Ibadan is the biggest city in West Africa and one of the biggest in Africa. Ibadan is greater a name than whatever any individual stands for.
Without any whiff of doubt, naming a monument or institution after noble men is to appreciate and make people seek a better understanding of the nobility. However, it is ridiculous naming a barrack or place after General Sani Abacha, knowing fully well that he destroyed Nigeria with unprecedented fantastic ill-gotten funds. PBAT has not done well by naming an airport after General Buhari. Government should stop abusing the use of ‘honour’ as the contributions of any individual should always justify an award of honour. History must not be written mid-way. In terms of impact, PBAT has already sent signals of indecency to the detriment of merit to a world already in a leadership crisis and legitimacy.
A World in Crisis and Diplomatic Illness
Nigeria’s foreign policy attitude should be more cautious than ever before towards the current world in crisis and openly fraught with daily diplomatic untruths, ‘broken tongues’ to borrow from Dr Amanze Obi of The Sun Newspapers (Nigeria). Seeking to reform the aviation sector is a very welcome development. However, PBAT must always remember that an international airport is the first reconciliation between the acceptance of a passport with visa or its rejection. The airport is a transit end for an incoming traveller and the starting point for whatever endeavour is being sought in the country of arrival. A name of an airport, especially when it is changed, necessarily compels changes by all airlines in other countries of the world. All their documents must reflect the new names. But more significantly, when foreigners begin to ask questions about the significance of the individuals after whom the airports have been named and good and justifiable reasons cannot be adduced, it means the first pillar of PBAT’s foreign policy is faulty.
More symbolic names like that of the heroic Dapchi school girl, Leah Sharibu, the only Christian among the school girls kidnapped by the Boko Haram and who refused to deny her Christianity and therefore is still kept in captivity since March 2018, merit priority. The same is true of the 20 October 2020 End SARS Protest. Names of great scholars and leading scientists, dead or living, are more historic and appropriate to be honoured. For example, bringing the person of an Awolowo down to the level of a Muhammad Buhari in the re-naming of airports is most unfortunate. Where is the parity in dignity? The issue is not that former President Buhari is not qualified to be honoured. He could, but he has just left office and we do not have access to his political governance records. This is why PBAT must be more cautious and advised to learn how to thread softly and make haste slowly in the various boulevards of diplomacy in the world. It is too early to begin to show gratitude.
Beyond the domestic level, let us begin with the crises of mistrust as revealed at the closing ceremony of the New Global Financing Pact Summit in Paris. The South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa, raised three critical issues in Africa’s relationships with the more developed countries. It is quite interesting that President BAT had the opportunity to attend the closing ceremony of the summit. First, President Ramaphosa raised the question of the Board of Directors of the multilateral institutions. As he put it, ‘the boards of directors of your multilateral institutions are not made up of independent directors they are largely internal people or shareholders, so that in itself for us it’s an important reform’ that is required. In Ramaphosa’s thinking, there is the need to reform the international financial architecture of the world, ‘because without that reform the dreams and objectives that we have to address our challenges will not be realised, and that those reforms need to touch on a whole range of issues.’
Secondly, President Ramaphosa raised the issue of distribution of the Special Drawing Rights with its set rules of either you get zero or get 34 billion. He lodged his complaints thus: ‘in our view, this is not a zero-sum game, it’s a game where we all need to be dealt with equity, in an equitable manner and there is a need for reform in that regard as well.’ More important, he said that ‘it’s important in the new era that the world is in now that there should be a good measure of equality among Sovereign Nations.’ In essence, President Ramaphosa simply wanted to underscore the point that Africa wants ‘to be key players even in the financial markets and in the MDBs’ and will no longer be prepared to be treated or seen as beggars. Africa wants to be respected as well without fear or favour.
Thirdly, and perhaps most disturbingly, President Ramaphosa raised the issue of summitry of pledged but failed commitments which the French President, Emmanuel Macron, referred to as the ‘sommet de paroles,’ that is, ‘summit of statements.’ Ramaphosa discussed the issue of $100bn which was promised in Paris and which has not been fully lived up to. For example, several countries like Germany and the United States had put forward some initiatives but which have been to no avail.
Non-fulfilment of pledges apart, the issue of vaccine availability was also raised as a more critical problem. When Africa needed badly COVID-19 vaccines in the same manner all other Member States of the international community also needed the vaccines. However, President Ramaphosa recalled when he was Chairman of the African Union and he sought vaccines for the people of Africa. As he unhappily explained it, the countries of the Northern hemisphere ‘had bought all the vaccines in the world and they were hogging them and they didn’t want to release them at the time when we needed them the most, and we felt like we were begging, and at times it felt like they were just the droppings from the table that yes, we will give you that and that, and let me tell you something that generated a lot of resentment.’
And most disappointingly, the relationship and resentment got worse when Africa wanted to manufacture its own vaccines. President Ramaphosa said: ‘we went to the WTO, there was a lot of resistance, enormous resistance, and we kept saying what is important? Life or profits by your big pharmaceutical companies and that too, I must tell you, has now generated and deepened that disappointment and resentment on our part because we felt like living in the northern hemisphere is much more important than living in the global South, and these are issues that need to be addressed.’ In fact, in an attempt for the Northern hemisphere countries to show more seriousness of purpose and as an evidence of readiness to either walk the talk or talking the walk, President Ramaphosa suggested the transformation of the Inga Dam to Inga Dam Power Station. In his thinking, 600 million people in Africa do not have electricity, and yet, they have all the resources to generate electricity, especially from the mighty Congo River. An Inga Dam power station can generate electricity to the tune of 70,000 megawatts and for, at least, 12 African countries all at once.
These observations by President Ramaphosa should be understood in the context of the declared objectives of the New Global Financial Pact which, according to President Emmanuel Macron, was to draw up a new financial order that would scale up finances and support developing countries for energy transition, poverty reduction, while respecting the sovereignty of each nation.
In this regard, if the summit would need more mobilisation and political will for redesign and implementation, as reasoned by the United Nations Secretary General, Mr Anthonio Guterres, if Mr Bill Gates has disclosed that his foundation intends to commit $7bn to Africa in the next four years to support routine immunisation in Nigeria and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative in Northern Nigeria, moving beyond a sommet de paroles to a summit of concrete actions cannot but raise the question of where the mobilisation and political will has to come from.
It is against the background of these crises of trust, largely predicated by the increasing protests against the current international financial order, that the lessons for Nigeria’s foreign policy attitude should be drawn.
Foreign Policy Attitudinal Determinants to Underscore
There is one important domestic pillar of Nigeria’s foreign policy under President BAT, which is the merger of the official and black market foreign exchange rates. This not only has the potential to reassure international investors of a stable exchange rate, but also has the likelihood of considerably influencing market rates in the West African region. Foreign policy attitude will need to defend the Naira internationally.
International development aid policies are generally fraught with hypocrisy and dishonesty of purpose. Additionally, if, as shown by President Ramaphosa, commitments had always been made but the commitments have hardly been better than chiffons de papier that are not made concrete, what really then is the need for new commitments and such sommet de paroles which President Macron is talking about? Nigeria is therefore more challenged by a world of not only diplomatic lies and illness but also a world of deepening crises to which Nigeria must evolve very appropriate foreign policy attitude based on realpolitik.
The Russo-Ukrainian imbroglio is a priori a first and most important determinant to monitor, simply because it is not simply a military war between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Ukraine, but a more complex direct war between the United States and Russia, using Ukraine as a main theatre of war. It is also a war between the European Union and Russia as clearly manifested in the various EU sanctions against Russia. And perhaps more significantly, it is also a war between the United States and the People’s Republic of China, and again, seeking to influence Sino-Russian cooperation in the conduct of the Ukrainian war.
Explained differently, the European Union and the United States have little interest in peace in Ukraine. The strategy is to weaken Russia socio-economically and militarily. The surest way is to ensure the prolongation of the war in order to create a situation of weariness for Russia. Consequently, they are not interested in any bilateral cooperation with Russia that has the potential to strengthen Russia’s military power. This is one main reason why the United States is hostile to the Russian-Chinese collaboration in whatever ramification. Besides, it cannot but be very difficult, particularly for the United States to deal with the Chinese at two different theatres of war. Already, the United States has difficult ties with China politically and economically. The status and future of Taiwan is a critical issue of disagreement between China and the United States at the political level. At the level of economic understanding, the United States has always complained about Chinese mania of trading, about the Chinese stealing its technology or intellectual property. In other words, Sino-US trade ties are hardly warm. If the United States is able to prevent a better entente between China and Russia, the better for the United States in containing China at their bilateral level of cooperation.
But most unfortunately, there is no way the United States will not continue to be challenged by the attitude of non-compromise of the Chinese regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan. China’s policy of ‘One China and Two Systems’ does not have the likelihood of being changed at the altar of any negotiations aimed at enabling the disintegration of Taiwan
Considering the significant ties between Nigeria and the United States, on the one hand, and relations between Nigeria and China, on the other hand, what should be the foreign policy attitude of Nigeria? The United States has declared its intention to sanction any country that votes or work against US foreign policy interest. Which sanction against Nigeria will be more tolerable in the future: Chinese, Russian, or United States? More specifically, should Nigeria take side in the Russian-Ukrainian war like Nigeria did under General Muhammadu Buhari?
Without doubt, Nigeria’s foreign policy position by supporting the United States and asking Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine was a very damaging strategic miscalculation because Nigeria’s relationship with both the Russian Federation and Ukraine was quite warm. Besides, the need to have Russia assist in the completion of the Ajaokuta Steel Complex as agreed to in 2019 appears to be more of strategic interest to Nigeria. Nigeria took side with the United States contrarily to Nigeria’s policy of non-alignment, which does not prohibit actual alignment with a side but which simply requires ensuring that the alignment is informed by the protection of the national interest.
In the same vein, the Chinese are currently engaged in several critical sectors of the Nigerian economy. Can Nigeria afford the luxury of being a friend to one and an enemy to the other? Can Nigeria’s foreign policy reconcile the conflicting Russo-American foreign policy interests? Should in whatever situation Nigeria take side to the detriment of Nigeria’s national interest?
In this same world of crisis and hypocrisy, dishonesty and toga of irrationalities, technology development and transfer is still a critical foreign policy issue which requires a foreign policy attitude. International transfer of technology is fraught with dirtiness of purpose. No one wants to sincerely transfer technology even when it is done within the framework of joint ventures, contractual agreements, intra- and inter-firm transfer. As we advocated in our lecture, entitled ‘Setting Development Agenda for a New Nigeria: International Technology Transfer and Foreign Policy as Instruments,’ delivered at the Lead City University, Ibadan on 23rd June, 2023, the most appropriate foreign policy agenda for PBAT ought to be that of foreign policy of a Greater Nigeria the operational foundation of which should be the establishment of a National Mega City for the development of Technology Research and Development (vide excerpts of the lecture in ThisDay of last week Sunday).
As we advocated, Nigeria must technologise in all ramifications as a counter-response to the current global efforts to recolonize Africa through a changing technology. Nigeria’s response should be an establishment of a mega city that should be located on a piece of land that is not less than 50 square kilometres. The mega city should be the epicentre for all development researches by all centres, institutes, and all departments in the universities in Nigeria. In other words, the 50-square kilometre mega city should be basically a centre of research for all known disciplines in the social, engineering, medical, space, technology studies, etc. This is what foreign policy of a Greater Nigeria under PBAT should be. By so doing, foreign policy will no longer be simply reactive as it was under President Muhammadu Buhari under whose administration foreign policy achievement is nothing more than seeking international appointments for Nigerian nationals. Foreign policy under PBAT should be very proactive and focused, and guided by the three main principles of Consultation Doctrine as espoused by Professor Bolaji Akinwande Akinyemi, Foreign Policy Concentricism as espoused by Professor Ibrahim Agboola Gambari, and Beneficial and Constructive Concentricism as espoused by Ambassador Oluyemi Adeniji. The protection and defence of Nigeria’s political sovereignty and territorial integrity is a core foreign policy interest that is already taken for granted. Thus, Nigeria’s foreign policy of a Greater Nigeria cannot but have an ultimate objective of making Nigeria second to none in Africa in all aspects of human endeavour.
