Recalling Ambassadors and Fighting Terrorism in Nigeria-U.S. Relations: The Need for Physiognomic Training 

Bola A. Akinterinwa 

Diplomacy is increasingly becoming more interesting in international relations in light of the challenges shaping the quest for a New World Order. When Professor Jean-Baptiste Duroselle of the Université de Paris theorised that ‘tout empire périra,’ that is, ‘every empire shall perish,’ he must have considered the cases of empires, like the United States under President Donald Trump, who does not appear to believe that an empire can perish or can be allowed to perish. True enough, President Trump is operating a triangular foreign policy: the US foreign policy angle, the ‘America First’ angle, and the ‘Make America Great Again’ angle.

Differentiating the traditional US foreign policy angle that underscores promotion of national security, economic vibrancy, human rights, and democracy, etc., in US foreign relations from ‘America First’ (AF) or ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA) angle which are two sides of U.S. tactical foreign policy, is necessary. AF and MAGA are tactical anti-Sino-Russian strategies. More importantly, they are essentially a response to the rising profile of China’s relationships with Africa. And true again, China is quietly working towards replacing the United States as the new global leader in international relations, but Trump is vehemently opposed to this type of development and therefore wants ambassadors that can help him

In Nigeria, there are three categories of diplomats: career, non-career or political, and academic, diplomats. We refer to academic diplomats as diplomatists, because they combine the attributes of the Vienna-defined diplomatic agents with those of an academic. Diplomatist is an old word reserved for people with a lot of wisdom. The word, however, went into désuétude mainly because monarchs did not want to accept the superiority of knowledge of anyone else. Contemporary diplomacy simply talks about a diplomat. For us, when a diplomat is able to engage more in intellection, the notion of a diplomatist cannot but naturally apply. Professors Ade Adefuye, Alaba Ogunsanwo, Akinjide Osuntokun, Tunde Adeniran, Tijjani Muhammad-Bande, Joy Ogwu, George Obiozor, etc. are diplomatists per excellence. In the same vein, notable ministerial diplomatists are Professor Akinwande Bolaji Akinyemi and Professor Ibrahim Agboola Gambari. Yusuf Maitama Tuggar, though not an academic professor may qualify may, sooner than later, also become a diplomatist. Their impact on foreign policy has been considerable, but the impact has been partly neutralised by the recall of ambassadors.

Diplomacy of Recall of Ambassadors  

Two major events occurred last week and impacted on Nigeria-U.S bilateral ties. The first is the recall of many US ambassadors in countries that are considered to be of particular concern, or countries with visa bans for their citizens, or countries that are adjudged to be of less value to the strategic calculations of the United States. Put differently, how does Donald Trump translate his vehement opposition to Chinese rise and competition with Russia into action? The use of Africa for the purposes of the translation is one of the options considered by Donald Trump.

One interesting point in the recall of Ambassadors in international relations is the rationale, especially the philosophical and environmental conditionings of a diplomatic recall. In general diplomatic practice, every need to recall an ambassador is always a pointer to, or a reflection of, dissatisfaction necessitating the need for consultation with the government of the sending State. Rather than the ambassador having to send written reports through diplomatic bags, the ambassador is often recalled, and asked to come back home to brief directly the Home Office. The purpose is to enable the giving of confidential details about the concerns at stake, and review of policy attitude, if need be. If the purpose of recall is not for confidential one-on-one briefing, it can be a manifestation of protest, in which case the recalled ambassador may not quickly return to his duty post until the subject of concern is finally resolved. Diplomatic recall can also be a resultant of an end of ambassadorial tenure in office. In fact, when an ambassador is considered to have acted in a manner that is incompatible with the status of a diplomatic agent in his host country, he can be declared a persona non grata and this can normally warrant a recall by his home country and by necessity in compliance with the demand of the receiving State. 

Besides, it is important to note that a recall is necessarily reactive in nature, and as such, it cannot but be a signal to the receiving host country that something had gone wrong and that has to be sorted out quickly to prevent any further deterioration in the bilateral ties. In the event of a diplomatic recall, a formal letter of recall is generally written to the government hosting the recalled ambassador, at least, for records purposes.

The recall of Nigeria’s ambassadors by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT) of Nigeria and the recall of US Ambassadors by President Donald Trump have some shared values and differences. In terms of intellection, it is observable that both Trump and Tinubu have some animosities vis-à-vis ambassadors. Additionally, when PBAT ordered the recall of all ambassadors of Nigeria in 2023, it was the entire ambassadorial personnel that was affected with the exemption of the Permanent Representative to the United Nations headquarters in New York. It should not be forgotten that President Muhammadu Buhari accredited 83 ambassadors in 2020 and that 41 of them were non-careerists and 42 were career ambassadors. This means that attempt was made to have a balance between the number of career and non-career appointees. 

It is also useful to understand the exemption of the Representative to the United Nations in the context of the difference in tradition of not calling a representative to an international organisation an ambassador. Accredited workers and employees in an international organisation are referred to as international functionaries. Their accredited counterparts in an embassy are called diplomats or diplomatic agents. In other words, Nigeria normaly accredits a Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Even if the Representative has an ambassadorial status, he always and normally answers the name, Permanent Representative. This is why Nigeria’s ambassador to the United States is located in Washington D.C. the U.S. political capital, as distinct from her Permanent Representative in New York. 

Thus, all ambassadors of Nigeria were recalled in 2023 by PBAT. Under normal circumstance, it is the political appointees that should have been recalled home. The careerists should not have been part of those to be recalled. However, under the pretext that both the careerists and non-careerists are appointees of the President, PBAT has indiscriminately recalled all of them. There should not be any controversy or complaint about this. However, I strongly hold a different position on the matter. Under no circumstance should the exercise of presidential power suppress the growth, the progress, and the development of career diplomats who are, more often than not, prevented from becoming ambassadors as a result of appointment of political ambassadors. Even when diplomats are compensated with the status of Ambassadors in situ, it is still not the same as serving as ambassador in a diplomatic mission. 

Whatever is the case, the mania of recalling has generally reflected Government’s appreciation of the services rendered by the recalled ambassadors, enough time for them to wind down, and return to Nigeria. For instance, in 2023, the returnees were required to take formal leave of their host government within 60 days and return to Nigeria not later than 31st October, 2023 at its latest. The instruction to return was given on August 31st, 2023.

Comparatively, the recall of U.S. ambassadors by President Trump is selective and limited. About thirty ambassadors are affected and almost half of the affected ambassadors are those accredited to Africa. Whereas, one rationale for the recall of Nigerian ambassadors, as given by Ajuri Ngelale, the presidential spokesman, was that ‘the president is determined to ensure that world-class efficiency and quality, will henceforth, characterise foreign and domestic service delivery to citizens, residents and prospective visitors alike.’ This is a good foreign policy determination that also raises one fundamental question: how can one ensure a world-class efficiency and quality in both foreign and domestic service delivery to people when the recalling of ambassadors was not immediately followed by replacement? In the words of Foreign Minister Yusuf Maitama Tuggar, ‘Ambassadors as representatives of the country serve at the behest of the President and it’s his prerogative to send or recall them from any country.’ This means that no one can legally challenge PBAT. This is one area that Nigeria under PBAT may be different from the U.S. of Donald Trump.

As noted earlier on President Trump’s recall, no rationale was given per se. However, from a deductive analytical approach, there are countries with which Donald Trump has not been comfortable, especially in terms of their being perceived as obstacles to Trump’s transactional foreign policy, as well as to the objectives of AF and MAGA. In this regard, President Trump rightly or wrongly, believes that some US Ambassadors are not doing enough to suppress the rising profile of China in their host countries and, therefore, they should be recalled. Those recalled are U.S. diplomatic careerists serving in Africa, the terra cognita of strategic mineral resources. Besides, Donald Trump and PBAT do not believe much in the goodness of ambassadors. They both prefer personal diplomacy, which is good in itself, but not good enough to replace the professional diplomatic functions and finesse of an Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary ambassador. Personal diplomacy can complement but not replace. This was one diplomatic myopia and virus that PBAT first acquired by not giving priority of attention to the appointment of new ambassadors when he recalled all career and non-career ambassadors of Nigeria in 2023. PBAT is currently addressing the intellection myopia by naming ambassadors-designate to replace all the Muhammadu Buhari-accredited ambassadors. On the contrary, Donald Trump is recalling his own ambassadors. To fight the Chinese or the terrorists?

Fighting Terrorism and Need for Physiognomic Training 

For example, in his assessment of Donald Trump’s recall of some US ambassadors, Cameron Hudson, a former US official working on Africa, has it that President Trump feels that ‘he doesn’t need ambassadors, because he’s managing these relationships, even with 54 African countries, himself. So if he’s not personally engaged, then that country doesn’t merit his engagement. If he is personally engaged, then why does he need an ambassador?’ (Vide Daphne Psaledakis and Simon Lewis, “Trump’s recall of ambassadors compounds staffing problems at posts in Africa,” Reuters, December 24, 2025, 7:01 GMT + 1). What a good logic?

Is this not part of the considerations of why many world leaders now prefer unilateral versus collective bilateralism in their relationships with Africa? Japan, as one sovereign State, holds a summit with 54 sovereign States in Africa. This is still considered a bilateral relationship since the whole of Africa is speaking with one voice as a united states of Africa or continent? One illustration is that of the Franco-African summits which are generally held in rotation in France and Africa. When the summit is held in one Francophone country one year, it will be the turn of France nest and then the turn of another Francophone country when it is the turn of Africa to host the summit. Today, the Franco-African summit is no longer limited to the Francophone countries. Non-Francophones have joined. In fact, it has been replicated in different formats. We now talk more about Russia-Africa, China-Africa, Great Britain and Africa, even Turkiye-Africa, summits. 

As theoretically controversial as the Trumpian belief of being a better partner of Africa may be, the visible praxis still justifies the belief. Apart from enabling the peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda and showing willingness to engage in a guns-a-blazing intervention to stop Christian genocide in Nigeria there is not much of any serious development commitment towards Africa by President Trump in spite of the collaboration in fighting terror in Sokoto and the reasons are not far-fetched. First, US influence in Africa, which started to decline under President Joe Biden, was not helped by Donald Trump’s administration under whom the US military base in Niger Republic has been declared unwanted. In the absence of the United States, Chinese business domination has replaced US influence in the AES (Alliance des États du Sahel) countries.

Without any whiff of doubt, Donald Trump is openly promoting a sort of new white rule in the mania of Ronald Reagan’s constructive engagement by alleging that the South African government is engaging in genocide against the white South Africans who are asking for a separate autonomy within South Africa. This strategy appears to provide a legitimate basis for US intervention in South Africa in the foreseeable future. 

And perhaps more interestingly, Trump has recalled US ambassador to Nigeria while reportedly still collaborating with the Government of Nigeria to fight terror in Sokoto in Nigeria. Has the US ambassador been promoting excessive friendliness in Nigeria-U.S. bilateral relations to the detriment of Donald Trump’s transactional foreign policy strategy? Has the Ambassador done something wrong to Nigeria that might have prompted the need for his expulsion in the event such a deal is uncovered, and therefore, in the spirit of prevention is always better than cure, recalling will be better than allowing expulsion by Nigeria to take place? 

Answers to these questions are not easy but they raise the urgent need for the National University Commission to enable the teaching of physiognomy within the framework of degree programmes in international relations in Nigerian universities. Physiognomy is the art of studying the facial features in relationship to the character of a given individual in the mania of reading my lips to understand the direction of one’s thoughts. Even though the extent of its scientificity is still arguable, there is no disputing the fact that it has been quite useful in textual analyses. The teaching of international relations in Nigeria therefore requires greater emphasis on understanding more about diplomatic practice.

The art of diplomatic negotiations, engagement in rapporteuring, training in language translation and interpretation, basic knowledge in dress diplomacy, food diplomacy, conference diplomacy, how to correctly observe protocol and not duly observing all protocols in the Nigerian mania, in fact, understanding protocol and etiquette, etc., are a desideratum for whoever is interested in international relations. It is on this basis of education in diplomatic practice that one can, without fear, comprehend the dynamics of recalling of ambassadors by PBAT and Donald Trump. This is why we want to specially commend the Management of the Achievers University, Owo, for establishing an Institute of Diplomatic Practice, Culture, and Language Development (IDPCLD) to address the foregoing challenges. The IDPCLD is offering courses on the foregoing various aspects of foreign policy and diplomatic practice with effect from January 2026. Promotion of better knowledge in diplomatic practice at the general public level can be quite useful in intelligence gathering for the purposes of fighting terror.

In other words, fighting terrorism goes beyond the use of kinetic means. Physiognomy-driven intelligence gathering can be more critical. In the eyes of many observers, there is a sort of political lull between PBAT and Donald Trump. The collaboration between the two as regards the US missile strike on terrorists in Sokoto clearly suggests that such belief in a political lull needs a rethinking.

And perhaps more interestingly, if not more disturbingly, President Trump appears to have now acquired PBAT’s political virus, the development and spread of which has an implication that can be threatening to life survival like a cerebral thrombosis in a blood vessel. Trump wants to use Africa as a theatre for war against China but the mania of the war is still ill-defined and unknown. Can Trump be able to carry PBAT along in the use of Africa as an instrument of cold war against China? 

Put differently, there is no longer any need disputing the fact of Africa being a beautiful damsel that every big power wants to court. As noted earlier, Africa is a terra cognita for various strategic mineral resources that every major power wants to exploit for its own economic development. The cases of the United States and the Chinese are particularly noteworthy. While the Chinese are presenting themselves as another Third World country and with which they want to specially partner with in the defence of African interests, the United States of Donald Trump is claiming to be a better and reliable partner to Africa. Donald Trump is giving a new impression that the United States under his administration is better prepared to strengthen ties with Africa, and for that matter personally. 

Most unfortunately, however, while the Chinese are seen in Africa to be less exploitative and less in manu militari approach in their relations with Africa, the United States is still generally seen to be more hegemonic in various foreign policy pronouncements which push Africa away from the Americans. Are Nigeria and the United States closer as a result of the Nigeria-U.S. collaboration in the airstrikes on terrorists in Sokoto? 

Yes, we can rightly posit that the Nigeria-U.S. collaboration in the airstrikes on terrorists in Sokoto in Northwest of Nigeria is a good manifestation of politico-diplomatic rapprochement between Nigeria and the United States. One major reason is the choice of countries from which U.S. ambassadors have been recalled to take effect from end of January 2026. In Africa, the centrepiece of Nigeria’s foreign policy, 13 countries out of about 30, are affected: Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Somalia, and Uganda. A deeper analytical look at these countries reveals that these are countries that Donald Trump would want to foster closer rapports with in fighting U.S. rivals in international relations. In the West Africa region, countries like Senegal and Ivory Coast are the remaining still reliable Francophiles and pro-West countries. Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso have fallen apart with France and the United States. Thus, sooner than later, the recalled U.S. ambassadors are most likely to be replaced, because the US seriously needs Nigeria and others as strategic partners in maintaining security in the Gulf of Guinea, especially that the AFRICOM does not have any headquarters in Africa yet. Meanwhile, training of students of international relations in intelligence studies has become a desideratum. So should emphasis on physiognomy be. While the recall of US ambassadors is meant to advance the ‘America First’ Agenda, Nigeria’s ambassadors-designate should be more concerned with the promotion of Nigeria’s quest for strategic autonomy, the Mother of all Foreign Policy Agenda under PBAT. With assurances of my best wishes for a better New Year. Thank you for reading this column.