Diplomacy By Delay, Embarrassment By Design

Femi-Akintunde-Johnson

For a country that prides itself as the “Giant of Africa”, Nigeria has an uncanny ability to shrink at the most inconvenient moments. The unfolding diplomatic awkwardness surrounding the rejection – or polite hesitation, depending on how generously one reads it – of some of President Bola Tinubu’s ambassadorial nominees is one of such moments.

 It is not merely a bureaucratic hiccup. It is a quiet but telling commentary on how nations are perceived, weighed, and, when necessary, gently sidelined in the unforgiving theatre of international relations.

 For nearly two years, Nigeria operated without substantive ambassadors in over a hundred missions across the world. A recall was executed in September 2023, sweeping away both career and political envoys in one decisive move. And then – nothing. Silence. A prolonged intermission in what should have been a continuous diplomatic performance.

 During that period, Nigerians in the diaspora navigated consular limbo. Passports delayed. Legal protections weakened. Bilateral engagements slowed to a crawl. For a nation with one of the most vibrant and economically significant diasporas in the world, this was not just an administrative oversight – it was a strategic miscalculation.

 Naturally, explanations floated around. Funding constraints. Administrative bottlenecks. The need for “proper consultations”. Yet, curiously, the machinery of government never appeared starved of resources in other areas. Political structures remained well-oiled. Appointments in less sensitive domains proceeded with admirable speed.

Which raises a question that has lingered, unanswered and increasingly uncomfortable: why did it take so long to appoint ambassadors?

When the nominations finally came – 65 names unveiled with the flourish of a long-awaited announcement – they were received with a mixture of relief, surprise, and in some quarters, disbelief. The list was an eclectic blend: seasoned diplomats alongside political loyalists, technocrats sharing space with individuals whose public records invite… spirited debate. One might call it a cocktail of competence and convenience.

Now comes the diplomatic recoil. Countries such as India have reportedly declined to accept certain nominees, citing a policy that discourages receiving ambassadors from administrations with less than two years left in office. It is a position grounded not in hostility, but in pragmatism. Diplomacy, after all, thrives on continuity. An envoy expected to stay barely long enough to memorise the protocol handbook is hardly an attractive proposition.

Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, no country is obliged to accept a foreign envoy without its consent. Agrément is not a courtesy; it is a gatekeeping mechanism. And when that gate begins to close – or even hesitate – it sends signals far beyond the immediate transaction.

 Let us be clear: this is not about India being difficult, or any other country being unfriendly. It is about Nigeria appearing, at best, tardy, and at worst, unserious in managing its diplomatic obligations.

International relations may be polite on the surface, but beneath the smiles and handshakes lies a cold calculus. Nations assess credibility, consistency, and intent. When a country delays its diplomatic postings for over two years and then rushes to fill them barely a year before a general election, it raises legitimate questions.

  Are these envoys meant to build lasting relationships or merely to tick administrative boxes before the clock runs out? Are they representatives of a long-term national strategy or placeholders in a short-term political arrangement?

Even more troubling is the subtle but unmistakable message embedded in these rejections: Nigeria is being viewed, in some quarters, as a government nearing the end of its cycle, rather than one firmly in control of its diplomatic narrative.

That perception – fair or not – has consequences. Diplomacy is not only about formal engagements; it is about influence. It is about shaping conversations, securing advantages, protecting citizens, and projecting national image. When a country’s envoys are absent, delayed, or diplomatically unwelcome, its voice in global affairs becomes faint. And in international politics, a faint voice is often an ignored one.

There is also the matter of credibility. When nominees with controversial public profiles are put forward, host countries conduct background checks with far greater rigour than local political calculations might anticipate. What may pass as acceptable within domestic political circles does not always translate well in international environments where reputation is currency.

This is where the blend of career diplomats and political appointees becomes particularly delicate. Career diplomats understand the nuances, the codes, the quiet language of statecraft. Political appointees, on the other hand, often arrive with domestic baggage that may not travel well.

As one former envoy rightly observed, the concern is not always about individuals, but about timing and purpose. An ambassador who may return home within months to participate in electioneering hardly inspires confidence as a long-term partner in bilateral engagements.

 So where does Nigeria go from here? First, there must be an honest acknowledgment that the delay in appointing ambassadors was a strategic error. Not a minor lapse. Not an administrative inconvenience. A clear misstep with tangible consequences.

Second, the government must engage in quiet, sustained diplomatic persuasion. Relationships matter. Nigeria’s longstanding ties with countries like India should not be dismissed lightly. Exceptions can be negotiated, but they require tact, credibility, and, above all, consistency.

Third, there may be a need to rethink the composition of the ambassadorial list. Where resistance is clearly linked to concerns about tenure or background, pragmatic adjustments may serve the national interest better than rigid insistence.

Fourth – and perhaps most importantly – Nigeria must institutionalise its diplomatic processes in a way that removes them from the uncertainties of political timing. Ambassadorial appointments should not be treated as afterthoughts or political rewards. They are central to national strategy.

Other countries do not pause their diplomatic presence because elections are approaching. Their systems ensure continuity. Their foreign services operate with a level of predictability that inspires confidence among partners. Nigeria must aspire to the same standard.

There is also a broader lesson here about how the world sees us. For all our size, population, and economic potential, global respect is not automatic. It is earned through consistency, competence, and credibility.

Grand gestures – state visits, high-level meetings, ceremonial honours – have their place. But they cannot substitute for the quiet, daily work of diplomacy carried out by competent representatives on foreign soil.

In the end, this episode is less about rejection and more about reflection. Reflection on how a nation positions itself. Reflection on how seriously it treats its international obligations. Reflection on whether it understands that in global affairs, timing is not just important – it is everything.

Nigeria may yet navigate this diplomatic turbulence. Deals may be struck. Exceptions may be granted. Envoys may eventually take their posts. But the lesson will remain, etched in the margins of this episode: in diplomacy, as in life, delay is not always harmless.  Sometimes, it is the difference between being welcomed at the table and being politely told that the meeting has already moved on.