Obasanjo’s ‘Coup’ against USAID and the Limit of Patriotism in International Relations

With Bola Akinterinwa

The reported story of Chief Olusegun Okikiola Obasanjo’s ‘coup’ against the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) at the public presentation of Senator Ahmadu Ali’s Biography, on Thursday, 1st March, 2018 at the Yar’Adua Centre in Abuja, undoubtedly presents Chief Obasanjo as an incurable patriot, who is simply wrapped up in the need for a glorified, powerful, independent, and non-subservient Nigeria, completely free from political chicanery. The story not only shows the goodness in patriotism and nationalism, but also the limitations, impact and implications for foreign policy in international politics and relations.

At the book launch of Senator Ali were many distinguished guests, including General Yakubu Gowon and Obasanjo. Senator Ali and General Obasanjo served illustriously under General Yakubu Gowon as Head of State. In fact, Obasanjo took over from the then Colonel Benjamin Adekunle as Commander of the Third Marine Commando during Nigeria’s war of national unity.

Magnus Eze, in his report on what transpired at the book launch, especially as to how Chief Obasanjo conspired in vain with Senator Ali to evict the USAID from its present location at the beginning of Broad street in the Tafawa Balewa Square area of Lagos, quoted Obasanjo as follows: “Ahmadu Ali had been appointed Director of the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) and he needed an office; one being occupied by the American Embassy had been identified. That office was too close to the Cabinet Office, it had been what we talked about, complained about and even requested the Americans to vacate and be given an alternative office. So, I and Ali conspired that we will remove the Americans.”

It is useful to note at this juncture the place of conspiracy as jointly planned by Obasanjo and Ali. First, as we shall show below, General Gowon never knew that Ali was part of the conspiracy until the day of the book presentation. It was only Obasanjo that was scolded but not seriously sanctioned because he was then considered a good boy, a good patriot. Secondly, the reason for the conspiracy was not, on the facial level, the need for an office for the new Director of the NYSC, Senator Ali, but the fact of nearness of the office of the USAID to the Cabinet Office which the duo did not want but which they wrongly believed could be relocated with a military fiat under a military regime, and without due regard to international law and diplomacy.

As further reported by Magnus Eze, Obasanjo declared as follows: “I belonged to the Nigerian Army Corps of Engineers and had military men under my command, Ahmadu had no military men. I had to be used or should I say I had to concur by performing the task and I made it a military operation. By 4.00 am, soldiers had surrounded the office and by the time the Americans were arriving for work, they were not allowed to go inside.”

What again should be noted from this quotation is that it is not clear why Obasanjo acted without authorisation from his immediate boss and why, if he had the support of his boss, he was the only one to be scolded. As reported, Obasanjo took advantage of his position as commander to act unilaterally and this factor of unilateralism cannot but be a resultant of patriotism. Perhaps, what is most interesting about the so-called coup is that Obasanjo later realised that he had acted much in ignorance of the diplomatic consequences.

As he reportedly put it: “I didn’t realise the diplomatic implications. Then the Americans violently protested and it was reported to the Commander-in-Chief, General Gowon, and I was carpeted, tongue-lashed and thoroughly washed down.” General Gowon admitted that he and the Chief of Staff, General David Ejoor, “really dressed him (Obasanjo) down, because he exactly started a very serious diplomatic incident.”

Without any scintilla of doubt, General Obasanjo was not only wrong to have breached diplomatic protocol, but his wrongness cannot be as praiseworthy as his patriotic disposition in the matter. In fact, if it was true that the Americans ‘violently’ protested, that again, cannot be compatible with the status of the USAID as a representative diplomatic institution in Nigeria. The protocolar procedure was first to lodge official complain and not to protest violently. General Gowon was right in carpeting General Obasanjo in order to avoid a diplomatic row with the United States, one of the two super powers in the world by that time.

In essence, the import of the foregoing for political and good governance in general is that the expression of patriotism is good, particularly in international relations, but it has to be done within its limitations. It is because nationalists often carried the protection of their national interests to the detriment of those of other states that global insecurity persists. They not only adopt the strategy of aggressive deterrence, but also manipulatively use the United Nations to adopt sanctions against perceived enemy countries. The resultant effect is that countries that are also asserting sovereign equality become hardened and more hardened to the extent of non-preparedness to dance to the tunes of the UNSC anymore. This is why a Third World War is looming.

Patriotism in International Politics
Patriotism is a major dynamic of both international development and global insecurity. At the level of international development, for instance, US President Donald Trump came up last week with a proposed higher tariffs on steel and aluminium imports and a theory of goodness in ‘Trade Wars’ in order to stop US economic deficits and insolvencies. In the words of Donald Trump, on Friday, 2nd March, “When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore – we win big. It’s easy.”

More significant, one research report from the Gowling in the United States has shown that the US now is the biggest protectionist country in the world. As noted by Gowling, the US has adopted 1,085 more protectionist measures more than liberalising ones since 2009. As a result of this statement, many countries have been reacting and raising different questions on how to respond. Mike Jakeman has argued that ‘the number of people, who work in steel consumption (who will suffer because of higher prices) is much greater the number that works in steel production (who will benefit) from Donald Trump’s trade war.

Thus, this is apparently one of the ways Donald Trump wants to make America great again, but this does not, and should not prevent any other sovereign state from also engaging in adoption of protectionist policies. And this is why, for instance, the European Commission has to respond by way of regret: “We regret President Trump’s decision to impose a tariff on all aluminium imports independent of their country of origin. European aluminium exports to the US, in view of both their quantity and characteristics, do not pose any threat to US national security. Most importantly, this blanket tariff does not address the root cause of the main challenges faced by the aluminium industry today: the unsustainable and steady increase of aluminium overcapacities in China.”

Additionally, the Director General of European Aluminium, Gerd Göotz, says “This global challenge can only be managed effectively through a global and long-term solution based on multilateral rules and common enforcement such as creation of a Global Aluminium Forum within G-20.”

What is clear from both the trade war policy of Donald Trump and the international reactions to it is the quest to advance and protect the national interest, which is largely driven by patriotism at the individual level and by nationalism at the collective level. Indeed, many advanced countries of the world owed their advancement status to patriotism at the level of their citizens. However, when patriotism is carried excessively to the detriment of the protection of the interests of other countries, international security is necessarily threatened. When attention is not promptly taken on the threats, a crisis is created and when again this is not well attended to, the crisis degenerates to a conflict and ultimately to war, cold or hot. The cases of the controversies over North Korean nuclear tests and the devastations that have come to characterise the war in Syria are noteworthy. The case of North Korea is particularly noteworthy because it appears to be currently the most critical dynamic of whether or not there will be another World War.

North Korea is currently the main foreign policy preoccupation of the nuclear powers and the developed world as at today. At the level of Sino-North Korean relations, China wants to maintain North Korea as a security buffer zone against any US security threats. This explains in part China’s anger and hostility to the United States new sanctions against North Korea. Donald Trump said the sanctions are the ‘largest ever.’ The sanctions do target one person, 27 companies and 28 ships registered in China and seven other countries.

Apart from China being the closest traditional ally of North Korea, Chinese interests are thus at stake. It is normal to therefore expect Chinese Foreign Ministry to resolutely oppose and to demand that the US immediately lift the sanctions in order to avoid harming bilateral relations in the relevant area. Already, China’s trade with North Korea reportedly fell to its lowest ebb in January 2018, thus suggesting that China has been maintaining pressure on North Korea, but that this has not deterred North Korea’s increasing quest for a nuclear power status.

Russia is also another ally of North Korea. Like China, Russia has territorial disputes with Japan, which enjoys special relationship with the US. Japan, up till this day, has not signed the treaty ending World War II and is aspiring, with the support of the United States, to become one of the new permanent members of the UNSC.
Essentially because of national security interests, Japan and the United States have a tripartite agreement with South Korea, aimed at monitoring and containing North Korea. In opposition to this, Russia has been sustaining its own relations with North Korea, particularly from the perspective of its implications for Syria. Naturally, France and the United Kingdom are in the alliance orbit of the United States. So, their opposition to North Korea is understandable.

The point being made so far is that patriotism generates an attitudinal disposition that antagonises, not only the national interests of others, but also international norms and tradition. It necessarily breaches the basic principles of international diplomatic practice, as revealed by the case of Chief Obasanjo above. It also threatens global security.

North Korea and Global Peace
The main critical threat to global peace, as noted above, is North Korea. The threat is not about its nuclear threats per se. It is not even about its proliferation policy which is against some international conventions. The threat is more about the internally perceived threats to the security survival of North Korea. In the eyes of North Korea, the United States is the major threat. It is the enemy. For as long as this perception persists, there cannot be any good way of influencing North Korea to denuclearise, especially in light of the truth that, grosso modo, powerful countries respect international law when it is convenient.

Currently, the whole world is made to condemn North Korea’s export of nuclear materials (acid-resistant tiles, valves, and thermometers which are needed for making chemical weapons) to Syria. North Korea argues that it does not want to be taken unawares the way the American-led Western world dealt with Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and others, and therefore, considering the need to be armed fully to the teeth.

North Korea may not be faulted if we consider the reality of international politics. For instance, on the specific crisis in Syria, the UNSC, on Saturday, 24th February, called for a 30-day ceasefire in Syria but no one showed readiness to respect the call. Iran says the resolution does not apply to parts of Damascus and its suburbs currently held by terrorists. In the same vein, Turkey says it also does not affect its offensive against the Kurdist fighters in Syria’s north-western AFRIN. The Assad government says the offensive of its government is against the terrorists.

Even though the opposition elements in Syria posit that the arguments of both the government of Syria and others were nothing more than a pretext, because only a few hundreds of fighters are in the enclave, the critical point is that all those engaged in fighting are acting on the basis of patriotism and nationalism.
In fact, North Korea also argues that all countries of the world do have the right to decide the precise level of defensive capacity they want without any iota of interference and aggressive deterrence. The main rationale for this reasoning is that some powerful countries have already acquired the nuclear power status and these countries do not want other countries to acquire the same, in the belief that other countries cannot be reliable in terms of ensuring nuclear non-proliferation.

Additionally, a new Cold War is emerging. China is gradually preparing to take over the mantle of global leadership from the United States. Russia is also seriously making efforts to revisit the aftermath of glasnost and perestroika, and by extension and so doing, also re-affirming the super power status of Russia. Thus, China, Russia, and the US are currently in a stiff competition for world leadership.

It should not be quickly forgotten, at this juncture, that Russia was on the side of the United States when initial attacks were to be launched against President Assad. By then, US-Russia emphasis was first to defeat the terrorists. When Syria opted to settle more than 3 billion US dollars owed to Russia, it did not take time before Russia re-strategised and made it clear to the United States not to do anything without first securing its own consent. That was how Russia hurriedly became an opposition to the US in the Syrian crisis.

In the same vein, North Korea became frontally another opposition to the US in joint opposition with Russia to the US. This is simply because North Korea believes it has the right to survival and security like the powerful countries and should not be dictated to on what to do on security measures.

The implication for peace is that, if for whatever reasons North Korea is provoked, and true enough North Korea wants to be provoked because it considers it has now been pushed to the wall, and considering that whoever is already on the floor does not have any other place to fall down to, North Korea is always ready to damn the consequences of its nuclear policy.

In the event of unacceptable provocation, North Korea can respond with nuclear arms without regret. If the US does not want North Korea to acquire nuclear capability that can threaten US territory, but wants to maintain its own nuclear superiority and capacity to project its own nuclear missiles up to the territory of North Korea, there will be urgent need to address the root causes of North Korea’s intransigence.

In this regard, the international community must first address the quest for re-unification of the two Koreas in the same way that of the West and East Germany was facilitated. Second, it has also become a desideratum to allow North Korea to join officiously the nuclear club, since it has successfully launched nuclear missiles and tested nuclear bombs. North Korea is acting on the basis of patriotic nationalism. It also wants to make itself great in the comity of nations in the manner of Donald Trump making America great again. In fact, there is nothing wrong if Nigeria aspires to become the first nuclear power in Africa, for Africa, and in protection of Africa’s interests.

Nuclear non-proliferation is politics. North Korea has come of nuclear age. The international community, rather than seeking to provoke a new global war, that will be nuclear technology-driven, and which no country of the world can control in an exclusive capacity, it is better to quickly nip it in the bud within the framework of the apparent new Cold War between Russia and China, on the one hand, and the US and its allies, on the other. A stitch in time, it is said, saves nine. This is necessary because where the nationalism and patriotism of one country stops, that of other countries begin. Consequently, there are always limitations to patriotism and nationalism in international relations.

In conclusion, therefore, national patriotism must never be allowed to the detriment of the interests of other countries. Doing so enables order and counter-order to reign and the outcome cannot but be a situation of counter-order and disorder.

QUOTE: The expression of patriotism is good, particularly in international relations, but it has to be done within its limitations. It is because nationalists often carried the protection of their national interests to the detriment of those of other states that global insecurity persists. They not only adopt the strategy of aggressive deterrence, but also manipulatively use the United Nations to adopt sanctions against perceived enemy countries. The resultant effect is that countries which are also asserting sovereign equality become hardened and more hardened to the extent of non-preparedness to dance to the tunes of the UNSC anymore. This is why a Third World War is looming