By Bola A. Akinterinwa
Nigeria is making progress backward fifty-nine years after independence. In 1960, Nigeria was leading Africa in the front. In 2019, Nigeria is leading from the back. Nigeria was the cynosure of all eyes in the world in the 1960s and 1970s, especially in terms of its strong foreign policy standing and defence of the black dignity in international relations. Today, Nigeria is still the cynosure but from a negativistic perspective. Nigeria is seen as a country of fraudulent people. Some people have said that Nigeria is fantastically corrupt. Government and some people have responded that many are the Nigerians living abroad and making huge scientific contributions to their host countries. In other words, not all Nigerians are bad. Good explanation, but quite far from the problem of lack of development focus in public governance and particularly in the area of foreign policy.
Three Nigerian Foreign Ministers have come up with foreign policy doctrines to guide Nigeria in the quest for relevance in international relations. They are Professor Bolaji Akinwande Akinyemi, Professor Ibrahim Agboola Gambari and Ambassador Oluyemi Adeniji. Professor Akinyemi once called for the establishment of a Concert of Medium Powers (CMP), which later became the Lagos Forum. Governmental myopia did not allow the far-sighted implications for the grandeur of Nigeria by then. The main objective of the CMP was to enable Nigeria to play active parts in the conduct and management of international politics, without necessarily having to give the inclement domestic situation as an excuse for performance.
For purposes of foreign policy efficiency and effectiveness, Professor Gambari came up with the doctrine of foreign policy concentric cycles. Foreign policy concentricism was about geo-political partitioning of the whole world into four main circles: the innermost circle, which comprises Nigeria and her immediate territorial neighbours; the West African region circle; the circle of the rest of African countries; and the circle of all other countries beyond the African continent. The partitioning was done on the basis of order of priority and importance given to foreign policy implementation. The innermost circle was considered the most important because the national security of Nigeria is believed to be intertwined with that of the neighbours. West Africa is next in importance, by virtue of the ECOWAS of which Nigeria was a co-founder.
Ambassador Oluyemi Adeniji pushed the argument further that it was good to have prioritised foreign policy implementation areas, but not good enough if the interests pursued in the said concentric circles are not first of all articulated. In his view, policy makers must first identify Nigeria’s national interests in any given concentric circle and particularly in any given country. It was on this basis that he came up with the suggestion of a Constructive and Beneficial Foreign Policy Concentricism. In other words, foreign policy must be constructive in implementation strategies and beneficial to all Nigerians in outcome. Any foreign policy action that will not be beneficial to Nigerians should not even be contemplated. Ambassador Adeniji was simply saying that there must always be dividends attached to every foreign policy undertaking, regardless of the nature of the dividends
The import of the foregoing is to draw attention to the fact that there was the time foreign policy had focus in Nigeria, even if it might have been surrounded by controversy. For instance, there was the controversy over Professor Akinyemi’s Consultation doctrine, according to which Nigeria’s support must not be taken for granted. If a country in Africa has a misunderstanding with a big power, like Libya did have with the United States, there was need for initial consultation with Nigeria. Nigeria must always be carried along, rather than taking Nigeria’s support for granted, especially under the framework of the Organisation of African Unity.
Apart from this, there was also the national debate over acceptability of the Structural Adjustment Programmes, proposed to Nigeria by the International Monetary Bank. Nigerians, under the military regime of General Ibrahim Babangida, rejected the programme. But that was then. As at today, under President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB), Nigeria’s foreign policy lacks constructive focus. It is, more often than not, always ill-defined. At best, it is always reactive.
And perhaps now, but more disturbingly, Nigeria’s foreign policy has become very beggarly in content, dependentist in design, belittling in outcome, and self-defeatist in strategy. Nigeria does not appear to know what it wants in international relations. PMB does not also appear to know what to tell the global community about happenings in Nigeria. PMB’s speech at the ongoing 74th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York provides a good illustration of this observation. It is a case in point.
Beggarly and Unbefitting Speech
PMB addressed the UNGA on Tuesday, September 24, 2019. He was the fifth speaker after the presidents of Brazil, the United Nations, Egypt and Turkey had spoken. His speech was structured into three parts: recognitions and expression of gratitude (paragraphs 1-6); international issues addressed (paragraphs 7-38); tributes and expression of commitments (paragraphs 39-43). There were forty-three paragraphs in the speech.
On the basis of textual analytical approach, the first four opening paragraphs are thank-you statements to the UNGA ‘for the honour bestowed on the Government and people of Nigeria by electing our national, His Excellency, Tijjani Muhammad-Bande, to the Presidency of the 74th Session of this august body.’ The opening statement is perfectly in order and well-couched, except where PMB is unnecessarily trying to resell Professor Muhammadu-Bande.
Pleading with the UNGA that he would not be a disappointment is most unfortunately belittling the academic professor. In other words, no country sends its second-eleven to the United Nations. It is always the best of the best that are generally accredited to the United Nations. Every representative at the UN knows it and takes it for granted. This implies that any ambassador accredited as country-representative to the United Nations qualifies to be considered for election to be President of the UNGA.
Besides, before voting for a country, the credentials of its representative are normally sent and perused. This is to say that Nigeria’s candidate is already well-known. For PMB to tell the UNGA again that ”Ambassador Muhammad-Bande is an experienced and seasoned diplomat’ and that ‘he will prove to the international community his suitability for this most demanding assignment,’ is unnecessarily creating problems for him. Ambassador Muhammad-Bande is essentially an academic and not by training an international functionary like Foreign Minister Geoffrey Onyeama is. He is not a diplomatist. He is a political ambassador with a sound academic background. Consequently, it would have been good to limit the salutations and recognitions to expression of gratitude and not more.
And perhaps, more importantly, in appreciating the great honour done Nigeria with the election of a Nigerian as UNGA president, PMB says that Nigerians ‘shall endeavour to live up to the expectations and responsibilities thrust upon us.’ This type of ‘endeavour’ is uncalled for because, with the election of Professor Muhammad-Bande as the 74th UNGA president, he will be more of an international functionary with the UN until second week of September 2020, than as a messenger of Nigeria at the UN. Professor Muhammad-Bande is not going to conduct and manage any UN affairs or debates in his capacity as a Nigerian, but as the standard-bearer of the UN mandate. To seek to act as a Nigerian, and not as an internationalist, cannot but raise a conflict of interests and monumental problems for him. A lesson can be learnt from that of Professor Boutros Boutros-Ghali who tried to use his position as the sixth UN Secretary General to influence decision. Although the case of Professor Muhammad-Bande is different, being the UNGA president, the presidency does not imply any iota of supranational authority over other sovereign states. He is simply a presiding officer.
PMB raised a number of quite interesting issues in his speech: backlash against multilateralism, abject poverty, Palestinian question, expansion of the Security Council, climate change, unity in diversity, massacre in New Zealand, political violence, violent extremism, corruption, racism and xenophobia, money laundering, organised criminal networks, religious intolerance and false messages. As good and diversified these issues are, they do not in any substantial way address the theme of the UNGA except tangentially in some cases.
The UNGA theme for debate is ‘Galvanising multilateral efforts for poverty eradication, quality education, climate action and inclusion.’ PMB mentioned this theme in paragraph 7 of his speech. The intellectual challenge of the theme for every Member State of the international community is to make suggestions on how best to address the issues. How should poverty be eradicated? How should Green House Gas emissions be mitigated? How do we bring about a collective approach to the problems, as this the implication of inclusion? How do we bring about quality education? Even though there is no specific rule on how a president should write and present his or her speech, there is no disputing the fact of the need not to speak out of context.
Thus, and without scintilla of doubt, PMB is at liberty to discuss any issue he likes to discuss in his speech. However, as said, he cannot afford the protocolar luxury of not addressing the issues involved in the theme meaningfully. What he said about poverty eradication is that ‘millions in Africa and around the world remain in abject poverty. Furthermore, we are witnessing a backlash against multilateralism in the shape of rising tide of racism, xenophobia, resurgent nationalism…’ (vide paragraph 12).
PMB adds in paragraphs 21 and 22 that ‘poverty, in all its manifestations, remains one of the greatest challenge facing our world. Its eradication is an indispensable requirement for achieving sustainable development. In this regard, Nigeria has developed a National Social Investment Programme – a pro-poor scheme that targets the poorest and most vulnerable households in the country. Under this initiative, easy access to financial services is facilitated to our traders, artisans, market women and cooperative societies. This type of initiative can help lessen and eventually eliminate mass poverty in Africa.’
Simply mentioning that there are millions living in poverty cannot be serious enough a statement. The issue is what is either being done at home or what should be done to help others in light of Nigeria’s experience, especially if there is any lesson to learn from it. PMB therefore did well by recommending Nigeria’s social investment programme for Africa. Whether or not it will be workable for others is a matter of debate.
On climate change, PMB’s statement is equally encouraging. He has it that Nigeria issued two sovereign Green Bonds and has added one million hectares of forested land, taking our total forest coverage to 6.7% through collective national effort. This is a welcome statement in light of the requirements of the UNGA theme.
However, it is important to also note that any theme adopted for purposes of debate at the UNGA is necessarily and always presented as a problematic to which Member States are required to provide possible solutions. If participating leaders actually address themes from a scholarly, scientific manner, a true debate would normally emerge, in which case there can bases for comparing and contrasting perspectives, particularly on how best to solve any given issue. The way African leaders often address international questions is really a major source of concern. Nigeria’s PMB is not different, especially when considering his random thoughts on some other critical matters like international assistance.
Multilateralism and Exploitation of African Resources
The most unfortunate aspect of PMB’s speech at the UNGA is his viewpoint on multilateralism and the offering of African resources to the developed world for free exploitation. PMB directly wants a new version of the post-World War II Marshall Plan for Africa. In the words of PMB in paragraph 13, ‘on [c]essation of hostilities after World War II, the United States, in one of the greatest selfless undertakings in history, decided to revive Europe through the Marshall Plan and uplift and restore Japan economically. This generous policy catalysed a great economic revival globally.’
In paragraph 15, PMB said that ‘the United States and Europe have become friends and allies since the end of the war. The United States and Japan have also become friends and allies since the end of the war. This example can be replicated with respect to Africa.’ More interestingly, but disturbingly, he said ‘a developed Africa will not be antagonistic to industrialised countries, but will become friends and partners in prosperity, security and development. A prosperous Africa will mean greater prosperity for the rest of the world. A poor Africa will be a drag on the rest of the world. Is this what the international community wants?’ (paragraph 16).
PMB made his plea worst with paragraph 17 where he said ‘a coordinated multilateral effort should be set in motion to utilise and maximise use of the enormous resources on the African continent for the benefit of all nations. Investing partners will be able to recoup their investments manifold over time. Current attempts to help develop Africa by industrial countries are un-coordinated and plainly incremental. We have the skills, the manpower and the natural resources, but in many instances, we lack the capital -hence my plea for industrial countries to take a long-term view of Africa, come and partner with us to develop the continent for the benefit of all.’
PMB’s plea may be honest to the world, but it has not reckoned with the environmental conditionings of the Marshall Plan, which are quite different from those in Africa. European countries were frontline war allies. The United States dealt squarely with Japan following its destruction of US Pearl Harbour. In fact, it was the destruction of the Pearl Harbour that served as a catalytic factor in the decision of the United States to enter into World War II.
Consequently, the linkages and US national interests that warranted the decision to want to bail out Western countries, as well as draw Japan closer to the US, especially in the context of Middle East conflicts and peace-making efforts in Asia, are not present in Africa. Government should note that the conduct and management of international politics is never governed by moralism or sentiments.
Suggesting to the world that a developed Africa will not be antagonistic to the industrialised countries is unscientific. There is nothing to suggest that it will not be antagonistic. This is simply because the belief in the developed democracies is that promotion of democracy has the potential to prevent a new scourge of war, and particularly between and among themselves, but this belief is already under query. The European Economic Community of Six in 1957, that became the European Union of 28 members today, is under the threats of Brexiteering. The aftermath of Brexit as from October 31, 2019 still leaves much to desire.
For PMB, asking for coordinated multilateral efforts to utilise and maximise use of the enormous resources on the African continent for the benefit of all nations, is simply breaking the camel’s back. The request is against Nigeria’s foreign policy stand. As far back as the time of the Yakubu Gowon’s regime, Nigeria’s Commissioner for External Affairs, Dr. Okoi Arikpo, made it clear as a rule and principle that, under no circumstance should Africa be made simply as a source of raw materials for the development of Europe.
The argument was made that Africa should be able to have their raw materials to develop Africa by Africans themselves and for African purposes in the future. Nigeria was the chief advocate of this policy. Many African leaders bought the argument. Why is PMB now destabilising the entrenched Policy? Why is he not addressing the question of self-reliance? Why is he begging people who made self-efforts to be where they are now to come and assist Africa? What prevents Africa from making serious efforts to develop itself? This is where there are not only problems with the speech, but also why PMB has probably unconsciously undermined a landmark policy.
Without any shadow of doubt, the developed partners of Africa cannot but be much delighted with the invitation openly extended to them to come and exploit African resources through foreign investments. Already, most, if not all of them, are much interested in such exploitations. Their major concern is essentially about the extent to which the local environment will be made propitious for their investments. In this regard again, PMB could not have spoken for the whole of Africa, as many African leaders do jealously try to protect their own resources. It is basically in Nigeria that underground economy thrives to the delight of people. It is in Nigeria where Government agencies meant to curb economic illegalities often take advantage of the situation for self-enrichment.
In sum, Nigeria’s foreign policy making is hardly based on hard facts and research. PMB is therefore quite right to talk about Africa having the skills and capacity, but not having the financial capital. And true, Nigeria does not have the problem of paucity of competent and capable manpower. And if truth be told again, Nigeria cannot be said not to be rich enough to finance her development projects. Nigeria does not need the type of foreign investments the country is trying to ask for. Resources are recklessly mismanaged in Nigeria. For instance, the ill-gotten billions of US dollars by several public officials in Nigeria are more than enough to finance Nigeria’s development, and particularly in terms of poverty alleviation and human security in general. Consequently, rather than looking outwardly, PMB should be looking inwardly. He should look at allegations of corruption in his government. He should look, especially at the pillars of Nigeria’s foreign policy making and implementation which have been seriously weakened to the extent that they now require serious refurbishments.
Without doubt, Nigeria’s foreign policy focus, if any, lacks lustre. It is not ideologically defined and driven. It has unnecessarily become beggarly. Nigeria’s security strategy is not evolved on the basis of grand strategy, especially in terms of foreign policy grandeur. Nigeria is simply Nigeria and what it is circumstantially, and not defined in terms of what it should be in the next twenty or fifty years. This is why there is no foreign policy focus and why there is no special policy of protection of Nigerians abroad. If foreign policy is to be made meaningful and internationally used to assist economic development at the domestic level, efforts should be made to provide a central academic and deliberative platform on Nigeria’s foreign policy. All foreign policy-related institutions in the country, public and private, can be brought together under the coordination of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs for foreign policy inputs. Nigerians need a foreign policy that inspires and not undermines, independent and not subservient. It is by so doing that Nigeria’s future can be bright and great.
