Nigeria and the World in 2025: A Prolegomena to the Foreign Policy Challenges
Bola A. Akinterinwa
Nigeria and the world in 2025 can be explained at three complementary levels: Nigeria’s attitudinal disposition towards the world; the world’s attitudinal disposition towards Nigeria; and environmental conditionings at both the domestic and external levels. Analysing foreign policy challenges in 2025 necessarily requires a conjectural qualitative approach in which policy statements, behaviour, experiences, and historiography are underscored. It is generally believed that war or peace is largely a function of the mind. If the world wants peace or war, it is from the mind that it always begins. This column combines all the three levels in the exegesis of Nigeria’s foreign policy and the world in 2025.
Besides, for war or peace to begin from the mind, self-education is a desideratum. But education, as explained by Albert Eistein, is not about learning facts, but about training the mind to think. Consequently, what do we want in 2025? What should Nigeria’s attitudinal disposition towards the world be? Does the Government and do the people of Nigeria want peace at home in 2025? Do the people want an end to boko haramism and armed banditry at the domestic level? Does the Government of Nigeria really want a united and indivisible Nigeria that will be completely free from political chicanery and reckless institutional corruption?
At the international level, how does Nigeria see global events that impact Nigeria? What is the place of Nigeria’s diplomacy of 4-Ds in 2025? To what extent can Tinubuplomacy or the Foreign Minister’s ‘Tuggarisation’ of Nigeria’s classical foreign policy principles be helpful in 2025? How should Nigeria respond to the crises of legitimacy raised in the global leadership contest between the United States and China, on the one hand, and between the United States and Russia, on the other? These are some of the foreign policy constraints that require painstaking attention in 2025.
Foreign Policy Challenges
The first foreign policy challenge is how to manage the impact of lack of diplomatic representation abroad at the ambassadorial level under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT). Many observers of developments in Nigeria often look at Nigeria’s human and material resources in assessing the strength of Nigeria in international relations. Big population, vibrant professionals, oil and gas resources, biggest arable land in Africa, strategic geo-political location and powerful military often attract the attention of analysts. However, what is the official attitude and the people’s attitude to all these factors?
Diplomatic representation at the non-ambassadorial level is not as important as diplomatic representation at the ambassadorial level. Representation at the level of Chargé d’Affaires or Chargé d’Affaires ad interim only subjects the country’s Representative to the second level of Order of Precedence. Papal Nuncios, Ambassadors, be they High Commissioners or High Representatives, belong to the first class of Heads of Diplomatic Missions. Nigeria’s Chargés d’Affaires as they currently are in the missions, are, at best, in the second category of the diplomatic classification.
Not having relationship at the ambassadorial level raises two critical issues: respect for Nigeria and recognition of Nigerian government. In terms of respect for Nigeria, how should Nigeria be seen, a self-proclaimed giant of Africa, a country that professes Africa as the cornerstone and centrepiece of her foreign policy, a country that President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe sees as ‘Africa without Nigeria is hollow,’ and even negatively considered, Nigeria that a British Prime Minister, David Cameron, says is ‘fantastically corrupt?
One major purpose of foreign policy is acquisition of respect for national sovereignty. Respect is generally defined by military strength, economic prosperity, national security, and social security. The wellbeing of the people is always underscored. When representation is not at the highest level, there is little or no respect. The general dictum is sovereign equality, non-interference and non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries. This is because sovereign equality is also defined by domestic affairs and believed to fall within the jurisdictional competence of the State. Representation at the non-ambassadorial level reflects perception of material poverty, self-disregard, self-belittling, and poverty of ideas.
The ideal diplomacy for Nigeria in 2025 ought to be the pursuit of diplomacy of greatness, la grandeur du Nigéria (Greatness of Nigeria) which requires a Special Grand Strategy. Nigeria does not lack competent diplomatic careerists, especially those of them that have retired. The problem with people associated with foreign policy making in Nigeria is that they often strategise based on the domestic situation. They project foreign policy based on domestic strength. Whereas, this ought to be simultaneously combined with the use of external strength. Put differently, how can the external environment be used to strengthen Nigeria in various ramifications? This is where and why diplomatic representation cannot and should not be maintained at the non-ambassadorial level. It is a serious strategic miscalculation to believe that the appointment of ambassadors is not necessary or that money can be saved by not appointing them. The gains of not appointing them are nullified by the poor image it engenders.
Related to this point is the role of the National Assembly. Diplomacy in any part of the world is necessarily dollarized. When the budget of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is presented for appropriation in the National Assembly, it is always cut down, always seen as too prohibitive. Distinguished Senators and Honourable Representatives only consider the amount in Nigerian Naira but always quickly forget that payments for all services provided to diplomatic missions are made in foreign currency. But more interestingly, it is the people who are cut down the budget of the Foreign Ministry are the same people who are also very quick in seeking diplomatic assistance and protection when they travel abroad. They want good treatment but they do not understand why a diplomatic mission should not be simply rated like a home office. There are no ambassadors and they cannot courageously come into the open to call for and support the highest level of diplomatic representation. This is most unfortunate.
On the question of recognition, recognition of government should be differentiated from recognition of State. The recognition of Nigeria as a State in international relations is not in any way an issue. What is generating questions is the recognition of the government of Nigeria. Recognition is the fourth definiendum required for a State to enter into international relations after population, territory, and government in international law.
In this context of non-ambassadorial representation, the extent to which the Government of Nigeria can be said to be recognised is very arguable. Diplomatic relationship is unnecessarily restricted without ambassadors. The truth is that when ambassadors present their Letter of Recall and Letter of Credence to the host President, recognition of the sending President and Government is recognised. As at today, PMB is actually suffering technically from international non-recognition of himself and his government. This is one reason we consider that Nigeria’s warm relationship with France is at the level of international life between PBAT and Emmanuel Macron and stricto sensu, not at the official bilateral ties. Relationships between Nigeria and France are officially managed but the dynamics are officious.
Thus, in terms of foreign policy projections in 2025, emphasis on how Nigeria’s foreign policy will be conditioned by international events and politics, as well as how the domestic setting will be impacted upon are some of what Nigeria’s policy makers should begin to investigate. Explained interrogatively, how is Nigeria expected to react to the United States foreign policy under President Donald Trump as from January 20, 2025? What can be Nigeria’s policy attitude towards the deepening Russo-American and Sino-American rivalry in 2025? What is the likely outcome of the Israelo-Palestinian war before and after it comes to an end? What about the Russia-Ukraine conflict? Will there be changes in Nigeria’s policy attitude? Will it be a question of change in tactics and continuity of same pursuits, change of interest-and-continuity of policy tactics? What are the likely scenarios of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s diplomacy of 4-Ds in 2025?
Perhaps most importantly, what does the whole world look like in 2025? Will it be a world of natural disasters, new world politico-economic order, a world of the BRICS, and a world of Africa? Without doubt, the international environment of 2025 has the potential to be more insecurity-driven than in 2024. American domination of the world is likely to be more threatened than ever before. How should Nigeria respond if the US President Donald Trump decides to sanction Nigeria for being a Partner Member of the BRICS? If the current romance between France and Nigeria hits the rock, how will Nigeria relate with France as Nigeria’s fifth neighbour by geo-political propinquity? Which African countries are truly interested in having Nigeria as a Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)? If Nigeria is hostile to the West in its anti-Alliance of the States of Sahel struggle, will the West support Nigeria’s candidature for the UNSC Permanent Seat? All these questions require a foreign policy review and fresh strategic recalculations for the purposes of 2025 and beyond.
The World and Nigeria: Some Critical Issues
There are three critical areas to be looked into in how the World is likely to relate to Nigeria in 2025: Regional insecurity, democracy and human rights, and stance on global leadership contest. The issue of regional insecurity raises the principles of good neighbourliness, concentricism, and consultation doctrine in Nigeria’s foreign Policy. Democracy and protection of human rights have been a major pillar of many Western States right from 1990 when democratisation was made a conditionality for the grant of development aid by President François Mitterrand at the La Baule Franco-African Summit. It is a truism to say that liberal democracy and human rights are major anchors on which the US foreign policy is largely predicated. Nigeria’s stance on the global contest for leadership which is, on the one hand, between the United States and China, and, on the other hand, between the United States and Russia, cannot but be a cynosure of all eyes. In other words, Nigeria’s stance is essentially about the extent to which the principle of non-alignment can be raised.
As regards the issue of regional insecurity, this is likely to be derived from the tainting of the principle of peaceful coexistence which is one of the foundational principles of Nigeria’s foreign policy. In his foreign policy statement on 20 August, 1960, reciprocity as a reaction to French atomic bomb tests in the Reggane area of the Sahara desert, was adopted by Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa. He pledged peaceful coexistence with everyone and Nigeria’s non-alignment. The non-alignment did not, and still does not, mean that Nigeria cannot align. Nigeria can always align but not blindly. For as long as any alignment will be transactional and in Nigeria’s national interest, alignment can take place.
In this regard, Niger has accused Nigeria twice of engaging in activities aimed at destabilising Niger Republic and its people. Nigeria has strongly refuted the allegations. But the refutation has not in any way obliterated Niger’s anger, the suspicions, and the deteriorating relationships. The problematic remains how Nigeria can successfully partner with France to fight Niger, the friendliest contiguous neighbour of Nigeria and still expect to have domestic security. This brings in the issue of foreign policy concentricism.
Professor Ibrahim Agboola Gambari has explained in his theory of foreign policy of concentric circles that the innermost circle, which is Nigeria, cannot be separated from the contiguous neighbours simply because their national security is intertwined with that of Nigeria. This is also very consistent with one of Nigeria’s defence doctrines that whatever is happening in faraway Mali, Mauritania, The Gambia, etc. should be considered as if it is happening along Nigeria’s international borders, and therefore requiring immediate containment. Niger is an important contiguous neighbour of Nigeria. Bilateral ties with Niger have been warmest since the time of President Hamani Diori. Can PBAT cope with the destabilisation of Nigeria if it happens? With the allegations that France is aiding and abetting terrorism, with the allegations of French intentions to establish a military base in Sokoto, to what extent can public refutations soften the problem?
In terms of constructive and beneficial concentrisim posited by Ambassador Oluyemi Adeniji, what really is the foreign policy objective in Niger Republic? At the level of President Muhammadu Buhari, he said if life is made difficult for him in Nigeria, he would simply go to Niger Republic. If there is a ferocious war between Nigeria and Niger, where will President Buhari fly to or go to with his cattle? Without jot of doubt, Nigeria-Niger relationship cannot but require a great foreign policy attention in 2025.
Secondly, national unity by force and by manu militari cannot but also warrant priority attention in foreign policy making. The mere fact that the 1999 Constitution provides for indivisibility and indissolubility of Nigeria does not mean non-possibility for review. As it is today, the Constitution is seen by many as very fraudulent by the mere consideration of its opening sentence, ‘We the People…’ Trying to review, modify, amend, and introducing new insertions into the Constitution do not remove of the fact that the foundation of the Constitution is fraudulent. Maintaining Nigerian nationality by force and by manu militari, has the potential to cause disaffection in the country, especially in light of fresh allegations of funding of terrorists by the Government of Nigeria. There is no need sustaining a Nigeria without Nigerians or having Nigerians who do not believe in Nigeria. Foreign policy calculations can begin to borrow from foreign countries with multi-ethnic communities and language where peace reigns and democracy has meaning. Foreign policy can be used to address domestic questions.
Thirdly, foreign policy making in Nigeria is generally reactive in character and methodologically deficient in strategy. Having a very good Foreign Minister, with competent collaborators is meaningless when the policy making is not coordinated. There are many foreign policy institutions, association of career and political ambassadors, foreign policy associations in various tertiary institutions but they are not coordinated in terms of foreign policy making inputs. In fact, most advanced countries underscore soft power by promoting citizen diplomacy in their foreign attitude.
Without any iota of doubt, Nigeria emphasises the Governmental Policy Model (GPM) than the Rational Actor Model (RAM) and the Organisational Behaviour Model (OBM) in foreign policy-making. The ideal thing is to have, at least, a combination of two out of the three models in order to have a holistic approach in decision-taking. Reacting only to foreign behaviour and not looking at the implications of the other models cannot be helpful to a regional power like Nigeria.
Fourthly, there is also the challenge of lack of foreign policy identity. Leading nations of the world have a globally-recognised foreign policy identity. If we talk about the White House, foreign policy students and scholars do know that it is the US Presidential official home. What the White House is to the United States is what the Blue House is to South Korea. The French call theirs Elysée Palace. While the French refer to their seat of Government as the Matignon, the British talk about No 10 Downing Street. It is not that Nigeria does not have its own names. Aso Rock is the Presidential Seat. Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs now answers Tafawa Balewa House while it is called Quai d’Orsay in France.
The foreign policy challenge is therefore how to enhance and underscore public enlightenment about Nigeria’s foreign policy institutions. The particular attention of the media professionals is needed in this regard. When analysts begin to refer to Aso Rock as the presidency, Tafawa Balewa House as the Foreign Ministry, etc., the public will be generally and quickly more conversant and more foreign policy educated. This cannot but engender self-projection, especially in terms of self-identity and promotion of collective patriotism.
The issue of African identity, not to talk about that of Nigeria, has been an issue since the 1970s. Professor Bolaji Akinwande Akinyemi, asked in 1982 in his article “Africa – Challenges and Responses: A Foreign Policy Perspectives” (published in Daedelus, Vol. III, No. 2, Spring 1982, pp. 243-254) if the name ‘Africa’ was a racial name and whether it is more appropriate to refer to Africa as ‘Africa-Arabia’ or as ‘Africas.’ One obvious dynamic for these questions cannot but be the reality of existence of Arabophones, mainly in the Maghreb region. They constitute one Africa of their own. When we talk about UNSC seat, Egypt is secretly being favoured not to represent Africa but the Arab world which does not qualify as a region of the world and cannot be eligible for consideration for a UNSC Permanent Seat. Allocation of UNSC Permanent Seat is based on the principle of regionalisation. As such, there is the need for foreign policy re-strategy in this case.
Most unfortunately, however, there is also the challenge of lack of an aggressive foreign policy of public enlightenment on the essence of patriotism, national unity, trado-cultural diplomacy and etiquette in nation-building. This is another area that foreign policy can also impact and that the great Nigerians in Diaspora can play more meaningful roles than remaining only as sources of foreign exchange for the Government.
From various indicators, the year 2025 cannot but witness a paradigm shift, especially in the area of balancing of political power, managing the error of terror and poverty of ideas, cyber and energy security, as well as anti-corruption and climate change strategies. Nigeria has been told that Lagos is below sea level and that the city will sink further by 2050. There should be a geo-politics driven foreign policy to respond to the challenges of the new climate environment. More precisely, Nigeria needs a Foreign Policy Grand Strategy (FPGS) that will be aimed at making Nigeria second to none in Africa, to begin with, and to be at par with the current leaders of the world, in the long run.
This was the idea of Professor Bolaji Akinwande Akinyemi’s Concert of Medium Powers which was defined by the need to use what Nigeria has to attract international attention. This is the type of foreign policy that Nigeria, as a regional influential, should pursue. The diplomacy of 4-Ds can be used as the tools of the FPGS. It is by so doing that the world can begin to reckon well with, and have respect for, Nigeria. The image of a fantastically corrupt country or a country of consumers without producers should be thrown into the garbage of history in 2025. May God make 2025 a happier year for all my readers and the entire ThisDay Family. insha Allah and in the powerful name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
