NIGERIA’S FOREIGN POLICY FROM 1960 – GLOBAL ERA: WHAT WENT WRONG?

ABSTRACT 

Chapter One is the introductory chapter. It focuses on the background to the study, the statement of the problem, the objectives, motivations, justification and significance. It guides through the research methodology, sources of data and data gathering techniques and analysis.  

Chapter Two reviews existing literatures and what has been written on the topic already. It also covers the theoretical framework and the scope of study, and analyses frameworks used in other studies.

Chapter Three covers extensively the main research. It covered Nigeria’s development initiatives with the external community over five periods from 1953 prior to independence till the present era. It examined the military governments and the civilian transitional democratic settings situated within the five periods; the component of the policy and domestic environment that shaped the foreign policy thrusts and Nigeria’s relationship with the rest of the world.

Chapter Four discusses the findings. It strikes a comparison between the two dominant governments in Nigeria - military authoritative regime and civilian transitional/democratic government and establishes each government’s foreign policy thrust and implementation and establishes which of the governments’ approaches contributed to Nigeria’s dwindling influence. 

Chapter Five conclude the study by answering concretely the hypothesis and research questions.

CONTENTS

Abbreviations

In every region of the world, pivotal powers take the lead. Such powers possess the geo- strategic advantage to determine the direction of events and actions and shape arrangements regionally, continentally, etc. They adopt different strategies, from diplomacy- economic and public (Sevin, 2015), security, economy, aid and assistance, grants, etc. in their relationships and interactions and also have critical say on issues relating to development and peace of the region. Such powers played critical roles in establishing important organizations like NATO, European Union-EU, the United Nations Organization- UN, etc. (Dokubo and Oluwwadare, 2011). Such was Nigeria’s role after independence from British control in October 1960.  

Located in the Gulf of Guinea West Africa, Nigeria is the tenth largest country in Africa, with a landmass of 924,000 square kilometres (African Economic Outlook, 2003, Country Reports 2017), 853km long coastline. Prior to 1914, present-day Nigeria was simply regions and later Protectorates, of Southern and Northern Nigeria, including the Colony of Lagos. It was amalgamated in 1914 by the British government and later granted independence in what can be described as a negotiated self-rule (Abdul and Ibrahim, 2013). Apart from oil, Nigeria has about thirty-three other varieties of solid minerals that when fully utilized will make Nigeria the leading economy in Africa. There are 371 ethnic nations spread across six geopolitical zones in Nigeria (Vanguard Newspaper, 2017). Nigeria’s population stands at 185.989.640 million, accounting for 47% of West African population. In 2015, Nigeria had the largest GDP in SSA at $521.8 billion. In 2016, it reduced to $USD404.653 ((Didia et al, 2015:234; World Bank, 2018).  

Nigeria was an agrarian monolithic society until 1970s. 75% of her revenue came from resources like cocoa, palm-fruits, maize, etc. (Mbakwe and Chukwu, 2016::28). Oil was first discovered in Oloibiri, in Bayelsa State in 1956 making Nigeria the first oil-producer in Africa and a critical member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries-OPEC. The Yom Kippur war led to increased global oil price and revenue from 1971. By 1980s, Nigeria relied on oil (crude) for 92% of her foreign earnings. Between 1979 and 1985, oil earnings stood at $104.06 billion, making Nigeria a wealthy nation (Aboje, et al, 2016; Mbachu, 1992 in Mbakwe and Chukwu, 2016:28). Nigeria is estimated to have 37 billion barrels of oil with production capacity of 1427.3 barrels per day and crude oil exports (1000 b/d) 1,738.0 (OPEC, 2018). Her proven natural gas reserves is 120 trillion cubic feet, with recoverable gas reserves of 45 tcf, making her the 9^th largest resources in the world, with reserve- production ratio at 125 years for gas. Today, about 77-80% of Nigeria’s revenue comes from oil amounting to USD 55.45 billion (Adi and Friday, 2017; Malden, 2017:2).

Nigeria has an army of 200,000, the second largest in sub-Saharan Africa (World Bank, 2018) according to 2016 estimates. Nigeria also has an estimated 50% of the potential for manufacturing production in West Africa, with Lagos as the engine-room for the region. The combination of human and natural resources, ethno-politics, the diplomatic and military engagement of successive regimes in the continent’s affairs makes her a power in the continent (Bach, 2007:302). These factors, especially oil and population were deciding factors in Nigeria’s foreign policy formulation. Owing to the critical role played in the continent, Nigeria became a central locus in Africa. Whatever happens in Nigeria impacts Sub-Sahara Africa positively or negatively according to Gambari (2008). Henkel (in Ali, 2012) refers to Nigeria as a “regional hegemon,” committed to integration through peace and security. Wright (1998) calls Nigeria a “Champion” which the Western powers would listen to, and that could champion causes that other nations were too weak to stand up to. 

Between 1950’s to early 1990’s, black African nations were embroiled in liberation struggles. In March, 21^st, 1960, about sixty-nine unarmed South Africans, protesting against the carriage of Pass to designated areas in South Africa were killed. This ‘Sharpeville Massacre’ aroused African consciousness and brought to limelight the atrocities of the apartheid policy (Abegunrin, 2008:13). Other black nations under severe colonial subjugation achieved independence through blood and heavy clampdown. Countries like Mozambique, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe were not liberated until the 1980’s. South Africa followed subsequently upon Nelson Mandela’s release from prison in February 12^th 1990. Identified expertise and resource gaps impeded many independent states from advancing. Conversely, Nigeria’s journey to independence was smooth in comparison, with less confrontation.  

Despite a smooth independence, Nigeria was left with a weak and dependent economy given the many years of colonial domination and exploitation, and without real legacy for economic development or technological take-off (Mbakwe and Chukwu, 2016). Nations across the world adopted modernization concept of development to achieve social and economic changes in postcolonial world and World War II. Developed States adopted the theory to push developing states and former colonies to economic growth (Jiafeng, 2009:73).

This was not the case in Africa as many of the colonial powers adopted different exit strategy from colonies. It was in this weak state that Sir Abubakar Balewa declared that “Nigeria’s Africa, Africa’s Nigeria”, meaning that Nigeria is taking responsibility to support Africa, making African liberation and unity the centre of Nigeria’s foreign policy and development

initiatives. Nigeria possessed the needed resources which placed her in position to fill the identified gaps in other black states.

The foreign policy objectives were enshrined in the 1979 Constitution and upheld in Chapter 2, Section 19 of the 1999 operational Constitution (Nigerian Constitution, 1999). Four objectives were designed to facilitate Nigeria’s leadership role while the first focused on the internal (Appendix). The promise to tackle issues peculiar to Africa, where the forces of apartheid and colonialism were still prominent (Ajayi, 2005) shows that Nigeria placed liberation of other African nations above internal affairs. Foreign policy dictates how a State relates with other countries, socially, politically, economically and in a military sense. Nigeria’s foreign policy covering aid, assistance, propaganda, grants, concessional loans, etc. dictated her relationship.

Indirectly, Nigeria took up the crucial leadership role as a continental hegemon, to fight colonialism, racism, apartheid (Emenike, 2007; Ezeolisa, 2015), combat conflict and assist weak African nations to build stronger institutions and promote African unity. Nigeria’s foreign policy was therefore interpreted along these lines, under different governments. In 58 years of independence, 27 years were under different military leaders with three intermittent attempts at democratization. Nigeria committed resources to financially weak African, Caribbean and Pacific nations.

Nigeria initiated the Economic Community of West African States-ECOWAS along with Togo and Ghana (Dokubo and Oluwadare, 2011). Nigeria is the sixth largest contributor to the Commonwealth Secretariat budget (Akinrinade, 1997; Scotland and Morland, 2017). Nigerian Trust Fund, Technical Development Cooperation Fund and Technical Aid Corps have served many black nations in the last 30 years. Apart from the force of globalization which later replaced modernization, Nigeria’s journey from independence, spanning 58 years is enough for the institutions responsible for external affairs to mature and gain practical experience (Effiong, 2012; Jiafeng, 2009), firm up strategies and become very relevant in international development cooperation platforms like Organization for Economic Cooperation And Development-OECD. Rather, the different approaches to external affairs by the 14 Leaders led to positive and negative impacts on Nigeria’s position and aspirations as a continental power. It has therefore become imperative to navigate the political, economic and social landscape of Nigeria over the years to comprehend the nature and content of her external affairs (Mbakwe and Chukwu, 2016).

1.1  Statement of the Problem    

Nigerian has contributed significantly to African development. Nigeria’s foreign policy thrust from 1960 earned her the names “Frontline State” and “Giant of Africa” (Ezeolisa, 2015; Ojakorotu and Adeleke, 2017). Events and literature reveals that the different foreign policy approaches adopted by different leaders over the years created problems that impacted negatively on her foreign policy. Many have also identified the weak and struggling economy, personality and character of leadership and their perception of how to handle the economy, including ethno-religious diversity as contributory factors to Nigeria’s fading influence (Rosemary, 2005; Soremeku, 2003). Pine (2011) opines that the Afrocentric concept “Africa, the Centrepiece of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy” is a problem as it lacks deep and profound philosophical reflection and some elements of reciprocity.

In an era of increased cooperation, when many countries are positioning themselves as part of global decision making architecture, Nigeria’s assertive role in the continent has declined and has lost her admiration and esteem (Aiden and Schoeman, 2013; Fagbayibo, 2014). This study therefore identifies this declining role and loss of prestige as the problem and seeks to establish which governments’-military or civilian actions, domestic challenges or changing international scene contributed to Nigeria’s declined influence in the continent and her inability to make the necessary impact despite her potentials.

1.2  Objective of Thesis

1.2.1        Main Thesis Objective: To evaluate Nigeria’s foreign policy from the period leading up to independence in 1960 to the present global era - 2018.

1.2.2        Specific Objectives: pursuant to this main objective, the derived objectives are;

·         To evaluate side-by-side how military regimes and democratic civil rule handled Nigeria’s foreign relations and how it shaped her influence in the continent;

·         To understand the role aid played in Nigeria’s foreign policy, its components and how it became essential instruments of the foreign policy;

·         To identify how each government within a specified period in Nigerian history designed its foreign policy thrust and ascertain the differences in each government. This is crucial because Nigeria as an independent nation has been characterised by only two phases of either authoritarian (dictatorship) military rule or democratic transitional civilian rule. This will help to ascertain inherent differences in the foreign policy in relation to regime type;

·         To determine the origin and factors that influenced each government’s approach, the challenges and priorities. This is important to understand how and why the governments adopted different thrusts and how it impacted on her image. This will cover the political, economic and social climate within each period and how it shaped the adoption of the policy thrust.

1.3    Methodology – Research Design  

The study employs qualitative research to discover, trace, gather information and establish new facts regarding Nigeria’s external relations (Durrheim, 2006; Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Hiatt 1986, cited in Harwell, 2011). Case study as a methodology is adopted because ”it investigates a phenomenon in-depth and within a real-life context…it copes with technically

distinctive situations in which there will be more variables of interests than data points” (Yin,

2009:18). Case study methodology provides the framework to investigate this phenomenon in-depth. Method of analysis is purposive, explanatory, evaluative and comparative. The “how,” “why” and “what” questions capture complex issues and allows for comparison of the different governments in the established periods (1953-2018) in order to identify factors that caused the power decline. 

1.3.1        Research Questions 

 ·         What is the component of Nigeria’s foreign policy?

·         How was Nigeria’s foreign policy articulated during military regimes and democratic administrations?

·         How did the systems, military regimes or civilian democratic governments aid Nigeria in asserting her influence locally and globally?

·         How has regime change impacted on implementation of her foreign policy over the years?

·         Why has her foreign policy not impacted on her role as a continental hegemon or superpower?

 1.3.2        Variables  

Dependent variable is decline of Nigeria’s influence in Africa as influenced by the regime changes. Independent variable is the decline of Nigeria’s influence in Africa as influenced by character or leadership style.

1.4    Data Source: Inclusion and Exclusions 

Data source are primary and secondary and medium of analysis is the Palacky University Electronic Portal. Online Archival Analysis was utilized for select information from government records. The study also obtained directly from other academic sites e.g. Jstor,

Scribd, Liste, and Academia. For vital information not available on the School Portal but were crucial to the study, non-academic sources were explored and included. Resources include academic research articles, books, book chapters, peer reviewed-dissertations and theses, evaluation reports, book reviews, newspapers, academic citations and relevant professional accredited websites, licensed websites and internationally-recognized stakeholders and organizations whose thematic areas cover foreign policy and international development assistance initiative.  

The non-academic sources and websites are authenticated and their primary aim, agenda and motivation is to educate. The characteristics of the websites and resources bordered the relationship to the topics, use of English language, credibility of the writers, authors and administrators, quality and depth of analysis, reliability and relevance to the topic. Examples of key words used in the search are “Nigeria’s foreign policy in military era, “General Obasanjo’s foreign policy,” “Economic Diplomacy,” Oil and Nigerian Foreign Policy, Foreign Aid and Foreign Policy, etc. “Scholarly articles on” were added at the beginning of some searches which were not available on Palacky Information Resources. While references and bibliographic articles are majorly from the year 2000, special consideration is given to prior select works that are very critical to the study.  

It was difficult to establish the page numbers or columns of some online sources. The bibliography represents the research population, collection of objects and individuals with similar binding features. Ideally, the study covered from 1953 till March 1^st 2018 which should give an estimated sixty-four (64) years and four (4) months, including leap years. Since data was mostly generated online, it is impossible to follow this process to conduct a thorough archival search of activities from 1953 till March 2018. The study is therefore authentic to work within the 64 years. Html links were followed and websites were directly accessed and examined to establish its suitability for the study. The study was also peer reviewed where the opinions of colleagues with backgrounds in law, international relations and development studies and similar competence were sought.

1.5    Approach  

The study follows a chronological pattern of analysis from 1953 till 2018. It is divided into five periods starting 1953-1960 to 2018. The timeframes are important and awards opportunity for the reader to determine the regime types, changes, priorities, challenges and continuities of the policy (Effiong, 2012).  

1.5.1        First Period - 1953 Independence in 1966 (First Republic)

Preparations for Nigeria’s independence commence in 1953 with establishment of Office of the Cabinet for External Affairs. Election into the Federal House was held in 1957. Members of the House represented the different (371) ethnic groups and regions in Nigeria. The last British colonial Governor-General, Sir James Robertson handed over officially to Sir

Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, a Fulani Muslim from Northern Nigeria on October 1^st 1960. By 1963 when Nigeria officially joined the Commonwealth of Nations, the first president, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe from Southern Igbo group replaced the Queen and Nigeria became a Republic. This period in post-colonial Nigeria is referred to as the “First Republic 1960 – January 1966.

1.5.2        Second Period – 1966-1979 Military Regimes 

Four military coups and a civil war (Nigerian-Biafran War 1967-1970) characterised this period. General Aguiyi Ironsi from Igbo ethnic group Southeast Nigeria took over in January 16^th, 1966 following the assassination of the Prime Minister, Sir Tafawa Balewa and other Northern leaders. As a nation of many ethnicities, fears of marginalization began to seep in. General Ironsi was assassinated in a second military coup by a group of northern army officers six months later on July 12^th (Ujumadu, 2016). General Yakubu Gowon, Christian from Northcentral Nigeria became Head of State on August 1^st 1966.

In July 29^th, 1975, General Gowon was overthrown in a third military coup which brought to power General Muritala Mohammed, a Hausa Muslim from the north. Muritala was later assassinated in a fourth military coup in February 13^th, 1976 and his deputy; a Southwestern Yoruba, General Olusegun Obasanjo became military leader. In 1979, General Obasanjo handed over to a democratically elected government. The distinctive aspect of this period is the Kippur Yom war which led to oil windfall that assisted Nigeria in exercising her leadership role. Until 1970, 75% of Nigeria’s revenue came from agricultural products, cotton, palm oil, groundnut, etc. As at 1960, oil accounted for 2.6% of export earnings. In 1971, oil production climaxed one million barrels per day, thus crude oil replaced agricultural products as main driver of the economy. Agricultural revenue fell from 75 percent to 55 percent by 1971 and further to 45 percent in 1974. By 1980, it was less than 20 percent and contributed only 7.5 percent revenue. The oil revenue which stood at 20 percent in 1966 rose to 36 percent in 1970, 55 percent by 1974 and by 1980; it stood at 80 – 98.6 percent (Alkali, 1997:65-66; Mbakwe and Chukwu, 2016:28; Ahmed, 1990 in Ojieh, 2014). 

1.5.3        Third Period – 1979-1984 Democratic Governmenta (Second Republic)  

Alhaji Shehu Shagari was democratically elected the president in 1979, with Sir Alex Ekwueme as Deputy. Shagari completed the first term of four years of democratic government in October 1983. The oil shocks of late 1970s led to economy turndown during this period and the government was faced with severe economic crisis and resorted to external borrowing. Shagari’s government was overthrown in another military coup three months into the second term in December 31^st 1983.  

1.5.4        Fourth Period - 1984 – 1999 Military Regimes (2 successful and 3 aborted coups) 

The coup of December 31^st 1983 brought to power General Muhammadu Buhari and Tunde Idiagbon. The military regime was in place until August 27^th 1985 when it was toppled by the third high-ranking member of the Supreme Military Council, General, Ibrahim Babangida. According to domestic and international observers, Alhaji Moshood Kashimawo Abiola had the highest votes in the presidential election held on June 12^th, 1993 following a successful Gubernatorial, Federal and State Houses of Assembly elections. This was to mark the “Nigeria’s Third Republic.” However, the election was declared “nulled and void.” An Interim Government was setup with Ernest Shonekan (not a contestant) as the Interim Head of Government. 

In November 17^th 1993, General Sani Abacha replaced Shonekan as Head of State. Between 1993 and 1998, the winner of the acclaimed elections, Moshood Abiola was incarcerated and died in July 1998, weeks after Abacha. This period is known as “The Dark Days” in Nigerian history. General Abdulsalami Abubakar became Head of State in July 8^th 1998 following Abacha’s demise. He laid the groundwork for democratic government. A retired General Obasanjo won the election and became president from May 29^th, 1999.

1.5.5        Fifth Period - 1999 – date Democratic System – “Fourth Republic”

 Between May 1999 and date, four presidents have been sworn in. Obasanjo handed over to Alhaji Musa Yar’Adua, a passive president due to his health condition. Yar’Adua passed on in May 5^th 2009. His deputy, Goodluck Jonathan was sworn in to complete the tenure and subsequently won the 2011 election. Retired General Muhammadu Buhari won the 2015 elections, this time as civilian president of Nigeria. The study therefore analyses, evaluates and explained how Nigeria’s foreign policy initiatives and frameworks were designed and articulated within these five periods.

1.6    Scope of the Study

The research was feasible despite the anticipated challenges. There are enough academic materials on the topic; the Palacky Electronic Information Portal provides rich information

resources. The research design and methodology are well-understood. Many used the term foreign policy, foreign assistance, foreign aid, diplomacy, etc. interchangeably. Foreign policy as already stated is about the strategies and actions that guide states at international field using aid or development assistance as its tool. Since a greater part of Nigeria’s assistance to African states was financial aid, these thesis uses the term “foreign policy and foreign aid” to analyse the impact of the assistance.  

The study covers five periods and four republics from 1953 to March 2018. Additionally, the study concentrates on Black Nations in Africa and to an extent blacks in the Caribbean and Pacific regions, excluding blacks in Europe and the United States because Nigeria’s focus was black Nations in disadvantaged situations. No interviews are conducted. Primary and secondary sources are used. The terms “she” and “her” are used in the study to describe or represent Nigeria, a former British territory, under Her Royal Majesty, the Queen of England. Queen Elizabeth II was the Head of State until 1963, when Nigeria became a Republic. Thus, the feminine words “she” and “her” are officially used to represent Nigeria.

1.7    Limitation   

Time constrain and financial resources to travel to Nigeria for in-depth interviews and Focus Group Discussions with critical stakeholders. By delimitation, the researcher is unable to do quantitative and qualitative research at same time but some aspects of quantitative methods are integrated in the study.

1.8    Motivation    

The motivation for this topic is derived from different sources. Nigeria’s absence as a key player in international affairs, unlike in the past which was widely recognized; the negative perception of Nigerians within and outside Africa; my experience as a Nigerian with other Africans here in Czech Republic and in Europe; the misinformation and misconception about Nigeria’s role in Africa; the xenophobic attacks in South Africa, targeting mostly Nigerians; the absence of a literature that explains the role Nigeria played in African integration in post- colonial and post-apartheid Africa in Palacky University Library; the quest for justice for the lives of Nigerians lost to these attacks and the need to speak about it more; the need to contribute to a comprehensive text that focuses on what Nigeria’s relationships with the rest of the world entailed and to situate it within other contexts in development field.  

I was also inspired by the lectures in MRS/International Development Studies, my recent encounter and association with the Group - Young Professionals in Foreign Policy, following my internship in Brussels. And because this is a field I recently developed interest in, it could inform my future work in the field or further study at PhD level. The study also added value and improved my research skills. And while it may serve as recommendation to appropriate

authorities, it also provides the department and Palacky University with a resource and reference point for those seeking further knowledge and information in the field and about Nigeria.  

My focus on Nigeria’s external support stems from the need to understand how the two systems-military dictatorships and democratic transitional governments articulated the foreign policy. I have also examined the issues emanating from the meetings I have attended within development circles in Europe, examine how other countries tackled external issues while Nigeria’s sacrifices to African unity is rarely mentioned or acknowledged. Many are only aware of the corruption cases and influx of Nigerian migrants to other countries while the leadership role Nigeria played in the continent is downplayed. Xenophobic attacks target Nigerians in almost all parts of the world, including in places where Nigeria committed enormous resources. It is my deepest interest to understand what led to Nigeria’s current backseat position and to share the findings.

1.9    Justification        

To establish the regime type in Nigeria and the foreign policy thrust that positively impacted on the international system. It equally seeks to understand the component of the policy. While studies have been conducted on various aspects of Nigeria’s foreign policy, this topic is far from being exhausted as a research field. Study shows that Nigeria still stands in position to dominate the entire continent given many factors, including her  population, natural endowments, economy-potential and her manufacturing and production capacity which stands at 50% in West Africa (Bach, 2007:301; Williams, 1991). This, achievable through positive foreign policy interpretations, is far from reality as Nigeria’s influence over the years continue to wane. 

Most importantly, this study seeks to strike a link between development aid and foreign policy because apart from propaganda, financial aid was the major foreign policy tool used by different governments in Nigeria. Aid was a Second World War development strategy and was instrumental in realizing the modernization theory of development. At a period aid was used as a weapon of diplomacy and to build alliances, Nigeria’s external affairs bordered on financial and technical assistance to liberation movements in Africa and to promote African unity. However, this support is yet to translate into meaningful impact or benefit to Nigeria as her influence continues to decline. In 1973, Hans Morgenthau (in Ajayi, 2005:61), asserted that no nation can have true guides on what to do in foreign policy without accepting national interest as guide. The Adedeji Commission Report of 1976 endeavoured to interpret the foreign policy objectives as:

·         The defence of our sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity;