CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The Nigerian nation
is known as one, whose foreign policy is essentially tailored to reflect her
commitment to the well-being of all African countries; particularly in the
areas of peaceful co- existence, prevention of violent conflicts - at
intra-national and international levels - restoration of peace where necessary;
and maintenance of peace all over the world.
For the purpose of
this thesis, it is necessary to attempt a search into the rationale behind Nigeria‟s decision
to make
Africa the cornerstone of her
foreign policy, since, according to
J.A. Price
in his book Political Institutions in West
Africa,1 “the foreign policy
of a
State is
liable to reflect the State‟s personality,
but foreign policy cannot be developed in a completely arbitrary manner, since
policy is bound to be affected by many considerations concerned with the
circumstances and internal problems of the State.”
So, some of the
vital factors that gave rise to this kind of foreign policy are namely the
symbiotic relationships, religious affiliations, economic affairs and
historical background.
1.
Symbiotic Relationship:
First, Nigeria is
the most populated country in the West African sub-region, if not in the entire
African continent. This would not have been of any significance but for the
fact that millions of Nigerian nationals are permanently resident in all the
neighbouring countries of Togo, Benin Republic, Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone,
the Gambia, Guinea, Cameroon and even countries to the north of the country
like Chad and Niger Republics. Several other Nigerians based at home are
itinerary traders; artisans and other unskilled workers make their living in
these neighbouring countries, as well as Nigerian students now studying in
these countries.
The implication is
that Nigeria cannot afford to be hostile to these other countries if only
because a large number of her citizens benefit from the symbiotic
relationships, just as nationals of these other nations reside and make a
living in Nigeria.
2.
Religious Affiliations:
Nigeria is a secular
state where freedom of religion is guaranteed. But then, the country has a
predominance of Christians and Muslims; the two major religions. This is not to
suggest that there are no other religious groups, but they are not as prominent
as the Muslims and Christians. The preponderance of the two religious groups
has serious implications for the nation‟s foreign policy, since any noticeable
policy perceived to be unfavourable to any of the two religious blocs can
create problem domestically.
For
example,
the nation‟s peace was relatively threatened
when the
federal government of Nigeria,
during General Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida
(IBB)‟s administration announcement that Nigeria was going to become a
member of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC). The southern Christian
population saw the move as a betrayal in a country, whose constitution clearly
declares a secular state. They also saw the military President, a Muslim, as
using his position to drag the nation along to Islam, being the dominant
religion of his people in the northern part of the country. There was uproar
and widespread condemnation of the Babangida administration for this.
Therefore, even in
deciding what relationships to maintain with other countries, the Nigerian
government has a duty to weigh the implications of such decisions on the
domestic front as policies tilting too closely to the side of countries
professing either of the two religions could lead to disruption of peace within
the country.
3.
Economic Affairs:
Even now that
Nigeria is close to celebrating the 50th
anniversary of her political independence, she is still far away from
economic independence as the nation remains a raw materials producer for the
manufacturing economies of the Western world and nowadays, the „Asian Tigers.‟ The discovery of petroleum in large quantities, for instance, on the Nigerian soil in 1958 is a natural blessing, which ought to have
changed the nation‟s economic situation for the better, but for lack of
foresight by successive leaderships.
At the moment, over
90 per cent of the national budget is tied to revenue generated through sales
of crude oil. What this means is that Nigeria cannot make policy decisions that
may injure or offend countries that buy her crude oil. If for reasons beyond
her control she has to take injurious decisions affecting such countries, the
aftermath will be a devastating economic crunch, which could cause serious
threat to national peace and stability at home.
4.
Historical Perspective:
(a)
Affiliations:
Like any other nation
in the world, Nigeria‟s foreign policy has a base in her historical affiliations
and experiences. First, it is clear that many of the countries in the West
African sub-region had similar experiences. For instance, all the British West
African countries of Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone and the Gambia emerged as
independent nations after years of foreign rule. Incidentally, all of them had
been colonised by the same colonial master, Great Britain; therefore, they had
gone through similar treatments and experiences in the hands of one and the
same colonial authority.
As aptly documented
by [Price, 1975] in Political
Institutions of West Africa, each and all of the four countries had a
similar “pattern of evolution from Crown Colony status;” that is, they were common „property‟ of the king of England, administered
as extensions of Britain on African soil by officials of the British Government.
As a result, the
affinity created by similar colonial experiences had a pull on the subsisting
subsequent relationships between the African countries, when they eventually
became independent in quick succession in the late 50s and early 60s.
(b)
Nationalism:
Before the advent of
independence from the colonial masters, certain things had happened to serve as
gravitational pulls for many of the West African countries. Many of those who
subsequently became national leaders in the West African sub-region had met in
foreign countries where they studied. According to Price,2 “the long
time dream (of the Africans) was a self-governing federation of all British
West African territories, a dream which faded when they realised the
consequences of the fact that Nigeria was much more populous than the rest of
British West Africa put together.”
Price highlighted
that “Nigeria would not join a federation in which her voice was not (to be)
proportionate to her size; the other territories would not join a federation in
which Nigeria would have a permanent majority.” This clearly was the beginning
of nationalism of “individual countries” of the West African sub-region and,
indeed, all African countries.
However, before the
formation of sub-continental bodies, there were two „power blocs; the
Casablanca bloc and the Monrovia bloc. The two blocs were perceived to be
representing different ideologies. The Casablanca Group, which had Ghana as its
arrow head, was noted for radical approach to issues; while the Monrovia Group
led by Nigeria, was known to be conservative in its approach to issues.
The two
blocs operated
along their
„leftist‟ and
„rightist‟ approaches
until the
formation of the Organisation of
African Unity (OAU) in 1963. Countries in the Casablanca group included Mali,
Guinea and so on while the Monrovia group had Nigeria, Sierra Leone, the Gambia
to name a few. It is to be noted, as recorded by Price3 that “even
when the groups had disbanded, attitudes remained generally the same as voting
on issues in the OAU [now African Union (AU)]; reflected former bloc
convictions and actions.”
Happenings following
the termination of the 2nd World War in 1945, thereafter, fanned the
embers of nationalism, particularly among the nations of British West Africa.
Thousands of able- bodied, young men from Nigeria, Gold Coast (now Ghana),
Sierra Leone, The Gambia and Liberia were recruited to fight on the side of the
Allied Forces, of which their colonial master, Britain, was one.
The young Africans,
as soldiers, were mobilised to fight in East Africa, North Africa and South-
East Asia. During training and subsequent war actions, the soldiers were taught
that they were fighting for freedom and that good and comfortable resettlement
awaited them whenever they returned to their respective countries at the end of
the war. Moreover, fighting men in Asia were exposed to information through
pamphlets circulated among them. The pamphlets, however, contained what
demobilised British troops would get; and since the West African soldiers believed
they qualified for the same entitlements, “they had high expectations only to
be demobilised and abandoned on return to base in their respective countries”
(Price, 1975).
Of course, the
United Nations Organisation which replaced the League of Nations shortly after
the 2nd World War had made reference to the “Freedom of colonial
peoples” in its Treaty. That alone also created “a mental climate favourable to
ideas of self-determination among West Africans of the era.” The similarity of
treatment under the colonialists engendered the series of constitutional
developments which eventually led to the attainment of independence by many
West African countries between 1957 and 1965.4
In summary, this
shows that the commonality and similarity of experience in political, social
and economic development of West African countries served as a binding force,
which subsequently informed their foreign policy outlooks even after
independence.
NIGERIAN
FOREIGN POLICY IN THE LAST 50 YEARS
In the beginning …
Since 1960 when
Nigeria got her political independence from the British colonial masters,
notable about her diplomatic attitude has been the making of the African
continent her focus, especially in the areas of enthronement of democracy and
peace.
This philosophy is
derived from the fact of an African adage, which says that when tears fall from
the eyes, the nose responds by sneezing. Literally speaking, apart from the
philosophy of the „brother‟s keeper‟
which Nigeria
has created
for herself,
it should
also be
noted that
when any
of her neighbouring countries, especially in the West African
sub-region, has crisis, the Nigerian economy and political landscape are
equally affected.
Instances
of this can be found in the era of Ghana‟s economic
down-turn in 1980‟s and within 10 years, the
civil conflicts in Liberia and Sierra Leone; which resulted in the influx of a
large number of refugees into Nigeria.
These, therefore,
induced Nigeria‟s foreign
policy formulators to see the
need, not
only to
be steadfastly involved in policies aimed at maintaining peace and
tranquility on the African continent in general, but in the West African
sub-region in particular.
Geographical perspective of
the Nigerian foreign policy:
Historically,
(nigeriaworld.com, 2007) the nation is known as the Federal Republic of
Nigeria. Located in West Africa, Nigeria is reputed for being the most populous
country on the continent. Nigeria shares common land borders with the Republic
of Benin at the west, Chad and Cameroon at the east, Niger at the north, and
the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Guinea, at the south.
Since December 12, 1991, her capital has been the centrally located city
of Abuja. Hitherto, the Federal capital was the city of Lagos.5
With estimated 150
million population, Nigeria returned to democratic rule in 1999 after a 33-year
military intrusion. From 1966 to 1999, Nigeria was ruled [except for the brief
Second Republic which lasted between 1979 and 1983] by the military who seized
power in coups d'état and counter-coups.
According to Okochi
(1990), on accomplishing political independence Nigeria made the emancipation
and renewal of the African dignity the centre-piece of her foreign policy, thus
deciding to play a foremost role in the fight against apartheid in South
Africa; Nigeria's foreign policy was tested in the 1970s after the country had
emerged united, following a civil war which raged from 1967 to 1970.6
A founding member of
the Organisation of African Unity (OAU); now the African Union (AU), Nigeria has
tremendous influence in West Africa and Africa as a whole, and as such had
previously pioneered several regional co-operative efforts on the continent,
while simultaneously functioning as a standard-bearer of the Economic Community
of West African States (ECOWAS) and ECOWAS Monitoring Group (ECOMOG).
Background of MFA in Nigeria:
A discussion of the
current state of Nigerian foreign policy will not be complete without a brief
appraisal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the immediate former dispensation,
led by Chief Ojo Maduekwe, and the two Ministers of State, namely Alhaji
Tijjani Kaura and Ambassador Bagudu Hirse. But, with the March 17, 2010
dissolution of the Federal Executive Council FEC by acting president Goodluck
Jonathan, Mr. Odein Ajumogobia became the incumbent.
Five decades of foreign ministration:
In 1960, the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs was known as the Ministry of External Affairs and
was established officially in September 1957 as an External Affairs Division of
the Office of the then Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, with the
first Minister in-charge being Dr. Jaja A. Wachukwu.
Like any other
government institutions, the ministry was created and charged with the
statutory responsibilities of formulation, articulation and implementation of Nigeria‟s foreign
policy and management of external relations.
Its functions
focused on 14-basic points, encompassing the conduct of Nigeria‟s foreign
policy and international relations; representation of Nigeria in foreign
countries by way of High Commissions, Embassies and Consulates; Consular Matters
including the protection of interests of Nigerians abroad; maintaining
relationships with diplomatic corps and co-ordination of international
conferences in the country as well as ensuring representation of Nigeria at
international organisations such as the United Nations, ECOWAS, World Trade
Organisation (WTO), the Commonwealth and the AU, to name a few.
Additionally, the
ministry is charged with the responsibility of making certain pilgrimage
arrangements for the citizens; executing Technical Assistance (TA) programmes
or agreements with foreign countries, facilitating the repatriation of
destitute Nigerians; issuance of diplomatic passports, travel certificates,
merchant navy and seamen identity cards in foreign missions for the citizenry.7
The Ministry,
above all, has its mission as;
“Dedicated to the vigorous pursuit of the vital
national interests of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the promotion of
African integration and unity, international co-operation for the consolidation
of global peace, security, a just world economic order and democratic values,
through the execution of statutory duties
as it
concerns Nigeria‟s foreign
policy objectives for the benefit
of Nigeria
and her citizens, by building the capacity to be a major role player in
world affairs, and earning the respect of the people of Africa, and the larger
international community.”
Similarly, the Ministry‟s vision statement implies
that it has to build an efficient
knowledge- based foreign
bureau which should be technology driven in service delivery while pursuing Nigeria‟s foreign policy goals and objectives.
At its headquarters
in Abuja, the Ministry has a structure consisting of the minister (s) [purely
political appointees who represent the organisation at the Federal Executive
Council]. It has a leading minister who reports directly to the President with
some assistants as Minister (s) of state, which, in this case are two as
earlier mentioned.8
50 Years After Independence:
In the past 50 years of Nigeria‟s independence, the nation
has
maintained her foreign policy. Although,
the approach depends largely on the government of the day, based on the
circumstances of the time and style of leaderships; the substance is usually
rooted in set objectives revolving around those principles which the nation had
always held as her priorities in the conduct of foreign relations.
According to
the Ministry of
Foreign
Affairs (MAF), Nigeria‟s foreign
policy
witnessed unreserved influence guided by a commitment of five principles
as her own basic foreign policy objectives which comprise the placing of
priorities on safeguarding national security through enhanced extra-territorial
strategic arrangement, economic prosperity, defence of national honour, as well
as maintenance of peace and security.
Second
in the
line-up of principles was Nigeria‟s commitment to the
concept of legal equality of all States,
irrespective of their sizes or capability.
The third principle
is of “non-interference in the internal or domestic affairs of other nation states,” (MFA,
3-23-08) while
the fourth
dwells on influences that guide
Nigeria‟s foreign
policy with complete loyalty
to multi-lateral
diplomacy as demonstrated by Nigeria‟s vigorous involvement in various international
organisations among others.
As such, Nigeria
prides herself as a “member of the United Nations Organisation (UNO), African
Union (AU), Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), African
Petroleum Producers Association (APPA), Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC)
and ECOWAS,” (MFA March 19, 2007). Nigeria has a relative influence in all
these international organisations as expected of a full sovereign nation.
The bottom-line
is that
Nigeria‟s foreign policy is known
to be
a dedication
to Africa
and Pan-Africanism and it is on this
premise that successive Nigerian governments have encouraged the unity of all
African states, focusing the total political, economic, social and cultural
liberation of Africa and Africans within and in the diaspora.
Therefore, it is apt
to state that Nigeria, through the MFA, has achieved much in the areas of
keeping the entity together, by way of contributing its quota to regional peace
and maintaining its sovereign responsibilities to date.
As part of efforts
to elevate Nigeria‟s position in the comity of nations, the Maduekwe-led MAF inaugurated the
Foreign Ministers‟ Forum on Friday,
April
4, 2008 in Abuja. This, the
ministry
explained, includes “former and current Foreign Affairs Ministers and is
planned to serve as an informal advisory body on Nigeria‟s foreign policy and international relations. It is also intended
to enhance the institutional
memory of the foreign policy establishment.” (Olukanni – Nigerian MFA –
Accessed June 2008).9
In his address to
herald the events that marked five decades of Nigerian foreign service,
Maduekwe traced succinctly the origin of the Ministry to having been
established in September 1957 as an External Affairs Division of the Office of
the Prime Minister, adding that it is, indeed, auspicious after half a century
for the Ministry to celebrate its achievements, reflect on its past, and
rededicate itself to the tasks ahead.
Series of event, beginning
with the press briefing and the opening of an exhibition of works of arts, were
some of the activities lined up to mark the occasion. The exhibition comprised
a pictorial presentation, depicting the activities of the Ministry from its
early years to the present, including the work of its parastatals. (Nigerian
MFA, Accessed June 2008).
However, dwelling on
the theme of the celebration: “The Nigerian Foreign Service: Fifty Years of
Serving the Nation at Home and Abroad,” Maduekwe noted that such services had
been rendered in the past through Nigerian embassies, high commissions,
permanent missions and distinguished roles of diplomats in international
organisations. He stressed that it is through such international bodies as the
United Nations, African Union, the ECOWAS, the Commonwealth and so on
that Nigeria‟s enduring interests
have been
promoted and defended over the
years.10
“Specifically, we
must mention the leadership role that Nigeria has continued to play in the West
African sub-region, Africa and in the developing world,” he asserted,
emphasising that Nigeria‟s role in
the de-colonisation
struggle in Southern Africa remains
a landmark.
Such other
initiatives as the New Partnership for Africa‟s Development (NEPAD) and its
Peer Review Mechanism, the African Union and its predecessor, the Organisation
of African Unity (OAU). The external debt and other challenges facing the developing
world beyond the specific concerns of Africa have been largely successful
because Nigeria provided the critical leadership needed at all times.” (Maduekwe – MFA.gov.ng. Accessed June
2008)
The Nigerian
Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), Lagos, as a credible policy
think-tank of the nation, was elevated to a parastatal of the Ministry, without
forgetting the roles of Nigeria in UN and other peace-keeping operations. Such
was the record that Nigeria has been the chairman of the Special Political
Committee (C34) which oversees UN peace-keeping operations in different parts
of the world. Indeed, Nigeria was in February 2010, re-elected into this
Committee.
In his words: “Of
course, our role in ECOMOG and peace-keeping, peace-building and resolution in
our sub-region also needs no telling. In all these areas, in co-operation with
the gallant officers and men of the Nigerian Armed Forces, the Ministry, our
past and present Foreign Ministers, Missions abroad, Ambassadors and diplomats
have played very important roles. And of course, they continue to do so.
Nigeria‟s peace-keeping experiences led to the establishment of the Institute
for Peace and Conflict Resolution (IPCR) in Abuja.” (Maduekwe – MFA.gov.ng. Accessed June 2008)
On the Technical Aid
Corps Scheme (TAC), for instance, the Minister pointed out that the creation of the
scheme in 1987 was a major initiative of the Ministry, to
coordinate Nigeria‟s technical assistance to
developing countries in Africa, the Pacific and the Caribbean - known as the
APC countries.11
Citizen Diplomacy:
Notably from
inception, the Nigerian foreign service and the Ministry have been reputed for
providing consular services to Nigerians abroad, promoting their welfare and
rendering assistance to those in need, including facilitating links and
communications with next of kin at home in Nigeria where relevant.
In line with the
aforementioned, Maduekwe said, these services include issuance of passports,
other travel documents, visas, authentication of documents “and since this
administration came into office, the welfare of Nigerians at home and abroad
has now been given greater emphasis through
the policy
of „Citizen Diplomacy.‟“
Explaining that
Citizen Diplomacy as a foreign policy thrust is aimed at re-branding Nigeria‟s foreign policy under which the Ministry
and Missions abroad are totally committed to the welfare
and rights of Nigerians at home and abroad, as well as becoming fully-grown
development as a robust policy thrust in half a century.
Even where Nigerian
nationals are alleged to have infringed on the laws of their countries of
residence, the ministry ensures that they are still entitled to get what is
referred to as “the international minimum standard of treatment.”12
In this regard, the Ministry is directly involved in:
i.
“Bilateral
discussions and negotiations;
ii.
Negotiation,
conclusion and implementation of international treaties, bilateral and
multilateral agreements;
iii.
Helping to
organize and co-ordinate international meetings and conferences in Nigeria;
iv.
Support of
government programmes of attracting Foreign Direct Investment;
v.
Trade
promotion – sourcing for markets for Nigerian products abroad, especially in
the non-oil sectors;
vi.
Promoting
the image of Nigeria in co-operation with other Ministries and agencies of
Government, including the promotion of Nigerian culture and dissemination of
information on Nigeria;
vii.
Promoting
the interests and welfare of Nigerian students abroad, including assistance in
remittance of fees and other education support services;
viii.
Co-ordinating
Christians and Muslim Pilgrimage activities in co-operation with the State
Governments and other agencies and arms of government and ensuring their
welfare in the Holy Lands.”
The Presidency: Bedrock of foreign policy decisions
In Nigeria, the fact
is that several high-level decisions are taken at different centres and
locations despite the existence of certain structures like ministries in-charge
of core issues at stake. Foreign policy decisions do not elude the Presidency,
the centre of government in Nigeria; be it military or civilian administration.
Alluding to this
fact, Olusanya et al (1990) stated that, owing to the expansion in foreign
policy conducts invariably facilitated by the
proliferation of issues and the emergence of new ones, issues which
would have imperatively required both bilateral and multilateral international
engagements in finding the root or cure have been resolved without stress.
Elucidating this,
Olusanya et al, noted that in planning the Nigerian Constitution, in 1979 and
1989, the government of the day did not see any limitation to foreign policy
making, and did not limit itself to just political and diplomatic relations
between the country and the rest of the world. But rather, it saw foreign
policy “as the totality of transactions – economic, trade, cultural, financial,
political and diplomatic ….” (Asobie, 1990, p.5).
This position,
therefore, makes it possible, for instance, for the Ministry of Trade which
handles external trade for the country to become an integral part of the
foreign policy. Crude oil sales undertaken on behalf of the government by the
Ministry of Petroleum Resources is a major element
in Nigeria‟s international business transactions, similarly makes
the Ministry‟s activities a
major factor in foreign policy decisions.
Hub of foreign policy in
Nigeria:
Concluding this
chapter with the postulation that the Presidency, especially in Nigeria, is the
bedrock of foreign policy decision-making, therefore, may be in order,
especially considering some uniqueness about the various governments at
different periods of governance in Nigeria since independence.
These indicated that
some were during the Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa‟s regime;
who became the first
Prime Minister in 1957, while his actual leadership role commenced three years
later, when Nigeria attained independence. Given that Nigeria practised a
parliamentary system at that time, all
members of the government were parliamentarians, hence, the Prime Minister being the real
head of
government then, was making foreign policy
decisions on the nation‟s behalf.13
Balewa‟s government
assembled the first crop of
Nigerians to rule the country,
and his administration formulated what is known today as the focus of
Nigerian foreign policy, which has the African continent as its cornerstone.
For that reason,
according to (Inamete 2001), Balewa‟s administration has been largely portrayed
as moderate, calm, placating attitudes embodied in his relationship with other
political leaders in formulation of foreign policies alongside his cabinet
crew.
Login To Comment