THE
CHALLENGES FACING NIGERIA'S FOREIGN POLICY IN THE NEXT MILLENNIUM
Ebenezer
Okpokpo
INTRODUCTION
Since Nigeria became independent in 1960 its foreign policy, like that
of most other countries, has witnessed successes and failures. The current
debate on President Obasanjo’s list of Ambassadorial nominees sent
to the Senate for approval provides Nigerian citizens with an opportunity
to contribute to the debate on who should be nominated and why. I will
leave relating to the "who and why" to observers more concerned
with the internal political situation. My contribution will go beyond
the internal debate concerning the disrespect of the "federal character"
and the purported bias in these nominations. I will focus on the content
and objectives of Nigerian foreign policy in the new millenium.
In his article on Obasanjo’s foreign policy, Reubin Abati, gives
an interesting and complete overview of Nigeria’s foreign policy
since its independence (1). He rightly
points out that Nigeria has been extraordinarily naive by restricting
its foreign policy to Africa as its cornerstone. It was a laudable goal
before the 1990s, but its evolution is needed for Nigeria to meet the
needs of today’s diplomacy as we move into the next millennium. Africa
as the centerpiece of Nigeria’s foreign policy no longer suffices;
a broader perspective is necessary. Although Nigeria hasn’t got the
means and might to have a global foreign policy, it should endeavour to
take more into consideration current trends in international relations
and diplomacy such as globalization, human rights, and democracy.
In my opinion, successive military dictatorships in Nigeria have used
the Africa cornerstone slogan to lure compliant like-minded African
regimes to support their unpopular regimes. This was the price Nigeria
had to pay for the support of dictatorial African states. Now, we are
a democracy and we have to speak out and stand tall within the international
community. We no longer have to beg for support from other military
dictatorships for limited gains within African diplomatic circles. Africa
alone should no longer be the one and only reason for the existence
of a foreign policy in Nigeria. None of the important international
diplomatic actors, such as the USA, France and Great Britain, build
their foreign policy on only one pillar. Nigeria shouldn’t be an
exception if it wants to play a role in current high level diplomatic
circles.
DOMESTIC DETERMINANTS OF FOREIGN POLICY
Internal political events usually have a lot of impact on foreign policy.
Nigeria is no exception as the following discussion will demonstrate.
Nigeria should henceforth cultivate the idea, recognise and accept that
military coup d’états are not solutions to internal
political problems. If such were the case, governments in industrialised
countries would have been toppled very often because of political crises.
The solution is a culture of political dialogue and debate between opponents
and Nigerians are up to that task. Encouraging political dialogue as
the principal mechanism for the resolution of crisis situations would
show the international community that Nigerians are a mature people
worthy of a respectable place within the community of nations.
When Rueben Abati mentioned that the Babangida regime gave a lethal
blow to Nigeria’s image abroad and its foreign policy in particular,
he gave as examples the financial waste but omitted human rights abuses
and the cancellation of the June 12 election at a time when every country,
in particular the G7 and most OECD countries had made democracy, good
governance, and human rights essential determining elements in international
politics and in their relations with developing countries. It is worth
noting that since the famous La Baule speech by President Mitterrand
of France in 1983, democracy became a determining factor in relations
between France and developing countries, in particular, African countries.
This applied to other western states also.
Worse still, after its cancellation, no official inside Babangida's
government was capable of giving cogent reasons for the annulment of
the June 12 elections and accusations concerning human rights violations.
The international community, therefore, rightly believed our top military
officers were up to something. The aftermath was nothing to write home
about. That was the beginning of Nigeria's misunderstanding with the
international community – notably the USA, Canada, the Commonwealth
countries, and the European Union.
The issue of June 12 had not been resolved when General Sani Abacha
pushed the transition president Chief Ernest Shonekan out and took his
seat without any agenda on how to improve relations between Nigeria
and the international community, outside its traditional African brother
countries. That coup d’état worsened the international
image of Nigeria. No creditworthy transition programme was published;
instead General Abacha embarked upon a self-aggrandising effort that
led Nigeria to the brink of war because of the most flagrant human rights
abuses any military regime had ever committed in the country since independence.
Nigeria became a pariah state with whom none except compliant African
countries talked to. It was at this time that experienced diplomatic
advice would have saved Nigeria. None was given a chance; instead a
select delegation of incredible, though famous Nigerians, was sent abroad
to explain the unexplainable to the international community. One such
delegations led by Chief Odumegwu Ojukwu visited Europe, but its failure
was obvious.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND FOREIGN POLICY
Under General Abacha, foreign policy was crudely mishandled. Records
show that Nigeria was like a country without a foreign minister and a
foreign policy during that period. No one person should be blamed for
the absence of a foreign policy but someone should explain why there seemed
to be no useful policy advice to General Abacha during the time (2).
The questions to be answered include those relating to the aimless intentional
tug-of-war declared by the regime against the international community.
Explanations should be given as to why that regime was incapable of
foreseeing the devastating effects of the hanging of the "Ogoni
nine", including Ken Saro Wiwa, and lastly, why there was no government
official capable of making the regime to shift the horrible decision
to hang the Ogoni activitists until the end of the Commonwealth summit.
That regime unjustly imprisoned many people, including the incumbent
President Olusegun Obasanjo, and hung Ken Saro Wiwa when all Commonwealth
Heads of State and Government were meeting in Australia. These were
all terrible acts and diplomatic blunders because they underrated the
importance of internal policy including democratic reforms and the place
of human rights in international relations and diplomacy.
When we hear some Nigerian's cry wolf today concerning the ambassadorial
nominations by President Obasanjo, they should be asked why many ambassadorial
positions remained vacant and no diplomats were posted out during Abacha's
tenure of office (3). Nigeria’s diplomacy
was grounded during the Babangida-Abacha era. This explains why the current
government recalled all ambassadors and designated new ones. In Foreign
Minister Lamido’s words, it is in recognition of the important roles
played by heads of missions that they recalled them to dismantle the "old
order" (4). Also, how would Nigeria
have explained the confirmation by a democratically elected government
of ambassadors who were apologetic to the military?
The annulment of the June 12 presidential elections and the hanging
of the "Ogoni nine" were two lethal blows that those regimes
gave to Nigeria’s image abroad. Nigeria’s bad image has not
been repaired and those who contributed toward this should be humble
in their utterances against the choices made by a democratically elected
government.
NIGERIA’S SHATTERED PUBLIC IMAGE
Despite immense efforts by diplomats and other officials in the Babangida
and Abacha years to explain Nigeria’s stance to countries outside
Africa, their efforts were fruitless because Nigeria maintained an obsolete
definition of national sovereignty. They argued that human rights and
related issues were Nigerain internal affairs about which outsiders
had no say. Yet, gone are the days when any ruler could sit down within
the boundaries of his country and treat citizens as he liked without
reaction from the international community. In spite of the existing
double standards in the field, NATO intervention in Kosovo, former Yugoslavia,
is an example. Henceforth, democracy and human rights, which in the
recent past were considered in law and international relations as purely
internal affairs, are becoming important determinants in foreign policy.
Though the recent crisis in East Timor (Indonesia) gave no pride for
the international community, and in particular, the United Nations,
the international community has tried various humanitarian and sometimes
military rescue operations where there were human rights abuses. In
Africa, Rwanda, during the ethnic crisis, was a case in hand. Nigerian
policy and decision-makers should henceforth recognise that democracy
and human rights are subjects of international concern and they should
therefore inculcate these elements into the decision-making process.
Regarding image building, it was astonishing to observe how Nigerian
diplomats and information ministry officials were incapable of formulating
a message destined for international consumption to counter the international
press campaign against Nigeria. The incapacity of Nigerian officials
at the time to explain these decisions to the international public led
to the deteriorated image of Nigeria abroad. The effects are very deep-rooted
and years will be required to correct the image.
President Obasanjo and Foreign Minister Sule Lamido’s task is to
bring Nigeria out of this dead end by consolidating democracy at home,
respecting fundamental human rights and encouraging liberal economic reforms,
good governance and transparency with a view to boosting international
economic cooperation with G7 countries as well as the dynamic Asian economies
(5). The task ahead is hectic and the
choice of competent officials actors is therefore essential.
FOREIGN POLICY ACTORS
The policy actors in this immense task are both internal and external
to the foreign ministry. Although it is primarily a foreign minsitry
affair, it should be mentioned that internal actors such as the president,
the foreign minister, ambassadors and embassies abroad, the press and
the business community are all active players in the foreign policy
formulation process. The role and place of our embassies should be redefined.
A dynamic and performance-oriented foreign policy leaves no room for
amateurism like in the past. Our ambassadors and embassies should sit
up and live up to national expectations. Nigeria’s foreign policy
has to produce results for the country and its citizens. The training
programme for our diplomats should be reviewed to give them the necessary
knowledge to practise the art and science of diplomacy because they
are at the frontline of our foreign policy.
Our vital national interests have to be redefined. Does Africa still
represent the cornerstone of our foreign policy when we have more respect
from other countries than we get from African nations despite our whole-hearted
commitment to them? If yes, what are the benefits we get from the choice?
If the response is no, then we should reorient our foreign policy towards
more profitable ventures like economic, scientific, cultural and technical
cooperation with more advanced countries including Asia.
The economic development and well-being of Nigeria should henceforth
be the mainstay of our foreign policy. We should revive and reinforce
what was termed economic diplomacy by General Ike Nwachukwu. Fot instance,
why would we continue to sit aloof and see Cameroun lay claim on Nigeria’s
territory? In the name of African unity and good neighbourhood, Nigeria
has sacrificed a lot and continues to sacrifice for our continent. That
is praiseworthy but most southern African countries have forgotten the
sacrifices made by Nigeria to bring them out of their woes. Sierra Leoneans
and Liberians have forgotten the loss of lives by Nigerian soldiers in
their efforts to defend unity and peace in these countries. Though Africa
should not be forgotten, Nigeria’s interests should come first in
all our foreign policy analysis and decisions. Retired General Danjuma
wasn’t saying anything different when he said "Right now, we
are becoming the United States of ECOWAS at very great cost to us. We
think this is unaffordable to us now" (6).
He further stated that Nigeria’s needs are enormous.
Regarding important sensitive internal policy issues that would have
effect on our foreign policy, a decision-making forum comprising Presidential
Advisers, top-level officials from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs,
Defence, Internal Affairs, Justice, Economy and Finance, inter alia,
should meet to discuss and access them with a view of defining a coherent
policy. Officials from the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs,
the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies and the National
Institute for Advanced Legal Studies should be invited to give expert
opinion on such issues in order to avoid the diplomatic blunders of
our officials during the Ken Saro Wiwa crisis.
Nigeria should therefore precisely define in policy terms what it’s
cultural policy is and what it aims to achieve outside the country.
What does cultural cooperation with foreign countries imply? Does it
simply mean encouraging foreign artists to organise tours in Nigeria
or foreign countries to establish flourishing cultural and language
centres in Lagos, Abuja and elsewhere in the country? Where in the world
does Nigeria have a cultural centre worthy of its title? In the field
of defence, what is our defence policy? Does it simply mean protecting
the external and internal territorial integrity of the Nigeria? Protecting
the integrity of the country against who? In short, who are our enemies
and who are our friends? What type of relations should we have with
all our French-speaking neighbouring countries considering that all
of them have over thirty years old defence and military pacts with France,
one of the world’s leading military and industrial powers?
On Nigeria and its citizens abroad, what does the country intend to
do to make them contribute in their own way to the economic, cultural,
scientific and technological development of the country? In certain
African countries, citizens residing abroad vote and take active part
in political activities. What would Nigeria do to encourage its democracy
to evolve toward such an objective? Nigerians living abroad should be
encouraged to have closer relations with the motherland. Nigeria’s
foreign policy should include all these actors for a more global approach
to policy issues than in the past.
Democratically elected regimes have a wider scope and more leeway in
policy decisions than regimes resulting from military coups d’états
because they are legitimate. In Nigeria’s case, we have voluntarily
or unconsciously restricted most vital foreign policy decisions or diplomatic
initiatives to the African continent since we do not seem capable of
going beyond Africa. We should no longer be satisfied with our fictional
"giant of Africa" image and watch other African diplomatic
"giants" like South Africa and Egypt work hard to get a name
and maintain their place within the international arena.
FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES
The scope of Nigeria’s foreign policy should no longer be limited
to continental affairs. Its should be focused world-wide and geared
toward the promotion of our cultural heritage, and scientific, economic
and technical cooperation with viable partners. Its goal should aim
at enhancing our national development, and military arrangements with
NATO countries in order to give peace a permanent character in our societal
needs and our sub-region. Finally, Nigerian foreign policy should aim
at creating benefits for the betterment of the people. It should no
longer focus on Africa without clearly defined policy objectives.
Such a policy shift would mean a very careful choice of external actors.
Although I would not advocate dropping Africa, Nigeria needs to make
a careful choice of our closest allies based not on the wealth or technological
advancement of the partner but on Nigeria’s vital national interests
in the cultural, economic, political, scientific and technical areas
as well as in the military field. A commission comprising diplomats,
top-level military officers, university professors and politicians should
be set-up to review our foreign policy objectives and to redefine our
vital national interests. Its mandate should be short and precise. These
interests should be made the fundamental guidelines of all our foreign
policy objectives in Africa, the European Union, America - both North
and South, Asia and the Pacific. Nigeria’s foreign policy objectives
should henceforth focus on the benefits of such policy for its people.
President Obasanjo’s task would be to make the ordinary Nigerian
feel the positive effects of the government on his or her life.
At another level, Nigeria’s foreign policy should encompass a
clear opinion and strategy on major international issues such as the
reform of the United Nations, bilateral relations between Nigeria and
members of the European Union outside the ACP-EU framework, discussions
with the dynamic Asian economies on how best to boost their investment
in Nigeria, how to make G7 governments encourage more foreign capital
flows to the vital areas of our economy through a liberal foreign investment
policy. Lastly, as a representative of Africa at large, Nigeria should
campaign strongly to get admitted as a permanent member of the Security
Council. These achievements would make the ordinary Nigerian realise
the usefulness of the country’s foreign policy in real, not abstract
terms.
References
(1) The Guardian, 29/8/99, (See http://www.ngguardiannews.com/editorial/en/59501.htm).
(2) On comments relating to the attitude of Nigeria’s
authorities, see Bolaji Ogunseye – « In defence of career
diplomats; The Guardian. 6th September 1999.
(3) P.M. News, Lagos, 25th August 1999, (See http://www.africanews.org/west/nigeria/stories).
(4) See THISDAY, The Sunday Newspaper, August 8,
1999, p. 10, I will surprise my critics – Lamido.
(5) See Pierre Poret, "Liberalising capital
flows : Lessons from Asia," The OECD Observer, October/November
1998, pp. 39-40.
(6) See Vanguard – August 18, 1999.
Ebenezer Okpokpo a Nigerian citizen, is currently
with the Nigerian embassy, Paris. He holds a Ph. D. in International
Law from the University of Paris I-Panthéon-Sorbonne, France. Since
1994 he has taught at the American Graduate School of International
Relations and Diplomacy, Paris.
