Guardian

ONE of the axioms of international relations is that the foreign policy of a state is, more often than not, contingent on its domestic policies. If foreign policy hinges on the domestic situation of a country, it should be asserted with equal timbre that as far as policies go, perception can actually be more critical than reality. The way a country is perceived by others can be most critical and impactful on the effectiveness of its postures at the international plane, hence the effort exerted by many countries to look good, win friends and influence people generally within the international community.

Nigeria is, undoubtedly, an important actor within the family of nations. With the largest concentration of black people in the world as well as humongous natural resources, unbelievable human capital and abundant military hardware, it is somewhat paradoxical that its scorecard in the foreign domain has been far less than expected. Even its nominees for posts in many international organisations in the recent past have generally not met great success.

The doomsday forecasts about Nigeria, especially on account of the prevailing security challenges in the country at the present time had not helped either. Widespread terrorist activities coupled with innumerable incidents of kidnapping, armed robbery, drug and human trafficking, internet fraud and other unsavoury acts have pushed the country to the unhappy company of failing states which might, much sooner than later, go under if drastic actions are not immediately taken.

Admittedly there is a body of opinion within the country that continues to trumpet the shibboleth about the non-negotiability of Nigeria’s unity, but the sad reality is that foreign observers of the Nigerian scene seem to have a better grasp of the situation than local self-opinionated voices that have decided to bury their heads in the sand. The friends of the country have continued to wonder why Nigeria has consistently failed to actualize its potentialities and instead, always manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

It is against this background that it is intended to approach the theme of today’s lecture. Accordingly, we would begin by examining the issue of perception and reality in relation to domestic and foreign policies generally before revisiting the linkages of domestic and foreign policies with a view to establishing the broad outlines of Nigeria’s foreign policy. Finally, an attempt would be made to interrogate the scenarios unfolding before our very eyes in order to postulate actions that need to be taken urgently in order to refurbish Nigeria’s image and re-position the country within the international system.

Nigeria’s foreign policy in historical perspective

As I have observed in different fora, the foreign policy of our country since political independence has generally remained lacklustre, docile and unimaginative, characterized as it has been, by moderation, caution, indecision and timidity.

The emergence of Nigeria as an independent actor on the world stage was heralded with tremendous hope and optimism that the lion had finally awakened and was poised to fulfil its manifest destiny by discharging its leadership role and potential as leader of Africa if not the entire black race. Regrettably, that was not to be. On the very night before independence, Balewa, Nigeria’s incoming Prime Minister had entered into an engagement with Her Majesty’s Government, promising to uphold all the treaties and agreements which the latter had concluded for and on behalf of its erstwhile colony without even sighting any of them! No further evidence of neo-colonialism was needed as Nigeria assumed the role of lackey of British imperialism within the international political space.

As Balewa’s maiden speech at the UN General Assembly on October 7, 1960 revealed, Nigeria was not about to embark on a radical or militant foreign policy. The major thrusts of the country’s foreign policy were allegiance to the UN, Africa as centrepiece of the country’s policies, decolonization, adherence to non-alignment, respect for international peace and security, etc. However, the first test-case for the stated stance –the Congo crisis – revealed the conservative, pro-western bias of the country by its opting for the western stooge – Kasavubu – as against Lumumba, the patriotic, nationalist leader of the Congolese.

And if there was any doubt on the gradualist, conservative stance of Nigeria, this was to be removed during the negotiations that led to the creation of the OAU in 1963 when Nigeria found itself in the company of the generally right-wing Monrovia Group as against the left-leaning, progressive and militant Casablanca Group, such that Africa ended up with a tame, slow moving coach rather than a full steam locomotive towards unification of the African continent.

Of course, this was not altogether unexpected since a country that could see nothing wrong in signing a defence pact with its former colonial ruler could not have been in the forefront of those hoisting the anti-imperialist banner. As Chinweizu had reminded us, the middle-class nature of Nigeria’s decolonialization process meant that the British merely pretended to have left while the colonial umbilical cord continued to wax stronger.

Nigeria’s foreign policy during the military interregnum can be considered more or less a mixed-bag. It is generally acknowledged that the civil war had enabled the emergence of an even keel in Nigeria’s relations with other powers as the duplicity and complicity of the West enabled the Soviet bloc to score cheap, political points by making in-roads through supply of much-needed military materiel and proffering of diplomatic support in the effort to keep Nigeria one by Gowon and his confederates. While Murtala Muhammed was a nationalist leader who was able to call the bluff of the West during the Angola imbroglio, Babangida, it should be recalled, swung the pendulum to the other extreme by imposing IMF conditionalities on the country, much to the chagrin of many people such that, in the end, Nigeria really became a shadow of itself. However, in 1999, great stock was generally placed on the in-coming civilian administration in terms of refurbishing Nigeria’s foreign policy, especially Nigeria’s vaunted image as “Giant of Africa.” Besides, many believed that with yet another bite of the democratic apple, Nigeria was poised to reap the benefits of playing the game as dictated by the West.

Today, it has become clear that a country wracked by insurrection, political instability, religious strife, terrorism and economic downturn can hardly prosecute a dynamic foreign policy. Since 1999, when Gen. Obasanjo became virtually his own Foreign Minister, it is sad but true that Nigeria has endured numerous reversals at the foreign plane despite the humongous peregrinations of the President and his successors in search of non-existent foreign investors.

The euphoria of the present government over its trophies in the foreign domain notwithstanding, one cannot be oblivious of the damning verdict of Adekeye Adebajo recently to the effect that Nigeria’s foreign policy “resembles a battered jalopy with a rookie driver asleep at the wheel on a road to nowhere…” The whitewashing of Nigeria’s forays into the global arena has done little to justify the huge financial outlay in the foreign domain in the face of competing demands for ameliorating the scandalous existential conditions of the preponderant majority of the country’s citizens.

While the jury may still be out regarding the true state of affairs at the foreign front, we can now direct our gaze on the theme of today’s lecture: the image issue in Nigeria’s foreign policy. How is Nigeria perceived by her neighbours, Africa and the world at large? Does perception bear any semblance with reality? To what extent can the so-called Transformation Agenda have a bearing on foreign policy formulation and implementation? Where do we go from here? Answers to these and related questions form the thrust of the remainder of this presentation.

• To be continued tomorrow.

• Prof. Oyebode is member of the Governing Council, Nigeria Institute of International Affairs (NIIA).