SAFAR 19 1431 A.H.
WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 3, 2010.
Print This Page 
Re-defining Nigeria’s nationality in world diplomacy (II)
By Idumange John
Nigeria’s Concentric Circle Policy within the West African sub-region needs to be complimented. A nation cannot play a super power role outside when her citizens are plagued by insecurity, spiraling inflation, high unemployment index and macro-economic instability. Nigeria has restored peace in war torn Liberia, Togo Sierra Leone, and restored stability in Sao Tome and Principe.
There are very strong indications that Nigeria has not adequately funded her foreign missions. Whereas this trend may be attributed to politics of funding, it is proper to state that Nigeria’s foreign policy establishment is yet to enhance sectoral legitimacy by adopting a pro-active stance in explaining the fundamental objectives to stakeholders in the Nigerian project. The leadership appears not to have a defined role for her citizene on the Diaspera in terms of their participation in the economic, scientific and technological development of the nation. Perhaps, the Diaspora intelligentsia has no role to play because the Nigerian leadership has not taken any step to stem the tide of “brain drain” of a critical segment of the populace.
During the second Republic, Shagari described Nigeria’s national interest as commitment to an Afro-centric foreign policy even though Nigeria was passive and unable to mobilise support for the OAU summit in Tripoli in 1981. The Buhari administration re-defined national interest as the development of mutual self help by states in the West African sub region in the areas of economic development and national security. This foreign policy objective is predicated on the Concentric Circles Theory. Also, Nigeria’s active intervention in inter-African affairs and conflicts in the border wars between Mali and Burkina Faso.
When democracy re-surfaced in 1999, Nigeria intervened in the crises in Sao Tome and Principe, Togo, Guinea Bissau and Madagascar. Nigeria also provided the largest number of troops and police officers to the UN-AU hybrid force in Darfur, which is under Nigerian command. During the period, Nigeria through its diplomatic efforts secured debt relief in October 2005 from the London and Paris clubs. This diplomatic bold initiative has been hailed as a diplomatic triumph with the nation. This is a classic case of how good diplomacy reinforces the implementation of Nigeria’s economic development agenda.
The first circle pertains to the defense of the territorial boundaries of Nigeria and the states that are contiguous, which would constitute a basis for the defense of West Africa and Africa. Under this paradigm African Continental interest assumes a third position while the first position goes to the defense of Nigeria and relations with the contiguous states. The Concentric Circle Theory advocates a foreign policy of reassessment, self-appraisal and defense of Nigeria’s strategic interest before West Africa and then the continent.
Nigeria’s foreign policy is based on three basic pillars; the concept that Nigeria is an African nation; it is part and parcel of the continent of Africa and therefore it is so completely involved in anything that pertains to that continent… we are independent in everything, but neutral in nothing that affects the destiny of Africa. The peace of Africa is the peace of Nigeria, its tribulations are our tribulations and we cannot be indifferent to its future. Nigeria demonstrated her Afro-centric diplomacy more in the area of the liberation of Africa. In 1961, Nigeria played a crucial role in the events that led to the suspension of South Africa from the Commonwealth. Nigeria made generous donations to the Special Funds of the OAU Committee. Under the Gowon administration, South Africa received robust moral and financial support. This was the era Gambari aptly described as “Naira Spraying Diplomacy”.
During the Murtala-Obasanjo era, recognition was given to the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) led by Agostinho Neto. Nigeria liquidated British economic interest by nationalising the British Petroleum and the Barclays Bank, over the latter’s refusal to support Zimbabwe’s independence. The Buhari regime also donated money to SWAPO and the ANC, if the role of Nigeria in Liberia, Sierra Leone and other African countries is estimated Nigeria’s Afro-centric diplomacy still remains constant. The Buhari administration also recognised the Polisario in Western Sahara, and the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR). It should be noted without doubt that the internal security threat compounded by religious dichotomy and over-dependence on crude oil and gas as the largest foreign exchange earner have posed intractable problems to the national interest of Nigeria.
Recently, Nigeria seems persuaded to adopt citizen-centered diplomacy in which her collective actions will be based on “reciprocal niceness”. The concept of reciprocity is conceived to have a broader meaning as it has assumed an audacious connotation, animated by the postulation that the international community should take responsibility for its actions towards Nigeria. But Nigeria’s political economy is characterised by a cocktail of negative statistics such as a rapidly declining economy, deteriorating infrastructural base, unbridled violence, poor external image and internal insecurity. Now we have added terrorism as an essential ingredient of our diplomatic menu.
The nitty-gritty of economic diplomacy is the management of Nigeria’s bilateral and multilateral economic relations to expand areas of mutual benefit. Economic diplomacy has guided Nigeria’s external relations with African countries and this is manifest in the areas of trade, economic co-operation and technical assistance. Nigeria played invaluable role in the eradication of colonialism and apartheid in South Africa. But what economic or social dividend has the nation reaped for liberating Africa? Today, the dynamics of world diplomacy have made it imperative for Nigeria to adopt multilateralism, with the welfare of her citizens and the health of her economy as her overriding national interest. The re-definition of the Nigeria’s national interest and the pursuance of such objectives is by far more potent in engineering change than rebranding especially of the Dora Akunyili variety.
Nigeria exhibits false generosity abroad in order to create a wrong impression that the political economy is healthy. In Africa, Nigerians suffer rejection, deportation, imprisonment and other forms of maltreatment in other countries. The Citizens Diplomacy adopted by the present administration does not seem to have changed the poor perception about the country. Most scholars have attributed this to the inability of Nigeria’s leadership to define her national interest. With the recent listing of Nigeria as a State sponsor of terrorism, most jobless youths may be recruited into Al Qaeda or Boko Haram to unleash terror domestically and internationally. This could easily happen as statistics have already shown that there are 39 Million Nigerian graduates who are unemployable. When this number is added to the recent retrenchment going on in the banking sector, the looming incursion of the Taliban-style terrorism can better be imagined. Nigeria’s foreign policy should now include some training in rebranding and techniques that would contain the looming danger of Al Qaeda penetration and some strange and dangerous kind of fundamentalist movements unknown to the people.
concluded
