Since the first republic, Nigeria ’s foreign policy had been largely Afro-centric in posture. In an official statement just before independence, on August 20, 1960, Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa at the Federal House of Assembly stated that Nigeria was, “adopting clear and practical policies with regard to Africa ; it will be our aim to assist any country to find solution to its problem”.  

 Similarly, one significant event that took place under late General Ironsi’s regime was the June 1966 Ambassadors’ Conference held in Lagos to re-examine the premises and directions of Nigeria ’s foreign policy. Among many other things, the conference re-dedicated Nigeria to the total emancipation of all African territories still under colonial tutelage and racial discrimination. This position was further reinforced when General Ironsi stated that, “in the whole sphere of external relations, the Government attaches greatest importance to our African policy”.

 It is under the above foreign policy directions, among others, that Nigeria ventured in to the complex theatre of international relations. This position could be appreciated when we consider the fact that successive regimes in Nigeria accorded significant attention to Africa as the centre-piece of Nigerian foreign policy.

 However, a cursory look at the various engagements made by Nigeria towards an African agenda in areas such peace keeping missions, decolonization of the continent as well as other  bilateral and multilateral aid she rendered in the continent, would to a very large extent show that the omnibus nature of the principle of African centeredness in the Nigerian foreign policy does not appear to be well aligned to the country’s national interests or has not served the national interest in a commensurate measure.

  Nigeria has been in the forefront in the establishment and sustaining various continental and regional organizations. For instance, the Organization of African Unity (OAU)  established on May 25, 1963, was primarily aimed at  achieving two important objectives, namely: to ensure  the quick decolonization of  the remaining colonies in Africa and secondly to facilitate the rapid socio-economic growth and development of African states. In this respect, Nigeria did a lot in ensuring the implementation of the primary objectives upon which OAU was founded.  For instance, in 1975, Nigeria granted the sum of N 13.5 million and military assistance to Angola ’s MPLA and also enlisted diplomatic support for the Angolan government within the O.A.U.; this had greatly accorded recognition to the Angolan government by many African states who were hitherto unwilling to give such recognition.

In addition to this, Nigeria contributed enormously to several liberation movements in the continent. This had therefore greatly contributed towards the political independence of most African countries. For instance, on February 13, 1976, Nigeria donated the sum of two million dollars $2m to South Africa ’s Africa National Congress, ANC, and 500,000 dollars to Namibia ’s South West African People’s Organization, SWAPO. SWAPO was later granted permission to open office in Lagos . At about the same time, the Federal Ministry of Information inaugurated a committee for dissemination of information about the evils of Apartheid. Fundamentally, the committee was to intimate the government with current news and activities of the racist regime in South Africa and advise the government on the best way to approach her anti-Apartheid policies as well as enlighten the public on the situation in South Africa .

That is not all, as the federal government nationalized British assets in Nigeria when the latter chose to continue conducting business with South Africa . Consequently, in March 1978, the federal government directed all its ministries and parastatals to stop dealing with Barclays Bank, owned by Britain . In the same vein, the British Petroleum company (BP) was also nationalized in July 1979.  In addition to all these, Lt. General Obasanjo, in December 1976 launched the Southern African Relief Fund. The money collected was sent to Angola , Namibia and South Africa ’s liberation forces.   

Similarly, taking into cognizance fundamental role of economic integration among contiguous states and given the very small nature of many West African states in terms of population and economic output, Nigeria , under the leadership of General Yakubu Gowon spearheaded the formation of a 16-member regional integration body – ECOWAS - the treaty of which was signed on May 28, 1975. It is therefore essential to note that the phenomenal contributions made by Nigeria in the two organizations mentioned above have greatly contributed to the economic “prosperity” and political independence of many African countries.

  Nigeria ’s deep involvement in African affairs, a pursuit that had cost the country huge financial and human resources could be seen from other endeavors undertaken by the country in other African states. Let’s take for example Nigeria ’s involvement in the ECOWAS military intervention group, ECOMOG. As desirable as it was to bring peace and stability to the West African sub-region, the venture had cost the nation enormous financial recourses and unspecified number of troops who lost their lives.  The above scenario was succinctly captured by Ambassador F. George who stated that, “The historic contributions of Nigeria to regional peace missions in Liberia and Sierra-Leon which cost the country the whooping sum US$ 10 billion, not to mention the gallant men and women of Nigerian Armed Forces who paid the supreme sacrifice in the cause of peace, are hardly acknowledged by the international community.” He further emphasized that this does include the sum of about US$ 90 billion that Nigeria single-handedly incurred in the OAU Peace Keeping Force that was deployed to Chad in 1980s.This is in addition to the sum of US$ 800 million Nigeria Trust Fund established under African Development Bank, ADB, to assist African countries obtain soft loan to execute vital projects. Surprisingly, it is with connivance of some of these African states that Nigeria was denied the presidency of ADB in an election that was held right on Nigerian soil. What a back-stab. 

 Lately, the regime of President Obasanjo intended to refocus Nigeria’s foreign policy in order to de-emphasize the overly African bias when he announced to newly appointed ambassadors in 1999 that, “Nigeria’s foreign policy today extend, however, far beyond our concern for the well being of our continent, Africa”. He further pointed that, “The debt burden, for instance, is not an exclusively African predicament. Many countries in Asia, the Caribbean and the South America are facing similar problems. It is imperative therefore, that these regions harmonize their efforts in the search for a fairer deal from the industrialized nations of the west; and this requires of us a more global approach to world affairs than was previously the case”. The above statement spurred great expectations from various foreign policy experts, hoping that Nigeria would now enunciate and articulate more global vision in her foreign policy pursuit. Paradoxically, the nation became more involved in the African agenda.

 It could therefore be noted that Nigeria ’s role and initiative in drawing up the Constitutive Act of African Union (AU), The New Partnership for Africa ’s Development (NEPAD) and the African Peer Review Mechanism have greatly engrossed the country even more deeply in African Affairs. Also under NEPAD, Nigeria initiated Joint Africa/G8 plan to enhance Africa ’s capability to undertake Peace Support Operations.

 In addition to the above endeavors, Nigeria’s high profile engagement in the continent continued with several summits and conferences such as the Roll-Back Malaria Summit held in Abuja on 24^th August, 2000; it was closely followed by the HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Infectious Diseases Summit also held in Abuja in 2001. While these engagements are worthy undertakings, they however tend to suck Nigeria intimately into the un-ending African problems.

  Nigeria ’s enviable commitment towards solving African problems could also be seen in various peace and mediation talks she hosted; these include hosting of mediation talks between Sudanese government and Darfurian rebel factions. She also mediated severally between various rebel factions in the Liberian crisis and eventually granted asylum to the former Liberian President Charles Taylor in order to end crisis in that country. Before this, Somalia ’s Siad Barre was granted asylum here in Nigeria . Yormie Johnson of Liberia also found a home in this place. Further to this, the restoration to power of the President of Sao Tome and Principe, Mr. Frederique Menezes, after military take-over in July 2003 was largely credited to Nigeria under the leadership of President Obasanjo. In a similar vein, Nigeria succeeded in ensuring that due constitutional process was followed in installing democratically elected government in Togo , after the death of President Gnassingbe Eyadema in February, 2005.

Further to all these peaceful diplomatic engagements which were aimed at solving other African  nations problems, Nigeria recently lost about 44 soldiers in a ghastly motor accident along Gombe-Potiskum road. It could be recalled that the soldiers were just back from peace-keeping operations in Darfur . What a national tragedy in an attempt to keep peace in a sister African country.

Recent xenophobic violence in South Africa where Nigerians were brutalized tempted one to ask if Nigerians deserve such brutality taking into consideration the fundamental role played by the country in dismantling apartheid. Also, the torture of a Nigerian, Mr. Adumekwe, by the Gabonese security agents who were said to have set his back on fire for 20 minutes is a big slap to Nigeria . This kind of inhuman treatment should have elicited very serious diplomatic action akin to that which followed the death of a Nigerian who died in the hands of Spanish officials while being deported. Certainly, the Gabonese security operatives may eventually do worse considering the way the case was treated by Nigeria .

 Therefore, taking into cognizance the contributions made by Nigeria towards African peace and development, one fundamental question that needs to be raised is, upon all these enviable roles and contributions which Nigeria made in the continent, can the nation afford to continue pursuing an African agenda at such a monumental cost without visible tangible benefits to the country and the country’s national interest?

 It seems that there is apparent disconnect between national interest and Nigeria-Africa relations. It is apparent that the nation is doing too much in the African continent without corresponding positive outcome.  This phenomenon had attracted several comments by commentators on Nigeria ’s external relations. For instance, a policy and economic affairs analyst, Dr. Obadiah Mailafiya while commenting on the Nigerian foreign policy framework, graphically captures the above scenario when he says that “ the centerpiece of any country’s foreign policy ought to be that country itself if it seriously considers itself a rational actor on the world stage…Every single action shall be adjudged  by how much it advances our national power and influence and how much it advances our interests, objectives, and purposes”. Similarly, another international relations expert, Professor Inno Ukaeje, while commenting on Nigerian foreign policy has this to say: “Our false generosity abroad and penury at home are proof that we are pretending to be what we are not, because in reality we have been overstretching ourselves”. One seems to agree with the above  assertions, taking into consideration the enormous  funds the nation expends in trying to solve various problems in Africa while internally, almost all the sectors in the country are yearning for massive injection of funds  and above all the standard of living has been  grossly low. Although Nigeria is rich in strategic mineral resources through which the nation earned excessive wealth with which it funds several activities towards solving other African problems, the scale of such expenditure greatly hurts our domestic aspirations.

 Our attention should be more focused towards achieving our vital national interests such as socio-economic growth and development so as to improve the standard of living of the populace.  In this respect, Africa should no longer be the only reason for the existence of our external relations.  We may wish to note that none of the developed nations build their foreign policy on one pillar/continent; they attach more premiums to their sense of national interest and pride which are anchored on socio-economic development of their nations and uplifting of their citizens’ standard of living.

Nigeria shouldn’t be an exception in this regard, if it is to play meaningful role the in current global diplomatic scene. We need to pay significant premium in developing diplomatic relations with countries such as China , Singapore , Malaysia , among others. The belief is that these countries would benefit us more. In addition to this, our foreign policy as current Foreign Affairs Minister, Ojo Maduekwe said, should be citizen-centered; the government must be ready to defend Nigerians anywhere in the world. Their rights as human beings should not be violated and should be prosecuted in the court of law if they commit any crime.

Lastly, there is an urgent need for the government to convene a foreign policy summit to, among others, address issues such as re-defining our national interest, refocusing our foreign policy in such a way that we will minimize loss and increase gains as well as tying it to the socio-economic growth and development of our great country.

Hadi Y. Al-Hassan

hadiyalhassan@yahoo.com

National Press Centre, Abuja

Robot  # 1 | 29.07.2008 23:22

Nation-states all over the world design and implement foreign policies in order to guide thei...Read the full article.

employlawone  # 2 | 30.07.2008 00:46

Since the first republic, Nigeria ’s foreign policy had been largely Afro-centric in posture. In an official statement just before independence, on August 20, 1960, Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa at the Federal House of Assembly stated that Nigeria was, “adopting clear and practical policies with regard to Africa ; it will be our aim to assist any country to find solution to its problem”. Similarly, one significant event that took place under late General Ironsi’s regime was the June 1966 Ambassadors’ Conference held in Lagos to re-examine the premises and directions of Nigeria ’s foreign policy. Among many other things, the conference re-dedicated Nigeria to the total emancipation of all African territories still under colonial tutelage and racial discrimination. This position was further reinforced when General Ironsi stated that, “in the whole sphere of external relations, the Government attaches greatest importance to our African policy. Thank you for your very good piece of scholarship, however, it ignores some crucial elements of the origins of Nigeria's Foreign Policy. I am not sure there is sufficient evidence on which to base your assertion contained above. I quote from my recent article, Speaking Truth to Power: Aspects of the Evolution of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy and an Unsung Scholar: In the first flush of independence the leaders of the African and Asian states laboured under the illusion that their new status as independence states offered them an uninhibited freedom of choice in foreign policy – a sort of tabula rasa on which the colonial past had little relevance. A week after Nigeria’s independence, Sir Abubakar, its first Prime Minister addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations stating: “One great advantage which we new nations have is that the accession to independence makes a clear cut with our past…" On the contrary, Sir Abubakar was to discover, as other African and Asian political leaders before and after him found, that even when independence had been formally attained, the colonial period continued to cast a long shadow behind it which considerably influenced the pattern and character of the new states’ international relations. Thus Nigeria’s foreign policy during the first six months of independence showed that the international environment within which policy choices were made was heavily coloured by the colonial past. Attitudes and contacts developed during the ten decades or so of British domination in Nigeria subsisted long after the Union Jack was hurled down at mid night on 30th September, 1960. Nigeria’s relations with the UK and the Commonwealth were part of her response to that post-colonial environment. The Nigerian political elite who inherited power on the departure of the British was itself a product of the colonial era. The strong economic, political and social ties established between Nigeria and the UK in the colonial period did not suddenly disappear when independence was gained. In Nigeria’s case, the relationship with Britain remained, in real terms, the most significant fact of Nigerian foreign policy in the beginning. Another factor of influence in the origins of Nigerian foreign policy was the colonial era which generated certain attitudes which subsisted after independence. Deep feelings over colonialism and racial discrimination developed during the struggle for independence and continued to play a significant role in the ideology of the new states including Nigeria. As it happened, nationalism, anti colonialism and anti-racial discrimination all found expression in the Pan-African movement which in varying ways affected the thinking nationalists throughout Africa. And all though Nigeria’s relations with Africa, compared with her relations with Britain remained up to 1966 insubstantial, the ideological solidarity with fellow OAU members formed part of the environment in which Nigeria’s foreign policy was formulated. It was this background, which determined the structure and depth of Nigeria’s relations with the UK in particular and the Commonwealth in general. The collective interaction of the situational factors in the Nigerian foreign policy environment, in 1960, created a position in which close relations with the UK as well as active membership of the Commonwealth presented itself as a realistic policy objective. The ruling elite was pre-British and regarded association with Britain and the Commonwealth as a good thing. The friendly atmosphere in which independence was won left a heritage of friendship and mutual trust between UK and Nigeria. The social aspect of the environment, the legal, administrative and educational links with the UK and the Commonwealth. Other factors in the Nigerian foreign policy environment –nationalism, anti-colonialism, anti-racial discrimination the geographical fortune of being an African country as well as the economic fact of underdevelopment suggested the type of preoccupations with which Nigeria would be concerned as a member of the Commonwealth. These factors influenced Nigeria’s image of the Commonwealth and conception of her relations with the UK.COLOR> For more on these please see: the late Dr Olasupo Ojedokun’s insight on ‘Britain and the Commonwealth in Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Environment.

ebiasain  # 3 | 30.07.2008 21:50

Nigeria doesn't have a domestic nor foreign policy! What she has is an arrangement where thieves are protecting thieves in Abuja of all places!

katampe  # 4 | 30.07.2008 22:44

Our attention should be more focused towards achieving our vital national interests such as socio-economic growth and development so as to improve the standard of living of the populace. In this respect, Africa should no longer be the only reason for the existence of our external relations. We may wish to note that none of the developed nations build their foreign policy on one pillar/continent; they attach more premiums to their sense of national interest and pride which are anchored on socio-economic development of their nations and uplifting of their citizens’ standard of living. The highlighted part of the excerpt encapsulates the thrust of your piece. I agree with you, and it shows a forwarding thinking foreign policy.I think what we have at the moment is an archaic foreign policy that was motivated by a response to a colonial past, and not a foreign policy that looks to seize the opportunities of the moment and be part of the global conversation with an eye towards solving our national problems, using a combination of foreign and home grown models of tackling political and socio-economic problems. Take for instance the separatist movement in Quebec,Canada , how has Canada dealt with the issue ? What was the principle behind the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper agreeing to Quebec as a nation within a nation? Is there any lesson to be learnt from such an approach? These issues speak to our reality than slving problems in other African countries that we are not morally and financially equipped to be able to solve. Also our foreign policy should reflect our economic reality , where solving crucial economic problems and facilitating the entrance of Nigerians into the civilized age is critical to our survival, and who best to enable us meet these challenges but the countries that have the wherewithal and the resources to share their experiences with us. Civilized age meaning an age where there is concern for human dignity that takes cognizance of the wants of the modern man. These wants include :an educational system that develops Nigerians as problem solvers; an economic system that moves from oil dependency to creators of knowledge; a cultural system that instills values of hard work, efficiency and appreciation of time in our national values, and finally an exporter of culture that is distinctly Nigerian. So far we have foreign policy experts involved in textbook foreign policy that have no bearing on an information age that we live in. The reality of t mass exodus from Nigeria should have informed a foreign policy that takes this into account, and taps into the valuable skills and knowledge of its overseas citizens in their respective countries, and through partnership with the government, and industries in these countries, so as to benefit Nigeria and her citizens.

reads  # 5 | 01.08.2008 04:59

In restrospect, what policies do we really have.......hmmmmm:sad: