Lesson Note for POL SC. Students 200 Level 2021

 

Nigerian Foreign Policy (1 Credit) C (POL 223)

 

Course Content or Course Outline

 

1. The meaning of Foreign Policy
2. The history of Nigerian Foreign Policy
3. The broad goals and development of Nigerian Foreign Policy
4. The influence of domestic and external factors on Nigerian Foreign Policy at different periods
5. The process of Foreign Policy Formulation and Implementation

 

Meaning of Foreign Policy

Foreign Policy can be defined as a country's strategy in dealing with other countries. A foreign policy, also called foreign relations or foreign affairs - policy refers to the strategies a country use to pursue her interests within the global system.

Nigeria’s foreign policy refers to self-interest action plans chosen by the Federal Government to safeguard Nigeria’s national interest within the international system.

National or domestic interest is a major factor in foreign policy implementation.

 

A country's foreign policy (also called the international relations policy) is a set of goals about how the country will work with other countries economically, politically, socially and militarily. Foreign policy also involves dealing with groups that are not countries but that are still important. These are called non-state actors, and might include religious groups, large companies, or even terrorist groups. The study of foreign relations is known as foreign policy analysis (FPA) and the work is called diplomacy. Most countries have a foreign minister who directs these things.

 

Foreign policy also means the policy of nurturing and promoting one's national interest while interacting with other countries. Every country decides on the framework of its foreign policy and according to its principles, it takes decisions about how and what kind of transactions it would carry out with other nations. Plan of action adopted by one nation in regards to its diplomatic dealings with other countries. Foreign policies are established as a systematic way to deal with issues that may arise with other countries. (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/foreign-policy.html).

Objectives of Nigerian Foreign Policy

v  The defence of our sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity;

v  The creation of the necessary political and economic conditions in Africa and the rest of the world which will facilitate the defence of the independence and territorial integrity of all African countries while at the same time, foster national self reliance and rapid economic development;

v  The promotion of  equality and self reliance in Africa and the rest of the developing world;

v  The promotion and the defence of justice and respect for human dignity especially the dignity of the Blackman;

v  The defence and promotion of world peace.

Principles and Objectives of Nigerian Foreign Policy

The principles and objectives of Nigerian foreign policy according to Akindele and Ate (2000):

1. The protection of the sovereign and territorial integrity of the Nigerian state;
2. The promotion of the economic and social well being of Nigeria;
3. The enhancement of Nigeria’s image and status in the world at large;
4. The promotion of unity as well as total political, economic, social and cultural liberation of Nigeria and Africa;
5. The promotion of rights of black people and others under colonial rule;
6. The promotion of international cooperation conducive to consolidation of world peace and security, mutual respect and friendship among all people and states;
7. Redressing the imbalance in the international power structures which has tended to frustrate the legitimate affirmations of developing countries;
8. Respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all nations;
9. The promotion of world peace based on the principles of freedom, mutual respect and equality of the world.

Nigerian foreign policy objectives according to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Chapter II Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy section 19. The foreign policy objectives shall be –

(a) Promotion and protection of the national interest;

(b) Promotion of African integration and support for African unity;

(c) Promotion of international co-operation for the consolidation of universal peace and mutual respect among all nations and elimination of discrimination in all its manifestations

(d) Respect for international law and treaty obligations as well as the seeking of settlement of international disputes by negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and adjudication; and

(e) Promotion of a just world economic order.

National Interest

National interest occupies a prime position in a nation’s foreign policy. National interest and foreign policy are at the root of the study of international relations. It is believed that countries engage in international politics in order to protect or further their national interest. The totality of the actions, means and processes through which the national interest of a state are pursued constitutes that states foreign policy (Obi Emeka in Obikeze and Obi 2003).

 National Interest means:

Ø  What is best for a particular nation;

Ø  Anything that is good or beneficial for a nation or that gives it an advantage;

Ø  A nation’s most vital needs or goals;

 

A country’s national interest changes over time, each country has its own national interest, but all countries have common Security, Economic, and Ideological interests.

A country’s leaders are ultimately responsible for defining the national interests although every segment of the state contributes one way or another in determining a state’s national interest. A country’s national interest determine its Foreign Policy 

 Representative Definitions of National Interest:

 (i) National Interest means: “The general, long term and continuing purpose which the state, the nation, and the government all see themselves as serving.” —Charles Lerche and Abdul

 (ii) National Interest is: “What a nation feels to be necessary to its security and well being  National interest reflects the general and continuing ends for which a nation acts.” —Brookings Institution

 (iii) “National Interest is, that which states seek to protects or achieve in relation to each other. It means desires on the part of sovereign states.” —Vernon Von Dyke

 (iv) “The meaning of national interest is survival, the protection of physical, political and cultural identity against encroachments by other nation-states”. — Morgenthau

 (v) National Interest means: “The values, desires and interests which states seek to protect or achieve in relation to each other” “desires on the part of sovereign states”. — V.V. Dyke

(vi)  National Interests can also be defined as the claims, objectives, goals, demands and interests which a nation always tries to preserve, protect, defend and secure in relations with other nations.

 National interests commonly include:

Ø  Self preservation (primary duty of any government)

Ø  Independence (Sovereignty)

Ø  Economic well-being

Ø  Military security

   Criteria for Defining National Interest

Ø  Ideological criteria: if one country's ideology is liberal-democratic, it will make policies supporting democratic governments and movements and oppose totalitarian ones.

Ø  Moral and legal criteria: the imperative to act honestly and make decisions in accordance with international laws.

Ø  Pragmatic criteria: unemotional, calculated decisions to deal with on ground realities.

Ø  Bureaucratic criteria: each organization tends to exaggerate its specific funding request and to argue in the name of the national interest rather than its own interest.

Ø  Partisan criteria: to equate the success of one's own political party with an entire nation's success. 

Ø  Racial criteria: national interest defined in terms of interest of an ethnic or racial minority or majority 

Ø  Class-status criteria: a particular class will defend its interests while defining national interest.

Ø  Foreign-dependency criteria: protector states define policy obligations of their dependencies

Classification of National Interest

There are several classification of National Interest.  For e.g., Thomas W. Robinson has broadly classified the national interests into six categories:

Ø  Primary Interests. These include the preservation of physical, political, and cultural identity of the state.

Ø   Secondary Interests. These are less important than the primary interests though quite vital to the existence of the state.

Ø   Permanent Interests. These refer to the relatively constant and long-term interest of the state and a change therein is rather slow. Nigeria’s afro centric interest is an example of its permanent interest.

Ø   Variable Interests. These refer to the interests of a nation, which are considered vital for national good in a given set of circumstances. Changed situations or circumstances may make such interest redundant being no-more-required. For instance, the US interest to contain the influence of USSR ceased to exist after the demise of Cold War.

Ø  General Interests. These refer to those positive conditions which apply to a large number of nations or in a several specified fields such as economics, trade, diplomatic intercourse etc. For instance it is in general interest of Pakistan to maintain strategic military balance in South Asia.

Ø  Specific Interests. Through the logical outgrowth of the general interest, specific interests are defined in terms of time or space. For instance, it was in Pakistan's interest to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestation or it was in the US interest to support other nations in combating communist insurgencies during the Cold War.

 

 

National interests can be divided into: constant interests, which are perpetual and most stable; variable interests, which can further be divided into long-term, middle-term and short-term interests.  Constant interests will not disappear until the nation state itself disappears. If a nation state wants to exist, it cannot give up this kind of interest. Examples include territorial integrity, national independence, state sovereignty, and the ability to pursue economic development. Under variable interests, long-term interests are relatively stable national interests. They are pursued by a state over a long period of time and include interests like the ecological balance, military nuclear force and industrial modernization.  These interests arise when human society develops to a certain level. Among these interests, some may end with the demise of states.

But most interests will disappear before the disappearance of the nation state as an entity, depending on the progress of science and technology.

 

Based on importance, national interests can be divided into: vital interests, extremely important interests, just important interests and less important interests. Vital interests are related to people's life and security as well as to the long-term stability of a country's political system and economic life, territorial integrity, political independence, economic independence and the continuation of the political system.

 

Extremely important interests include a favorable international strategic balance, the maintenance of national prestige, the ability to choose one’s model for development, and the guarantee of important economic interests, etc. when we say just important interests are interests pursued when there is not an obvious threat, such as expansion of the export market, maintenance of technological superiority, attracting international investment, maintaining international political stability, improving friendly bilateral relations and so on.

 

Less important interests are interests that do not seriously affect national security or strategic economic interests. Some of the examples are company or an individual's security and economic interest overseas.  Based on the scope of interest, national interests can be divided into: universal interests, partial interests and individual interests.

Universal interests are those interests pursued by every sovereign state, such as state sovereignty, international status, the security of the population and so on.

Partial interests are those pursued only by some countries. They would include the international order and leadership position pursued by superpowers; dominating roles in regional affairs and regional cooperation pursued by countries in a defined area, mutual security and alliances pursued by militarily allied countries and so forth.

Individual interests include those of a single country that are different from the interests of other countries. For example, after the Cold War, China accelerated its economic development and pursued modernization to catch up with developed countries; Russia is striving for political stability, seeking to avoid further national splintering; and the US wants to maintain American dominance, establishing a new world order under its leadership.

National interests can also be classified into common versus conflicting interests, according to the nature of the interest; unified or supplemental interests, based on the relationship between interests; general and special interests, as determined by the function of the interest; physical and spiritual interests, based on the attributes of the interest; developed countries’ and developing countries’ interests, as determined by the level of development; and, finally, socialist countries’ versus capitalist countries’ interests, based on the political systems involved.

 

The classification of national interests then depends on the problems in international relations that we deal with. In order to clarify the nature and content of various problems we must classify national interests scientifically and reasonably.

 

Methods for Promoting and Securing National Interest

There are at least five popular methods by which states normally adopt to promote and secure their national interests in international relations. These include:

 

           i.            Diplomatic negotiations

         ii.            Alliances and Treaties

       iii.            Coercive measures

       iv.            Propaganda

         v.            Economic means

 

Diplomatic Negotiations - Diplomacy is a universally accepted means for securing national interests.  It is through diplomacy that the foreign policy of a state is conducted. It seeks to secure the goals of national interests.  Diplomatic negotiations are used to reconcile the divergent national interests of states through the process of “mutual give and take”.  Diplomats establish contacts with the decision-makers and diplomats of other nations and conduct negotiations for achieving the desired goals and objectives of national interests of their states. Diplomats use persuasion and threats, rewards and threats of denial of rewards as means for exercising power and securing goals of national interest as defined by foreign policy of their states. These prove fruitful only if the interests of concerned states are complementary or compatible.  In such cases, an agreement can be reached through mutual bargaining.  In the case of incompatible or conflicting interests, negotiations are virtually impossible.

 

Alliances and Treaties - Alliances and Treaties are concluded by two or more states for securing their common interests.  They mostly used for securing identical and complementary interests.  However, even conflictual interests may lead to alliances and treaties with like-minded states against the common rivals or opponents.  Alliances and treaties make it a legal obligation for the members of the alliances or signatories of the treaties to work for the promotion of agreed common interests. The nature of an alliance depends upon the nature of interest which is sought to be secured. Accordingly, the alliances are either military or economic in nature.

 

The need for securing the security of capitalist democratic states against the expanding ‘communist menace’ led to the creation of military alliances like NATO, SEATO, CENTO, ANZUS etc. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, also called the North Atlantic Alliance, made up 28 countries, is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949. NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means

The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was an international organization for collective defense in Southeast Asia created by the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, or Manila Pact, signed in September 1954 in Manila, Philippines. The Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), originally known as the Baghdad Pact or the Middle East Treaty Organization (METO) was formed in 1955 by Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. It was dissolved in 1979.

 

The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS or ANZUS Treaty) is the 1951 collective security agreement which binds Australia and New Zealand and, separately, Australia and the United States, to co-operate on military matters in the Pacific Ocean region, although today the treaty is taken to relate to conflicts worldwide Likewise, the need to meet the threat to socialism led to the conclusion of Warsaw Pact among the communist countries.

 

Alliances and Treaties are thus popular means for securing national interests. The role of power in international relations is a recognized fact. It is an unwritten law of international intercourse that nations can use force for securing their national interests.

 

Coercive Measures: International Law also recognizes coercive means short of war as the methods that can be used by states for fulfilling their desired goals and objectives.  Intervention, non-intercourse, embargoes, boycotts, reprisals, retaliation, and severance of diplomatic relations are the popular coercive means which states use to force others to accept a particular course of behaviour or to refrain from a course which is considered harmful by the state using coercive means. War and Aggression have been declared illegal means, yet these continue to be used by the states in actual course of international relations. Nowadays, nations fully realize the importance of peaceful means of conflict resolution like negotiations and diplomacy but use coercive means, whenever they find it expedient and necessary.

 

Military power is still regarded as a major part of national power and is often used by a nation for securing its desired goals and objectives. The use of military power against international terrorism now stands universally accepted as a natural and just means for fighting the menace. Today world public opinion accepts the use of war and other forcible means for the elimination of international terrorism. All these means are used by all the nations for securing their national interests. Nations have the right and duty to secure their national interests and they have the freedom to choose the requisite means for this purpose. They can use peaceful or coercive means as and when they may desire or deem essential.

 

However, in the interest of international peace, security and prosperity, nations are expected to refrain from using coercive means particularly war and aggression. These are expected to depend upon peaceful means for the settlement of disputes and for securing their interests. While formulating the goals and objectives of national interest, all nations must make honest attempts to make these compatible with the international interests of Peace, Security, environmental protection, protection of human rights and Sustainable Development. Peaceful coexistence, peaceful conflict-resolution and purposeful mutual cooperation for development are the common and shared interests of all the nations.

 

As such, along with the promotion of their national interests, nations must try to protect and promote common interests in the larger interest of the whole international community. All this makes it essential for every nation to formulate its foreign policy and to conduct its relations with other nations on the basis of its national interests, as interpreted and defined in harmony with the common interests of the humankind.

 

Propaganda: the aim of foreign policy is to secure the defined goals of national interest by the use of the national power. Propaganda is the art of salesmanship. It is the art of convincing others about the justness of the goals and objectives or ends which are desired to be secured. It consists of the attempt to impress upon nations the necessity of securing the goals which a nation wishes to achieve. “Propaganda is a systematic attempt to affect the minds, emotions and actions of a given group for a specific public purpose.” The revolutionary development of the means of communications (Internet) in the recent times has increased the scope of propaganda as a means for securing support for goals of national interest.

 

Economic means: The rich and developed nations use economic aid and loans as the means for securing their interests in international relations. The existence of a very wide gap between the rich and poor countries provides a big opportunity to the rich nations for promoting their interests vis-a-vis the poor nations. The dependence of the poor and lowly developed nations upon the rich and developed nations for the import of industrial goods, technological know-how, foreign aid, armaments and for selling raw materials, has been responsible for strengthening the role of economic instruments of foreign policy. In this era of Globalisation conduct of international economic relation has emerged as a key means of national interests.

(https://prog.lmu.edu.ng/colleges_CMS/document/books/National%20Interest%20&%20International%20Interest,%20Part%201.pdf)

History of Nigerian Foreign Policy

Nigeria as a nation started participating in international politics as far back as 1954, when the colonial government transferred the powers over external relations to the Nigerian federal government. Even though it was not an absolute one as the Nigerian government was to be involved mainly in such relations which were entrusted to the federation by the majesty’s government in the United Kingdom from time to time. Their power as at that time was limited. They were restricted from performing certain official duties unless the order from the United Kingdom or from the Majesty.

According to Obi, in Ofegbu, (1990), that apart from the issue above restriction it has been observed that though Nigeria was given the go ahead order to operate her foreign relations from   1954;

This was not matched at that time with the creation of distinct administrative machinery to coordinate decisions and actions in these areas. What in fact happened was that the Chief Secretary who headed the domestic civil service incorporated external relations and defence into his schedule, whereas he lacked the staff, the specialist knowledge and the time lay a solid foundation for a future Ministry of External Affairs. Similarly, the Financial Secretary of the Federation took on responsibility for external trade. This began a practice whereby external economics and foreign trade became primary concerns of economic ministries and departments rather than those of the Ministry of External Affairs.(Obi, 2009)

The history of Nigerian Foreign Policy (N.F.P.)/(NFP) started as far back as 1st October 1960. Even though not   much attention or interest were shown by the Nigerian government concerning the FP , which is said to have been  inherited  from the colonial masters, who lacked interest on the people of Nigeria and Africa as a whole. Moreover, the first Prime Minister of Nigeria, Alhaji Tafawa Balewa in his Foreign Policy statement outlined the fundamental thrust of Nigerian foreign Policy as follows: 

1.      The sovereign equality of all African states

2.      Non-interference in international affairs of other African states

3.      Commitment to functional cooperation as a means of promoting African unity

4.      Total eradication of racism and colonialism from Africa(okolie in Agbu, 2008:6)

 

Generally, Nigeria’s foreign policy trends (the development and formulation) since 1960, has consistently been guided by the same principles and objectivity. Although while the main thrust of the country’s foreign policy, the promotion of her national interest and the policy of afro-centricity remained permanent, the strategy and emphasis for such protection by successive regimes varied from one another.

As far back as in 1960 Nigeria’s foreign policies have been characterized by a focus on Africa as a regional power and by the attachment to several fundamental principles. African unity and independence, capability to exercise hegemonic influence in the region, peaceful settlement of disputes, non -alignment and non - intentional interference in the internal affairs of other nations,  and regional economic co-operation and development has been their utmost aim. In carrying out these principles, Nigeria took part in the organization of African Unity (OAU) which is presently African Union (AU), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), The Commonwealth and the United Nations.

Nigeria’s foreign policy trends on the development and formulation since 1960, has consistently been guided by the same principles and objectivity. Although while the main thrust of the country’s foreign policy, the promotion of her national interest and the policy of afro-centricity remained permanent, the strategy and emphasis for such protection by successive regimes varied from one to another.

While the substance of Nigeria’s foreign policy remained largely the same from regime to regime. Nigeria’s foreign policy, however, witnessed various adjustments and modifications depending on the orientations of the political leaderships. In addition, the prevailing domestic (political, economic and socio-cultural realities) and international environments have been major determinants in Nigeria’s foreign policy trends over the years.

Africa as the Centrepiece of Nigeria's Foreign Policy is a concept that is premised on the understanding that Nigeria's engagement in the international system was seen as the binoculars of  Africa. As Hon. Aja Wachukwu (Former Nigerian Diplomat) stated, 'charity begins at home and therefore any Nigerian foreign policy that does not take into consideration the peculiar position of Africa is unrealistic'. For the records, it’s the Adedeji Report of 1976 (Professor Adebayo Adedeji) that coined the concept: 'Africa as centre-piece'.

The issues that gave practical expression to this African-centeredness were the remnants of colonialism on the continent, apartheid in South Africa, liberation wars, ideological and proxy conflicts among others. Outside these politically pressing factors, the issue of a shared racial universe, of cultural neighbourhood, of shared historical experiences and the ideals of pan-Africanism further lubricated the wheels of this foreign policy conceptualization.

Under the framework of an Africa-centered foreign policy, Nigeria got involved deeply in the decolonization struggles in Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, and anti-apartheid struggles in South Africa and in the process earning for itself the appellation a 'frontline nation', even though she was geographically far removed from the theater of the struggles which was in the Southern African region. Nigeria is central to the formation of ECOWAS, has contained the breakdown of social order in Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc, through its world acknowledged peacekeeping expertise, and has provided economic life wire to less economically resourceful countries. In terms of proactive engagement with major socio-political and economic issues of continental importance in the last fifty one years, Nigeria tower far above any other African country

Since this phraseology appeared on the Nigeria foreign policy scene, it has continued to reproduce itself, like the ever recurring mathematical decimal. The foreign policy elite and political leadership of successive governments seems to be carried away by its philosophical allure rather than its rational ideation. In this sense, therefore, considerations of the economic benefits, continental political leadership, national interests, and military partnerships and strategic engagements are sacrificed on the altar of good neighbourliness and psychological gratification. I need to make a comment on the issue of psychological gratification. This issue has to do with the psychological construction and mentality of Nigerians that verge on bigmanism, show-off and materialism. Beneath all these however, lies a massively gigantic emptiness and inferiority complex. Most often, the flagrant display of materialism among Nigerians is a product of psycho-social insecurity. Exported to the international arena, in this sense, Nigeria wants to present an image of a big brother image before the other African countries.

This reason accounts for why in spite of the huge financial expenditures and massive loss of human and material resources in the Liberian and Sierra Leone wars, for instance, Nigeria has not been able to reap any economic benefits. To date, one cannot tell one single Nigerian company involved in the post-conflict reconstruction activities going on in these two countries. What major economic niche has Nigeria carved for herself in these post-conflicts countries? There is hardly anything one can point finger at. Yet, the Africa-centredness framework has continued to maintain a stronghold on Nigeria’s foreign policy. The theories of concentric cycles and concert of medium powers all take their bearing from this perspective. In sum, the concept of Africa as a center piece of Nigeria foreign policy is also not grounded in considerations of economic growth and national development, and as such no matter how conceptually lush it may be, it remains substantially empty.

 Since independence, with Jaja Wachuku as the first Minister of Foreign Affairs and Commons, later called External Affairs, Nigerian foreign policy has been characterized by a focus on Africa as a regional power and by attachment to several fundamental principles: African unity and independence; capability to exercise hegemonic influence in the region: peaceful settlement of disputes; non-alignment and non-intentional interference in the internal affairs of other nations; and regional economic cooperation and development. In carrying out these principles, Nigeria participates in the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Non-Aligned Movement, the Commonwealth of Nations, and the United Nations.There are many Nigerian organizations outside the country. Prominent among them is the Houston, Texas United States-based Nigerian Union Diaspora (NUD), which is the umbrella Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) for the economic and political empowerment of the people of Nigerian descent outside Nigeria.

 Upon gaining independence in 1960, Nigeria quickly committed itself to improving the lives of the people of the country and harnessing the resources that remain vital to the economy of the country and her neighbours. By observing at what benefits and appropriate for the country, Nigeria became one of the founding members of the Organisation for African Unity (OAU), which later became the African Union. The Organisation for African Unity checks political stability of any African countries and encourages them to be holding regional meetings for the union. Nigeria backed the African National Congress (ANC) by taking a committed tough line with regard to the South African government and their military actions in southern Africa. Nigeria and Organisation for African Unity (OAU, now the African Union), has tremendous influence in West Africa nations and Africa on the whole. Nigeria has additionally founded regional cooperative efforts in West Africa, functioning as standard-bearer for ECOWAS and ECOMOG, economic and military organisations, respectively.

Similarly, when civil war broke out in Angola after the country gained independence from Portugal in 1975, Nigeria mobilised its diplomatic influence in Africa in support of the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA). That support helped tip the balance in their favour, which led to OAU recognition of the MPLA over the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola.

Nigeria extended diplomatic support to another cause, Sam Nujoma's Southwest Africa People's Organization in Namibia, to stall the apartheid South African-installed government there. In 1977, the new General Olusegun Obasanjo's military regime donated $20 million to the Zimbabwean movement against the apartheid government of Rhodesia. Nigeria also sent military equipment to Mozambique to help the newly independent country suppress the South African-backed Mozambican National Resistance guerrillas. Nigeria also provided some military training at the Kaduna first mechanized army division and other material support to Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe's guerrilla forces during the Zimbabwe War in 1979 against the white minority rule of Prime Minister Ian Douglas Smith, which was backed by the apartheid government of South Africa.

Due to mismanagement of her economy and technology, Nigeria announced that she was launching a nuclear programme of "unlimited scope" of her own but failed. After the Nigerian Independence in 1960, Nigeria demonstrated her seriousness in improving the economy for the people and embarked on nationalizing some multi-national companies that traded with and broke the economic/trade embargo of the apartheid South African regime, the local operations of Barclays Bank was nationalised after that bank ignored the strong protests by the Nigeria populace.

Nigeria also nationalised the British Petroleum (BP) for supplying oil to South Africa. In 1982, the Alhaji Shehu Shagari government urged the visiting Pontiff Pope John Paul II to grant audience to the leaders of Southern Africa guerrilla organisations Oliver Tambo of the ANC and Sam Nujoma of SWAPO. In December 1983, the new Major General Muhammadu Buhari regime announced that Nigeria could no longer afford an apartheid government in Africa.

Components of Foreign Policy

Foreign policy constitutes numerous factors and some forces, of which some of the factors are natural and also manmade. Others are permanent and also temporary. All these mentioned are what comprises the components of foreign policy, which determines the factors that conditions the foreign policy of states.

 

Obi, according to Brecher, (1972), outlined geography, external and global environment, Personalities (Elite images), economic, military position and public opinion as the major components of foreign policy. Furthermore, Roseau (1976), differed a bit in his own components, he listed size, geography, economic development, culture and history, great power structure alliances, technology, social structure, moods of opinion, political accountability, governmental structure, situational factors (both external and internal).

 

Some of the factors briefly explained  

1. Geographical Situation: this characterizes size, topography, shape and climate. The geographical location of country determines its defense policies. Any country that is surrounded with enemy or hostile neighbors should have a policy based on how to contain them either through beefing up their military power or through military alliances.

 

2. Military Power: the military strength of every nation is very important while because it influences its foreign policy. Other nation’s fears and respect countries that have military might why because they are equal to every task. In terms of matching and engaging in war they are covered and can play international politics successfully. Obi, according to Morganthau (1952) stated that the dynamic force which molds international relations is to be found in the states drive for power.

 

3. Economic Power: this has to do with the availability of natural resources which helps to determine the foreign policy of a state. It is expected that every nation must engage in trade with other countries to advertise what they have and what they need from their counterpart. Trade helps in showcasing nation’s economic interest in terms of transactions in boosting the economy.

 

4. Population: the population of every country determines its respect and role in determining its foreign policy. Nigeria as the giant of Africa is considered greatly not in terms of military might but in commanding great population. Other nations may be known not by their wealth but by their population and size which as well count in their military might.

 

5. Public Opinion: no country in a democratic dispensation can do away with the public opinion. It counts a lot or is taking into consideration by the government in formulating foreign policy objectives in order to gain support from the masses and also granting their wishes. Sometimes, pressure groups can champion public opinion that favours their own interest and compel the government or influences them into doing some policy that is their wishes.

 

6. Technology: this has to do with the use of science in industry, engineering etc. , to invent useful things or to solve problems (Merriam-Webster). The foreign policy of every nation cannot do without science and technology. Today China is respected not because of their population but the way they turned the world around with science and technology. This has boosted their economy and in the international politics/relations they held their voice so high, as such no critical matter can be decided without involving them. It is expected that national interest of every nation must have focus in technology.

 

Many scholars and diplomats have attempted to “demonstrate that the various constituent elements in the political system of the government, the political parties, pressure groups, the civil service, the political and bureaucratic elites, public opinion, and the press operating within the democratic process provided by the constitution, exert direct or indirect influence in shaping a country’s FP. It is in line with this assertion that argued that Sub Saharan Africa (SSA) countries have to constantly reorient their foreign policies to reflect or accommodate domestic and external vicissitudes. According to Idang, Akinyemi, Gambari and Aluko perspectives in analyzing Nigerian FP focused exclusively on limited goals. Idang (1986) focused on the impacts of institutions and social forces, like parliament, political parties and FP elites. Akinyemi on the other hand conducted a dissectional examination of the nature and character of the administrative structure in the FP process when subjected to other “pressures” of Domestic Structure, particularly political parties and attitudes of political elites.

In the words of Gambari he argues that the domestic political structure and process are of great impact on the nature and character of Nigerian FP because they serve as the channel for internalization of the international environment and events, thus making them intelligible and of value to the participants in domestic political roles.  Aluko (1976) on his view embarked on the imperative to resolve the impact of colonial heritage and the formative experience of the leadership. Other studies have focused on the evolution of Nigerian FP by demonstrating how “internal pressures” both of administrative structure and of the society as well as how organizations really affect FP formulation.

A country’s FP is determined by two broad factors: the domestic and the external environment. The domestic environment includes geographical location of the state, its peculiarity, natural and human resources, the nature of the political system, quality of leadership, the nature of the interaction among groups in the society.  Domestic environmental factors have great impact on the policy making of a country. It is worthy to note that the Foreign Policy of any country is a product of environmental factors both internal and external, the strength of a particular domestic factor in influencing a particular Foreign Policy depends heavily on domestic environment.

Domestic environment determines the role a nation plays in the international system. The DS plays a crucial role in the way actions of other states are interpreted. The following factors: political development, economy, the press, public opinion and pressure groups as been central in the examination of the FP response of Nigeria towards other nation.

The constitutional provisions of the Nigerian government allowed the regions of the federation to facilitate their own foreign policies, allow regional delegations to be sent abroad to negotiate loans and other forms of assistance for their regions as evident in a Western Regional delegation 

 

 

The three Balewa’s foreign Policy actions

i.                    Machinery for foreign policy formulation;

ii.                  Afro centrism;

iii.                Non-alignment

 

 

Africa as the Centerpiece of Nigeria's Foreign Policy is a concept that is premised on the understanding that Nigeria's engagement in the international system was seen as the binoculars of  Africa. As Hon. Aja Wachukwu (Former Nigerian Diplomat) stated, 'charity begins at home and therefore any Nigerian foreign policy that does not take into consideration the peculiar position of Africa is unrealistic'. For the records, it’s the Adedeji Report of 1976 (Professor Adebayo Adedeji) that coined the concept: 'Africa as centre-piece'.

The issues that gave practical expression to this African-centeredness were the remnants of colonialism on the continent, apartheid in South Africa, liberation wars, ideological and proxy conflicts among others. Apart from these politically pressing factors, the issue of a shared racial universe, of cultural neighbourhood, of shared historical experiences and the ideals of pan-Africanism further lubricated the wheels of this foreign policy conceptualization.

The broad goals and development of Nigerian Foreign Policy

Under the framework of an Africa-centered foreign policy, Nigeria got involved deeply in the decolonization struggles in Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, and anti-apartheid struggles in South Africa and in the process earning for itself the appellation a 'frontline nation', even though she was geographically far removed from the theater of the struggles which was in the Southern African region. Nigeria is central to the formation of ECOWAS, has contained the breakdown of social order in Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc, through its world acknowledged peacekeeping expertise, and has provided economic life wire to less economically resourceful countries. In terms of proactive engagement with major socio-political and economic issues of continental importance in the last fifty one years, Nigeria is at the helm of affairs above any other African country.

Since this phraseology appeared on the Nigeria foreign policy scene, it has continued to reproduce itself, like the ever recurring mathematical decimal. The foreign policy elite and political leadership of successive governments seems to be carried away by its philosophical allure rather than its rational ideation. In this sense, therefore, considerations of the economic benefits, continental political leadership, national interests, and military partnerships and strategic engagements are sacrificed on the altar of good neighbourliness and psychological gratification. In discussing psychological gratification this issue has to do with the psychological construction and mentality of Nigerians that verge on bigmanism, show-off and materialism. Beneath all these however, lies a massively gigantic emptiness and inferiority complex. Most often, the flagrant display of materialism among Nigerians is a product of psycho-social insecurity skyrocketed to the international arena, in this sense; Nigeria wants to present an image of a big brother image before the other African countries.

This reason accounts for why in spite of the huge financial expenditures and massive loss of human and material resources in the Liberian and Sierra Leone wars, for instance, Nigeria has not been able to reap any economic benefits despite their labour on rescuing their brothers. Up until date, one cannot tell one single Nigerian company involved in the post-conflict reconstruction activities going on in those countries. What major economic niche has Nigeria carved for herself in these post-conflicts countries? There is hardly anything one can point or lay a finger towards, yet, the Africa-centredness framework has continued to maintain a stronghold on Nigeria’s foreign policy. 

 

 Why Nigeria’s Demonstrated Africa as the Centerpiece of her Foreign Policy

i.                    Developing programmes for possible assistance to other African countries

ii.                  Fostering understanding among them in other African nations.

iii.                The belief in the sovereignty and equality of African states.

iv.                Working towards de-colonization of African continents under colonial rule.

v.                  Respect for non-interference in the domestic affairs of other African states.

vi.                To support the then struggle against apartheid policy and its eradication in South Africa.

vii.              Promoting friendly association among independent African states.

 

Reasons for the Adoption of Africa as the Centerpiece of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy

1.      Ideological rivalries: To remind Nigerians of the ideological rivalries that has penetrated Africa, to pursue and to unite African efforts in preventing Africa from becoming the theatre of world crises.

2.      Inter-territorial communication: To co-operate with African states for an improved inter-territorial communication and transport facilities of the continent.

3.      Decolonization of African states: Nigeria made Africa the centerpiece of her foreign policy because of the refusal of some colonial masters to grant independence to some African territories under the colonial rule.

4.      Location: Geographically, Nigeria is located in Africa and it is natural that African states should first receive Nigeria’s attention before other states of the world.

5.      Assistance: To provide assistance to other African states and foster understanding among them.

6.      Friendly association: To help in promoting friendly association, unity of purpose among independent African states.

7.       Opposition to aggression: To oppose any form of aggression and support the demand for the restoration of fundamental human rights in Africa.

 

Measures taken by Nigerians in Maintaining a Friendly Relationship with African States

1.       Participating actively in economic union.

2.      Being first in initiation of peaceful settlement of crises among African countries.

3.      The advocate for Peaceful resolution of disputes with their neighbouring countries

4.      Bi-lateral economic/political relationships are being established.

5.      Participation in peace keeping operations in Africa.

6.      They promote multi-lateral economic relationship with African countries.

 

 

 

Names of External Affairs Ministers that played crucial roles in Nigeria's Foreign Policies

1. Dr Jaja Nwachuku (1961–1965)
2. Alhaji Nuhu Bamalli (1965–1966)
3. Yakubu Gowon (1966–1967)
4. Dr Arikpo Okoi (1967–1975)
5. Joseph Nanven Garba (1975–1978)
6. Henry Adefope (1978–1979)
7. Ishaya Audu (1979–1983)
8. Emeka Anyaoku (1983)
9. Ibrahim Gambari (1984–1985)
10. Professor Bolaji Akinyemi (1985–1987)
11. Major General Ike Nwachukwu (1987–1989)
12. Alahaji Rilwan Lukman (1989–1990)
13. Major General Ike Nwachukwu (1990–1993)
14. Matthew Mbu (1993)
15. Babagana Kingibe (1993–1995)
16. Tom Ikimi (1995–1998)
17. Ignatius Olisemeka (1998–1999)
18. Sule Lamido (1999–2003)
19. Oluyemi Adeniji (2003–2006)
20. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala (2006)
21. Joy Ogwu (2006–2007)
22. Ojo Maduekwe (2007–2010)
23. Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi (Supervising) (2010)
24. Henry Odein Ajumogobia (2010–2011)
25. Olugbenga Ashiru (2011–2013)
26. Viola Onwuliri (Supervising) (2013–2014)
27. Aminu Bashir Wali (2014–2015)
28. Geoffrey Onyeama (2015–present)

 

Present Nigeria’s Foreign Affairs Minister is Geoffrey Jideofor Kwusike Onyeama. He was appointed for the position in 2015 by President Muhammadu Buhari.

 

The process of Foreign Policy Formulation and Implementation

Nigerian Foreign Policy is formulated in a highly complex and dynamic environment. Based on this issue some factors influenced the external policy of a given state they have to do with

i.                    The strength of the economy

ii.                  The national sentiments and aspiration

iii.                The level and quality of information at the disposed of the sitting government

iv.                Leadership perception

The appropriate governmental institution for the conduct of foreign Policy is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Others for the making and implementation of Foreign Policy include:

1. Ministry of Defense
2. Ministry of Finance
3. Ministry of Petroleum Resources
4. Ministry of Economic Development
5. The Presidency and National Assembly
6. Nigerian institute of international Affairs
7. Nigerian institute of Policy and Strategic studies (okolie, 2009)

The Primary responsibilities of Foreign Affairs Ministry include:

i.                    Establishment and administration of Nigeria’s diplomatic and consular ports

ii.                  Conduct of government business in the legislative relating to Foreign and Commonwealth relations

iii.                Training of Nigerians overseas representation

iv.                Emigration

v.                  Relations with diplomatic corps in Nigeria

vi.                Consular matters affecting Nigerians outside Nigeria

vii.              Passport, travel certificates etc (Okolie, 2009, in Chibundu, 2003:25-26 )

 

Those in charge of Formulation of Nigeria's Foreign Policy

1.      The incumbent president is technically responsible for formulating Nigeria’s Foreign Policy

2.      Consultations: Consultations are made with Nigeria’s diplomats abroad, experts in the universities, the business community, leaders of thought, etc. before taking decisions.

3.      The minister and the ministry of external affairs: The presidency is assisted in policy formulation by the minister and officials of the ministry of external affairs as well as experts at Nigerian’s Institute of International Affairs.

4.      Clear and practical policies: Adoption of clear and practical policies regarding Africa with view to bringing about co-operation and progress to all African states.

5.      Friendship and co-operation: The country maintains friendship and co-operation with other nations of the world that respect their territorial sovereignty.

6.      Independence of African states: Helping non-independent African states to achieve total independence confirming the statement that Africa is the centerpiece of Nigeria’s foreign policy.

7.      Respect for territorial integrity: Nigeria has respect for other states based on the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states.

8.      Peaceful resolution of crises: Joining other states to find peaceful resolution to crisis in ECOMOG, troops in Liberia, Sierra-Leone, etc.

 

Problems of Nigeria Foreign Policy

Some of the major problems of Nigeria foreign policy are:

1. Security Threats

Nigeria has faced its fair share of security threats like the militancy issues from the Niger Delta, and boko haram issues from her Northern region.

Having foreign relations with other countries should foster investments from such countries, but the security challenges posed by these threatening groups within the country make it quite unappealing to foreign investors. Bad news travels fast, and with ample help from social media, even worse.

It does not help either that these terrorist groups that threaten the nation’s security are not trying to hide their actions.

2. Unstable Economy

Following closely to security threats is Nigeria’s unstable economy as a factor that impedes foreign direct investment (FDI). Nigeria has a lot of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) that are signed but not in force.

The reason for this can be pinned to her unstable, corrupt and politicized economy. There is an urgent need for action to see these partnerships leading to sustainable development in the country.

3. Political Fragility

Inasmuch as treaties are signed for the countries involved and not the individual as head of state per se, foreign relations can suffer if there is a change in the government of a country.

Nigerian investments in a country may take a downturn if there is a change in the government of such country and vice versa.

4. Perceptions about Nigeria

The old narrative about Nigeria and Africa in general is still pretty much the same despite all efforts and accomplishments by its citizens.

This greatly hinders good relations among the comity of nations. The international community tends to relate with Nigeria under suspicion and a level of distrust.

If nothing is done, the country’s reputation will continue to thwart whatever diplomatic missions and representations Nigeria executes in other countries or the international scene generally.

5. Insufficient Food Security

Food insecurity is a chronic problem in Nigeria that has to be addressed. Nigeria has the potential to eliminate hunger, ensure sustainable food security, and produce enough food for export than is the case now.

There is great potential in the agricultural sector if it’s given the attention it deserves – the oil palm, cashew, almond and so many other home grown plant produce can open a huge market for Nigeria and improve foreign relations with countries in dire need of such products.

6. Africa taking Centre Stage

Jaja Wachuku, the first Nigerian Minister of Foreign Affairs once said, “Charity begins at home and therefore, any Nigerian foreign policy that does not take into consideration the peculiar position of Africa is unrealistic”.

This was as far back as the 1960s, just after independence and Nigeria has been Afrocentric, showing great support in times of need to her neighbours.

Angola, Mozambique, South-Africa, Liberia, Namibia and many others have benefitted from Nigeria foreign policy focused on Africa.

This can continue to be of course but Nigeria foreign policy makers need to integrate how these huge financial expenditures and massive use of human and material resources can pay off rather than the negative results as seen in the xenophobic attacks in South Africa and slavery cases in Libya. As stated earlier, foreign relations should protect national interest.

7. Failure in Citizen Diplomacy

Democratic governance in Nigeria tried to put citizen diplomacy at the fore of her foreign policy. The socio-economic welfare of Nigerian citizens in conducting bilateral and multilateral relations with other countries was at the heart of this move.

The result of this should have been a stream of opportunities for Nigerians to prosper and be involved in vast issues of national and international heights with great return on foreign direct investments.

Since Nigeria returned to democratic rule in 1999 until now, the benefits of this ground for foreign policy is still poorly unrealized.

8. Varying Cultures and Historical Traditions

It is a well-known fact that Nigeria possesses diverse cultures and in many ways, its citizenry still struggle with unity issues internally.

With the Eastern parts seeking emancipation of some sorts and the Northern states with its threats to mention the more pronounced cases.

A country that is culturally and historically fragmentized cannot efficiently pursue its foreign policy because there is no unified support from all sections of society.

9. Geography and Natural Resources of Nigeria

Water ways, soil fertility, climate type, land mass and of course Nigeria’s oil rich state are all determining factors in Nigeria foreign relations.

Nigeria’s petroleum industry is the largest on the African continent; Nigeria is a major exporter of oil, making her a country of international interest.

While Nigeria battles internally with clashes and issues resulting from petroleum, her foreign relations for the same reason has been more cons than pros.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Possible Solutions to the Problems of Nigeria Foreign Policy

1. Tackle Security Challenges

Relative peace is essential to foster foreign relations. The police force is doing a good job curbing kidnappings and arresting the perpetrators.

The army also seem to be handling the boko haram groups as best as they can. Boko haram however, is no longer just a domestic problem but a regional one.

Collaborating with other African countries to fight the terrorist group is a step in the right direction. Herdsmen issues should be tackled the same way too. A threat-free society will encourage foreign relations.

2. Review of Bilateral Investment Treaties

A thorough review of all concluded bilateral treaties should be carried out to ensure they fulfil the objectives of having a foreign policy.

Long standing BITs should also be reviewed to ensure their relevance to the present economic state of Nigeria.

3. Review Nigeria Foreign Policy

This should cut across the decision making process, introduction of transparency in foreign policy discussions, deploy the best personnel for the review, and reassess factors that hinder the execution of Nigeria foreign policy.

4. Reinforce Alliances

Some alliances and partnerships with other countries have been mutually beneficial. Such should be reinforced alongside the review as stated earlier.

5. Tackle Underdevelopment

Dealing with underdevelopment will go a long way to eliminate most of the issues faced in foreign relations. Stable economy, reduced poverty rate, food security, good public health, durable infrastructure, well-functioning educational systems and good employment are a few of the factors that represent a developed nation. These factors are appealing and will foster foreign direct investments.

6. Reframe Nigeria’s Image

The narrative of Nigeria in the international media has to change. The perception of Nigeria and Nigerians in Diaspora needs to be reframed. Better foreign relations will ensue if the image of Nigerians as terrorists or con artists is changed.

As earlier stated, development will greatly improve Nigeria’s foreign relations. A reviewed and renewed foreign policy that takes into consideration global trends, present economic needs and citizens’ welfare has become inevitable.

References