Last week, President Muhammadu Buhari concluded a four-day official visit to Washington at the invitation of President Barack Obama. The official visit, the first in recent years by a Nigerian leader, was hailed by the Nigerian media as a huge success. The day after the visit, the World Bank (IFC) announced a soft loan of US2.1billion to Nigeria for the reconstruction of the war ravaged Northeast of Nigeria. The timing of the WB loan was politically-significant, as it was probably already in the pipeline before the president’s visit to Washington. The high point of the visit was the private discussion between the two leaders, which focused on global terrorism (Boko Haram) and the widespread public corruption in Nigeria, over which there is much global concern. President Buhari also addressed the US business community in Washington, as well as some of the over 300,000 Nigerians in diaspora in the US.
Expectations here about the possible benefits of the visit are quite high. The Nigerian public is upbeat that President Buhari’s visit to Washington will mark a turning point in bilateral relations between the US and Nigeria. President Obama promised that the US will assist Nigeria recover its stolen money laundered in the US. But in Washington there was probably less euphoria about the possible outcome of the visit. While American diplomats in Nigeria and a lot of American scholars have been profuse in their expression of goodwill and friendship towards Nigeria, it is by no means certain how much of this feeling is shared by the American establishment that has grown weary of Nigeria’s serial failure. President Obama has visited some African countries. but to show his displeasure, he has not yet visited Nigeria, the largest economy in Africa. In recent years, relations between the two countries have been somewhat strained over a variety of issues. US officials have publicly rebuked Nigeria for the alleged human rights abuses by the Nigerian military in the fight against the Boko Haram insurgents. Pleading a Congressional law against countries with a record of human rights abuses, the Obama government has refused arms supplies and sale to Nigeria. From the Nigerian perspective, this has made the prosecution of the war against the insurgency more difficult. Supply of American attack helicopters to Nigeria is vital for the success of the war against the insurgency. The US has withheld this. President Buhari has promised to address this American complaint regarding human rights abuses in Nigeria.
Of course, the Nigerian military and security forces should be more professional and humane in their military offensive against the BH insurgents, despite the latter’s savagery. There is some evidence that the Nigerian military have often been brutal in dealing with non-combatants in the war, detaining and even shooting some unarmed civilians. This is wrong. It is bound to be counterproductive as it alienates the local civilian population and drives them into the arms of the BH insurgents. However, it is, perhaps, necessary to remind the US about the savage manner its armed forces conducted its war in Vietnam, which stirred the conscience of the world. There has also been international concern over the inhumane manner detainees in the US military base in Guantanamo in Cuba are being treated. Nor is Israel, America’s strategic ally in the Middle East, being denied US arms supplies despite the savagery of the Israeli Defence Forces in its past military operations in Palestine and Lebanon. The Jonathan government responded to these double standards by actually asking the US to withdraw its military training team from Nigeria, a rebuff which the US resented deeply. By the time the Jonathan PDP government was ousted from power in May, military collaboration between the two countries had virtually ceased.
In addition, persistent and strong condemnation by the Obama US government of widespread and increasing corruption in Nigeria, though justified, was openly resented by the Jonathan PDP government as undermining its moral authority in Nigeria. The US played no role in the defeat of Jonathan in the presidential election, but there can be little or no doubt that it was happy to see that government go. Under Jonathan, relations with the US were so strained that only a new government could repair the damage. The situation presents the Buhari government and the Obama US administration with new opportunities to take the first tentative steps towards normalising relations between their two countries.
However, there is no point in being starry eyed about bilateral relations between the US and Nigeria. The situation calls for a measure of realism on both sides. Over the years, relations between the two countries have moved like a roller coaster, with periods of cordiality between them, followed quickly by short spells of policy differences and open hostility. On the Nigerian side, the refusal of the US to sell arms to Nigeria during its civil war was considered an unfriendly act by a country that Nigeria considered a friend and ally. In fact, President Nixon had to be restrained by the Harold Wilson British Labour government from recognising the secessionist state. This created a deep mistrust in Nigeria about the attitude of the US towards Nigeria. Then, again in 1975, or thereabouts, after the hurried withdrawal of Portugal from Angola, the Nigerian military leaders were irritated by the diplomatic but ungainly pressure by the US on Nigeria to recognise the Western backed FLNA movement as the new government in Angola, instead of the MPLA, which was backed by the progressive African states. In response, the Nigerian military leader, Murtala Mohammed, warned the US that ‘Africa has come of age’ and should not be dictated to by foreign powers. This rebuff, and the nationalisation of British Petroleum holdings in Nigeria in 1976 by the Obasanjo military regime, angered the US and removed any illusions it may have had that, if necessary, Nigeria would not hesitate to oppose US policy in Africa and act in its own perceived national interest. One American analyst described Nigeria’s response to the post-colonial situation in Africa as ‘muscular’, a remark which shows a misunderstanding of Nigeria’s African policy, particularly on the process of decolonisation in Africa. Very few American policy makers really understand that, in spite of its internal contradictions, Nigeria is fiercely independent, that it does not like being treated as a ‘client state’, and is resentful of any heavy-handed external pressures.
In addition, the US has not been consistent in its opposition to military rule in Nigeria. It tended initially to maintain an attitude of benign indifference to military regimes in Nigeria, but it limited military assistance to Nigeria to training its ECOWAS forces in Liberia and Sierra Leone. In 2003, total US military assistance to Nigeria was only US$7m. It was only in recent years, after the excesses of the brutal Abacha military regime in Nigeria, and the return to civil rule, that relations with the US began to improve. The US began to accept that its overarching national interest in Nigeria and, indeed, Africa, is in promoting democracy, and offering support for the development of physical and social infrastructure in Nigeria. It provided annually some $7 million to pro-democracy organisations in Nigeria during the Abacha regime to strengthen the struggle against military rule in Nigeria. America’s hope is that stronger Nigeria-US relations would impact more positively on the growth of democracy, stability, and prosperity in Africa. In this regard, there is a mutuality of interests between the two countries which, in recent years, and from the perspectives of the US, has been brought to the fore by the increasing role and expansion of Chinese influence in Africa. The US is concerned about this development which has the potential of reducing America’s considerable political, strategic, and economic power in Africa. It is in this light that recent renewed US interest in Nigeria and Africa should be viewed.
As far as bilateral economic relations are concerned, the US, under President Bush, gave Nigeria considerable financial assistance to fight the HIV/AID scourge, including a substantial financial grant in 2003. The US financial contribution made a substantial difference to the success of reducing HIV/AIDS prevalence in Nigeria. There is also the US sponsored African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA) which is supposed to promote African exports to the US market. In 2000, Nigeria was among the top 10 exporters to US. But this programme has not made much economic impact in Nigeria as, under AGOA, African exporters are still constrained by quantitative and qualitative restrictions. The US has virtually ceased to import oil from Nigeria. It is now a major oil producer and exporter. China and India have replaced the US as the largest oil importers from Nigeria. Nigeria is also one of the largest importers of wheat from the US. President Obama has committed his government to assisting Nigeria and other African countries with solar energy, badly needed, particularly in Northern Nigeria where electricity supply is much lower than the national average. But Nigeria cannot expect from the US any significant financial assistance. ODA flows from the US to Nigeria have averaged annually less than US$100m in the last decade. Before then, it was even lower, averaging less than US$30m. In contrast, ODA from the UK in 2006 was US$1,031m as against the ODA from the US of only US$167. ODA from the EU in the period was US$248m.
It is important for the two countries to strengthen their bilateral relations in areas where they can both identify a mutuality of interests, such as in security and economic cooperation. But while the US can make a contribution towards securing the much-needed change in Nigeria, it is the responsibility of Nigerian leaders to take the initiative by introducing domestic measures that will propel the country forward and redirect Nigeria’s economic strategy and development in a more progressive way, The US, on its own efforts alone, cannot secure Nigeria. It cannot end corruption here. This is the responsibility of Nigerian leaders.
