The Nation Newspaper

Tag: foreign policy

Foreign policy and path to peace in dangerous neighbourhood
- By Yusuf Tuggar
Nigeria’s constitution declares that sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria, from whom government, through this constitution, derives all its powers and authority. The same constitution goes on to state Nigeria’s five foreign policy objectives: promotion and protection of the national interest, African integration and support for African unity, promotion of international cooperation for peace and mutual respect, respect of international law and treaty obligations and promotion of a just world economic order. Those who suggest Nigeria does not have a foreign policy or those who agitate for a shift away from an Afro-centric foreign policy are wrong; either they are ill-informed, or deliberately disingenuous.

The constitution also makes clear why any responsible Nigerian government should be concerned when neighbours are governed without a constitution or codified rules. It goes without saying that the sovereignty of our neighbours is their business. They can grant powers to whatever governing structures they deem fit and should expect their autonomy to remain safeguarded. But when our interdependence sovereignty overlaps, we equally have a right to exercise control over our borders in those cases where neighbours face insurgencies that significantly comprise territorial integrity and state authority.

International legal sovereignty also becomes an issue when we consider that respect for international law and treaty obligations is one of our irreducible foreign policy objectives. This is not the Tinubu administration’s foreign policy; it is a constitutional provision that every Nigerian president and government official swears to uphold. Nigeria is a member of ECOWAS, which is founded on treaties and protocols to which our foreign policy objectives commit us. All 15 member countries are signatory to the treaties and protocols, which is why it was no surprise that President Tinubu, as one who swore to uphold the constitution, abided by it when ECOWAS leaders collectively objected to unconstitutional changes of government.

Read Also: New Coronavirus: Nigeria not at risk, FG insists

Our constitution and international laws are meant to serve as guardrails in navigating the system. And by virtue of our size, we have the additional responsibility of being the regional power. Regardless of how some may try to diminish our standing, it is the way other countries perceive us. Our constitution further reifies this leadership role right from the preamble- dedicating ourselves to promoting inter-African solidarity, to the foreign policy objectives- promotion of African integration and support for African unity and elimination of discrimination in all its manifestations.

The Tinubu administration came at a time when an interlocking suite of occurrences made our neighbourhood less secure; implosion of Libya, failure of the EU Sahel Strategy, terrorism and criminal gangs, effects of climate change and population explosion.

Nigeria did not create these challenges and was equally contending with its own domestic issue as these challenges escalated. Nigeria was not part of Operation Barkhane or the G5 in the Sahel, which were intended as efforts to fight terrorism and irregular migration but instead strengthened some irredentist Azawad/Tuareg groups that controlled border areas. This created a cauldron of disharmony between them and their national militaries, trained for a lifetime to keep their countries intact.

Nor was Nigeria part of the Partnership Framework with Third countries that conditioned aid and trade deals for Sahelian migration transit states in exchange for reducing the flow of migrants, with penalties for those who do not comply. In the case of Niger, a moment of truth was the passing of Law 2015-36 in May 2015, when its government, in consultation with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and technical and financial support from the European Union and its member states, criminalized ancillary activities of the migration economy, such as providing transportation and accommodation to foreign nationals anywhere north of Agadez, in direct contravention of ECOWAS Protocol on the free movement of people. They were persuaded to use a blunt hammer to crack a delicate nut. There is a highly politicised migration crisis in parts of Europe that together we can and should resolve. But it was reckless to seek to solve one problem by creating another.

There is a reason why we have free movement in West Africa; seasonal migration- referred to in Hausa as ‘Ci Rani’. Seasonal migration in the semi-arid Sahel can be a matter of life and death, which is why we have always had turbaned Tuaregs going as far as Lagos and Port Harcourt to work as Maigadis (security) during the dry months, only to return back north during the rainy season. The weaponisation of sub-Saharan migration in Europe as a political tool led to the securitisation of the Sahel region, further exacerbating the security situation by forcing many of those affected to turn to criminal activities and terrorism. European migration figures show majority of migrants are from Syria, Afghanistan and Central Asia, not sub-Saharan Africa.

Yes, we need to work with our Sahelian neighbours to fight terrorism, by maintaining a right of pursuit into each other’s territories. But it would be myopic to think of this in absolutist terms, because we can accede to all conditionalities laid by them, it would still not be enough to tackle the challenges without a lasting solution to the bifurcated Libyan state as a source of weapons, training and fighters, as well as the shadowy involvement of a range of other state and non-state actors.

To achieve a lasting peace in Libya and the Sahel, Nigeria needs to deal with all the countries in the neighbourhood as well as all the major powers. For this reason, it does not make sense to simply deduce that Nigeria has to distance itself from France because that is the prevailing trend in its former colonies. The fulcrum of the Tinubu administration’s foreign policy is Strategic Autonomy, providing us with the clarity to engage with any and all nations based on our national interests and not those of others. As a nation, Nigeria is adult enough and sophisticated enough to deal with countries without being unduly influenced, because that has been part of our historical and civic tradition. You cannot cure an illness by picking which symptoms to consider and which to ignore.

Nigeria and ECOWAS will continue diplomatic efforts towards Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso. At a minimum, we have shared interest in peaceful co-existence. President Tinubu has sent a number of high-level delegations that included a former Head of State, traditional rulers and religious scholars. President Tinubu pushed for the unconditional removal of ECOWAS sanctions imposed on Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso. What he has consistently asked of the countries in question is for them to come up with a timetable for the restoration of constitutional rule and, in the case of Niger, the release of ousted President Bazoum.

Their response was to declare their intention to leave ECOWAS. With the one-year notice period coming to an end in January, President Tinubu further pushed for ECOWAS to extend the grace period for another six months whilst intensifying diplomatic efforts. The response to this initiative last month was evidence-free allegations that Nigeria was harbouring foreign soldiers and as sponsoring state terrorism. Whenever President Tinubu and other democratic leaders offer stoic statesmanship and an opportunity to work together towards our common interests, it is met by confected controversy designed to divert and distract from a failure to meet the basic responsibilities of public administration. I know why coup leaders might seek to do that: it’s harder to understand the motives of apologists closer to home.

On my part, since assuming the office of Minister of Foreign Affairs on August 21, 2023, I have engaged diplomatically without pause, proposing personal visits and inviting senior government officials and representatives. Response has been akin to a diplomatic cold shoulder. We constituted a ministerial advisory committee that visited Niger and Mali and facilitated the visit of the Nigerian CDS to meet with his counterpart in Niamey. I regret that a proposed return visit was suspended by Niger after a date had been set. But let there be no doubt: we will continue to pursue diplomatic efforts assiduously, with a Ministry of Foreign Affairs that has existed for 67 years.

Nigeria’s principle of strategic autonomy is one that abhors the presence of foreign forces and private military companies in our region, whether from east or west. Nigeria presently has troops on peace keeping operations in Guinea Bissau and Gambia, with Sierra Leone on the way, where it is also supporting the setting up of a logistics base in Lungi. Nigeria is also leading the actualisation of the ECOWAS standby force, all in an effort to fight terrorism and instability within our region under the rule of law. We work closely with our partners on sharing of intelligence in order to guarantee the same rights and freedoms are enjoyed by all the people of the region.

As several of my colleagues in the region remind me, we are the hegemon, whether we admit it or not. And global politics works almost like physics, with polarity, ordering principles, distribution of power, balancing, etc. Nigeria has never had expansionist tendencies, never been threatening towards our neighbours and always chosen the path of peace and conciliation. This in part may have to do with the makeup of our polity and social fabric. Diversity, not division, is our strength. This is as true for Nigeria as it is for the smallest of countries – and collectively for all of our region.

•Ambassador (OON) is Minister of Foreign Affairs.
January 8, 2025
Re: Towards utmost freedom and less of sloganeering on Nigeria’s foreign policy in 2024
I read a lopsided article by Babafemi A. Badejo who called into question the new foreign policy concepts under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, singling out the 4D principles that now underpin the tenets of Nigeria’s foreign policy as the butt of his blurred outlook over how Nigeria’s diplomatic engagements should look like.

Without bandying words, Dr Babafemi raised key issues that if left unanswered may end up confusing many a reader given his position as a reputable lecturer on international relations.

While Mr Babafemi tried to juxtapose the Tinubu Doctrine or specifically the 4D foreign policy concepts with the Monroe Doctrine that the US adopted in 1823 (not 1843 as stated by the author) as a measure to deter European powers from further recolonizing countries in the Western Hemisphere, Nigeria’s new foreign policy direction is never meant to mimic any foreign power nor is it meant to exert its diplomatic cloud on any sovereign state. The geopolitical reality in our region coupled with the urgency for Nigeria to play more active roles in safeguarding not only our national interest and security but also the stability of our region by citizens who are unarguably the largest diaspora population in Africa. Ambassador Yusuf Maitama Tuggar repeatedly made it clear that the 4D Foreign Policy is not just mere sloganeering but a strategy to scrunch down “action plans of programmes into more manageable and comprehensible headlines.”

Another point that needs clarification is the solipsistic suggestion that Nigeria should prioritize economic development at the expense of democracy, alluding to the spate of military coups in West Africa and the diplomatic stand-off that strained relationship between Nigeria/ECOWAS and Niger junta. But for the avoidance of doubt, Nigeria never unilaterally planned to take military action against Niger as most of its policies are coordinated with the ECOWAS member states. Nigeria is in favour of a diplomatic solution, and the economic sanctions imposed on the junta are meant to pressure them to release Bazoum Muhammad and provide a clear pathway for the restoration of democracy in the country.

As noted by Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nigeria as the largest democracy in Africa cannot continue to fold its hands as West Africa descends into constitutional crises with six successful coups in just two years. The coups were a huge setback for the fight against terrorism in West Africa as many international partners withdrew or froze their cooperations with the military juntas which are critical to both the fight against terrorism and humanitarian support. Peace and good governance are an integral part of the development of any nation. The development in Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso is a watershed moment for the ECOWAS member states like Nigeria who have invested so much in multinational cooperation, regional integration, and international commitment only to be disrupted by military coups.

According to Mr. Omar Alieu Touray, the President of the ECOWAS Commission, a series of military coups in West Africa is a huge setback for the fight against terror, noting that there were 1503 incidences of terrorist attacks recorded in Burkina Faso from 1st to October 22, 2023, 1044 in Mali, and 376 in Niger since the coup. Furthermore, Ambassador Tuggar revealed during his speech that Burkina Faso, being one of the poorest countries in the world, now only control about 40% of its country.

Read Also: Why DTAC critical to achieving foreign policy objectives, by minister

Democracy in West Africa is under assault and Nigeria has what it takes to help reverse the trend which poses an existential threat not only to our national security but to the stability of the entire region. The problem with military juntas is they are not known for respecting human rights, law and order, and lack of transparency when it comes to their obligation to international law and regional treaties is often responsible for worsening instability that often hampers our fight against organized crimes and terrorism. As a democratic nation, Nigeria has a vital role to play in entrenching democracy in Africa, and military coup in the region especially West Africa is an anathema to economic growth and international cooperation.

Moreover, as a matter of national interest, prioritizing democracy provides Nigeria with a clear direction to assert its interests on the global stage as evidenced by the recent success of Nigeria’s diplomatic overture at the G2O Summit in Delhi which saw the inclusion of the African Union as a full member.

As for Development, which is another key tenet of Nigeria’s foreign policy priority under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Nigeria’s foreign policy seeks to use diplomacy in line with the Nigerian constitution to enhance economic growth, agricultural value chain and technology to provide Nigerians with job opportunities. Nigeria with its teeming population of over 220 million people has a lot to benefit from the ongoing efforts to attract investment from international investors. As stated by Ambassador Yusuf Maitama Tuggar, infrastructure alone can add 10-12% to our GDP which is enough to lift millions of Nigerians out of poverty. When it comes to international diplomacy, our population is a huge advantage as we have sufficient manpower and human resources to collaborate with countries such as India in the areas of ICT, movie industry, agriculture and bilateral trade which are sure to have an immediate impact on the wellbeing of Nigerians as a whole.

It is noteworthy that Ambassador Yusuf Maitama Tuggar is a veteran diplomat whose years of experience can enable our country to engage in more achievable goals. Nigeria is in throes of transition, and the urgency caused by rapidly changing world with competing interests, and Tuggar will continue to fight for what is best for Nigeria in terms of its national interests and the development of its people in line with the international law.

The Tinubu Doctrine is here to stay, and I am sure, and the rest of the world would sooner or later come to see the impact of the 4D foreign policy.

To this end, I call on Dr Babafemi A. Badejo not to be pessimistic about Nigeria’s foreign policy direction. The Tinubu Doctrine is borne out of the urgency to help Nigeria overcome many of its challenges such as development and the welfare of Nigerians abroad.
- Bashir Aliyu Wrote from Abuja
January 7, 2024
Discontinuities in Nigeria’s foreign policy (II)
The concept of “economic diplomacy” is certainly more comprehensive and all embracing than the terminology given to it in Nigerian Economic Diplomacy Initiative (NEDI) by the honourable minister.

Economic diplomacy has always been part and parcel of Nigerian foreign policy since the inception of the Ministry of External (Foreign) Affairs in 1957 under the Tafawa Balewa government.

Historically, trading between Nigeria and other countries of the world had been existing even before Nigeria came into being in 1914. Various Nigerian governments have been engaging themselves in bilateral and multilateral negotiations in trade, investment, technical cooperation, and resource flows, aimed at import- substitution policy through small and medium scale industries, employment generation, provision of energy, transport, communications and other infrastructure towards diversification of the nation’s economy for sustainable development.

Economic diplomacy initiatives took place, especially, during the period of Ike Nwachukwu who was one of the predecessors of Geoffrey Onyeama, resulting in Eleme petrochemical industry, expansion of the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project in Bonny and the Egbin plant in Lagos, foreign direct investment in the energy sector and sustained resource flows into the Nigerian economy.

Thus, Onyeama’s economic diplomacy initiative is not the first one. The initiative has come rather very late when the current administration has only one more year to go of its four-year term. It is curious that the initiative was not launched in 2015 at the beginning of President Buhari’s administration.

However, since it is an ICT platform, we can only hope that there will be some continuity after 2019, particularly in a country like Nigeria where policy somersault is the general rule.

In whatever case, Onyema’s economic diplomacy initiative raises some questions that may prove intractable. They include the following:
1. i) How is his initiative going to stem the negative effects of globalization in an import-dependent economy like Nigeria’s?
2. ii) To what extent is it going to encourage import-substitution industries in a country where the cost of production is so astronomical due to lack of appropriate infrastructure which, unfortunately makes imports quite cheaper than domestic goods and exports?
iii) How is his initiative going to limit, if not eradicate, dumping of low quality and health hazard goods into the Nigerian market?
1. iv) Smuggling is another unending problem. Are our porous borders going to be less porous under Onyeama’s economic diplomacy initiative so as to eliminate smuggling, and prevent killer herdsmen from entering Nigeria at will, whereby our sovereignty and territorial integrity will no longer be infringed upon with reckless impunity?
2. v) There is no doubt Nigeria requires a lot of investment and resource flows both from domestic and international sources. However, what foreign investment is the minister going to attract into Nigeria where there is so much disincentives for investment due to endemic corruption, existence of flash points that cause insecurity of life and property? It must be noted that investors go elsewhere whose enabling environment is more conducive.
3. vi) This is the century of e-commerce and of e-services where countries like India and China are moving at geometrical progression rate in their economies and well-being, due to the production and use of the internet, smart – phone and other devices of information technology that are beyond the capacity of average Nigerians. Nigeria is yet to be reckoned with in the e – economy; will Onyema’s initiative help Nigeria to leapfrog to catch up with India or China?
vii) Foreign policy of a nation is a function mainly of domestic policy more than any other factors. The success of Onyema’s initiative will depend to a large extent on bringing on board economic Ministries, Departments and Agencies, such as Agriculture, Trade and Investment, Finance, National Planning, Information and the Media, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Commercial Banks, the Ministry of Justice/Judiciary as it concerns trade/litigations, and the repatriation of stolen funds. The National Assembly, state assemblies and governments, the presidency, and the powerful Organized Private Sector and the Nigerian populace, are vital to the implementation of the initiative; while international finance institutions, development partners and foreign entrepreneurs and tourism are also key to the success or otherwise of the Initiative.

In a country where the right hand does not know what the left is doing, how will Onyeama coordinate these institutions and organizations and Nigerians for his initiative, which he must do if his initiative has to have life of its own? Or it will remain as mere ICT platform which, if not well managed, may not outlive the current administration that is grappling with serious complex domestic issues.

It is therefore, most important that the honourable minister will have to evolve appropriate strategies, advocacy and awareness campaign, and with the requisite funds and professionals for its implementation.

The minister’s definition of economic diplomacy is too restrictive and limited. It needs to be all-embracing. Otherwise, NEDI will not be able to tackle successfully the problems.

Concluded.
- Dr Lewu is former Nigerian Ambassador to Brazil, Paraguay and Bolivia.
April 19, 2018
On Nigeria’s foreign policy constraints

In an article titled ‘Still on Foreign Policy’, in his column in The Nation on Saturday, March 18, Mr. Segun Ayobolu, a gifted writer and columnist, argued very passionately for what he called ‘greater coherence, focus and vibrancy’ in Nigeria’s foreign policy. He recalled a previous article in the same paper by him in April of last year in which he characterised President Buhari’s foreign policy as ‘too tepid, tentative and unimaginative’. This time, and more explicitly, he complained that President Buhari has, since coming to power two years ago, assumed a central role in our foreign policy which involves him travelling abroad too frequently. He considers this unnecessary and argues that the president should now allow his Foreign Minister, Mr. Geoffrey Onyeama, a man with a very impressive educational background, obtaining university degrees from Columbia, Harvard and Cambridge, to take over fully the running of our foreign policy. As he says more directly, ‘It is the responsibility of his foreign minister to come up with innovative ideas and initiatives to help actualise the foreign policy vision of the president’ which, according to him, should be the promotion of ‘the highest standards of integrity and governance in Africa’.

It is not difficult to understand the frustration that Mr. Ayobolu feels about the direction, or seeming lack of it, of Nigeria’s foreign policy. It is a view widely shared by the Nigerian foreign policy community and, possibly, the wider public, both of which want Nigeria, with its huge population and natural resources, to pursue a more dynamic foreign policy, and play a more influential role in African and world affairs. A dynamic foreign policy could even provide a useful diversion from our failures at home. In his article under reference he recalls with some nostalgia and pride Nigeria’s prominent role in the heroic struggle against apartheid South Africa and the liberation of Southern Africa from colonial rule, both of which objectives have since been achieved. With Nigerian immigrants now being violently attacked in South Africa, some critics will argue that the rewards of such a vigorous policy in Southern Africa are not so apparent now. I do not share this view as I believe that Nigeria’s active support for the decolonisation of Southern Africa was in our long term national interests.

But the international situation and Nigeria’s domestic setting then were vastly different from what they are now. There is a time and season for everything, including foreign policy. Nigeria was not then under such intense domestic tension and internal divisions as is the case now. Our economic situation was far better then. The economy was strong and growing steadily. We were not in a recession then. Even then, Nigeria’s possible influence in world and African affairs is really condign. It remains largely a potential achievable in future after Nigeria has sorted out its huge domestic problems.

To justify his call for a more ‘vibrant’ Nigerian foreign policy Mr. Ayobolu refers in his article to Professor Bolaji Akinyemi’s prominent role in foreign policy when he served as Babangida’s Foreign Minister. In this regard he mentioned Professor Bolaji Akinyemi’s initiatives on the Technical Aid Corps, the idea of the Concert of Medium Powers, and his advocacy of the ‘black bomb’. These were undoubtedly great ideas and bold initiatives which I have had the privilege and opportunity of discussing with Professor Bolaji Akinyemi several times. Of the three bold foreign policy initiatives he took when he was Foreign Minister, only that of the Technical Aid Corps came to fruition. And the future of this is by no means certain given our current grave economic challenges. The two other ideas he promoted did not quite take off largely for lack of official support from his own government. The Babangida military government was far more preoccupied with domestic affairs and its own survival in power. The idea of the Concert of Medium Powers also failed to materialise largely because of lack of interest and support from the states that were to have formed the group. Many of the prospective members thought it to be a duplication of the Non-Aligned Movement, now virtually dead. In the case of his advocacy of a ‘black bomb’ the idea, coming from a country with a huge power deficit, was obviously premature and impractical. Much more importantly, even the Babangida military government did not give these two bright ideas much support. For all his imaginative and bold initiatives in foreign policy Professor Bolaji Akinyemi was removed as Foreign Minister after barely two years in office. As Foreign Minister Professor Bolaji Akinyemi would have done much better in a well structured, stable, and western prosperous country. His ideas were obviously considered too big and ambitious for Nigeria. I have to refer to the similarly bold ideas of two former Foreign Ministers; General Ike Nwachuku’s ‘economic diplomacy’, and Mr. Ojo Madueke’s ‘citizens’ diplomacy’, both of which equally failed dismally for lack of domestic support and financial resources.

Now, on the issue of President Buhari’s alleged frequent foreign travels abroad, this was only in the early years of his administration. He has travelled abroad far less than President Obasanjo who spent the first six months of his tenure virtually abroad, or even President Jonathan. And it was President Obasanjo’s frequent foreign travels and personal diplomacy that achieved for Nigeria the huge debt relief from its international creditors. It is common practice that new heads of state, on assuming office, want to travel abroad to get acquainted with their foreign counterparts and come to grips with the nuances of very complex international issues in diplomacy. Recently, President Buhari has not been attending some of these international summits for health reasons. Besides, he does not seem to me to be unduly interested in foreign affairs, preferring instead to focus his attention on Nigeria’s critical domestic problems where he may make a difference from past governments. In fact, an aggressive or ‘vibrant’ foreign policy by Nigeria is not possible right now because of Nigeria’s grave political and economic challenges which have to be resolved first. Mr. Ayobolu admits this when he wrote in his article that ‘Nigeria lacks a viable economic base to sustain a vibrant foreign policy’.

In any case the era of powerful and influential Foreign Ministers such as Andrei Gromyko (Soviet Union) who was Foreign Minister for over 40 years, or Dr. Henry Kissinger (USA), or even Anthony Eden (UK) has gone for good as a result of the emergence of new global powers and centres. In addition governments everywhere are becoming increasingly centralised with presidents and heads of state assuming more and more powers, even preferring to run their foreign policies and diplomacy. The new age of rising international summits and multilateral diplomacy also compel presidents and heads of state to travel more frequently abroad and be more visible. Even in Britain the prime ministerial style of government is looking more and more presidential. Many people do not even know who the British Foreign Secretary is. Boris Johnson (UK) cannot wield the kind of influence that his predecessors as Foreign Secretaries did.

Mr. Ayobolu also suggested in his article that Nigeria should take the lead in ‘promoting democracy and good governance in Africa’. But we must lead by example and he will be the first to admit that Nigeria’s credentials in these two areas are extremely weak. Our democratic institutions remain very fragile while, internationally, we are not known for good governance. With insurgences and ethnic tensions everywhere even the future of the country is by no means certain. Even in Africa there are at least a score of states that are more democratic and better governed than Nigeria. How can we then seek to promote abroad what we do not have at home? No one in Africa will be disposed to treat such an initiative from Nigeria seriously. It was President Obasanjo and President Thambo Mbeki of South Africa who, with the inspiration and support of Tony Blair, the British Labour Prime Minister, took the lead in getting African states to accept and endorse NEPAD and APRM, two projects on good governance intended to address Africa’s grave political and economic challenges. But nothing has really come out of these two bold initiatives. The commitment of African states to these two great ideas has weakened considerably because of internal problems that its two leading proponents, Nigeria and South Africa, are now facing. In fact, President Thabo Mbeki lost power because of his focus on foreign affairs and his consequent neglect of South Africa’s grave economic problems, particularly his dismal failure to create jobs for the teeming and unemployed black South Africans.

Even as an Oxford graduate and a former President of the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Club in Nigeria myself, I have not met Mr. Onyeama personally. I am impressed by his academic qualifications. But I think he is a ‘realist’, not a ‘theorist’ and that he understands fully the limitations and constraints on Nigeria’s foreign policy. In a paper that a team of foreign policy advisers of which I was a member submitted to President Buhari’s transition team in 2015 after the presidential election, we advised him to pay more attention to our critical domestic issues than on foreign policy issues. I think he has heeded this advice. The only area in which we advised possible new initiatives was the need for Nigeria to forge new links with such regional powers as China, India and Brazil, all of which have something to offer Nigeria in terms of economic cooperation and in technology.

That remains my personal view and I think Mr. Onyeama is right in not taking any serious foreign policy initiatives now. As is well known the Foreign Service itself is facing very severe financial constraints. It is not being well funded. Both the Ministry and our foreign missions are desperately in need of more funds. The senior diplomatic staff is demoralised and needs to be encouraged regarding their future career prospects. Rather than engaging himself in an unnecessary vibrant diplomatic foray in foreign policy that offers little or no reward, the focus of the Foreign Minister should be more on the much needed funding and restructuring of the Foreign Service. After all, no matter the merit of a foreign policy initiative or idea, it can only be effectively promoted by a dedicated, efficient and committed Foreign Service.

March 23, 2017
Still on foreign policy

Last April I had argued in this space that the foreign policy of the President Muhammadu Buhari administration had so far been too tepid, tentative and unimaginative. While I had written glowingly about the dynamism and vibrancy that characterized the country’s engagement with the international community under the Murtala/Obasanjo military regime, particularly its commitment to the liberation of apartheid South Africa and other African countries still under colonial bondage, I also underscored the fact that such activist foreign policy had become unrealistic with the Nigeria’s protracted economic decline. Again, the ideological radicalism, albeit limited, that informed the country’s foreign policy outlook at the time has become irrelevant and jaded with the collapse of the communist bloc, the decline of ideology in international relations and the current global triumph of neoliberal capitalism and market forces. Even then, the very fact of the deepening of economic crisis and underdevelopment in Nigeria and Africa as well as the continent’s unabated slide to irrelevance cannot excuse an absence of creativity and boldness in foreign policy even if the country can no longer afford the luxury of unproductive global adventurism or posturing as the fabled giant of Africa.

Despite the economic stringency of the period, for instance, the country’s foreign policy still evinced some measure of innovative, out of the box, thinking under military President Ibrahim Babangida particularly during the tenure of Professor Bolaji Akinyemi as the regime’s foreign minister. Professor Akinyemi’s intellectual imprint was obvious in such policy initiatives as the Technical Aid Corps scheme, Nigeria’s audacious effort to organize a concert of medium powers as a critical actor on the international terrain and a vigorous bid under the country’s leadership to revive the Pan-Africanist spirit. It was Akinyemi’s view that the decline in Nigeria’s economic fortunes should not necessarily diminish her capacity to think and act with vigour and decisiveness as an influential African country.

Apart from the lack of a viable economic base to sustain a vibrant foreign policy, the eradication of apartheid in South Africa and the elimination of the last vestiges of colonial rule on the continent, in my view, contributed to denuding Nigeria’s foreign policy of the coherence and focus it had been known for. With the total liberation of Africa as its centerpiece, the objectives and strategies of the country’s external relations were clear and well defined. In comparison, the concept of ‘economic diplomacy’, for instance, which seeks to hinge the country’s foreign policy on her strategic economic interests, has not been well defined and has had only negligible impact on Nigeria’s objective material realities. This may be a function of Africa’s weak and structurally dependent position in the international political economy that makes it difficult for the economy of even a resource endowed country like Nigeria to be a strong weapon of foreign policy. The changing dynamics of the global economy has largely stripped a key resource like petroleum of the global potency that enabled Nigeria to play such a critical role in the struggle against apartheid and colonialism in Africa.

Even more nebulous is the concept of ‘citizen diplomacy’, with which the country experimented as a foreign policy objective during the tenure of the late Chief Ojo Maduekwe as foreign minister under President Olusegun Obasanjo if I am not mistaken. I do not see how any country’s foreign policy cannot but be about the interest and well being of its citizens in the first place. Nigeria’s foreign policy under Obasanjo (1999-2007) had the stamp of the Ota chief’s international clout and influence boldly written on it. Along with President Thambo Mbeki of South Africa, Obasanjo toyed with such concepts as the ‘African Renaissance’ and the possibility of working towards this being ‘the African Century’. Nigeria played a key role in the initiation and actualization of the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), which was launched in Abuja in 2001. Among the goals of NEPAD were the facilitation of sustainable growth, stemming the marginalization of Africa, intensifying the integration of African states as well as working towards the fulfillment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). A key feature of NEPAD is the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), which is a platform for African countries and leaders to review their performances on specified indices and hold each other to account.

Even as the Buhari administration approaches its two-year mark, I am still of the view that its foreign policy could do with greater coherence, focus and vibrancy. I have not had any reason to change my view that the ample knowledge and skills of the Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr. Geoffrey Onyeama, could be maximally utilized in several other areas by the administration. As I wrote in my earlier column, “With a political science degree from Colombia University in New York and degrees in law from the London School of Economics and Cambridge University, the Foreign Affairs Minister, Geoffrey Onyeama, is quite cerebral and accomplished. But is he being utilized in his area of maximum competence? I do not think so. If he were, the President would not have to personally conduct his own global diplomacy leading to severe criticism of his frequent travels abroad”. While the President has since significantly cut down on his foreign trips the Minister has not in any way stepped up his own visibility and presence on the international stage.

Of course, the distinguished diplomat, Ambassador Olusola Sanu, disagreed strongly with my views and was gracious enough to write a response which was published in this space. According to the highly respected statesman, “After reading Ayobolu’s article, I came to the conclusion that he is deeply unhappy at the fact that President Buhari took on the portfolio of foreign affairs and decided to be the Nation’s Chief Diplomat. In doing so, Mr. Ayobolu believes that the brilliant, erudite, Geoffrey Onyeama, Buhari’s Foreign Minister has been sidelined and has not been allowed to showcase his erudition on the international stage. I am not sure that Mr. Onyeama will be as unhappy as Ayobolu when he observes the manner in which other Heads of State receive his boss, President Buhari, as he presents his case to his counterparts all over the world. I suspect that the Foreign Minister will be happy that some of the aura of an achiever will rub off on him. And in time when we overcome most of the challenges facing us, the current Foreign Minister will travel alone all over basking in the achievement of his boss”.

I really think that President Buhari has made a bold statement as regards his integrity and anti-corruption credentials that the world has taken due note of. The Foreign Minister ought to have by now become the chief salesman to the world of the President’s anti-corruption mission and aggressively projecting a new image of Nigeria globally. Indeed, Ambassador Sanu in my view articulated a clear and succinct foreign policy focus for the administration when he wrote “President Buhari is using his personal attributes, his integrity, his intolerance of corruption and those who practice it in driving his foreign policy. These attributes of his have endeared him to world leaders and gained him results”. The Ambassador has in my view hit the nail on the head. Buhari’s anti-corruption passion can become the driving force of our foreign policy. That would also imply of course that a commitment to democracy and good governance in Africa would become the second leg of the Buhari administration’s foreign policy. For, it is only truly democratic governance that can guarantee the transparency and accountability that will make it difficult for corruption to thrive.

Under Buhari, we must become as committed to the cause of democracy and the eradication of corruption in Africa as we were to the struggle against apartheid and colonialism. In other words, Africa must once again become the centerpiece of our foreign policy as we lead the struggle for the second liberation of the continent from the twin evils of corruption and dictatorship. But that is not a job for the president personally to do. It is the responsibility of his Foreign Affairs Minister to come up with innovative ideas and initiatives to help actualize the foreign policy vision of the president. In making these goals the central plank of our foreign policy, Nigeria would also be putting pressure on herself to set the highest standards of integrity and democratic governance in Africa as we would be like the proverbial city on a hill.

Nigeria should take the lead for instance in galvanizing other African countries to undertake a comprehensive review of NEPAD with a view to assessing its successes and failures and building on it gains. In the same vein, Nigeria should lead the way in working effectively to strengthen the APRM, which so far only exists in theory. While Nigeria played a commendable role in dislodging Yahaya Jammeh’s sit tight dictatorship in tiny Gambia, how can we deploy our strengths and influence in Africa to help at least to begin to rid the continent of the several other bigger but no less despicable corrupt tyrants that litter the continent? In her book, ‘Hard Choices’, Hillary Clinton writes about one of President Obama’s reasons for picking her as Secretary of State. In her words, “In real life, President-elect Obama presented a well-considered argument, explaining that he would have to concentrate most of his time and attention on the economic crisis and needed someone of stature to represent him abroad”. Buhari’s anti-corruption war at home needs someone of stature to project its gains vigorously and imaginatively abroad.

March 18, 2017
Time to review Nigeria’s foreign policy

Over the years, Nigeria has attached great importance not only to the promotion and defence of its neighbours’ socio-economic and security interests but also defending the dignity of the black race the world over. In this regard, and in its tireless effort to wipe out colonialism and white minority rule on the continent, Nigeria has been in agreement with the cardinal principles and objectives that the United Nations stands for.
Nigeria has devoted its time, money and energy to political community building in Africa and towards mutually beneficial regional and continental integration. Nigeria was not only instrumental in the formation of the disbanded OAU in 1963 and the ECOWAS in 1975, but has also been in the driving seat of these organisations by playing a prominent role in their funding. Nigeria is a motor force behind the African Union (AU) and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). The country also funds ECOWAS.
With the quest to maintain leadership and Big-brother role in Africa, Nigeria has made significant contributions to the attainment of independence of African countries such as Angola and Zimbabwe and also played dominant roles in the struggle against apartheid and white minority rule in South Africa. This action did not only lead to the achievement of independence of those countries but also led to the establishment of multi-racial government in South Africa which cost Nigeria billions of Naira.
However, despite Nigeria’s consistent and unwavering commitment and support for the region, Nigeria has never received the amount of respect it deserves on the continent. Its citizens have either been treated as unwanted species or targets for other African countries. Despite the fact that Nigeria has shown so much love through its Afro-centric and Radical Foreign Policy, yet the rate of xenophobic attacks on Nigerians over the last decade is shocking and tragic.
What have we done to deserve victimisation and continuous attack by South Africans? With great resources channelled to sustain Africa, why are we still treated like aliens? Is it lack knowledge or what?
Well, a fellow foreign affairs analyst, Akeju Bosun, answered this question in his article”International Issue: Resurgence of xenophobic attacks in South Africa” by saying : “….Perhaps History is in a state of oblivion In South African schools which they need include to give proper account of past events relating to the Apartheid Regime….. With history they can be intellectually inclined with PRE and POST APARTHEID REGIME and how they need to exercise the principle of GOOD NEIGHBOURLINESS in order to avoid conflict that can strain diplomatic relations with not just Nigeria but other African neighbours.”
Nigeria spent billions on getting those bigots liberated from the Apartheid regime. The country provided a safe place for the anti-apartheid actors. Even after their liberation, Nigeria didn’t set up a single industry or company there but however allowed South Africa to establish their industries and companies (MTN, DSTV etc) here. Yet Nigerians are lynched and victimised in South Africa.
Nigeria never exploited or demanded a dime in return for its contributions yet since the 90s various South African companies and industries have exploited Nigerians without a violent or inhumane reaction from Nigerians. Nigeria’s contributions to South Africa’s liberation and democracy supersede every other country. Yet her efforts have been ignored and disregarded by South Africans’ continuous hatred towards Nigerians.
Instead of demanding a change in the Foreign Policy that has turned us into an “International Father Christmas” with much disrespect, some foreign affairs’ analysts are encouraging a “Status Quo.” To the extent that one historian said: ”With love we can still show them we are the most powerful black nation.”
What kind of love should Nigeria show again? Why should Nigeria continue being a fool in the international system? This may not be a BREXIT or NEXIT issue but the similarities between the resources channeled by both countries in their respective regions and tragic experience afterwards cannot be ignored. This is about Nigeria and South Africa.
Our foreign policy flaws and contradictions have put us in this situation. We have spent and given so much under this so called Afro-centric Policy that it’s rather unfair to be experiencing this tragic situation. It is time to readjust our foreign policy and become more dynamic and aggressive.
The Nigerian Constitution expects Nigerians to be the first priority of any government or policy. Chapter 2 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, Section 14 states that “…. It is hereby, accordingly, declared that:
(a) Sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority;
(b) The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.
It’s time for policy makers to put the country’s interest and responsibility to the people before its fellow African countries. We are tired of watching Nigerians die and becoming uncomfortable on a continent that’s supposed to be “United.” I am tired of living in fear, awaiting the next lynching.
We have to start seeing South Africa as a regional competitor that is about to take everything that we deserve globally. If you think showing love puts a country ahead of its rivals, then why should Nigerians suffer so much in South Africa without emergent measures by its government? If so, Nigeria should have been unanimously granted unalloyed support by South Africa in its ambition at the UN Security Council. But South Africa did not only declare its interest in the seat, it also challenged Nigeria’s credentials to aspire for the seat, claiming that Nigeria do not possess the necessary regional spread or image to bid for the seat.
Policy makers must remember that national interests and domestic obligation must be constant and permanent in the international arena. While “Friends” are changeable and changing, they must remember that in a continuous violent and inhumane situation like Xenophobia, “Nations must determine for themselves the modus operandi in its relations with the involved state.”
The government must understand that there is no state that enters into a global arena to pursue the interest of another state. Neither should a Nation or State expect any State to defend its own interest. It is a selfish pursuit of interest and the maximisation of such interest at the expense of other countries if possible.
In conclusion, the government and policy makers must respond to these ongoing xenophobic attacks by restoring “Nigerians” and “Nigeria first” in its foreign policy. It is only then that Nigeria can react and ensure necessary measures that will bring an end to the tragic situation. It is time to put Nigeria first and others second.

March 15, 2017
Activities of militants not helping our foreign policy, by ex-Perm Sec

The Nigerian foreign missions have drawn adverse media reports in recent times. But the immediate past Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Bulus Paul Lolo, in a chat with Assistant Editor BOLA OLAJUWON, few days after he retired from active service, agrees that things have changed dramatically in the foreign service. The former Ambassador to Ethiopia and Permanent Representative to the African Union (AU) says Nigeria must remain relevant in spite of fiercer global competition. Excerpts:

SIR how is life in retirement?

I am just starting my retirement. But I can say to you that the difference between working and being retired is that while at work, you will be programmed by what you have to do. But in retirement, you plan what you want to do. So, I have found the last few days since my retirement to be a different experience altogether. When I wake up in the morning, I do not have to rush to do anything. Once I wake up and my body feels good, I give thanks to God and decide what to do for the day. I have found time to relax so one can actually look forward to retirement knowing that it allows you to relax.

Sir, while growing up, did you plan to be a diplomat and did you ever dream of being a permanent secretary?

Well, did I plan to be a diplomat? It will be a yes and no answer. Yes in the sense that when I got into the university I looked at the various career options that would be available to me and of the options, my number one choice was to join the Nigerian foreign service. I am grateful to God Almighty who made it happen the way I wanted, that I got placement into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and that I finished my career rising to the pinnacle of the profession. Would you ever plan to be a permanent secretary? It is not possible, because being a permanent secretary comes by way of appointment, and also you cannot just wake up to be a permanent secretary unless you are found worthy of that position. So, I couldn’t have imagined that I will finish my career as a permanent secretary; but that was like icing on the cake for me, through God’s grace, mercy and compassion.

If you look back, when was your most memorable day in the civil service?

There have been a number of them. So, I cannot single one out any to say this was the most memorable day for me. For instance, when I got my first promotion, it was very memorable in the sense that it was my first promotion and second, when I got my first assignment to travel overseas on posting. In my case, it was not a full posting, it was on attachment. I was barely nine months in the Foreign Service, when I was sent on an attachment to Canada; that was memorable. Then as the career progressed, I think when I became a level 15 officer, it was a very symbolic thing for me, because at the time I entered into Foreign Service in 1981, Level 15 officers were deputy directors at that time while level 16 were directors. So, the level 15, who were deputy directors, were seen to be demigods in our eyes. It was unimaginable to go near them. They were so high up that we the junior ones looked up to them as our heroes and heroines and so when I became a Level 15 officer in the course of my career, I felt fulfilled on that day.

Ultimately, I rose to be a director, which is Level 17. In the Foreign Service, Level 17 is regarded as a special grade. Special grade as I said in 1981, there was no Level 17. Only six officers in the Nigerian Foreign Service have reached Level 17 and because there was no more promotion beyond Level 16, they were designated as special grade officers. No more assessment and examinations. So, it was again a life of freedom that finally, I am my own person in the civil service. Of course, two more events that were memorable: my appointment as ambassador in 2011 and when in 2014, I became a permanent secretary.

So, you can understand why I said it is not possible to put my finger on a single moment and say it was the most memorable. Also, two days before I retired, the government of the Republic of Niger gave me their national honour – the highest they can give to a foreigner. I did not work in Niger either as an officer or ambassador. For them to have found me worthy, it stood out for me as God’s greatest gift. Two days later, I was a recipient of the presidential distinguished public service award given by President Muhammadu Buhari.

How will you describe the foreign service of today and yesteryears?

They are not quite the same. The Foreign Service that I joined in 1981 had very seasoned officers. The pioneers, who established the service in 1981, were still in service – some of them; not all of them. So, we learnt the finest traditions from them. To have witnessed them in service, learnt under their tutelage and then rise in the course of it, one must say that the standards then and now are far apart. Secondly, Nigeria as a country has also witnessed a change in the culture. If you remember, Nigeria of 1970s is not the Nigeria of the 80s, and is certainly not the Nigeria of the 21st century that we are in. Things have changed dramatically – some for good and some not for good. So, that is a reflection in the service not just the foreign service, but in public life in Nigeria as a whole and this is where I hope that those who are still in the civil service today in Nigeria will recognise the role of the civil service and commit to excellent efficient service delivery that is effective and also that will impact the lives of Nigerians for us to be where we ought to be.

Sir, as the permanent secretary, what did you do and what is your advice to the Federal Government?

The Nigerian Foreign Service is not an independent service given that it is essentially an arm of government and funding comes from the national budget. You are a witness to the fact that our budget has been dwindling over the last couple of years; a reflection of the dip in our national fortune, a dip in the oil market and because revenues that used to accrue to government have fallen, so too have the content of the budget relative to the priorities of government. And the Nigerian Foreign Service has been on the receiving end. I did my best to ensure prudent management. I made sure that people did things within extant rules and regulations. I made sure that I went out of my way, where there was need to.

My advice to government? Government is the driver of development in the country. The direction that President Muhammadu Buhari has set for his administration is the right one. If there is any advice today, and I will do it very strongly, is to suggest that government should be very firm in intensifying the measures that will ensure the diversification of the economy. Unless we diversify our economy, and unless we broaden the base of our economy, so long as we remain dependent on oil, then so long will we be tied to the vicissitude of the oil market. But if you have a diversified economy, you are actually expanding opportunities. And with an expanded opportunity, you are empowering people and when you empower people, you are adding strength to your standing as a nation and as a people.

We have been talking about scrapping or merging some of the missions to conserve funds and make them functional. Do you subscribe to the suggestion?

It is a painful path to take, but if it is necessary, why not? It is very good to always review and assess what you are doing. That is how you will know whether you are moving in the right direction, whether you are achieving your goals and targets and whether those goals and targets are worth your pursuit. Merging embassies, I do not know what you mean by merger. But if by merger here you mean concurrent accreditation, yes, and many countries do so. With Nigeria’s standing and aspiration, one will like to see a situation where we have an effective diplomatic reach. This diplomatic reach is measured by a number of things, not least, the number of nations you have abroad.

We have 114 missions, I believe. But before I left office, a directive was given that the number be reduced. I left the work in progress. My successor has inherited this issue and I believe that he will follow through. In aligning your aspiration, one must acknowledge that it must be aligned with the resources to pursue it.

It is alleged that embassies’ workers are not being paid. How do you compare that notion to patriotism? Don’t you think there may be sell-out?

No. I think my suggestion on the issue of funding for missions is to go back to those days where remittances were made twice a year – every six months. If we adopt this twice a year policy in remitting money to our missions, we are free-loading their funds, thereby protecting such remittances from fluctuations. But when you send money monthly or every three months, you are very susceptible and vulnerable to fluctuations of currency and I believe that it is affecting nations negatively. If you take the naira today and what the naira was trading six months ago, even in our domestic market, it is not the same. So, had we sent money six months ago to our missions, we would have saved both the missions and government the cost of the drop in the naira relative today to the dollar, and yet the budget, of course, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been hit by the change and shift in the official exchange rate at the CBN. So, that is a prime example of what this fluctuation does. So, patriotism and funding, I believe that the quantum may not, because we don’t have space to increase dramatically. But if what missions expect gets to them on time, they should be able to manage.

On the problem of Boko Haram, Avengers and Biafra, how do you see the international community taking us? Would they be seeing us as a serious or cohesive nation? Is that likely to affect the fortune of Nigeria before the international community?

No people, talk less of a country cherishes negative publicity because each time you have a negative headline, it scares people and sends the wrong signal. So, the activities of these groups that you have mentioned are not helping us in our advocacy. We want to attract foreign investors into Nigeria. I mean no one would want to come to a place where there has been an incident of kidnapping for instance and it makes global headlines or an incident that involves an improvised explosive device (IED) going off. It would scare away both nationals of the country as wells as foreigners you want to come and help you.

So by way and chance of publicity, their activities are not doing our image any good at all. I remember Nigeria of 1960s and early 70s. You could leave your door open and walk away without fear that a total stranger would come to your house to steal. At that time, those who stole were petty thieves, and armed robbery was non-existent. In fact, the incidence of armed robbery in Nigeria came to the fore after the Civil War. It was fallout of the Civil War. But today, we have become a country where people for whatever conceivable reason would take a hostage, would like to hit a building and will issue threats that they are going to bomb this location and bomb that location. That is not the Nigeria of yesteryears, it is also not the Nigeria of our dream; but the responsibility is collective.

Government alone cannot tackle insecurity unless we become security conscious; like you see a movement that is suspicious in your neighbourhood, you alert the different layers of authority and allow them to do their work. Then, you will enhance security. In other countries that I lived in or visited during my service, I do know the type of security arrangement that were laid and they were not different from our own practice, except that we took our eyes off the hall. So, I want to see a Nigeria in which the citizens will be involved and would regard their safety as their responsibility as much as they expect government to. Of course, we must go back to those societal values that cherished honesty, promoted integrity and associated certain acts with shame and nobody would come near them.

How do you see the way Nigerians are being treated abroad? Some school of thought said some Nigerians are not parading themselves as they ought to.

Respect begets respect. If we conduct ourselves with decorum, shun those practices that give us negative publicity, I believe we would enjoy the same degree of respectability as others. But when you go and involve yourself in act of criminality, like some Nigerians have done. Then, how do you expect your host country to respect you?

I want to advise Nigerians who leave the shores of this country to remember that the passport that they used to travel is their identity and that our country Nigeria is bigger than any individual. So, it is our duty to conduct ourselves with utmost decorum.

Initially when Nigeria talked in Africa and globally, people listen. But it seems now that we are not making the impact that we used to make. What do you think is responsible?

I wish you would tell me the yardstick with which you are measuring impact because I would disagree with you slightly. You have forgotten that there have been some fundamental changes to the international or what I would call the global landscape. In the past, there were two main political blocs – the East and the West. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have been running a unipolar world with the United States of America as the global hub. But in the midst of this, there have been non-traditional actors that have suddenly popped up on the scene and are exerting enormous influence. In fact, if you like, they are opinion moulders and agenda-setters. Take the role of non-governmental organisations. They became popular in the last 20 maybe 25 years. Then, take the non-state actors like terrorist groups, Al Qaeda. When did Al Qaeda become a household name? Boko Haram, when did Boko Haram become a household name? So, if you put together these actors that I have identified, they shape and influence opinion negatively or positively and it is in the midst of this dramatic change that Nigeria is acting. Even in our sub region, West Africa, there have been other countries that have emerged. Ghana is holding its own and Cote D’Ivoire is holding its own. You cannot beat your chest and say because you are Nigeria, only you would be listened to; ditto on the global stage. Until how many years, you wouldn’t reckon with China, South Africa, Brazil, India and the rest of it.

When you were Nigeria’s Permanent Representative in African Union (AU), you once said the people stealing money from Nigeria, would not be able to spend the money and would not be able to get visas to other countries, do you see yourself as a prophet now?

No, hardly. I don’t have any desire to be a prophet. But it is common sense in a way. I am not saying that illicit financial flows will ever end. But we need to put a cap on it. Reduce it to the barest minimum. And instead of taking these funds abroad, let us invest internally. If you go to a place like Dubai – we know that Nigerians own choice properties in Dubai – they cannot on their own just jump on a plane to go to Dubai without a visa. Even where you have a valid visa, circumstances may arise and overnight, your visa will be revoked. So, where you have your property, you will stand from afar and look towards those properties without access. But tell me, what on earth will happen that a bona fide Nigerian would be expelled from hi/her country? Where will you go? International law does not allow a stateless status to an individual. You must have a state. So, if we are smart people, let us invest within. The roads, electricity or power, and other services, education and all those things that are attracting us abroad can be replicated in Nigeria.

What is your advice for the people left in the Foreign Service?

I said this at the farewell reception that was organised for me, that the future of Nigeria is great and bright. There is hope in this country and for those still in service – both in the Foreign Service or the entire public service – they should count themselves as highly privileged. Privileged in the sense that there are millions of people who are without jobs, so, for you to have a job – whether you are a cleaner, a permanent secretary, a director and a minister – it is a privilege. And because of this privilege, we must also go the extra-mile to serve our people better. This will come through the commitment we bring, our diligence, innovativeness and productivity.

What will you be doing now that you are retired?

I will go into farming. I will also want to do some consulting, go into lecturing in the university or any institution, a think tank, maybe. If God gives me good health, I may consider doing some writing.

October 23, 2016
B/Haram and Nigeria’s neighbors; failure of foreign policy?

Scholars of international relations have always considered peace on the borders of any country crucial in understanding that country’s relations with the outside world. In this sense, it is almost a truism that the most secure border is the undefended border. Good examples of secure borders are the USA/Canadian and Shengen borders in Europe. The sign of insecurity is when borders are heavily fortified. The removal of borders between or among a group of countries is a manifestation of peace and economic equilibrium. When there is unequal economic development, removal of borders will lead to push-pull movement in which people will move in large numbers to developed and economically buoyant neighboring countries in search of economic sustenance.

The greatest development in the politics of the world since 1945 is the attempt at European economic integration as a possible prelude to full political union. This happened in a Europe where between 1870 and 1945, the two countries in the heart of that continent namely France and Germany fought three wars, the last two plunging the world into military cataclysm that led to the death of close to 50 million souls not counting those who died as a result of disease and collateral damage. This is why the advent of the European Economic Community (EEC) and its metamorphosis into the European Union has not only been studied critically all over the world, it has also provided an example to follow in other regions of the world particularly in the Americas. South East Asia, Central Asia the Pacific Rim and Africa. The ECOWAS experiment did not just come from the moon, it was well rooted in historical antecedence.

Coming nearer home, we have been seized with the question of relations among neighbors in Africa. We cannot build any economic edifice among neighboring countries unless we first establish if there is some kind of entente cordiale between two countries and among others involved in economic integration. For Nigeria, the most important country in West Africa, charity must begin on our borders. I think it was Professor Ibrahim Agboola Gambari who first used an inelegant phraseology to describe this idea as co-prosperity area. It is inelegant in the sense that it brings back the feeling of a powerful country overrunning its neighbors as was done by Japan during the events leading to the Second World War. I have been involved with others in studying our relations with our neighbors for some decades and I have written quite extensively on this. I remember writing on Nigeria-Equatorial Guinea relations and Nigeria-Cameroun relations in the 1970s as purely academic exercise without necessarily thinking of policy implications. But somehow, I have had to advice government based on what initially looked like pure academic exercise. This has been a case of relevance of research in solving problems. I remember suggesting to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the idea of posting its most senior and knowledgeable diplomats to the capitals of our neighbors rather than to distant places like WashingtonMoscow, New York, London, Berlin, Paris, Brussels and Beijing, important as these places may be. The home front which peace on our borders implies is more important than the glamour of world capital cities. Their economic importance can be handled by well-trained commercial and economic experts in these missions. Of course ambassadors Hamzat Ahmadu and Akporode Clark were once posted to Yaunde and Niamey but these were not strictly based on the kind of policy shift I had in mind.

Relations with all our neighbors namely, Benin, Niger, Tchad, Cameroun, Equatorial Guinea, and São Tomé and Principe are important and as we have now found out with the Boko Haram insurgency, a matter of life or death for our country. If our policy towards Tchad for example had been based on sound knowledge and operated by an influential envoy in Ndjamena, we would have had reports on the gathering storm because it is clear that Boko Haram had initially its rear base of operation in Tchad. This is not surprising to me. Borno shares a common border and history with its neighbors across the frontier in the Wadai and Kanem districts of Tchad.

In the long history of Kanem-Borno dating back around 800 A.D, that is the 9th century when Sayf bin dhi Yazan founded the Sayfawa dynasty, the area has witnessed political eruptions necessitating transfer of its capitals from Njimi in the 12century to N’gazargamu in the 15th century. Borno also witnessed the invasion of the kingdom by the Fulani jihadists necessitating dynastic change from the Sayfawa to the Kanemis in 1810 to preserve the independence of the kingdom before it was again invaded by an Arab conquistador named Rabih Fadlallah who occupied the place between 1894 and 1897 before the British and the French drove him out and shared his territory into what was then called British and French Borno. Tchad itself had never from colonial times till now been stable and had never been under civil admnistration under French colonial rule it was simply referred to as Territoire militaire du Tchad. It has continued to be governed by soldiers with consequent instability necessitating Nigeria’s military intervention in the country inthe 1980s. In the absence of jobs, Chadians have always been ready to offer their services legally or illegally as fighters rather than starve at home in their inhospitable environment.

In other words, what is happening now is history repeating itself. The joint military operation has now become necessary because Nigeria has failed to protect its own territory through lack of military preparedness and diplomatic manoeuvering that should have anticipated events if we had secured our borders.

I was in Maiduguri in 1983 when Chadians invaded Borno. Major-General Muhammadu Buhari, GOC Third Division of the Nigerian Army – yes the same Buhari – rushed the 23rd Armored Brigade commanded by Joshua Dogonyaro to Baga and Doro on Lake Chad and drove the Chadian rebels out of Nigeria. This is why a person like Buhari must find the present situation galling and almost humiliating. It is too late to wish that we can solve our problems ourselves and the setting up of an AU force of 7500 soldiers may be totally unnecessary if the present operations involving the Cameroun, Niger, Tchad and ourselves can be coordinated well under the rubric of the Lake Chad Commission.

We must learn a bitter lesson from this Boko Haram insurgency which started from local grievances but has now snowballed into an international crisis drawing in Cameroun, Niger and principally Tchad and Libya as a distant source of weapons since the collapse of the Col. Khadaffi’s regime in which we foolishly supported the invasion of an African country by NATO. Perhaps I need to say that Libya is not strange to Borno because there is a large section of Maiduguri called FEZZARI originally settled by people from The Fezzan in southern Libya.

The lesson in all this is the appreciation of the nexus between foreign and domestic politics and the need for military preparedness even in time of peace, knowing that eternal vigilance is the price for liberty. Poor governance at home has its reverberation abroad. One hopes the Chadian army now fighting the Boko Haram would not be tempted in getting involved in the politics of territorial expansion and exerting political pressure on an apparent militarily exposed Nigeria. The news we have is that Chadians are already involved apparently in clandestine administration of conquered Nigerian territories.

February 12, 2015
Anyaoku to deliver lecture on foreign policy July 14

Former Commonwealth Secretary-General Chief Emeka Anyaoku will on July 14 deliver a lecture on the basis of Nigeria’s foreign policy. Venue is the Archbishop Vining Memorial Church Cathedral, Ikeja. The time is 4 pm. A statement by Prince Henry Odukomaiya, Media Consultant to the Anglican Diocese of Lagos West, said:

“What is the Commonwealth of Nations? When and where was it inaugurated and by whom? Are there any obligations and advantages inherent in membership of the organisation?

“Answers to the above questions and many clarifications on the basic plank of Nigeria’s foreign policy since the country gained political independence from Britain in 1960 will be provided to the congregation of Arcbishop Vining Memorial Church Cathedral, Ikeja, on Sunday, July 14, 2013, at a lecture begining at 4.00 pm.

“On hand to give the lecture will be one of Africa’s best-known international civil servants and the first African Secretary-General of the Commonwealth,. 80-year-old Chief Eleazer Chukwuemeka Anyaoku. Born at Obosi, in Anambra State, Chief Anyaoku was educated at the University College, Ibadan, where he studied as a college scholar, graduating with a London University honours degree in classics in 1959. Three years later, he married Miss Ebunola Olubunmi Solanke; the union is blessed with four children.

“Chief Anyaoku was Nigeria’s External Affairs Minister in 1983 before a military junta seized power from President Shehu Shagari at the end of that year.

“Among the highlights of his 34-year service to the Commonwealth of 54 nations was his role in making the Commonwealth an active agent for promoting democracy and human rights and his seminar role in the processes leading to peace and democracy in Zimbabwe, Namibia and, in particular, South Africa.

“Chief Anyaoku has had extensive international exposure and service. Among many positions held by him are: Distinguished visiting fellow at the Centre for the study of Global Governance at the London School of Economics (2000/2002); president of the Royal Commonwealth Society with headquarters in London (2000/2006); president of the Royal Africa Society with headquarters in London (2000/2007); international president of the World Wide Fund for Nature with headquarters in Switzerland and operations in over 100 countries (2001/2009).

“He is currently the chairman of the Presidential Advisory Council on International Relations in Nigeria; a trustee of the British Museum and patron of the Nigerian Museum; Chairman, Orient Petroleum Resources Plc in Nigeria.

“Besides, he has received decorations from Nigeria (CON, CFR and a recipient of one of 50 special awards to mark Nigeria’s 50th independence anniversary), and the highest national civilian honours of Cameroon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Namibia, Republic of South Africa and Trinidad & Tobago’s Trinity Cross (TC) as well as an honorary knight of the Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO) from the Queen of England in 2000. The freedom of the City of London was also bestowed on him in 1998.

“In 2003, the University of London established a professional chair in his name, the Emeka Anyaoku Professor of Commonwealth Studies at its Institute of Commonwealth Studies. He is a holder of 32 honorary doctorare degrees from Universities in Britain, Canada, Ghana, Nigeria, the Republic of Ireland, Switzerland, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

“His publications include: ‘The Missing Headlines’ (by Liverpool University Press in 1997); his memoirs: “The Inside Story of the Modern Commonwealth” (by Evans Brothers Limited in 2004); and “The Racia Factor in International Politics” (by the Nigerian Institute for International Affairs in 1977). A biography of Emeka Anyaoku, Nigerian Institute for International Affairs in 1977). A biography of Emeka Anyaoku, “The Eye of Fire”, written by the Canadian author, Phyllis Johnson, was published by Africa World Press Inc. and reprinted in Nigeria by Spectrum Books Limited in 2000.

“Among his many ground-breaking achievements, Emeka Anyaoku, as Commonwealth Secretary-General, was the first African Chief Executive of a global inter-governmental organisation, long before Boutros-Ghali and Kofi Annan at the United Nations; the first African International president of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), an office previously held by Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh; the first African to have a professional chair named after him in a British university; and the first African trustee of the British Museum.

“Chief Anyaoku’s lecture is this year’s third in quartely series of life testimonies, sponsored by the AVMCC’s elite society, the torchbearers, under the generic title: “God in my life”.

July 12, 2013