Diplomacy as an art of inter-state relations started in medieval Europe when younger members of the royalty who did not have an appetite for soldiering found a calling in diplomacy by representing the various crowned heads of European countries in each other’s courts. Since then, recruitment into the diplomatic corps has gone beyond royalty but the tradition of its roots still prevail in the ceremonies surrounding diplomatic posting, reception, departure and even the way diplomatic expressions and communication are couched. This is why up till today, ambassadors and high commissioners are addressed as excellencies as if they were heads of government.
Technically speaking, heads of diplomatic missions represent not their countries but their heads of state. In other words foreign policy is the preserve of the heads of state. Foreign ministers, ambassadors and others serve as aids to the heads of state in the formulation and execution of a country’s foreign policy. Because of this personal nature of a country’s foreign policy, the head of state can manipulate a country’s foreign policy to suit particular interests sometimes not absolutely related to his country’s interest. This scenario is however rare. When there are problems at home, a country’s President or Prime Minister can divert domestic attention abroad and when such policies abroad are successful, it would bring glory to the country and pressure on government would be reduced.
During the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty in France after the regicide of the French Revolution and the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte, the shaky Bourbon regime employed the search for glory abroad to divert French attention from the failure and inadequacy of the regime at home by embarking on an African empire in Algeria. This policy associated with the France’s foreign minister, Prince Auguste Jules de Polignac only succeeded to a point before the reality of the failure of domestic policy led to the undoing of the regime and its eventual removal thus ending a regime that had lasted for hundreds of years. This failure of the French experiment has however not decoupled foreign policy from its use to serve domestic politics. This tendency became apparent during the period of Britain’s paramountcy in the world during the 19th century. The use of foreign policy especially what has gone down into history as gun boat diplomacy was particularly effective when the British shelled some Greek ports over a minor incident but blew up the incident to celebrate British power. The mid nineteenth century which was the age of European jingoism and imperialism was captured by the British Prime Minister Sir John Palmerston’s statement following the abuse of one Don Pacifico, a Portuguese of British nationality in Greece in 1850. He said “just like the Romans of old could say civis Romanus sum and expect the might of the Roman army to protect him, so should a Briton be able to say civis Britanicus sum and expect the long arm of the British navy to protect him”. Another example from England was when the Jewish prime minister of Great Britain Benjamin Disraeli declared queen Victoria Empress of India in 1877 in a move to pander to the vanity of the British people so that they could forget or ignore growing social problems and inequality in the country . All these preambles are done to give the idea that using foreign policy to serve domestic ends has a long history behind it .
In recent times of the American century, every new American president has always found foreign intervention or foray into other peoples’ countries to be useful in announcing that a new sheriff is in town. From Truman to Trump, one can mention a few incidents of American demonstration of power and will in foreign policy. From the Korean War of 1953 when Harry Truman intervened to stop the communist take-over of the Korean Peninsula, to Dwight David Eisenhower’s interventions in Iran, Guatemala and other South American countries under the so-called policy of containment of communism. Kennedy’s policy of alliance for progress led to meddling in many South American countries with eventual unsuccessful Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and the mission creep in Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson’s full scale war in Vietnam and Richard Nixon’s extension of the Vietnam war to Laos and Cambodia. Even the apparently pacific natured Jimmy Carter had his debacle in Iran while Ronald Reagan had his hands full by bombing Libya, driving out of power of Noriega in Panama, invasion of the Caribbean island of Grenada. Bush senior drove out the Iraqis out of Kuwait while Clinton went after Al Qaeda by bombing Sudan and getting rid of the Serbian dictator Miloshevic while the younger Bush fought full scale wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and changing regimes at will.
Obama while not starting his own wars expanded the Bush wars before winding them down in Iraq and Afghanistan while the new Donald Trump regime felt compelled to flex his muscles by unleashing cruise missiles on Syria to demonstrate what he calls a strategy of peace through strength. The Trump administration facing all kinds of probes at home in connection with his presidential campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia may constantly have to call on foreign policy to salvage his regime at home. Russia since the disintegration of the Soviet Union has felt compelled to defend what their leaders call “Russia abroad” meaning defending the millions of Russians in the remaining 14 republics into which the Soviet Union broke into. Its dismembering of Georgia and annexation of Crimea from Ukraine were actions taken to assuage Russian nationalist feelings following the loss of its empire and to cover increasing economic problems at home. His Syrian involvement is to demonstrate nationalistic feeling of Russia still remaining a global player in world politics. The point being made here is that when a country is faced with challenges at home and decides to embark on some foreign activities abroad, its people would normally rally round the leader. The caveat is that such an adventure must be brief and successful. If it is too long, people will become disaffected and wearied. This practice of foreign relations being called to assist a government at home is not limited to big powers alone; even countries in the global power peripheries also indulge in it. The examples of Turkey fighting the Greeks over Cyprus or India fighting Pakistan over Kashmir or Ethiopia intervening in Somalia come to mind. In these days when soccer in particular has replaced military competition, people become patriotic supporters of their teams and indeed El Salvador fought a brief war over soccer with neighbouring Honduras!
Somebody recently asked me why Nigeria has suddenly become mute in international affairs. We have our problem of confronting our own local variant of international terrorism in Boko Haram. Nigeria used to help stabilize other African countries from Tanzania in the 1960s to assisting the liberation of Southern Africa and helping in extirpating the racist and odious regime of apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s and 1990s. Our country was also the arrow head of ECOMOG that by and large, helped to pacify the terribly distressed countries of Liberia, Sierra Leone and recently Guinea-Bissau and even Ivory Coast. Nigeria sent troops to an international coalition to confront Al Qaeda in the Saharan nation of Mali. Recently, Nigeria provided leadership in forcing out the sit-tight Alhaji Yahyah Yahmeh from his stranglehold on The Gambia. We have not tried to use these events to unify our people at home and to score political goals. Perhaps the largely successful Nigeria-led decolonization of Southern Africa leaves not much dramatic victories to be won. Our challenge is now economic development which rather than being dramatic can only be incremental and sometimes imperceptible changes. Furthermore, the medical challenge facing our president presents a formidable challenge to activism abroad. This is because the presence of the president in inter-state relations can be most important and decisive. In spite of this challenge, the president has visited most countries in West Africa and also the critical countries of Niger, the Cameroon and Chad with which Nigeria is involved in the fight against Boko Haram. It seems to me that Nigeria needs to emphasize more the international dimension of the Boko Haram conflict and therefore seek more international support and make more noise about fighting on behalf of the international community because if Boko Haram is successful, it will have widespread ramifications in west and central Africa.
