Between telephone conversation and foreign policy

There were credible reports that foreign ministry officials were fully geared to exercise the Nigeria’s traditional vote in favour of the resolution for a timetable to end Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. That is until the Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu placed a direct call to President Goodluck Jonathan. The call evidently threw the country’s […]

There were credible reports that foreign ministry officials were fully geared to exercise the Nigeria’s traditional vote in favour of the resolution for a timetable to end Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. That is until the Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu placed a direct call to President Goodluck Jonathan. The call evidently threw the country’s foreign policy machinery into disarray, with explicit instructions for the Nigeria’s permanent delegation in the UN to vote against the resolution, or at best refrain from any voting at all. And with Nigeria’s abstention, the resolution fell apart, falling short of the Nigeria’s one vote to sail through, though with only a potential Washington veto to thwart it. The Israeli foreign ministry was pleasantly surprised at Nigeria’s last minute abstention, as they expected a yes vote to the resolution.  
The Palestinians were shocked, to put it mildly. Its ambassador to Nigeria, Dr Montazer Abu-Zeid captured the mood of his people when he told reporters “it is a shock for us why Nigeria abstained. It was a surprise because the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed me that they would vote for us and I informed my president and foreign minister accordingly”.
Further ruminating on the Nigeria’s volte-face, the Palestinian envoy said “it is a sad day for us. Nigeria recognized the state of Palestine since 1988, when the times were even more difficult. They voted for the two-state solution; they voted for us on all issues on Israel and Palestine. Nigeria has been like a big brother to us but at this crucial time, to vote to end the occupation, they abstained.”
Of course, Nigeria’s traditional pro-Palestine stance is not based on unqualified support for the Palestinians or any existing antipathy to the Israelis, but from a principled stance with explicit commitment of the Nigeria’s foreign policy to oppose any form of colonization and racial discrimination. There is no other way to describe Israeli seizure of Palestinian lands than colonial occupation. Based on this principle, Nigeria recognized the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) which also operates a mission in Abuja. Ii is a pity that with just a phone call from the Israeli prime minister, President Jonathan destroyed one of the core and enduring principles of Nigeria’s foreign policy.
Had the president and his handlers showed any tact, it would have been enough to tell the pestering Netanyahu that it was election time and any such dramatic shift in our traditional stance would cost him some goodwill and votes. Mr Netanyahu himself, who traded on votes of the extremist Jewish settlers on the occupied Palestinian lands, should have shown some understanding. Some observers have speculated that the presidency may have been swayed by Israeli’s increasing co-operation with Nigeria, especially in the area of providing weapons for the country’s war against terror.
However, as plausible as this position may sound, there was a similar parallel, but which did not compel Nigeria to abandon her foreign policy principle. During the civil war, a Nigerian foreign minister was quoted to have said that “other NATO countries followed Britain and America’s lead in imposing an arms embargo on Nigeria and, in desperation, Nigeria turned to the Russians who agreed to sell arms to the federal government”. He added that “this was purely a commercial transaction and those of our critics who thought that this would automatically lead to an ideological shift towards the Russians in our post-war foreign policy need to know that we paid cash for these purchases at a time when our foreign exchange reserves were abysmally low”. (Diplomatic soldiering: the conduct of Nigeria foreign policy, 1975-79 by Joe Garba, page 180)
Even now, Nigeria’s foreign reserves are on a freefall as oil revenues continue to plunge. Israel is definitely collecting cash for all purchases as her war economy is in equally on a downward spiral. Why would Nigeria therefore jettison one of its core foreign policy principles? Some have speculated that Jonathan, with his retinue of Pentecostal pastors, may have though that an extension of support for Israel would have amounted to a Christian obligation.
It may interest them that the birthplace of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem, in the West Bank of the Palestinian territory, also takes a daily pounding from the Israeli war machine. However, no matter how the decision to assault one of the pillars of Nigeria’s foreign policy came about, President Jonathan has confirmed a longstanding public view that the regime is clueless. The implication of such behaviour that has left the country’s foreign policy establishment in the lurch is that most of the world would not be able to find synergy and consistency between our foreign policy principles and international engagements. It will be hard to take Nigeria’s foreign ministry serious as far as President Jonathan is in charge.
In 2011, Nigeria under President Jonathan made a similar, even worse, foreign policy blunder that had implication in the escalation of the domestic terror attacks. The African Union had taken steps to find a negotiated settlement to the conflict in Libya between the Benghazi-based opposition Transitional National Council (TNC) and the Libyan government of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The TNC, clearly backed by NATO with air cover and generous supply of equipment, was desperately moving to secure military victory. Most of Africa, especially South Africa understood the far-reaching implication of a NATO-backed military victory for the insurgents and stuck to the gun of a negotiated settlement. President Jonathan, in a move that left everyone else aghast, broke away from the emerging African consensus, becoming the first Africa country of significance to recognize the TNC in Libya.
Onunaiju wrote from Abuja <[email protected]>;