Re: What’s gone wrong with Nigeria’s foreign policy?

By Mukhtar Imam   An article published with the above caption, by Yusuf Bangura critiquing Nigeria’s admission to BRICS as a Partner country and its foreign policy approach in West Africa, misrepresents Nigeria’s position, diminishes its strategic priorities, and fails to appreciate the complexities of global diplomacy and regional leadership. The position of the author, […]

By Mukhtar Imam

 

An article published with the above caption, by Yusuf Bangura critiquing Nigeria’s admission to BRICS as a Partner country and its foreign policy approach in West Africa, misrepresents Nigeria’s position, diminishes its strategic priorities, and fails to appreciate the complexities of global diplomacy and regional leadership.

The position of the author, perhaps, without malicious intent, fell short of addressing the intricacies of international politics and properly educating his audience on the dynamics and mechanics of diplomacy. Hence, the need to analytically x-ray the points raised in the said article, which was an assessment of Nigeria’s foreign policy that seeks to diminish the right of Nigeria to choose her friends.

Slap in the face, argument of the author

On the above claim, that Nigeria’s partner status in BRICS is a “slap in the face” for its leaders ignores the nuanced realities of international diplomacy. BRICS operates on a consensus model, and partner status offers a pragmatic pathway for Nigeria to engage with this influential bloc, fostering trade and investment without overcommitting resources.

The article presents a rather one-dimensional view of Nigeria’s acceptance into the BRICS club as a partner country, overlooking the potential strategic benefits and broader context.

• America, China and the world as Trump returns
• $6bn Mambilla project: FG, Sunrise Power await Paris court verdict

First, Nigeria’s acceptance as a partner country in BRICS should not be seen as a “slap in the face” but rather as a strategic step forward. The author may or may not comprehend that in relations amongst countries within the international system, the art of ‘diplomatic bargain’ is a crucial and existential step and countries must learn to put their best foot forward.

Why Nigeria chooses to weigh its options before jumping into the fold of BRICS should not be seen as a weak position but a smart move that allows the country to view its national interest in the face of declining multilateralism and the uncertainty of the unfolding international order.

BRICS, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, is undoubtedly an influential grouping that seeks to challenge Western hegemony in the global economy. Being a partner country allows Nigeria to engage with these powerful economies, enhance trade, investment, and socio-economic cooperation, and pave the way for future advancements with others outside the fold of BRICS.

A classic example to buttress the preceding point is the case of China and the US. While China is a founding member of the BRICS, it remains the biggest trading partner of the US, and what gives China the bargaining power is her economic prowess, a posture that Nigeria still struggles to grapple with.

It also goes without gainsaying that while it is true that Nigeria once had a more active foreign policy, times have changed, and so have the dynamics of global politics. The devaluation of the naira in 2023, other economic challenges, and internal political issues do not diminish Nigeria’s potential or its importance on the African continent. Instead, they underscore the need for strategic partnerships that can bolster Nigeria’s economy and global standing.

Comparing Nigeria with Ethiopia, Egypt and South Africa on GDP metrics alone oversimplifies the criteria for membership. Ethiopia’s membership reflects geopolitical strategy, South Africa’s inclusion aligns with its G20 status, and Egypt’s ties with global powers play a role. Nigeria’s partner status acknowledges its potential while recognising the need to address domestic challenges. This is reflective of Nigeria’s bold stand to take an independent position on global matters while also assessing the benefits and otherwise of its decisions as it reflects the collective interests of its population.

Realise that membership of any bilateral or multilateral bloc requires you to commit to bargain from a position of strength or weakness or a no-position at all. It should therefore be reiterated that membership status in BRICS is not solely determined by GDP metrics. Political stability, economic policies, and the ability to align with BRICS’ strategic goals play crucial roles.

Nigeria’s current status as a partner member is a step towards full integration, not a final verdict on its global standing. And in the final analysis, will enable Nigeria to bargain from a position of strength.

The article claims Nigeria’s foreign policy lacks vision, citing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement on BRICS. However, the ministry’s focus on economic cooperation aligns with Nigeria’s current priorities—revitalising its economy, attracting foreign investment, and reducing dependency on Western financial systems.

As stated earlier, the bargaining chips the Chinese own, which gives her the ability to meet other great powers as ‘kings meeting kings’ is her economic prowess, which she realised by harnessing her local potential and growing independently without mingling with bloc(s). This Nigeria must also emulate.

Nigeria’s historical leadership in African affairs remains intact. Its commitment to regional peace and economic integration continues to underpin ECOWAS and African Union policies. Fact-check this with Nigeria’s leadership posture in all of the institutions of ECOWAS.

The criticism of Nigeria’s foreign policy as being transactional is unfounded. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ statement highlights a pragmatic approach to international relations. By focusing on trade, investment, and socio-economic cooperation, Nigeria is ensuring tangible benefits for its citizens. Lofty ideals and strategic goals are essential, but they must be grounded in practical realities.

The article’s argument that Nigeria’s BRICS membership somehow jeopardises its aspirations for a UN Security Council seat is a false equivalence. The criteria and processes for UN Security Council membership are distinct and involve different geopolitical considerations. No doubt, Nigeria’s engagement with BRICS can enhance its international profile and support its bid for greater global influence.

Nigeria and the crisis in ECOWAS

The narrative that Nigeria is alienating Sahelian countries underestimates the complexity of the ECOWAS-AES conflict. The sanctions imposed on Niger were part of ECOWAS’ collective decision, not solely Nigeria’s. The aim of the collective decision was to uphold democratic norms, a cornerstone of regional stability. It is apparent that the Sahel, which stands as one of the largest corridors in the world today (only second to the Old Silk Road, where the Chinese are currently conducting the BRI) is in apparent danger, as the presence of ungoverned spaces and the internationalisation of terrorism has turned the once thriving economic routes into a death-trap.

In times past, merchants would travel freely from Maiduguri through Timbuktu to Libya and into the Horn of Spain. Now the realities of (in)security have made this an impossibility. It is an open secret that as a result of the failings of individual states, arms are today passing freely from Libya (as a result of the fall of the Ghadaffi regime and the instability that greeted Libya) through sub-Saharan Africa and the Sahel into West Africa and Sambisa Forest. Reversing this trend can only be achieved through collective efforts. If this isn’t a time to encourage multilateralism, I don’t know when is!

Furthermore, criticism of Nigeria’s alliance with France is misplaced. While France’s historical role in West Africa is controversial, engaging with France reflects pragmatic diplomacy. Alienating a global power entirely would be detrimental to Nigeria’s broader strategic interests, including trade and security.

While the relations between these countries and France can be said to be on ‘slave-master’ (Franc Afrique) basis, Nigeria’s relations with France is transactional and based on mutual respect. I dare the author to mention one Francophone country where Peugeot has an assemblage plant? How about in Nigeria? Not to mention Lafarge, Swiss Pharma, Schneider Electric and co, all of which are multinationals, with presence in Nigeria on the basis of mutual benefit and mutual interest. Their enemies don’t have to be our enemies.

On France neo-colonialism in Africa

The article calls for Nigeria to lead the fight against French neo-colonialism. While this is a noble goal, the path forward is not unilateral confrontation but multilateral engagement. Nigeria can leverage its influence to advocate for reforms in West Africa while ensuring that partnerships with France and other global powers serve its national and regional interests. Besides, if pragmatic foreign policy is the goal of the author, he should be calling for diplomacy of reciprocity, since foreign policy and diplomacy are about interest. Where that becomes the case, how have the Southern Africans reciprocated Nigeria for all the resources, time, energy, intellect and so on, in the fight to liberate her from her erstwhile, hostile, colonisers? What did we get in return other than hostility and xenophobia towards our citizens?

Democracy and neo-colonialism in the Sahel

The notion that Nigeria’s policies endanger democracy in the Sahel lacks nuance. The AES countries’ departure from ECOWAS is not solely attributable to Nigeria. Internal dynamics, external influences, and historical grievances against France also play significant roles. Nigeria as the champion of democracy in Africa must balance supporting democracy with addressing security threats, including terrorism and instability which are prevalent across the Sahel, with no end in sight.

Tied to this is the matter of Nigeria’s relations with France and the ECOWAS/AES dynamics, part of which has been addressed above. Here again, the article presents a skewed perspective. Nigeria’s deepening ties with France and President Tinubu’s visit to Paris should be seen as efforts to strengthen diplomatic and economic relations, not as a betrayal of African solidarity. The AES countries’ distrust of France does not necessarily reflect Nigeria’s intentions or policies.

Nigeria’s role as an aspiring thus far

Aspiring great powers like Nigeria operate within constraints. Its engagement with BRICS, ECOWAS, and global powers demonstrates a flexible, pragmatic foreign policy rather than one of ideological rigidity. Partnering with BRICS enhances Nigeria’s voice in emerging global platforms while fostering economic benefits that will strengthen its regional leadership. This is a point every student of international relations and diplomacy has come to terms with. The geopolitical landscape is complex, and Nigeria must navigate it with a multifaceted approach.

Aligning with France does not negate Nigeria’s commitment to regional stability and development. Instead, it allows Nigeria to leverage its relationships to achieve broader strategic goals.

Nigeria’s foreign policy remains a work in progress, reflecting both its aspirations and the challenges of a complex, multipolar world. Constructive criticism is necessary, but the article’s one-dimensional portrayal of Nigeria’s role in BRICS and West Africa fails to recognize the strategic calculus underpinning its decisions. Nigeria must focus on leveraging its partnerships, rebuilding domestic strength, and reaffirming its leadership in Africa to achieve its goals on the global stage.

Conclusively, Nigeria’s acceptance as a partner country in BRICS and its foreign policy approach should be viewed through a lens of pragmatic diplomacy. Engaging with powerful economies, enhancing trade and investment, and building strategic partnerships are steps toward achieving Nigeria’s long-term goals of regional power status and global influence. It is essential to recognise these efforts and support Nigeria’s ongoing journey on the international stage.

 

Imam is a Professor of International Relations and Diplomacy, Al-Muhibbah Open University, Abuja