Franco-Nigerian Ties: The Challenge before Ambassador Denis Guaer
Mr. Denis Guaer is France’s newest Ambassador to Nigeria. He presented his Letters of Credence to President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan on Thursday, April 16 at the Aso Villa. With the presentation, his predecessor has been officially withdrawn and Mr. Guaer has also officially replaced him. The immediate implication of the acceptance of the Letters of Credence is that the Government of Nigeria has accepted Mr. Guaer as a trustworthy plenipotentiary of France, and by so doing, has shown readiness to relate with France through Mr. Guaer and his embassy staff.
Under normal circumstances, Franco-Nigerian relations ought to occupy a place of priority in Nigeria’s foreign policy, especially as it concerns the West and Central Africa regions. The main reason cannot be far-fetched: all the immediate neighbours of Nigeria are Francophones. They all have special political understanding with France, to the extent that Nigeria’s policy attitude towards the immediate neighbours must always weigh the implications for France. In fact, several scholars have recognised Benin, Niger, Chad and Cameroon as immediate neighbours of Nigeria by geopolitical propinquity, that is by commonality of shared interests.
France has shown more keen interest in African affairs than any other Western country. The Western allies recognise this reality to the extent that France, more often than not, has been left to lead in the protection of Western interests in Africa. This observation is clearly illustrated at the level of politics of the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) in Africa.
What is noteworthy here is that Franco-Nigerian relations have more positive than negative factors. However, the few negative factors are such that they regularly, not to say permanently, militate against any enduring political entente between the two countries.
What France has done to manage the irritants in her relations with Nigeria is to separate the political, from the economic. Put differently, the relationship is dichotomised. The French never allowed political misgivings to affect the protection of French economic interests in Nigeria, particularly bearing in mind that French economic investments in Nigeria are more than French economic investments in Francophone West African countries put together. Nigeria is the biggest market for French products in West and Central Africa.
In this regard, France has been making strenuous efforts to improve on the aspect of political understanding with Nigeria. Even when other western allies opt to take sanctionary measures against Nigeria, France has always treaded the path of caution. In spite of this, Africa has always remained the major source of dispute between France and Nigeria. On the one hand, Nigeria sees herself as protector of African and Black interests, while on the other hand, France considers Africa as an indispensable first region for her foreign policy implementation outside of EU countries.
Consequently, how will Nigeria and France manage Africa as an issue in their bilateral relations under General Muhammadu Buhari? Can the political misunderstanding and the dichotomy that has characterised the relationship for over four decades be removed? More interestingly, what about the duplicity on which international politics is known to be based? Can Ambassador Guaer move the relationship to greater heights, in such a way that Nigeria’s understanding with Francophone African countries could be moved from the level of unnecessary suspicion to that of solidarity of purpose?
The Reality of International Politics
It is the pursuit of a nation’s selfish interests that makes international politics important. Reportedly, the United States has pledged support to the President-elect, General Muhammadu Buhari, in the area of security and economic plans. In his telephone conversation with General Buhari, US Vice President, Mr. Joe Biden, was reported to have congratulated the President-elect and to have also pledged the commitment of his country to expanding collaboration with Nigeria.
More interestingly, Vice President Biden commended General Buhari ‘for his leadership in helping to ensure the elections were conducted peacefully and urged him to continue to foster a smooth, inclusive and peaceful transition with President Jonathan.” He also expressed “the United States’ support for Nigeria’s efforts to counter Boko Haram, recover hostages held by the group and protect civilian populations (and) the willingness of the US to partner more closely with Nigeria to strengthen its economy.’
A careful analysis of Mr. Biden’s congratulatory message clearly shows a preference for General Buhari ‘for his leadership in helping to ensure the elections were conducted peacefully.” What is the role of other political stakeholders? If the election was peacefully and successfully organised and concluded, no political leader or political party can be said to be responsible. The truth is that Nigerians themselves opted to behave in order to prevent self-destruction.
True enough, the US policy elite expected a worst scenario. For instance, in John Campbell’s US Policy to Counter Nigeria’s Boko Haram (Vide Council on Foreign Relations Special Report, No.70, November 2014), the perception of the situation in Nigeria is very negative. As Campbell has it: ‘the April 2014 kidnapping of more than 250 school girls from Chibok in northern Nigeria by the militant Islamist group Boko Haram - and the lethargic response of Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan’s government - provoked outrage. But the kidnapping is only one of many challenges Nigeria faces. The splintering of political elites, Boko Haram’s revolt in the north, persistent ethnic and religious conflict in the country’s Middle Belt, the deterioration of the Nigerian army, a weak federal government, unprecedented corruption, and likely divisive national elections in February 2015 with a potential resumption of an insurrection in the oil patch together test in ways unprecedented since the 1966-70 civil war.’
In fact, Campbell also said that the ‘Boko Haram poses no security threat to the US homeland, but its attack on Nigeria, and the Abuja response characterised by extensive human rights violations, does challenge US interests in Africa.’ American interest is basically about democracy. It is therefore not surprising that he recommended the pursuit of a human rights and democratic agenda with Abuja, facilitation of and support for humanitarian assistance in northern Nigeria, and the establishment of a US consulate in Kano.
In the long run, Campbell advised that individual Nigerians working for human rights and democracy should be identified and supported, while the visas held by Nigerians who commit financial crimes or promote political, ethnic, or religious violence should be revoked.
The relevant point here is determination of the type of support the US wants to give the incoming administration. Support for anti-Boko Haram has been pledged but the same US could not assist Nigeria militarily in the containment of the excesses of the Boko Haramists at the time of need. The attitude of the US is to an extent understandable: the Americans are not happy with Nigeria’s position on same-sex marriage. The military equipment the Nigerian soldiers were using at the battle field in the war against Boko Haram was required by the US for training of Nigerian soldiers in Jaji but the Nigerian authorities refused the request even though the demand falls within the framework of bilateral cooperation. In other words, why should equipment considered critical in the war against terrorism in the north east of Nigeria be withdrawn for training elsewhere? Nigeria’s reaction to the request appeared to have angered the Americans. If the Americans complain about violations of human rights and bitterly about corruption under President Jonathan, to posit that the Americans cannot but prefer another candidate to President Jonathan cannot be taken seriously. But to what extent can the new President work against Nigeria’s national interest when he too is on record to be an unrepentant patriot?
Mistreatment of Nigerians
One important foreign policy challenge before the development partners of Nigeria is the mistreatment of Nigerians. In the coastal city of Durban in South Africa, last week, the people of Africa witnessed again xenophobic actions against foreign immigrants in South Africa. This prompted many countries to seek evacuation of their citizens from South Africa. Honourable Nnena Eledu-Ukeje, Chairperson of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, advised that ‘the Federal Government of Nigeria should rise up to the occasion by having contingency plans to evacuate Nigerians within 24
Honourable Abike Dabiri-Erewa, Chairperson of the House Committee on the Diaspora condemned the attacks on Nigeria while many other lawmakers called for the recall of Nigeria’s High Commissioner to South Africa.
Comrade Yakubu Shendam, President of the Nigerian Youths Congress, said ‘if the Nigerian government and people can provide the enabling environment for South Africans to thrive and in turn, her citizens are being maimed and killed for being foreigners, Nigerian youths may be compelled to mete out similar treatment to South Africans operating in the country.’ In fact, the youths peacefully protested against the mistreatment of Nigerians in South Africa at the office of the South African mission in Lagos.
In the foreseeable future, Nigeria-South African relationship is likely to be more difficult. This is not the first time that there will be xenophobic attacks specifically against Nigerians in South Africa. There is nothing to suggest that the government and people of South Africa truly appreciate Africa’s, particularly Nigeria’s, contributions to de-apartheidisation.
In the same vein, there is nothing to suggest that South Africans know that there are South Africans working outside of their home country and that they live happily there without being molested. The problem as at today is that Nigerians are increasingly calling for sanctions against South African businesses in Nigeria. As the Nigerian Youths Congress has warned that ‘enough is enough. If South African government cannot call its youths to order, we will be left with no alternative but to prove to them that they do not have monopoly of violence.’
For France, Nigeria and South Africa are the two most important Anglophone countries, especially in terms of economic opportunities for France. In the event of disagreements generated by xenophobia, there is no way French businesses would not be affected adversely. Western countries have always given priority attention to South Africa over Nigeria simply because of the factor of industrialisation and white component of the population of South Africa. This is a challenge that should be addressed. The arbitrariness and policy recklessness, especially in how South African companies in Nigeria fix prices of products manufactured in Nigeria is done is also quietly generating much discontent in the country. South Africa will need to be more concerned about the implications of the xenophobic disposition of its citizens. Apart from this, how do we explain Africa’s unity and quest for regional integration? Can there really be African unity and regional integration in Africa?
France and Nigerians
The main challenge before the newly accredited French ambassador to Nigeria, Mr. Guaer, can always be easy to address at whatever level if it is always borne in mind that the Nigerian does not accept mistreatment in whatever form, and particularly from the French. In the thinking of the Nigerian, France cannot be internationally recognised as a terra cognita for liberty, fraternity, and equality and then be the very country to be seen as derogating these three pillars of democracy.
Secondly, even if Nigerians have allegedly infringed any law in their host countries, the law is always there to be applied. The common offence in which many Nigerians have engaged is immigration offence but Nigerians have not at all been treated gentlemanly. It would be useful if the Ambassador would make efforts to find out why the expression ‘see Paris and die’ is no more of a big deal in Nigeria. It will also be useful to find out why there has been a gradual decline in the number of Nigerians wishing to go France to study. One major reason which research finding has shown is the perception of mistreatment by government officials and not in any way about the attitudinal disposition of the good people of France. Nigerians need minimum respect and courtesies especially on their own soil.
More importantly, there is no way Nigeria’s relationship with Francophone Africa does not impact directly or indirectly on France, and particularly on France’s relations with Nigeria. It is a matter of what goes round also comes around. In other words, the French will need to facilitate a better understanding between Nigeria and her Francophone neighbours, on the one hand, and Franco-Nigerian relations on the other. If Nigeria cannot relate on the basis of mutual trust with her neighbours without having to seek the intervention of the French, something must be fundamentally wrong.
In this type of situation, African leaders should stop their sermons of African unity or African renaissance. They are more of self-deceit. As Dr. Okoi Arikpo once said, Africa must not be simply and only used as source of raw materials for the development of Europe. France and its other allies should look at more concrete ways of assisting Africa if Europe needs peace.
Whether the developed countries of the world like it or not, movement of people from the south to the north cannot be stopped by use of force or mistreatment. Such approach only strengthens migration. Only policy decisions that will favour Africans to want to stay at home and eke out a good living will solve Europe’s current immigration concerns.