Bakassi and Nigeria’s Foreign Policy of Non-protection
When James Ngugi wrote in his Weep Not Child that a white man is always a white man but a Black man is not always a Blackman, he must have had the Nigerian man in mind. In the same vein, when Alan Paton advised the people of Africa to cry against the maltreatment of the Black people in his Cry, My Beloved Country, he too must have had the situation of Nigeria in mind. Nigeria? Of course Nigeria and always Nigeria, because in the eyes of European observers nothing is impossible in Nigeria. The possibility of everything happening in Nigeria implies not only the existence of what is good but also what is bad. In fact, when it is said that nothing is impossible in Nigeria, the intended to connotation is actually negative, that is, wickedness, 419s, corruption and indiscipline.
These negative aspects largely inform the hostile attitude of foreigners towards Nigeria and Nigerians. The impact of the negative perception of the Nigerian is now to the extent that Nigerians are regularly mistreated internationally and Nigeria’s foreign policy makers appear to have more arguments justifying the mistreatment than arguments seeking to protect the concerned Nigerians. It will be useful to ask if Nigeria’s foreign policy has now become that of non-protection of the Nigerian.
This question is pertinent at this juncture, because Nigeria’s foreign policy focus in the area of protection of the Nigerian is, at best, obscure. At times, efforts are made to deal with issues of protection. At other times, and, for that matter, in very serious cases, the Foreign Minister keeps silent and gives a wrong impression of nothing is happening. Many times, he did the appropriate things.
For instance, the efforts being made to prevent renewal of xenophobic attacks on Nigerians living in South Africa are quite commendable, but the foundations of the efforts are, at best, misplaced. However, the efforts still clearly portray that government is trying to protect its nationals. On the contrary, the attitude of government to the case of the Bakassi returnees and the lackadaisical attitude to the maltreatment of the people of the peninsula by Cameroonian gendarmes are far from being commendable. It is unpatriotic and does not suggest any seriousness of purpose in terms of protection of Nigerians.
It is useful to recall here that there was the time Honourable Abike Dabiri-Erewa, Senior Special Assistant to the President on Foreign Affairs and the Diaspora, advised Nigerians to exercise caution to allow the coast to be clear before seeking to travel to the United States, especially in the absence of any urgency. The reaction of the Foreign Minister, Mr. Geoffrey Onyeama, was not only to suggest untruth about the deportation of some Nigerians from the United States, thereby disputing the hard facts revealed by Honourable DabiriErewa, but also to unnecessarily raise questions about who should have the responsibility for advising on foreign policy matters. His reaction was miscalculated and faulty.
The truth is that every Nigerian owes it a national duty to draw attention of government to any issue considered of interest to the individual, particularly when life and survival is at stake. The most unfortunate aspect of the saga was that, as at the time Foreign Minister Onyeama was declaring that no Nigerian was ever deported from the United States on the basis of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order, banning immigrants from some seven countries, not less than four Nigerian deportees were at the airport in Lagos. Foreign Minister Onyeama’s denial of non-mistreatment of Nigerians and the self-presentation by some victims of deportation to the press in Lagos only embarrassed the people and the Government of Nigeria.
But again, the same Onyeama did well in the areas of his submission and position at the meeting held at the South African Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation in Pretoria on Monday, March 13, 2017. The meeting took place within the framework of bilateral cooperation and the cardinal focus was to forestall possible xenophobic attacks on Nigerians. Nigeria, reportedly, was represented by Onyeama, Nigeria’s Minister of the Interior, Abdulrahman Dambazzau, and Nigeria’s Chargé d’Affaires in South Africa. South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Maite Nicoana-Mashabane, her Home Affairs counterpart, Malusi Gigaba, and South Africa’s High Commissioner in Nigeria, Mr. Lulu Louis Mnguni represented their country.
In resolving to set up an Early Warning Unit aimed at nipping in the bud any threats of xenophobia, Mr. Onyeama’s point of submission is noteworthy. As reported by Iheanacho Nwosu in Pretoria, three clear foreign policy positions were articulated ( Daily Sun, Tuesday, March 14, 2017, p.8). First, Mr. Onyeama said ‘unfortunately, for some time now, there has been this incidence of attacks and Nigerians have been victims, and we, as a government, have known that this was not state-sponsored and that the South African Government always condemn this, and it was very often the action of a small minority, a small criminal minority.’
One deductive possible rationale for Nigeria’s soft approach to the maltreatment of Nigerians in South Africa is therefore the belief that the Government of South Africa has not been involved in the attacks on Nigeria. This belief is in itself most unfortunate for many reasons: the Government of South Africa gives public impression that it recognises the roles of Nigeria during the anti-apartheid struggle. However, in virtually all public functions in South Africa or at the United Nations, all countries that took active part in the struggle were always recognised with the exception of Nigeria.
One explanation given by the government is that those attacking Nigerians are said not to know much about the roles played by Nigeria because there were two categories of African National Congress (ANC): national and international. Nigeria related much with the international group, so the nationally-based African National Congress knew little about Nigeria’s status as a Frontline State.
Additionally, but perhaps, most unfortunately is that the international members of the ANC are now very old and many of them have passed on. And yet, none of them has been able to educate their ANC compatriots back home on this subject matter. Is there any publication on the history of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa in which any focused attention is given to Nigeria? Whereas, in Abuja, there are different streets and places named after South Africa and its leaders.
Most disturbingly, Nigeria’s Foreign Minister unnecessarily ignores the existence of duplicity in international diplomacy. He ignores that a country can declare a policy while doing precisely the contrary. Put differently, there is no way anyone can predict or justify the action of any government on the basis of assumptions. Are there no states sponsoring terrorism while at the same time publicly condemning it? Did Russia hack the US 2016 election processes or not? How do we also explain Qatar’s current relationship with its immediate neighbours? Is their current mésentente not derivable from allegations of aiding and abetting terrorism levied by the neighbours against Qatar?
My point here is not about pointing fingers at the South African government. The point, on the other hand, is that it may not be sufficient for Onyeama to adopt a foreign policy on the erroneous consideration that the South African Government has been condemning xenophobic attacks on foreigners. There is no big deal about public condemnation but there is always a big deal on factors empirical attitudes.
The second foreign policy position of Nigeria deductible from Mr. Onyeama’s submission is ‘the narrative to be pursued.’ In the words of the Foreign Minister, ‘unfortunately, the events have taken place. We also recognise that not all Nigerians in South Africa are engaged in unlawful activities. The vast majority are contributing enormously to creating the dynamic South African society. The vast majority feel very much at home in South Africa and this is the narrative we also want to pursue.’
Put differently, the Minister is underscoring the point that, under no circumstance should all Nigerians or every Nigerian be seen as criminals or criminal. Hence, foreign policy should seek the protection of the non-criminally-oriented Nigerians. This is a very good policy stand and good logic that should be further articulated and sustained.
The third position is a deductive suggestion that there should be reliance on whatever the Government of South Africa says. Mr. Onyeama has it that ‘we have received assurances as a government and people of Nigeria that the government and people of South Africa are fully with us, fully supportive of Nigerians in this country, and are taking all the necessary measures to ensure that Nigerians stay in peace, and that their properties and rights will always be respected.’ This point is quite debatable. It does not reflect the situational reality of the bilateral relationship. Time will sooner than later tell whether Nigerians will stay in peace and their rights and property will be respected.
What we know for sure is that countries hardly respect the fundamental rights of foreigners at the time of trouble. For instance, to what extent has Cameroon been able to respect the Green Tree Accord signed in execution of the ruling of the International Court of Justice on the dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon over the Bakassi peninsula?
What we also do know is that there is no month in which there is no reckless mistreatment of the Nigerian in different parts of the world. By mistreatment, we are not suggesting that criminally-oriented Nigerians should be protected or that Nigerians should be encouraged to flout the immigration laws of other countries. True, the common offences for which Nigerians are charged are essentially related to immigration. However, until proved guilty, suspects cannot but remain suspects, and therefore should not be presumed or treated as convicts. Hence, there is the need to investigate and address Nigeria’s current foreign policy dilemma.
The Current Foreign Policy Dilemma
The problem now is that Nigeria’s foreign policy appears to be conducted on the wrong assumptions that all mistreated Nigerians are guilty ab initio. When assumptions are not based on preliminary inquiry and facts, there cannot but be unintended consequences. For instance, how do foreign airlines treat passengers travelling to and from Nigeria? Are the services provided on the Nigerian route as good as the services provided on other routes?
Last week, there was the case of the Kenya Airways who took passengers from Nigeria and kept their passengers for more than 24 hours in transit without accommodation, without water or any form of convenience. This is one area that foreign policy protection is needed, especially when there are reported cases. The Kenyan case must be investigated and the outcome made known publicly.
Besides, from various estimations, not less than 300 Nigerians are deported in any month in recent times. On Thursday, 29th June, 2017, 29 Nigerians were deported from the United Kingdom. Not less than one thousand Nigerians were deported between February and April 2017 from Cameroon, Italy, Libya and South Africa. From the investigations of the National Daily Newspaper as reported by Odunewu Segun, Cameroon has the highest deportation figure of Nigerians in Africa in the past two months with 517 deported Nigerians.
As reported by Nairaland Forum on December 12, 2010, 3000 Nigerians were deported from the Niger Republic. While Gbenga Adesuyi, a cleric, believed that the ‘United States deports 80 Nigerians weekly, others have submitted an increased number: 380 Nigerians per week. Even though the figures might have been exaggerated, the point of interest here is protection of the affected Nigerians, regardless of the number of affected Nigerians.
The type of protection required in this type of situation is the preventive one, which requires general public enlightenment at the level of the constitutive states of Nigeria. Mostly affected by these deportation orders are Nigerians from the South-east. They travel out for business without adequate education on travel regulations. In most cases, they travel with the Nigerian mentality of going to visit their brothers and sisters as defined in Africa, especially going to people without notice.
Foreign policy protection should therefore begin at the internal level. The Foreign Ministry should have a general guide to international travels that should be distributed to the various state governments for onward distribution to their citizens. Protection after deportation does not and cannot have any good meaning.
The perception of government by deportees, as explained in two of their statements, can be a major source of threats to national security in the near future. The first deportee said: ‘I’m not a drug addict, I did not fight. I did not commit any crime. You sent me back to my country and you think I would be happy.’ This is an expression of anger vis-a-vis the deporting authority.
Another deportee said: ‘Our embassy would be supporting the deportation while other African nationals are everywhere. We have Senegalese, Cameroonians, Malian, Gambians, a lot of them. Now that we are back home, they should provide jobs for us. Or do they want us to come and become a nuisance and terrorists? Is that what they wish? After taking the worst risk of life to enter Europe and we came back empty handed, and you think I would be happy with anybody. I cannot be happy with anybody.’
Secondly, Cameroon has little or no regard for the sanctity of the Green Tree Agreement.The disregard for the accord necessarily vitiates any obligation created for Nigeria. Consequently, the Government of Nigeria has a legitimate basis to seek protection of the very people having allegiance to it. Most unfortunately, the protection was and is never there. About 100 people were reported killed last week and the National Assembly is said to be currently investigating it.This initiative is commendable but it is medicine after death at the level of the Government of Nigeria