Foreign Policy as Instrument of National Security: The Case of Nigeria
Policy can be variously explicated, and particularly as a vertical continuum in which the beginning or lowest level is seen as‘domestic’and the crescendo as‘foreign.’In other words, we have domestic policy and foreign policy. In defining policy in this context, it is considered that foreign policy is necessarily an extension of domestic policy. Foreign policy is an aspect of domestic policy. Consequently, foreign policy is seen by many observers as an instrument for protecting the national interest. But what really is national interest?
Dr Humphrey Assisi Asobie, Professor of Political Science at the UniversityofNigeria,Nsukka,hasitthat‘interest’asenunciatedbyThomas Hobbes,wasinitiallyequatedwithself-preservationfromthematerialist view of human nature. In the nineteenth century,‘interest’‘became attributed, not only to individuals, but also to such collective actors as socialclassesandfractions.Theconceptwasgeneralisedsoastoapply toanygroupwithidentifiablecommoneconomicorsocialadvantages to protect.’ In this regarded, Prof. Asobie has re-articulated the three main schools of thought on national interest: Realist, behavioural and Marxist schools. First is the realist perspectives of Hans J. Morgenthau of the power school and George Kennan of the eclectic tradition. Both of them agreed that it is national interest, and not moral principles, that should guide the foreign policy of any sovereign state, but hold different views on the nexus between national interest and moral or ethical principles [vide Humphrey Assisi Asobie, “Nigeria’s National Interest in a Globalising World: A Theoretical Perspective,” in Bola A. Akinterinwa, ed., Nigeria’s National Interests in a Globalising World: Further Reflections on Constructive and Beneficial Concentricism; Volume1:contendingIssuesinNation-building,(BolytagInternational Publishers, 2007), p. 3 et s]..
The second is the behaviouralist school (Richard Synder. B. Sapin, H. Bruck) which considers national interest as not being a single objective reality but as a constantly changing pluralistic set of subjective preferences. As further quoted by Professor Asobie, ‘the national interest is what the nation, that is, the decision maker decides it is. What constitutes the national interest therefore cannot be subjected to measurement by objective yardsticks, because it is made of up values which are subjective.’
ThethirdschoolistheMarxistorpoliticaleconomyschoolwhichsays that the power school’s position implies that might is right if national interest is defined by power; that it implies an‘indirect legitimation of the powerful, and‘a form of justification of the continued exploitation of the weaker states by the stronger ones.’More importantly,‘it has the effectofdeceitfullyportrayingtheinterestofafewastheinterestofthe whole nation,’while it also‘obscures and masks the domination of the working class by the ruling class and makes this domination appear acceptable’since it is carried on under the canopy of national interest.
And most importantly, the definition of national interest by the power and behavioural schools has the effect of‘blurring the differences between the external behaviours of States with divergent class characteristics.’
Nation-building and Foreign Policy Challenges
Itisagainsttheforegoingdefinitionalbackgroundthatwearepoised to explicate, not only foreign policy as an instrument, but also as a critical challenge to nation-building. There are several elements of truth in the various rationales given to justify the position taken by the three schools of thought on the conception of national interest. However, regardless of the theoretical perspective foreign policy is looked at, it essentially remains an action or an objective.
As an action, it is a tactical foreign policy, meaning a potent tool of foreign policy. When national interest is considered as an objective, it is referred to as a strategic foreign policy, and therefore about selfpreservation that seeks the security and grandeur of a country. By implication, it has a permanent character. But, unlike strategic foreign policy, tactical foreign policy has a varying characteristic. Different options are often considered in the pursuit of a given long-term foreign policy development objective. In such considerations, different challenges can surface.This partly explains why tactical foreign policy is short-term or limited objective in character and is also variously defined and redefined in response to domestic and international environmental conditionings.
Without iota of gainsaying, in Nigeria, foreign policy cannot be easily used to promote nation-building because the foundation forcultivatingloveforthefatherlandwasneverlaid,andhence,no opportunity has been allowed to grow and develop patriotism. In fact, all efforts attempted to lay a strong foundation for it is frontally challenged by ethnic chauvinism, religious bigotry, and political chicanery. First, there cannot be nation-building without initialpoliticalwillthatcansustainthebuildingeffort.Thepolitical will is yet to exist. Besides, a sociological nation must exist before considerationofitspromotion.Nigeriaisanation-stateandyetto beevolvedasasociologicalnationinwhichcommonindigenous andnotforeignlanguagewillbecultivated.Diversityisthehallmark of Nigeria’s polity but no government has shown any seriousness of purpose to manage the diversity to the advantage of national unity and national happiness.
Put differently, the factor of Nigerianess only exists on paper, but hardly in the spirit of the so-called Nigerians. It is true that the Principles of Federal Character and National Youths Service Corps have been put in place. If the principle of Federal Character is required in the appointments in the Public Service and the principle has been kept in the political drawers of PMB only to gatherdust,inwhichwayisnationaltogethernessfostered?Many media reports focused last week on the top management staff of theNNPC.PMBhimselfistheFirstMinisterofPetroleumResources in Nigeria. The first twenty topmost offices in the NNPC about threemonthswereoccupiedbyNortherners.Mediareportstalked about sixteen of them as at last week.The NNPC is the main source of oil revenue. Why should it be dominated by Northerners?
Politicalgovernanceisstilllargelydrivenbyethno-religioussentiments in Nigeria. This situation is not helpful to the articulation of whatever national interest is to be protected. For instance, what foreign policy decision is expected when the foreign policy elite is challenged by political controversies, ranging from alleged Fulanisation and Islamisation agenda to agitation of politico-economic self-determination and separate regional existence? In this context, foreign policy cannot seek to rightly defend regional secession, even if self-determination is an internationally acknowledged principle.
It is important to also note the public resistance to Government’s Fulanisation and Islamisation agenda. The Governor of Bauchi State, Mr. Bala Mohammed, has made it clear that the Federal Government had already been accommodating in Nigeria the Fulani herdsmen from the West and Central African regions of Africa. They have been urged to come and occupy the ungoverned spaces of Nigeria, but this policy has been vehemently opposed in southern parts and Middle Belt of Nigeria. Again, what type of foreign policy can be promoted in the face of a North-South divide?
Perhaps more disturbingly, political governance is still largely predicated on political chicanery, toga of irrationalities and recklessness, institutional corruption. This is particularly so under the PMB administration, even though PMB gave Nigerians the impression that hisadministrationwouldfighttoothandnailcorruption,insecurityand economic poverty. But without any whiff of doubt, insecurity is fast deepening in Nigeria. Economic impoverishment has also become the hallmark of the Nigerian life with rising inflation and essential commodities. Societal discipline is now a tall order. Democracy itself iscurrentlyfraughtwithmalpracticesandelectoralfraudandcorruption through vote buying. In fact, political parties openly disregard their own party Constitution during their primary elections, especially in the election of their standard bearers. The truth is that the disregard for the rule of law has been to the detriment of sub-regional political balancing. And nothing can be as disheartening as having candidates withtaintedrecordsorhavingbeenconvictedinacourtofcompetent jurisdiction still being given national honours or being accredited for electionpurposescontrarilytothelawfulregulations.Buttrueenough, accredited diplomatic missions are more conversant with the political contradictions in Nigeria, even more than the host government.
Consequently, Nigeria’s foreign policy makers and implementers necessarily have limitations as to the extent they can promote the goodnessofNigeriaabroad.Thisisonemajorobstacletonation-building because Nigeria cannot grow and develop on the basis of untruths. Truth exalts a nation as told in the Holy Bible. Because governance is that of untruth and political chicanery, Nigeria cannot but have a tainted international image, which cannot but be quite difficult for the foreign policy image makers to polish.This then raises many interesting questions on how to carve out a new nation from the currently incapacitated Nigeria. In this regard, which way forward Nigeria?
Nigeria, Quo Vadis?
Differentoptionalleewayhavebeenpositedbyforeignpolicythinkers. OptiononeisthatofthelateMuammarGaddafiofLibyawhoconsidered the partitioning of Nigeria into Muslim North and Christian South as the only way of ensuring lasting peace in Nigeria.The rationale behind the suggestion is that political instability in Nigeria is generated by the quest for Islamisation of Nigeria, and where it is impossible, to begin the struggle with the Northern region. In other words, there cannot be any enduring political stability, and by implication, any peace and security,inthecountryuntiltherearetwocountries:MuslimandChristian Nigeria.ThisispartitioningNigeriaalongthelinesofreligionandmany observers who have been talking about threats of Islamisation can now have their protection under Gaddafi’s observation.
In this regard, is the current Boko Haram insurrection or armed banditry in the North-west not an expression and struggle to have Nigeria partitioned, if Nigeria cannot be wholly Islamised? If it is not, how do we explain the declared objective of the Boko Haram which always installed the flag of an Islamic Caliphate in any place it succeeded to occupy? Can the agenda be Fulanisation if it is not Islamic? If it is Fulanisation, are the members of the Boko Haram all of Fulani ethnic stock? If they are not, are they sponsored agents provocateurs or mercenaries? Whatever is the case, this option one is quite difficult to accept as it is a call for national disintegration but it cannot be ruled out. This option should be kept as the last possible option for as long as the Government of Nigeria is still able to contain the threats of disintegration.
The implication in this case is that Nigeria is actually at war with all the international Islamic terrorists who are struggling to impose Islam on the whole world. Partitioning as a solution therefore can only be a last scenario.
Optiontwoisaddressingthechallengesofconstitutionalrestructuring. The 1999 constitution, even as amended, has more of disuniting than uniting factors. Many stakeholders see the Constitution as very fraudulent, simply because it purported to have been negotiated and engineered by the people of Nigeria, whereas it is not. It is, indeed, a military-defined constitution which has only been generating a lot of controversies, particularly from a religious perspective. It is argued, for example, that Islam or Muslim or Sharia is mentioned more than sixty times in the 1999 Constitution without mentioning any other religion in the same Constitution. Different motivational questions are being raised within the context of threats of Islamisation agenda.