OPEN
JOURNAL AMERICA N
ACCESS
OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES
Internal political environment of Nigerian foreign policy and implementation of citizen diplomacy under Yar’Adua/Jonathan administration (2007-2011): A linkage political approach V.O.S. Okeke1 and E.T. Aniche2 1
Department of Political Science, Anambra State University
[email protected] 2 Department of Political Science (Icep), Imo State University, Owerri
[email protected] Abstract Citizen diplomacy was geared towards boosting Nigeria’s image abroad and achieving Nigerian foreign policy objectives and national interest that suffered under Afro-centric philosophy of Nigerian foreign policy and economic diplomacy. But the initiators of citizen diplomacy ignored the interface between domestic politics and international politics, and erroneously thought that the two can be separated from each other. The point of departure of this study is that the internal political environment in Nigeria hindered the implementation of Nigerian foreign policy thrust embedded in citizen diplomacy. In the context of intense class struggle for state power everything was marginalized including citizens’ welfare at home let alone abroad. Keywords: Foreign Policy, Citizen Diplomacy, Linkage Politics, National Interest, Nigeria INTRODUCTION The Nigerian foreign policy has undergone certain processes and transformations since 1960 despite of its conservative posture. From the outset Nigerian foreign policy under Balewa’s Administration (1960-1966) was predicated on certain principles or foreign policy thrusts; such as Africa, the centerpiece of Nigerian foreign policy; nonintervention in the internal affairs of other states; policy of good neighborliness; policy of non-alignment, policy of African decolonization; etc. Until recently, the policy of Africa, the centre-piece of Nigerian foreign policy or the Afro-centric philosophy of Nigeria’s foreign policy remained the most enduring principle of Nigerian foreign policy. The African centeredness of Nigerian foreign policy revolves around: firstly, policy of African decolonization and eradication of racial discrimination such as apartheid in South
AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928
Africa, etc; secondly, policy of panAfricanism; thirdly, African cooperation, friendship and unity; and finally, technical/financial assistance to the African states (Aniche, 2009). The African centeredness of Nigerian foreign policy has been vehemently criticized by scholars over the years. By 1985 under Babangida’s Regime (19851993), Nigeria adopted a new foreign policy posture known as policy of economic diplomacy owing to the economic recession of the early and mid-1980s. The policy of economic diplomacy then was aimed at achieving economic recovery through implementation of Breton Wood Institutions (BWIs) endorsed Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP). The implementation of Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) was, however, haphazard
Vol. 4 | Issue 1 | January 2014 | 72
OPEN
ACCESS
leading to the demise of economic diplomacy by 1990 as the two international finance institutions (IFIs) disengaged from Nigeria (Aniche, 2009). Subsequently, the policy of economic diplomacy staged a comeback under Obasanjo’s Civilian Administration (19992007) when the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) reengaged Nigeria in 2001. This time around the policy of economic diplomacy was specifically targeted at obtaining debt relief, attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) and soliciting for more loans through implementation of Breton Woods Institutions (BWIs) loan conditionality. Nigeria began to implement the World Bank and International Economic Monetary Fund (IMF) endorsed National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) (Aniche, 2010; Okeke and Aniche, 2012a). Following the reform of Nigeria’s foreign policy under Yar’Adua’s Administration in 2007, Nigeria adopted citizenship diplomacy in order to correct the anomalies of Nigerian foreign policy since independence. Citizenship diplomacy was accelerated in order to boost Nigeria’s image abroad battered by the many years of military rule and for achieving Nigerian foreign policy objectives and national interest, which were affected under Afro-centric philosophy of Nigerian foreign policy and economic diplomacy. However, the initiators of citizen diplomacy went wrong in considering that the domestic politics and international politics can be separated from each other and failed to recognize connection between the two. We depart by insisting that the internal political environment in Nigeria hindered the implementation Nigerian foreign policy thrust, embedded in citizenship diplomacy.
AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928
JOURNAL AMERICA N
OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE This study is largely based on the theory of state relative autonomy theory, which is situated within the ambit of the neo-Marxist political economy paradigm. The theory of relative state autonomy depicts the degree of aloofness of the state in the discharge of its tasks such as mediating inter-class and intraclass struggles. Thus, this theory suggests that in any state, there are two levels of contradiction, primary and secondary. Primary contradiction depicts inter-class struggle or class struggle between two antagonistic classes such as the ruling class and the ruled class or the bourgeois class and the proletariat. Whereas, secondary contradiction is the intra-class struggle, denoting class conflicts within the rulingclass or between different segments of the ruling-class. Marx and Engels (1977) demonstrated this intractable nature of class struggle in the preface of their book, that “the history of all the hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Okeke and Aniche, 2012b). The proponents and exponents of the theory hold that a state can exhibit either low or high relative autonomy (Alavi, 1972). A state exhibits relatively high autonomy when there is high commodification of capital or excessive penetration of capital into the economy; such that the bourgeois class engages in accumulation of capital through direct exploitation of the working class or appropriation of surplus value, private capitalism, when they enter into social relationships of production. Here, the state is not interventionist; it does not intervene in the domestic economy like participating in the productive activities, public/state enterprises or controlling or nationalizing means of production. The role of state here is largely to regulate (Ake, 1976). By doing so, the state is relatively an impartial umpire mediating inter-class and intra-class
Vol. 4 | Issue 1 | January 2014 | 73
OPEN
ACCESS
struggles through harmonization and reconciliation of class interests (Ake, 1981; Okafor et al. 2012; Okeke and Aniche, 2012b). The developed capitalist states of the West are, therefore, considered to exemplify this high degree of relative autonomy, and thus the high level of human rights observance and protection. On the other hand, a state exhibits relatively low autonomy when there is low commodification of capital or low penetration of (private) capital into the economy. The ruling class is constantly indulging in primitive accumulation of capital through embezzlement of public fund. A state constituted in this way becomes the only avenue for capital accumulation. The state is, thus, interventionist for engaging in productive activities, public corporation, by nationalization of major means of production. This state does not restrict itself to regulatory role and is hence compromised, such that instead of rising above class struggle it is deeply immersed in it (Ake, 1985; Okafor et al., 2012; Okeke and Aniche, 2012b). The Nigerian state like other developing states exhibits a relatively low level of autonomy of the state as a result of low commodification of capital. Under the eclectic mixture of economy, pseudocapitalism or quasi-capitalism, Nigeria experiences the phenomenon of poor penetration of (private) capital into the economy. This gives rise to a parasitic petty bourgeois class whose major source of accumulation of capital is the state. So, the Nigerian state becomes the only avenue for primitive accumulation of capital through which the governing class. petty bourgeoisie, produces and reproduces their dominance. The implication of the low autonomy of the Nigerian state is that it is
AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928
JOURNAL AMERICA N
OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES
heavily involved in the class struggle rather than rising above it; leading to intense struggle for the control of the state for primitive accumulation of capital (Ake, 2001; Okeke and Aniche, 2012b). The point is that the implementation of citizen diplomacy suffered as President Yar’Adua’s ill-health degenerated. Consequently, there was political intrigue, infighting and schism among the ministers, and the Northern political elite who wanted by all means to prevent the vice president from becoming the acting president. In the context of this intense class struggle for the state power everything was marginalized including citizens’ wellbeing at home let alone in Diaspora. Not surprisingly, the policy was deemphasized owing to the events leading to the emergence of the then Vice President, Goodluck Jonathan as the Acting President and later President. The cabinet reshuffled ousted Chief Ojo Maduekwe (the initiator) as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. AN OVERVIEW OF NIGERIAN FOREIGN POLICY (1960-2011) Nigerian foreign policy soon after independence in 1960 under Balewa’s Administration (1960-1966) was anchored on: one, Africa, the centre-piece of Nigerian foreign policy; two, the policy of panAfricanism; three, the policy of decolonization and eradication of racial discrimination and segregation; four, the policy of good neighborliness; five, the policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries; and finally, the policy of non-alignment. However, the most enduring foreign policy thrust in Nigeria has been the Afro-centric philosophy of Nigerian foreign policy in which Nigeria spent enormous resources in assisting other African countries like Namibia, Angola, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, etc, under colonial
Vol. 4 | Issue 1 | January 2014 | 74
OPEN
ACCESS
domination to gain independence. Under the African centeredness of Nigerian foreign policy, Nigeria also assisted in the antiapartheid struggle in South Africa. It also contributed in peacekeeping forces in crisis regions in Africa such as Chad, Niger, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cote d’Ivoire, Sudan, Darfur, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, etc (Aniche, 2009). Still under this policy thrust, Nigeria assisted other African countries financially and technically in their economy. Although, the foreign policy posture has been seriously challenged or criticized by scholars and practitioners alike. It was not until recently that Nigeria started rescinding and reviewing its foreign policy in line with the foreign policy reform panel set up by Yar’Adua’s Administration in 2007, soon after assuming office. The product of this policy reform is citizen diplomacy. Other foreign policy thrusts like policy of decolonization, eradication of racial discrimination and segregation, nonintervention and non-alignment naturally fizzled out with time. For example, policies of decolonization in Africa, and racial discrimination and segregation naturally waned with the achievement of independence and sovereignty in all African territories and elimination of Apartheid policy in South Africa. Due to United Nations’ (UN) and African Union’s (AU) responsibility to intervene on humanitarian grounds in the crisis regions, the policy of non-intervention is falling into disuse. Policy of non-alignment became obsolete with the events of late 1980s and early 1990s leading to the end of cold war and the beginning of post-cold war era (Aniche, 2009). Under Gowon’s Regime (1966-1975) the policy of African centeredness was utilized and geared towards regional integration in
AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928
JOURNAL AMERICA N
OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES
West Africa leading to the establishment of Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Whilst, under Murtala/Obasanjo’s Regime and Shagari’s Administration Nigeria continued with the policy of African centeredness assisting many African countries and contributing in the National War of Liberation in some of African territories under colonial rule and anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa (Aniche, 2009). During Babangida’s Regime (1985-1993), a new lexicon found its way into Nigerian foreign policy, the policy of economic diplomacy. The policy of economic diplomacy was aimed at achieving economic recovery and development through the collaboration of Breton Woods Institutions (BWIs), under conditionality of which, Nigeria undertook to implement Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) between 1986 and 1990. The policy of economic diplomacy is another enduring foreign policy thrust of Nigeria foreign policy. Thus, under Obasanjo’s Civilian Administration (1999-2007), Nigeria revisited the policy of economic diplomacy aimed at receiving debt relief and attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) through the instrumentalities of the Breton Woods institutions (BWIs). Nigeria agreed to implement the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan conditionality as encapsulated in the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) (Aniche, 2010; Okeke and Aniche, 2012a). Citizen diplomacy is a foreign policy thrust of Yar’Adua’s Administration under which the Federal Government of Nigeria seeks the assistance of Nigerians at home and in Diaspora in its effort to develop the country economically and politically. For being people-oriented, it is a part of the broad
Vol. 4 | Issue 1 | January 2014 | 75
OPEN
ACCESS
range of Nigerian foreign policy that promotes the aspects that look into the welfare of Nigeria’s citizens and seeks to defend them wherever they are (Dickson, 2010). POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT OF NIGERIA’S FOREIGN POLICY Linkage politics approach assumes that domestic politics and foreign policy are organically interconnected and that the totality of the domestic structure determines or conditions the character of Nigeria’s foreign policy. In other words, the internal political environment shapes the outcomes of Nigeria’s foreign policy making. As a result the conceptualization of Nigeria’s external or foreign relations in a linkage system presupposes that Nigeria’s foreign policy is a product of the domestic structure. The underlying argument here is that the international environment influences domestic politics just as domestic political environment shapes international events. Thus, foreign policy is conceived as the outcome or product of the dynamic interplay between the internal and external political environments of nation-states (Idang, 1973; Philips, 1973; Akinyemi, 1974; Asobie, 1980; Gambari, 1980; Aluko, 1981; Nweke, 1986; Ifesinachi, 2001). Furthermore, the linkage politics approach to foreign policy holds that there is a link or nexus between domestic political structure and external relation or foreign policy. Thus, domestic factors like religion, culture, economy, etc. are seen as considerable significance to foreign policy making. The idea of a linkage or interface between the domestic political structure and external political environment allows for an analysis that adequately examines the extent to which interaction between the two can constitute a hindrance to the formulation of effective foreign policy thrusts such as citizen
AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928
JOURNAL AMERICA N
OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES
diplomacy. As a result, the linkage approach provides a specific context for identifying the extent to which specific forces can positively or negatively impinge upon the achievement or accomplishment of a given foreign policy objective such as citizen diplomacy (Holsi, 1967; Rosenau, 1969; Northege, 1968; Nweke, 1988; Birai, 1991; Dauda, 2002). Perhaps, the import of the above is that foreign policy is basically a product of complex and diversifying interrelationship of external and internal circumstances and stimuli. Hence, the actions of a nation-state is determined or influenced by both domestic and external variables, and as such, foreign policy becomes the continuation or the extension of domestic policy (Idang, 1973; Akinyemi, 1974; Nweke, 1985; Ogunsawo, 1986; Offiong, 2000; Okolie, 2001). The point is that there is a link between internal or domestic politics and external or international politics known as linkage politics. The underlying idea of linkage politics is that the link between the internal political environment influences foreign policy making and implementation of states, Nigeria included. The Nigerian internal or domestic political environment is one where political class engaged in electoral malpractices in form of electoral rigging, thuggery and violence. Under this state of affairs, Nigerian citizens are confronted with abject poverty, mass unemployment, poor standards of living, low life expectancy, low literacy rate, etc. in the human development index. The Nigerian state is not forthcoming at catering for the welfare and wellbeing of its citizens in Nigeria, forcing many Nigerians to seek greener pastures abroad or to put more aptly, economic refuge abroad. As a result many of them are engaged in many illegal activities to survive harsh treatment
Vol. 4 | Issue 1 | January 2014 | 76
OPEN
ACCESS
abroad where they are not likely to get a decent job. Even the corruption perception index (CPI) of the Transparency International (TI) has not ranked Nigeria favorably since its inception. For instance, Adejumo (2011) notes that with several corrupt former Governors still parading themselves imperiously on the streets of Abuja, still on the beck and call of the president, and appeared seemingly untouchable; it will be hard to convince the world that we are still waging war against corruption in earnest and with sincerity of purpose. Successive Nigerian governments have nothing to be proud of in terms of promoting positive image of Nigeria or tackling corruption. In fact, whatever little policy was made had only been there to benefit those in the government and not the Nigerian masses. Also, the thinness of socio-economic capital is based on community repeated premises that Nigeria has some of the worst social indicators in the world: internal insecurity, a deteriorating infrastructural base, corruption, high crime, unbridled violence; ethnic conflict; a disorganized and moribund labor sector, a poor external image crisis exacerbated by a world-wide reputation for astuteness in financial and other related crimes represent some of these problems. In addition to this, is the high mortality, where a majority of the population ostensibly living below poverty line in a country where the life expectancy is at zero point, and you get a country with a supposedly fragile base and foundation upon which such a policy can be founded (Eke, 2009). Adejumo (2011) further opines that for the citizen diplomacy to succeed, it must be backed up with the sincere purpose and approach to Nigeria’s entire problem at home. After fifty years as a sovereign state,
AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928
JOURNAL AMERICA N
OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES
and with enormous resources both human and material, Nigerians are still wallowing in abject poverty and desperation, while our leaders are looting the treasures all over the country and living unimaginable expensive lifestyles, and depositing the loots in countries we are trying to force the citizen diplomacy on. DOMESTIC POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT ON CITIZEN DIPLOMACY At a conference in Lagos under the auspices of Nigeria Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), the then External Affairs Minister Chief Ojo Maduekwe articulated the strategic revision of Nigerian foreign policy, he called citizen diplomacy. In a nutshell, citizen diplomacy requires the Nigerian Government to more consciously resort to the calculi of basic needs, human rights and socio-economic welfare of its citizen in the conduct of bilateral and multilateral agreements with other states (This Day, October 31, 2007). This means that Nigeria has announced a retaliatory foreign policy warning that any country that presents Nigeria as corrupt without showcasing the intellects of Nigerians would be declared as hostile nation. This is geared towards protecting the image and integrity of Nigeria, and retaliating against countries that are hostile and that brand Nigeria as corrupt (Adejumo, 2011). The new development as it serves as a pragmatic step in achieving the fundamental objective principles of Nigerian foreign policy based on the national interest of which the defense of territorial integrity and guarantee of security of lives, property and economic wellbeing of Nigeria and its citizens cannot be toyed with (Okocha and Nzechi, 2011). Citizen diplomacy as conceived by Chief Ojo Maduekwe, former Minister of Foreign Affairs is about the protection of Nigerians
Vol. 4 | Issue 1 | January 2014 | 77
OPEN
JOURNAL AMERICA N
ACCESS
wherever they may find themselves. It is about making Nigerians live correctly in accordance with the rules and regulations of their host countries as well as creating a basis for responsible citizenship in Nigeria. In this regard, Nigerians attitudinal disposition is to be guided by the policy of reciprocity or what the former Minister of Foreign Affairs called Diplomacy of Consequence. Nigeria owes it as a responsibility to ensure that the Nigerian prisoners in Togo are not unnecessarily mistreated. It is all about achieving the foreign policy objectives as contained in the Section 19 of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (Eke, 2009). Ojo Maduekwe further explained that the citizen diplomacy or citizen-centered foreign policy entails the responsibility of the Nigerian state to defend the right of its citizens at home and nationals abroad even when its nationals abroad have been accused of violating the laws of their host countries. For instance, Nigeria’s plea for commuting of the death sentence passed on two Nigerian nationals over their involvement in drugs trafficking in Indonesia to serve prison terms, if not outright pardon (Eke, 2009). The point is that Nigeria’s foreign policy should be citizen-driven, in other words, national interest anchored on citizens’ welfare or wellbeing should drive Nigeria’s foreign policy. In essence, the welfare of Nigerian citizens should be the thrust of Nigeria’s foreign policy. Thus, Nigerian citizen diplomacy has some basic elements which according to Eke (2009) included: 1) Nigeria and Nigerians should constitute the primary focus of the country’s foreign policy, i.e. Nigerian citizens should be the centerpiece or focus of Nigeria’s foreign policy, while ensuring and maintaining its avowed
AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928
OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
commitments to the development of Africa. Nigerian foreign policy must accomplish the country’s development aspirations and objectives to the improvement of the citizens, and indeed re-enforce and contribute significantly to the realization of the President Musa Yar’Adua’s enunciated Seven-Point Agenda for the attainment of Vision 2020. Nigerian missions abroad must actively engage the Nigerian community and the Nigerians in Diaspora, and render quality consular and other services to them as a matter of rights of the citizens and duties and obligations of the missions of the Nigerian government. Foreign policy making and implementation must be democratized to involve Nigerians from all the walks of life and not left for a narrow circle of experts and practitioners alone. Nigeria will be guided by the principles of reciprocity in its international relations with rest of the countries of the world. Nigeria will resist being profiled and showcased as a sanctuary of ardent criminals; simply on the basis of the despicable conduct of a few of its nationals, the propaganda machinery mounted against by a few states too envious about Nigeria’s global acclaims and those who have sworn to take no due recognition of the country’s tremendous contributions to the world civilization, socio-economic and scientific development as well as sub-regional, continental and global peace as well as security initiatives. Every Nigerian foreign policy endeavor must meet litmus test of determining the extent to which it protects and advances what is best for Nigeria and what will best benefit the Nigerian citizens.
Vol. 4 | Issue 1 | January 2014 | 78
OPEN
ACCESS
8) Nigerian citizens anywhere in the world would be protected and defended irrespective of charges of violation of laws of the host countries on such accused Nigerian nationals. 9) Nigerians are to serve as the country’s ambassadors by exhibiting the most exemplary conduct, good behavior and etiquette at all the times not just at home but most especially when they travel or live abroad. The thrust of the policy would be citizencentered foreign policy. This is because the global news on Nigeria is usually negative, but with the new policy it is expected that with every negative story about Nigerians, stories of the positive impacts Nigerians are doing in these countries should also be reported. For every Nigerian drug pusher arrested or fraudster arrested or a suspect arrested in other countries of the world, they have a responsibility to showcase those Nigerian surgeons that are making a difference in their communities of these countries; and failure to tell the good story about Nigeria from now on, would be considered as a hostile act. This is diplomacy of consequence or reciprocity, Nigeria will be nice only to those who are nice to Nigeria. Those who brand Nigeria as a country of scammers, as a country where nothing works, which undermines its national unity and scares away investors and ultimately create unemployment and poverty should be handled appropriately (Abuja Inquirer, September 20, 2011). Citizen diplomacy demands that from the standpoint of a renewed national search for image of pride, which is correspondingly moved around the new foreign policy thrust, Nigerians should reciprocate, develop and impose on themselves self-worth in the conduct of their affairs in and outside the shores of the country; if they must be
AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928
JOURNAL AMERICA N
OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES
defended and respected. For Nigerians abroad to attract consular supports when they are affected, their arrests and detention in foreign country can be monitored in order that get fair treatment (Eke, 2009). On the other hand, Dickson (2010) has noted that instances of neglect of Nigerian nationals by country’s embassies abound. Nigerian diplomats have never boosted country image or taken care of Nigerians living abroad. Nigeria has no moral justification, social basis or economic foundation to seek reciprocity in its dealings or relations with the other states. Thus, citizen diplomacy is yet to be properly articulated as its impact is yet to be felt and the result is yet to be manifested. Hence, Nigeria’s image abroad is of a country that is congenially corrupt where the basic necessities of life are denied to the citizens, where basic infrastructure does not work, where leaders steal rather than serve, and a country where even the highest officers of the law can be assassinated with impunity (Eke, 2009). Not surprisingly, Nigeria’s corruption perception index (CPI) of the Transparency International (TI) has not improved significantly. For details of these rankings and scores see Table I. Table I: Nigeria’s CPI Ranking and Scores from 2006 to 2011 Year Ranking Scores 2006 142nd 2.2 2007 147th 2.2 st 2008 121 2.7 th 2009 130 2.5 2010 134th 2.4 Source: Adapted from Transparency International. However, Eke (2009) observes that at the domestic level, Nigeria’s human right posture and observance is in abyss and meets no standards of international laws.
Vol. 4 | Issue 1 | January 2014 | 79
OPEN
ACCESS
The spate of abuse of human rights in Nigeria appears irreconcilable with the citizen diplomacy. Also, political thuggery, wanton destruction, and political and religious assassinations are rife in Nigeria, many of which are unresolved. Other despicable acts promoted by bad leadership include destruction of lives and economic life wires of citizens, which constitute some of the domestic liabilities that may constrain the effective realization of the goals of the new foreign policy thrust by Nigeria. For Abati (2009), citizen diplomacy seems not to have yielded the envisaged dividend due to some factors that are both domestic and international. In Nigeria, the government does not value the lives of its citizens. At home and in Diaspora, Nigerians are left to their own survival tactics as many have learnt not to expect anything from their government. Back home the average Nigerian is treated badly by the authorities, for instance, the Nigeria Police Force vested with the responsibility of maintaining internal peace and security have in all ramifications become agents of terrorism, engaging into extra political killings, illegal arrests and detention of innocent citizens, extortion of multifarious dimensions, and brutality. Citizen diplomacy is yet to make any impact in the lives of Nigerian nationals abroad in the context of the alienated citizens at home. Increasingly, more Nigerians are being arrested and maltreated for a variety of offences. The mood or perception in the international system is that Nigerians are not to be trusted on the account of misunderstanding of a few of the citizens. Consequently, Nigerians are regularly on the death toll in Libya, Indonesia, China, Malaysia, Poland and Indonesia, among others. Between 2009 and 2011, Nigerians have been deported from USA, Gabon,
AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928
JOURNAL AMERICA N
OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES
Congo and other countries under one guise or the other (Saliu, 2010). Many more Nigerian nationals abroad were executed without fair hearing or trial after waiting in vain for Nigerian authorities to intercede and others deported without extending the usual diplomatic courtesy to Nigeria. There have been repeated and growing incidences or cases of attack and maltreatment of Nigerians in South Africa, Togo and Zimbabwe (Saliu, 2010). For example, on January 3, 2009, a detachment of policemen on patrol in Ilorin, the Kwara State capital shot at a taxicab. The driver allegedly failed to stop for inspection and subsequent payment of amount ranging from 20 Naira to 100 Naira. The bullets hit a nursing mother, Titilayo Olutunde, age 20 years and her eight months old baby, Annoluwa and they died. Another example is the refusal of Nigerian prisoners, in several attempts, to be transferred to Nigeria alleging very poor conditions of imprisonment and likely infringement of their fundamental rights even as prisoners in Nigeria. Though, many countries have negotiated with Nigeria for the possibilities of transferring Nigerian prisoners back home to Nigeria with a pledge to assist in the skill acquisition centers for them and financial packages for initial take off (Mahmood, 2011). No wonder Saliu (2010) argues that citizen diplomacy is a dubious intellectual construction, not energizing for Nigerians and incapable of addressing the wide gap that exists between the citizens and the conduct of Nigeria’s foreign policy. Since its adoption, the gap is widening or expanding as the external image of Nigeria has not improved; the perception of Nigeria’s living abroad has not ebbed Nigerian foreign policy to a higher level of delivery of meeting their expectations.
Vol. 4 | Issue 1 | January 2014 | 80
OPEN
ACCESS
Fallout of this is the deepening process of alienation from the government, which citizen diplomacy was intended to partly address. Consequently, citizen diplomacy seems to revolve only around the official circles. Even not all the structures have been attuned to appreciate the imperativeness of the policy thrust for effective implementation. The point being made is that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and foreign missions are not structured in a way to make it adequate in meeting the demands of citizen diplomacy (Saliu, 2010). Saliu (2010) noted that Nigeria embassies abroad totaling 102 missions are not sufficiently funded to implement the policy of citizen diplomacy. For example, the country’s budgets of 46.7 billion Naira in 2009 and 44 billion Naira in 2010, for the Ministry of External Affairs, were grossly inadequate for this purpose. The budget is on decline. Coupled with this is shortage of well tested career diplomats that are required to implement citizen diplomacy. Therefore, we conclude that the internal political environment in Nigeria hindered the implementation of citizen diplomacy of Nigerian foreign policy thrust under Yar’Adua/Jonathan Administration between 2007 and 2011. After all, charity they say begins at home, not abroad. Nigeria consequently remains bully at home but weak abroad or giant at home, dwarf at abroad. Thus, Nigerian citizens are brutalized at home and maltreated abroad. The mistake made by the initiators of the citizen diplomacy is to think just like the traditionalists that domestic politics can be separated from international politics whereas the two are interwoven and have reciprocal influence on each other.
AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928
JOURNAL AMERICA N
OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES
CONCLUSION The Nigerian state exhibits low autonomy and as such is immersed in the class struggle rather than rising above it leading to intense struggle for the control of the state for primitive accumulation. In the context of intense struggle for state power every other thing including citizens’ welfare or wellbeing was marginalized both at home and abroad. Thus, by adopting linkage politics approach we arrived at the conclusion that the internal political environment in Nigeria hindered the implementation of Nigerian foreign policy thrust embedded in citizen diplomacy. On the basis of the above conclusion or main finding we recommend, one, and more fundamental that the Nigerian state should be reconstituted in such a way as to float above class struggle necessary for increasing its autonomy, and two, that there is need to improve or transform positively Nigeria’s internal political environment required for boosting its image abroad and achieving its foreign policy objectives. REFERENCES 1 Abati, R. (2009). North Korea and Clinton’s Citizen Diplomacy. Nigerian Village Square, August. 2 Adejumo, A. (2011). Re-Ojo Maduekwe’s Citizenship Diplomacy. Accessed on 21st October, 2011 from http//www.nigeriansinamerica.com/arti cles. 3 Agbu, O. (2009). Nigeria’s Foreign Policy under President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua: Challenges and Prospects. In O.C. Eze (Ed.) Citizen Diplomacy, Lagos: NIIA. 4 Ake, C. (1976). Explanatory Notes on the Political Economy of Africa. Journals of Modern African Studies. 14 (1). 5 Ake, C. (1981). A Political Economy of Africa, London: Longman Group.
Vol. 4 | Issue 1 | January 2014 | 81
OPEN 6 7
8
9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
JOURNAL AMERICA N
ACCESS
Ake, C. (1985). Political Economy of Nigeria, London: Longman Group. Ake, C. (2001). Democracy and Development in Africa, Ibadan: Spectrum Books. Akinyemi, A.B. (1974). Foreign Policy and Federalism: The Nigerian Experience, Ibadan: Ibadan University Press. Alavi, H. (1972). The Post-Colonial State. New Left Review, 74. Aluko, O. (1981). Essays in Nigerian Foreign Policy, London: George Allen & Union. Aniche, E.T. (2009). A Modern Introduction to Political Science, Onitsha: Desvic Publishers. Aniche, E.T. (2010). World Bank and Reforms in Nigeria (1999-2007): An Appraisal. J. Lib. St. 13 (1): 143-165. Asobie, H.A. (1980). The Foreign Policy of a Developing Nation: An Analysis. In E.C. Amucheazi (ed.) Readings in Social Sciences: Issues in National Development, Enugu: Fourth Dimension. Birai, U. (1991). The Nigerian Customs and the ECOWAS. In I.E.S. Amdi (ed.) One Hundred Years of Nigeria Customs and Excise, 18911991, Zaria: ABU Press. Dauda, S. (2002). Foreign Policy: Formulation and Analysis, Ibadan: Caltop Publications. Dickson, M. (2010). Citizen Diplomacy in President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s Nigeria, 2007-2009: An Assessment. Int. J. Pol. G. Gov. 1(1). Eke, O.A. (2009). Globalization Challenges and Nigerian Foreign Policy, Abakiliki: Willy Rose & Appleseed Publishing Coy. Gambari, L.A. (1980). Party Politics and Foreign Policy: Nigeria and the First Republic, Zaria: Ahmadu Bello University Press.
AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928
OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES
19
20 21 22 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Holsti, K. (1967). International Politics: A Framework for Analysis, Eaglewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. http://www.abujainquireronline.com. Accessed on 29th September 2011. http://www.nigeriansinamerica.com. http://www.onlineresearchjournals.co m. Idang, G.T. (1973). Nigeria: Internal Politics and Foreign Policy, 19601966, Ibadan: Ibadan University Press. Ifesinachi, K. (2001). Institutional Instability and the Conduct of Foreign Policy: A Study of Nigeria-Israel Relations. Nig. J. So. Sci. 1 (1): 4558. Maduekwe, O. (2009). Keynote Address in O.C. Eze (Ed.) Citizen Diplomacy, Lagos: NIIA. Mahmood, A. (2011). What Manner of Citizen Diplomacy. Accessed on 29th September 2011 from http://www.leadershipnigeria.com/inde xphp. Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1977). Manifesto of the Communist Party, Moscow: Progress Publishers. Northege, F.S. (1968). The Foreign Policies of the Powers, London: Faber and Faber. Nweke, G.A. (1985). National Interest and Foreign Policy. Nig. J. Intl. A. 11 (1). Nweke, G.A. (1986). The Domestic Structure and Processes of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy In G.O. Olusanya and R.A. Akindele (eds.). The Structure and Processes of Foreign Policy Making and Implementation in Nigeria, 1960-1990, Lagos: NIIA. Nweke, G.A. (1988). Theoretical Perspectives on Nigeria’s Foreign Policy. In G. Olusanya et al (eds.) Economic Development and Foreign Policy in Nigeria, Lagos: NIIA.
Vol. 4 | Issue 1 | January 2014 | 82
OPEN 32
33
34
35
36
37
JOURNAL AMERICA N
ACCESS
Offiong, O.J. (2000). The Determinants of African Foreign Relations: Continuities, Changes and Constraints. Afr. Pol. Sci. Rev. 1 (1): 130-152. Ogunsawo, A. (1986). Our Friends, Their Friends: Nigeria’s External Relations 1960-1985, Lagos: Alfa Publications. Okafor, J.C., Okeke, V.O.S. and Aniche, E.T. (2012). Power Struggle, Political Contest and Ethno-Religious Violence in Nigeria. Nnamdi Azikiwe J. Pol. Sci 3 (1): 74-87. Okeke, V.O.S. and Aniche, E.T. (2012a). World Bank and Public Sector Reforms in Nigeria (19992007). Intl. J. Dev. St. IV (II). Okeke, V.O.S. and Aniche, E.T. (2012b). An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Cabotage Act 2003 on Nigerian Maritime Administration. Sacha J. Pol. Strat. St. 2 (1): 12-28. Okocha, C. and Nzechi, O. (2011). Nigeria to Adopt Citizenship Diplomacy. Accessed on 21st October 2011 from http://qw/wwwj:nigeriandrouds.blogsp ot.com
AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928
OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES
38
39
40
41
42
Okolie, A. (2001). The Nigerian State and Conduct of Foreign Policy. Nig. J. So. Sci. 1 (1): 191-202. Philips, C.S. Jr. (1973). The Development of Nigerian Foreign Policy, 1960-1966, Ibadan: Ibadan University Press. Rosenau, J.N. (1969). Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy, New York: Free Press. Saliu, H.A. (2010). Citizen Diplomacy and the Future of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy. In O.C. Eze (ed.) Beyond Fifty Years of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Issues, Challenges and Prospects, Lagos: NIIA. This Day, October 31, 2007. Accessed on 20th September 2011 from http://www.thisdaylive.com.
Vol. 4 | Issue 1 | January 2014 | 83
