PROGRAMME EVALUATION: BACK TO THE FUTURE

PROTOCOLSMr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, permit me to commence this inaugural lecture by raising a fundamental issue of critical concern within the context of our intellectual engagement at this auspicious forum. The issue relates to the purpose of an inaugural lecture. But before then, I wish to state that this is the first inaugural lecture in the Department of Political Science, University of Lagos in the last two decades, and second in the history of the Department, established almost 50 years ago. The first inaugural lecture in the Department was delivered about 23 years ago by Professor Cornelius Alaba Ogunsanwo, who shortly after the lecture, was appointed Nigerias High Commissioner to Botswana, with concurrent accreditation to Lesotho, and later Ambassador to Brussels.

Taking a cue from my late Professor of International Relations at the University of Ife (now OAU), Prof. Olajide Aluko, who in his inaugural lecture delivered on 17th March, 1981 explicated the purpose of an inaugural lecture as enunciated by its founding fathers, I believe his meaningful contextualization is still germane to current thinking on the issue and should therefore be espoused, albeit briefly, to this audience. Prof. Alukos candid submission which I allude to is that there has been a gross misconception of inaugural lecture. Some Professors see it as a flamboyant socio-political occasion meant for wining and dining, while others perceive it as a platform for raining abuse on their academic colleagues. Yet, others consider the occasion as a unique opportunity to mark the effective assumption of their role as professors in the universities. All these are considered wrong and a misuse of inaugural lectures. In the opinion of its founding fathers, inaugural lectures are designed for three main purposes and all are purely academic. The first is to provide a veritable avenue for the newly appointed Professor to critically analyze the state of his specialized discipline. The second is to enable the professor to present a piece of unpublished research upon which he has been working before his appointment, or completed afterwards, with a view to displaying his credentials as a scholar and vindicating his appointment before a cross section of the university community and outsiders. The third purpose of inaugural lecture is to afford the professor the opportunity to elaborate the research scheme that he intends to follow while occupying the chair. Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, what I propose to do and which I have been doing with my professorship falls into the last two categories. As my first purpose, I intend to continue with my study of International Relations and specifically Foreign Policy Analysis. I shall focus my research on the dynamics of Nigerias foreign policy in contemporary globalized context.

I have published two major works in this area one in the Journal of Global Initiatives (2006) and the other in Globalization (2007). Also relevant to the study is my latest book Perspectives on Africas Crises: The Challenges of Socio-Political and Economic Transformation in the 21st Century published by Spectrum Books in 2011. In terms of the focus of my address this evening, the topic falls specifically under the second purpose of inaugural lecture as explicated above. I consider it a unique opportunity and a momentous occasion to showcase to this august assemblage of intellectuals of diverse backgrounds my humble contributions to the expansion of knowledge in my field of study in the last two decades, and express my profound thought about the trajectory of Nigerias foreign policy in retrospect and prospects.

Introduction

Nigerias adventure into the global arena began with its attainment of independence on 1st October, 1960 and subsequent admission as the 99th member of the United Nations on the 7th October, 1960. Since then, the country as a sovereign state has experienced a meteoric rise and fall in its diplomatic soldiering. As a scholar of International Relations, I have been intrigued and consternated by the sliding fortune of Nigerias activities at the global level. Since its independence, the country has been confronted by governance challenges as it oscillated between civilian and military rule. It is for this reason that Nigeria has been floundering in its profoundly dynamic and proactive foreign policy. There has been a general shift in policy from different regimes since 1960. The historical trajectory upon which the countrys foreign policy has been constructed and the pedestrian nature of the political leadership have combined to endanger the nations overall foreign policy postures and directions.

A major defining characteristic of the international system at the outset of Nigerias independence which influenced tremendously the evolutionary trend and development of its foreign policy was the Cold War between the West and East led by the United States of America and Soviet Union respectively. While a number of assumptions have suggested that the newly independent African States were products of the Cold War, and benefitted from it, Nigeria shared in the Cold War debacle as a member of the Non-Aligned Movement. The African continent was used as the theatre for Cold War ideological struggle. Nigeria proclaimed and avowed to pursue an independent stance in the global politics.

Thus, the Prime Minister, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, while addressing the Parliament on 20th August, 1960 perceptively asserted that Nigeria would follow an independent foreign policy, which would be founded on Nigerias interests and would be consistent with the moral and democratic principles on which the countrys constitution was based. Nigeria was not oblivious of the fact that it was difficult at that early stage of statehood to cut the umbilical cord that ties it with Britain, its ex-colonial ruler. Thus, Balewa declared:

.based on the happy experience of a successful partnership, our future relations with the United Kingdom will be more cordial than ever, bound together as we shall be in the Commonwealth by a common allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth who we proudly acclaim as Queen of Nigeria (hence) we are grateful to the British officers who we have known, first as masters and then as leaders and finally as partners but always as friends.

With this type of statement, it was very clear Nigerias foreign policy was laid on a foundation of limited autonomy and independence. It therefore means that Nigerias claim for leadership in Africa was tied to British interest. The formative stage of its match to greatness through assertive foreign policy was characterized by uncertainty and timidity against the background of certain phenomenal events including the Anglo-Nigeria Defence Pact and its position as a member of conservative bloc (Monrovia bloc) in the process of establishing the Organization of African Unity (OAU).

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, the central thesis of this lecture is that in the recent past, Nigeria had evinced the manifestation of a lackluster foreign policy and a distinctively wobbled diplomatic practice; and the litany of contradictions bedeviling the countrys foreign policy has grievously undermined the reputation of the nation. It is particularly worrisome that at a time when other African states with successful democracies, for example Botswana, Mozambique, Ghana, South Africa etc. are counting their achievements in the diplomatic sector no matter how miniscule, Nigeria is appallingly backtracking on its diplomatic foray. The conclusion emanating from this scenario is that the timidity, docility, ambivalence, dissonance, indecisiveness and inertia that characterized the foreign policy pursuit in the First and Second Republics have resurfaced, while the foreign policy machinery of the nation has been subjected to a plethora of conceptual and epistemological confusion. The contradictions emanate from political instability, policy somersault, domestic forces and external environment of foreign policy. There is therefore the imperative need to fundamentally transform Nigerias lethargic foreign policy, re-fix the diplomatic compass, construct, deconstruct and reconstruct a new foreign policy architecture that is capable of significantly redressing the systemic foreign policy disorders and meeting the challenges of diplomacy in contemporary global system. Thus, at the theoretical and methodological levels, this lecture interrogates Nigerias foreign policy and the paroxysmal future of diplomatic practice. It draws from empirical and theoretical formulations on various aspects that impinge on Nigerias foreign policy.

Conceptual Discourse

In our trade in social sciences, we do our bargaining with the help of theory. Theory and practice address critical issues and cover the gap that may exist in the academic world. Stephen Walt has intimated us that policy makers pay relatively little attention to the vast theoretical literature in International Relations and many scholars seem uninterested in doing policy-relevant works. The reasons for this, he explains: First, scholars are more likely to read those works. Secondly, policy makers are unlikely to be swayed by advice to pay greater attention to academic theory. He concludes, If academic writings are not useful, however, no amount of exhortation will persuade policy makers to read them. In this lecture, I do not intend to dwell on theoretical exhortation but rather to marry both theory and practice.

I am aware that there are indeed contending approaches to the study of foreign policy generally and Nigerias foreign policy in particular. It has remained contentious among scholars and writers to analyze Nigerias foreign policy from one theoretical prism because there are contending theoretical approaches. Traditionally, the philosophical, legalistic, institutional and ideological were analytical tools before the advent of the behavioural movement in the 1950s.

We have often been misled that the state is the only actor in international relations, without understanding human beings and institutions that are involved in making decisions. One of the foremost Nigerias political theorists, Adele Jinadu has pointed out that we assume that structure and process are the main determinants of state-action in the public policy, but structure alone cannot be used to explain public policy without understanding the place and relevance of ideas to public policy. The idea of foreign policy is the philosophical foundations of such policy. In his words, the external reality of the phenomenal world is central to the public policy domain, much about public policy cannot be explained or understood without reference to the place and relevance of ideas to public policy. Foreign policy falls within the ambit of public policy that means that the philosophical world must be understood in its formulation.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, let me avoid living in one world but many theories. I will in this lecture dwell on the alternative theoretical map to follow in this discourse. This theoretical approach has been dominant among scholars on Nigerias foreign policy. Quite often, we erroneously assume that theory is only for theorists and practice is for practitioners. As I would not dwell so much on theoretical issues, I would do it just to illustrate the point or establish the relationship between theory and practice. However, this relationship is so complex that it cannot be resolved today.

From the philosophical point of view, the studies of actions of a particular state will be interpreted in terms of its consistency with basic principles of international law and its conformity with the moral purpose that is expected to inform the goals of foreign policy. It is a common knowledge that states behavior is predicated on its historical experience and geo-strategic location.

The dominant school is the realist paradigm which has provoked much interest and controversy. Nigeria as an actor in the international system exhibits the character of a state that aspires to dominate others. It has maintained from inception the principle of sovereignty and nationalism which are decisive on the foreign policy. There is every tendency for us to believe that Nigerias foreign policy is generally consistent with realist principles because most of its actions are still designed to preserve Nigerias predominance in the West African region and African continent as a whole. The pursuit of power is the guiding philosophy of realism which statesmen must vigorously pursue, conserve, consolidate and demonstrate at all times. This is the only condition for ensuring national security and maintaining order and peace in the political system.

While these debates reflect the diversity in the discipline of International Relations, I must not fail to point out that the behavioural approach to the study of Nigerias foreign policy still remains relevant. For any foreign policy decision made, there are some motives behind them. This is why Gordon Idang has eloquently and persuasively argued that in foreign policy making, reference is made to the personality and general dispositions and value preferences of the decision maker. In all this, many academics and few policy makers are loathed to admit it; realism remains the most compelling general framework for understanding Nigerias foreign policy. Each of these competing paradigms captures important aspects of understanding state behavior.

Mr. Vice Chancellor Sir, in the entire global terrain, states articulate and implement foreign policies in order to guide their external relations and protect or advance their vital national interests. Foreign policy and national interest are locked in a symbiotic relationship, and since the two intertwined concepts are germane to this discourse, their conceptual view within the context of our analytical construct is considered imperative in order to obviate any misunderstanding and misrepresentations of our viewpoint.

I would agree with Olajide Aluko who rightly observes that nobody has really formulated a universally acceptable definition of the concept, and probably nobody will ever succeed in doing so. Notwithstanding, notable scholars of International Relations have espoused their views on what foreign policy portends. Dougherty and Pfaltgraff define foreign policy as the formulation, implementation and evaluation of external choices within one country, viewed from the perspective of that country. Northedge simply construes foreign policy as interplay between the outside and the inside. Hence, foreign policy is essentially the instrumentality by which states influence or seek to influence the external world, and to attain objectives that are in consonance with their perceived national interest. Situating this within the context of, and linkage to national interest and its relationship with foreign policy pungently suggests that foreign policy and national interest are inseparable concepts in International Relations, and the foundation of a states foreign policy is its national interest which in turn directs the course of its actions in the global arena.

National interest is construed as the totality or the aggregate interest of individuals and groups within a given state. These are clear objectives that are pursued by States in their interaction with one another in the international system. It becomes an instrument of political action; it serves to justify or repudiate a states foreign policy option and action in the international system. This explains the interconnectedness of foreign policy and national interest. Suffice to state that national interest as a guide to the formulation of foreign policy is not an end in itself but a means to an end. It therefore means that it is a method of reaching a goal and in formulating such a goal, core values and national ethos are considered. Thus, the objectives or goals that Nigeria pursues are central to its survival. It is the totality of these goals that constitute the national interest. There is therefore the need to articulate the goals, though it may not necessarily guarantee the successful implementation of foreign policy.

It becomes imperative to espouse what was considered as the fundamental objectives of Nigerias foreign policy. Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa on August 20, 1960, underscored the primacy of National Interest of Nigeria. However, what constitutes the countrys national interest was not explicitly articulated. Indeed, Balewa administration and the two successive regimes of Major General Aguyi Ironsi and Gen. Yakubu Gowon merely premised their foreign policies on their perception of what they considered as Nigerias interests. It was under the Murtala/Obasanjo regime in 1975 that the broad strands of Nigerias national interest were clearly addressed. The regime in its own ingenuity set up the Adebayo Adedeji Commission to articulate Nigerias interest among other things. Based on the commissions report, General Obasanjo, in June 1976, identified the core elements of Nigerias National Interest which also constitute the objectives of its foreign policy to include:

the defence of our sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, the creation of necessary political and economic conditions in Africa and the rest of the world which will facilitate the defence of the independence and territorial integrity of all African countries while at the same time foster national self-reliance and rapid economic development, the promotion of equality and self-reliance in Africa and the rest of the developing world; the promotion and the defence of justice and respect for human dignity especially the dignity of the blackmen; the defence and promotion of world peace.

Former military President, General Ibrahim Babangida, conceived Nigerias national interest as predicated on the nations military, economic, political and security issues. In other words, anything that will enhance the capacity of Nigerians to defend their national security, promote Nigerias economic growth and development, and make Nigeria politically stable constitutes Nigerias national interest.

Similarly, Chapter 2 of the 1999 Constitution, which is the fundamental objectives and directive principles as provided in Section 19 (a-e) encapsulates the Nigerias foreign policy objectives to include: (a) promotion and protection of the national interest; (b) promotion of African integration and support for African unity; (c) promotion of international cooperation for the consolidation of universal peace and mutual respect among all nations, and elimination of discrimination in all its manifestations; (d) respect for international law and treaty obligations as well as the seeking of settlement of international disputes by negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and adjudication; and (e) promotion of a just world order.

Since the dawn of a new democratic era in 1999, a major trend is clearly discernible in Nigerias foreign policy. This is the desire to establish and maintain friendships with countries that have historically shaped global diplomacy while forging new alliances with emerging powers in the global economic arena. This trend reflects the countrys overall objectives as envisioned in its Vision 20-2020 document. To this end, six major determinants have underlined Nigerias foreign policy since 1999. These include: (i) removing the near-pariah status that the country attained during the last phases of military rule; (ii) remaining a key player in regional or continental politics, particularly in light of the increasing importance of the Gulf of Guinea; (iii) ensuring that external relations assist in domestic economic development, especially through strategic cooperation with traditional and emerging global economic actors; (iv) bringing about debt relief; (v) obtaining assistance to consolidate democracy; and (vi) improving the image of the country affected by negative press on the illegal activities of its nationals abroad. This citizen diplomacy strategy has also had a parallel domestic policy of ensuring an agenda to make the nation proud.

It is very clear that there is continuity across regimes in spite of changes in the pursuit of national interest. There is constancy in Nigerias foreign policy objectives and foreign relations from the civilian regime of Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa to President Goodluck Jonathan. What can be deduced from various regimes in terms of articulation of national interest is that, it is the leadership that determines what constitutes Nigerias national interest. It is widely acknowledged that there is a direct relationship between domestic politics and the making of foreign policy. There is therefore the need to establish the linkage between domestic politics and foreign policy.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, it is important to draw attention to the internal universe of domestic politics that has helped to define the foreign policy choices and actions. Nigeria is an amalgam of different ethnic nationalities that adopted a federal system of government imposed on it by the British. This federal system has its attendant consequence of citizenship and nationality questions. This domestic environment is conceptualized to mean those features, factors and forces peculiar to the state. Taking a sociological look at the domestic forces of foreign policy, it explains that foreign policy decision-making does not exist in a vacuum; rather, it operates within a constitutional framework, domestic institution and interest groups. The structuralist argument is that the elitist nature of foreign policy is traced to the social origins of the diplomatic corps of 19th Century. Ibrahim Gambari has made it eloquently clear that foreign policy formulation, articulation and implementation reflects the needs and aspirations of national elites of political, business, bureaucratic, military and traditional ruling groups. These groups of elite are never cohesive; they are deeply divided along ethnic, regional, religious and ideological lines.

Thus, there is lack of consensus on critical foreign policy issues such as the membership of Organization of Islamic Conference (O.I.C.), and severance of diplomatic relations with Israel in 1973. Pluralist argument is fundamentally important in this regard. Pluralists attempt to establish the fact that the Westphalia world of state-system has been sub-divided into interest groups, transnational corporations, and international non-governmental organizations, etc. Therefore, the impact of domestic factors on foreign policy can be appreciated by understanding how the sub-state actors exert influence over state institutions and decision-making processes.

Nigeria, like other countries in the world, has sub-state actors as the interest groups, public opinion and the mass media. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye have critically looked at the inter-connections between state, sub-state and non-state actors and how they affect the dynamics of foreign policy of states. The argument presented by the pluralist writers is that the level of political participation depends on the system of governance. Therefore, there is a link between democracy and foreign policy. The return of Nigeria to democratic rule in 1999 has enhanced its capacity to participate actively in global politics.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, as Nigeria is grappling with internal political contradictions in the foreign policy formulation and implementation, it is equally confronted today with an external environment occasioned by the new phenomenon of globalization. A number of scholars have alluded to the fact that the globalization of world markets, the rise of transnational networks and non-governmental organizations, and the rapid spread of global communications technology are undermining the power of states and shifting away from military security toward economic and social welfare. The challenges posed by globalization are the integration of the economic systems of nation states into global economy, the primacy and supremacy of international competitiveness, and the phenomenal rise in the internationalization of labour, capital and portfolio investments. The argument is that given the nature and character of the Nigerian state with its inherent weak domestic base, globalization has its adverse implications on the nations economy and in the conduct of its external relations.

Contemporary globalization is simply the latest form of capitalist penetration into Africa and the rest of the Third World countries. I agree with critics of globalization that say it is the newest form of colonization and slavery. As new global consciousness continues to direct the course of events, in the world, Nigerian protesters over the removal of fuel subsidy in 2012 were inspired by Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans who embarked on revolution to bring about a change in the political order. The struggles for emancipation in the Arab World have global reverberations. This was made possible through the new social media. It implicitly suggests the possibility of leaders emerging from the struggle that challenges and replaces the established leaders and helps to engender truly democratic governance that is based on rule of law, accountability and transparency.

Diplomatic Odyssey:

In the early period of Nigerias independence and up to the advent of the Second Republic, its external conduct could best be described as towering and most glorious. The statement of the First Republic leaders Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe and Alhaji Tafawa Balewa made it clear that Nigeria had an historic mission and a manifest destiny in Africa. This was why the regime made every effort to pursue decolonization policy in Africa. In the spirit of Pan-Africanism as initiated from the time of Sylvester Williams, W.E.B. Du Bois, Nigeria pursued policy rooted in the struggle against racism, colonialism, imperialism, exploitation and oppression.

Decolonization, particularly in Southern Africa, was a recurring theme in Nigerias Africa policy. The Balewas administration was totally committed to decolonization of Africa and was deeply obsessed with the eradication of racism and apartheid from Africa. This was demonstrated by the regimes declaration of total support for the freedom fighters with both technical and financial backing. In his words: we (Nigeria) shall never relent in our endeavour to prescribe South Africa as an unfit member of the international community as long as it continues to practice racism. This statement was a confirmation of the countrys anti-apartheid position which it viewed as inhuman and to say the least criminal to human race. It was seen also as a complete violation of the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as a negation of the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter. A practical demonstration of this was the great deal of sympathy generated by the Sharpeville massacre of March 1960 and the Soweto uprising of 1976.

Nigeria played significant role in the independence of Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Namibia. Nigeria was contrived to become a member of the frontline states in spite of its geographical distance from the Southern African region. The country became a founding member of the African Liberation Committee and served as chairman of the UNs anti-apartheid Committee. In other words, its total commitment towards the dismantlement of apartheid earned it the chairmanship of United Nations Committee against Apartheid, and it went further to establish the National Committee against Apartheid (NACAP) and the Southern Africa Relief Fund (SARF) in 1976 to provide relief materials to South African refugees and scholarships to black South African students in Nigeria. The country was in the forefront in the clamour for intensification of embargoes, boycotts and economic sanctions against repressive rule in any part of Africa. Dismantlement of apartheid and installation of black majority rule in South Africa in May 1994 was therefore a major grand finale and breakthrough in Nigerias articulated post-independence foreign policy.

As a demonstration of its principle of non-alignment, the Murtala/Obasanjo regime in 1975 recognized the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) as the authentic representatives of the Angolan people. This was the most dynamic, informed, assertive and activist foreign policy in Nigerias diplomatic history.This remarkable and bold step in its foreign policy adventure became the golden era of Nigerias foreign policy. Notwithstanding the death of Murtala Muhammed in 1976 in an abortive coup, the foreign policy of Nigeria remained aggressive, radical and militant in nature. Olusegun Obasanjo who succeeded him consolidated Mohammeds efforts, and Nigerias voice continued to be heard in global politics. The regime applied punitive measures against the British government over its policy in Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and South Africa. Thus, in 1978, the regime of Obasanjo nationalized the British owned Barclays Bank and the Nigerian government took over 80% of the companys shares and changed its name to Union Bank of Nigeria Limited. In a similar way, the British Petroleum was nationalized in 1979. These actions were taken to hasten the Lancaster Conference talk to usher in Zimbabwes independence in 1980.

Nigerias greatness and adventurous foreign policy was further demonstrated in its peacekeeping mission. Since its independence in 1960, Nigeria has been involved in peacekeeping operations in the different troubled areas in the world. It participated in peacekeeping mission during the Congo crisis in 1960. Nigeria contributed troops under the auspices of the United Nations peace operations. However, the Prime Minister, Tafawa Balewa made it clear that Nigeria supported United Nations peacekeeping operations for the purpose of maintenance of law and order. In 1977, Nigeria equally participated in the peacekeeping operations during the civil war in Lebanon.

Nigeria as the leader of the sub-regional organization, Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), initiated the formation of the ECOWAS Ceasefire Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) during the Liberian civil war in the 1990s. Peacekeeping mission therefore constitutes a fundamental area in which it has, within the context of its leadership image in West Africa, strived to resolve conflicts in the sub-region. Bola Akinteriwa has observed that: Nigerias record in peacekeeping operations worldwide, and particularly Africa, is impressive and second to none in Africa. The record is a reflection of unwavering commitment to peace as instrument of national and African development. Indeed, the deployment of ECOMOG in Liberia and later Sierra Leone was an historic action aimed at conflict resolution in Africa by African States.

Babangida graphically illustrates:

Being responsible members of ECOWAS, we believe that it would have been morally reprehensive and politically indefensible to stand by and watch while the citizens of that country (Liberia) decimate themselves and other West Africa citizens resident there in an orgy of mutual antagonism and self destruction.

General Ibrahim Babangida also alluded to the security implication of the civil war in Liberia and justification for the deployment of Nigerian troops to Liberia under the aegis of ECOMOG. In his words:

Unless arrested, the carnage in that country (Liberia) could have spilled over to neighbouring countries, leading to external non-African intervention and thereby posing a security threat to us all. We therefore decided to send our troops to participate in this laudable peacekeeping mission.

Nigeria was also involved in the resolution of conflicts in Sudan, Somalia, Rwanda, Cote dIvoire and now Mali. In some cases, the country committed blunders in its actions. For instance, Nigeria supported the use of military action against Laurent Gbagbo. It backed the United Nations Security Council resolution on the use of force to force Gbagbo to surrender. Akinjide Osuntokun has rightly observed that Nigeria was complicit in the intervention, when French military intervened in crisis in Cote dIvoire. It was paradoxical that in spite of the tremendous support Nigeria gave to President Alassane Quattara, it was treated with ignominy and disdain. This became obvious as Quattaras first state visit was to Senegal on May 12, 2011; and during his inauguration, glowing tribute was paid to France and French leader (then) - Nicholas Sarkozy was singled out for recognition while no mention was made of Nigerias President Goodluck Jonathan. This is something that needed to be pondered over by the Nigerian policy makers.

However, it must be acknowledged that Nigeria has shown strong commitment to peace and security in Africa and the rest of the world. A UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations report of May 2010 noted that the country had approximately 6,000 men and women participating in peacekeeping missions. This figure is surpassed only by Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. The involvement of Nigeria in peace operations had earned it recognition, with a member of the Nigerian army, Lieutenant General Chikadibia Obiakor appointed as the United Nations Military Advisor for Peacekeeping Operations. The UN subsequently accredited the Nigerian Army Peacekeeping Centre, making it one of the four facilities in the world where UN peacekeepers are trained before deployment to missions.

Apart from actual troop mobilization, Nigeria was very proactive in restoring peace in Sao Tome and Principe when there was a coup detat while the President, Frederique de Menezes was on a state visit to Nigeria. President Olusegun Obasanjo was credited to have resisted regime change not only by ensuring the return of de Menezes to power, but also accompanied him back to the country safely without any further intimidation or molestation from the coup plotters. Nigeria equally ensured that Guinea Bissau returned immediately to transition to civil rule when the government of Kumba Yala was ousted in a coup detat; and in Togo as well, the government of Obasanjo insisted that the country returned to constitutional rule following illegal assumption of power by Faure Gnassingbe after the death of his father Gnassingbe Eyadema. All these point to the fact that Nigeria has the ability to transform the character of its foreign policy. Perhaps, one may say that these adventurous actions in the West Africa region changed the perception of the international community that had earlier ostracized Nigeria and branded it as pariah state. Nigerias opinion began to be sought on global issue and was respected.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, I might be committing serious omission in this lecture if I failed to acknowledge the role of Nigeria in the transformation of OAU to AU (African Union). Besides, Nigeria showed more concern about African problems and therefore without mincing words; it insisted that there must be home-grown solutions to Africa problems. In this direction, it initiated with South Africa and Senegal the establishment of the New Partnership for Africas Development (NEPAD) in 2001. NEPAD document provided the path for socio-economic agenda of the newly conceived and later AU, which today, represents Africas development framework. Subsequently, in pursuance of good governance policy in Africa, Nigeria as a new democratic bride was instrumental to the introduction of a scheme called The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). This is a scheme for African Governments to present their score cards of performances in their respective countries.

It is interesting to note at this point that Nigeria has continued to use the platform of multilateral diplomacy to project its foreign policy since independence. Without boring this audience with the catalogue of activities by Nigeria at various international institutions notably the United Nations, OAU/AU, Commonwealth, ECOWAS, G77, OPEC, it is important to single out the period 1999 to 2007. This is because Nigeria adopted new diplomatic approach through the instrumentality of multilateralism. This was necessary because of negative image the country has earned during the period of military rule, especially with the annulment of June 12, presidential election in 1993.

We will recall the Abacha regime and the area boy diplomacy under the Foreign Affairs Minister Chief Tom Ikimi. It was against this background that the newly elected President Olusegun Obasanjo, in 1999 embarked on shuttle diplomacy using personal contact and multilateral institutions to woo both enemies and friends of Nigeria. Indeed, between May 1999 and Mid-August 2002, Obasanjo embarked on 113 foreign trips, spending 340 days out of the country. In explaining his reasons for undertaking the trips, Obasanjo stated:

I have devoted much time and energy journeying virtually all corners of the globe on my personal effort to positively reintegrate our country into the international community and attract investment. We are happy to report that the results from these trips have been encouraging enough to confirm my personal belief and the advice of marketing experts namely that personal contact is the best way to market your product. And my product is Nigeria.

Nigeria aspired within this new era of democratic experiment to regain its respect and relevance in the international arena. Most striking was the thrust on the promotion of foreign investment, trade and policy of debt repudiation and reduction. With the readmission of Nigeria to the Commonwealth in 1999, it bidded to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in December, 2003.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, as an expert in Foreign Policy, I am most fascinated by the economic diplomacy employed by the regime of Olusegun Obasanjo. As it has been alluded to in this lecture, I would like to present a graphic picture of the gains achieved through the shuttle diplomacy. Nigeria was granted estimated $18billion debt forgiveness by the Paris group of creditors. The sum of $12.4 billion balance representing a regularization of arrears of $6.3 billion plus a balance of $6.1 billion to complete the exit strategy was to be sourced from the nations foreign reserves, which had hit $26 billion including the excess crude oil proceeds of about $10 billion as at the end of September 2005. This constitutes a major foreign policy achievement and engagement with the global powers.

Nigerias relationship with her traditional allies United States and Britain is worth reflecting on under the current diplomatic adventure. The emergence of a new democratic era in 1999 changed the phase of the US Nigerian relations. There are four main issues that underline Nigerias relations with the U.S. under the current democratic dispensation. These are: assistance in military professionalism and security sector reform; the support for global war on terror; trade and investment; and efforts to ensure debt relief and financial assistance. As regard the professionalization and security reform, there was unusual consensus among foreign policy elites under Obasanjos administration. For instance, the idea of entering into a military agreement with the US was not acceptable to most elites. Arguably, the invitation of the US military training team, the Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI) to train members of the Nigerian army would amount to foreign domination and an act of military imperialism. Similarly, the issue of the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) was also objected to; but surprisingly, the Yar Adua administration either naively or out of inexperience endorsed it when he (the President) visited United States. Nigeria has continued to enjoy the military collaboration with the United States to the extent that President Barack Obama in 2011 donated two warships to Nigeria.

Terrorism is a global phenomenon and therefore deserves comments. America views with serious concern the activities of terrorists in different parts of the globe. It is also important to establish that there is a link between religious radicalization and terrorism. Nigeria is most vulnerable because of its chequered history of religious riots and crises. Therefore, US expects that Nigeria should not be indifferent to the global war on terror. Unfortunately, Nigeria was placed on the USs Terror Watch List, especially with the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in December, 2009. However, Nigeria was more compelled to join in the US war on terror and this became a foreign policy priority to Nigeria. As a matter of urgency and in fulfillment of the condition to remove Nigeria from the US Terror Watch List, the anti-terrorism bill before the National Assembly is meant to be passed without further delay.

Another area of the Nigerian US relations is in trade and investment. Trade improvement between Nigeria and the US was a great priority since 1999. Nigeria has been involved in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which was passed by the US Congress in May 2000 to provide duty-free and quota-free market preferences for about 6,400 products from sub-Saharan African countries to the US markets till 2015.

Critics have observed that Nigeria has not benefitted much from AGOA because Nigerias products are not economically competitive in the US. Coupled with the problem of infrastructure such as power, transport and delay in ports combined to increase the cost of production of some of the goods to be exported to the US markets.

Nigeria and US relations are further concretized with the signing of Bi-national commission in April 2010. This is aimed to establish a mechanism for sustained, bilateral, high-level dialogue to promote and increase diplomatic, economic and security cooperation. The commission seeks to promote cooperation in efforts to resolve conflict in the Niger Delta and to protect US multinationals operating in the Niger Delta region.

Nigerian-British relations have remained cordial since the dawn of a democratic rule in 1999. The relationship between the two countries is at diplomatic, trade, debt relief and recovery of looted fund, and fighting corruption in Nigeria. It was reported in August 2010 by the Deputy Chief Executive of UK Trade and Investment, Susan Haird that trade in services from the UK to Nigeria in 2008 amounted to approximately GBP 27 billion, while exports from Nigeria to the UK in 2009 stood at about GBP 600 million.

This attentive audience also desire to know where Nigeria falls in the midst of emerging economic powers. In the 1980s and 1990s, we were constantly singing the success songs of Asian Tigers-Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. Today, it is now Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa to complete the circle which is now called the BRICS states. The emergence of this group in the world economic stage has caught the attention of Nigerias foreign policy makers. In particular, China is a giant economic power house in contemporary global system. Interestingly, the volume of trade between Nigeria and China has increased since 2001. In 2001, it stood at about $1.44 billion, $1.169 billion in 2002, $1.86 billion in 2003, $2billion in 2004 and to $2.83 billion in 2007. In 2011, trade between Nigeria and China reached $7.76 billion, thus making Nigeria the fourth largest trading partner and the second largest export market of China in Africa. Chinese companies are involved in the construction, oil and gas, technology, service and education sectors of the Nigerian economy. China in turn has increased its volume of agricultural exports from Nigeria. Also, in 2011, the government handed over the Olorunsogo Power Station in Ogun State to a Chinese consortium led by SEPCO III Electric Power Construction Corporation of China. China provided 65% of the funding required for 335-megawatt-capacity Olorunsogo plant and also 335-megawatt-capacity Omotosho Power Station in Okitipupa, Ondo State.

Also the principle of exchanging oil for development was adopted by the Nigerian Government as a part of diplomacy to woo China to assist in the development of rail transport. In April 2011, the government signed a contract to rehabilitate the 2110 kilometre Eastern rail line with Chinese company China Gezhouba Group Corporation.

It is indeed imperative to remind this audience that the widespread failure of the hegemonic Washington Consensus has led to the rise of a counter-vailing Beijing Consensus and proliferation of Look East policies across most of the developing world based on the Chinese model of development Similarly, Ramo has remarked that:

China is marking a path for other nations around the world who are trying to figure out not simply how to develop their countries, but also how to fit into the international order in a way that allows them to be truly independent to protect their way of life and political choices in a world with a single massively powerful centre of gravity.

The second scramble for Africa has brought China as a major competitor into a region that is exclusively reserved for the Western powers by their own creative ingenuity.

Diplomatic DysfunctionalityMr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, greatness is not measured in terms of strength but by the ability to sustain what has been achieved. During the formative stage of Nigerias nationhood, the foreign policy was consistently tilted towards the West. Prime Minister, Abubakar Tafawa Balewas pronouncement of a policy of non-alignment was only on paper because there was no firm commitment by his government towards it. The Anglo-Nigeria Defence pact with the British government in 1961 was seen as a misnomer. The pact provided that Nigeria would grant Britain unrestricted overflying and air staging facilities in Nigeria. This policy was opposed by articulate Nigerians leading to its abrogation in 1962.

The Balewa regime was not dynamic in its foreign policy approach. This may be as a result of limited financial resources to support foreign policy dynamism. During the Congo (D.R.C) crisis of 1960, Nigerias behaviour showed an act of timidity as it emphasized law and order. Similarly, on the issue of Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), the Balewa administration took a conservative stance.

Gowon administration was equally confronted with both internal and external constraints that made it impossible to pursue more active foreign policy. Despite the buoyant economy in which the regime conducted its foreign policy, the idea to elongate its Military rule beyond the agreed timetable created widespread internal discontents and this led to his overthrow in a bloodless coup staged in July 1975 by General Murtala Mohammed.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, during the Second Republic (1979-1983), Nigerias external image and diplomatic profile began to dwindle and consequently, its leadership in African affairs was seriously eroded as it vacillated on some critical issues of national interest. The country virtually lost all its respect to the extent that some African states had the effrontery to cross into Nigerias territory to attack and kill its soldiers and civilians with impunity.

Shagaris administration was not able to maintain the momentum of the policies of the Murtala/Obasanjos era. The regime was deeply attached to the West to the extent that the whole argument of pursuing non-aligned policy was only on paper and not in action. The recklessness and mismanagement of the economy made it impossible for the administration to meet up with its foreign policy challenges. There was a serious threat to domestic peace and stability because of economic hardship occasioned by the austerity measure adopted by the regime. The resultant effect of this domestic problem was that Nigerias leadership in African affairs became questionable, as it was not able to take a stand on critical issues such as Western Sahara and Namibia. The regime was also caught in a deep foreign policy crisis over the expulsion of three million West African citizens who were regarded illegal aliens. This was in contrast to ECOWAS policy on free movement of peoples within the sub-region. Again, the timid official policy towards Chad, when it participated in the ill-fated OAU peacekeeping force in that country between 1981 and 1982 inspired little or no respect for Nigeria because of installation of a regime opposed to Goukouni Weddeye.

Nigeria also demonstrated a sign of weakness when the regime was pressurized by America not to attend the OAU Summit in Libya in 1982. This was why Nigeria was seen as a mere demographic and economic Gulliver on the continent, but a political and diplomatic Lilliputian in African affairs.

The Buhari regime was seen as international bully and compounded the image crisis through its draconian anti-human rights policies and decrees. The Decree No. 4 of 1984 barred any publication on public officials which was designed to gag the press and other mass media. Besides, Decree No. 2 undermined the Writ of Habeas Corpus as the basic principle of rule of law and fundamental freedom. An attempt by the regime to abduct Umaru Dikko from Britain back to Nigeria under questionable circumstances caused serious diplomatic embarrassment for the country. The regime embarked on the policy of expulsion of illegal aliens, which brought about the Ghana Must Go era. For this singular act, the country suffered a great deal of diplomatic tongue-lashing and global media criticism, especially for a country that is positioned to be a regional influential.

Nigerias relations with ECOWAS member states degenerated as the countrys borders were permanently closed against its neighbours, thus, hurting the economies of its immediate neighbours: the Republics of Benin, Niger and Chad. These countries depended on Nigeria for their exports and imports.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, Nigeria reached a crescendo in its diplomatic enterprise, especially in the second half of the 1980s and most of the 1990s, and receded to diminuendo. The country continued to operate in a circle of diplomatic dysfunctionality. While it must be acknowledged that under the Babangidas administration then, the countrys diplomatic profile rose to a point, particularly with the introduction of the Technical and Aid Corps(TAC) scheme, the regime could not sustain the momentum as it was rather immersed in its own internal domestic contradictions. Nigeria began to battle with image crisis as a result of corruption which systematically and pragmatically became official policy of the regime. This was a great paradox. As the regime continued with the problem of moral image question, the truncation of the democratic process dealt a mortal blow to the entire nation. The surreptitious annulment of the June 12, 1993 Presidential election brought about international condemnation and was seen as an affront to the advancement of democratic ethos. This led to a wide-range of sanctions against Nigeria by the international community.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, Nigerias image crisis reached its zenith during Abachas era. General Abacha instituted a form of Machiavellian dictatorship never known in the annals of the country. Indeed, his ruthless personality affected his dealings with fellow countrymen and the international community. As Fawole puts it:

in the five years he reigned, General Abacha presided over the most combative and defensive foreign policy in Nigerian history. Abachas brand of diplomacy pitched the regime in conflict with the West, because of poor domestic policies particularly the issue of human rights which condemned the regime to a state of permanent isolation.

General Abachas despicable human rights abuse reached its climax with the judicial murder of Ken Saro Wiwa and eight other Ogoni environmental activists. This led to the expulsion of Nigeria from the Commonwealth of Nations and severance of diplomatic relations with its traditional allies. The country derogatorily became a pariah state in the international system following General Abachas self aggrandized effort to transmute from military head of state to a civilian president.The various actions of the regime further stigmatized it from the international community and this probably forced the regime to court new allies. Following the death of the dictator on June 8,1998, a process of reconciliation with the lost friends and allies commenced as his successor, General Abdusalami Abubakar tried to redeem the image of the country before handing over to the President-Elect, Olusegun Obasanjo on May 29, 1999.

Under Obasanjos civilian administration that commenced in May 1999, the Bakassi issue resurfaced. The International Court of Justice ruling in 2002 and the 2006 Green Tree Agreement are issues to be reflected on. The way and manner the government of Obasanjo prosecuted the case in spite of the huge resources expended on it exposed the degree of dysfunctionality in Nigerias diplomatic conduct. Nigerias leadership exhibited an act of diplomatic naivety. At the initial stage after the World Court verdict, there was massive public outcry over the Nigerian government attitude towards the case. Consequently, Obasanjo attempted to renege on the handover date. The National Assemblys call for a referendum was borne out of opportunism rather than on genuine concern for the rights of the Bakassi people.

Nigeria surrendering itself to the World Court left it with no option than to accept the ruling of the court. At the height of the controversy, the then UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, brokered a diplomatic agreement in 2006, when the Obasanjos government timidly accepted to withdraw Nigerian troops, dismantle governance structure and subsequently effect hand over of the peninsula to Cameroon within 60 days. The overriding import of the Green Tree Agreement was to ensure that the two parties (Nigeria and Cameroon) uphold the International Court of Justice (ICJ) verdict. Perhaps, one may conjecture that Obasanjo acted in order to curry favour of America and the other Western Countries to secure their support for his third term agenda bid. This may be contested but the truth is that no nation ever agrees to surrender any part of its territory that it has hitherto occupied for years to another. Indeed, the general consensus, mostly in informed circle, is that Bakassi crisis constituted a major sore in the countrys diplomatic pursuit. The President inadvertently violated the constitution he swore to uphold. This is because the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria reads in part: no treaty between the federation and any other country shall have the force of law except to which such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly. This provision is only intended to set a standard in the enforcement of treaty, but international law recognizes the fact that a treaty that is validly entered into by sovereign head of states becomes binding without ratification from the national parliament. This is in line with the principle of Pacta Sunt Servenda. Akindele and Akinsanya have remarked that President Obasanjos attitude could be likened to Louis XIV of France. In their words:

Obviously, he (Obasanjo) was aware of the implication of concluding an executive agreement such as the Green Tree Agreement but cared less since he governed the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the mould of Louis XIV of France. If he was not an imperial President, he should have caused that provision to be inserted in Green Tree Agreement making its entry into force contingent upon legislative approval.

In addendum, the eventual handing over of the oil-rich peninsula to Cameroon in 2008 by Yar Aduas regime without the relevant section of the 1999 constitution symbolized another fraud and illegality. The government did not consider it politically and legally expedient to amend the section of the constitution that included Bakassi Local Government as one of the 774 local governments listed in the constitution.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, how do we explain all these ambiguities to the outside world? How do we expect to command respect of others? I have earlier alluded to in this lecture that there is an interface between the internal and external environments of foreign policy. Thus, a countrys external image is determined by how it conducts its affairs domestically. The Bakassi issue was one of those diplomatic blunders and may continue to haunt the country for generations to come. No wonder, the Seventh Nigeria National Assembly realized that Nigeria should still appeal the judgment of the World Court as provided in Articles 60 and 61 of the Courts statute. To that effect, there was a call in 2012 for the Nigerian government to appeal to the ICJ without understanding the legal requirement for appeal. Of course, there was no fresh argument to warrant an appeal, hence government lackadaisical response. This matter will not be exhausted in this lecture, let me save the time of this assemblage of academics and attentive audience to discuss the basic fundamentals of this lecture.

Contradictions in Nigerias Quest for Power/Influence in the International SystemMr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, Nigerias quest for power and influence in the global politics has been inhibited by its image crisis that it has been grappling with for three decades. There are various other challenges confronting Nigerias foreign policy. These challenges reflect the contradictions in its quest for power and influence in the global politics. It is important for purpose of clarity to situate these contradictions within the context of those issues that manifest negatively in its life.

The first issue is corruption which has created a negative image for the country. The current image problem is a result of widespread corruption which has reached its apogee in the last ten years. A country that is inflicted with this kind of cankerworm cannot parade itself as a power in the world. It must be clear today that those years of hyperactive role by Nigeria in the global peacekeeping and humanitarian actions were not because of the genuineness of the leaders to make Nigeria great but simply as a way of siphoning money abroad. At home, corruption in the public offices or official circles is so alarming. Some instances will suffice at this point. During Obasanjos regime as the military head of state, the administration was alleged to be unable to account for the sum of N2.8 billion oil money. Similarly, Shagaris administration was characterized by corruption while Babangidas administration could not also account for the windfall of about $12.4billion during the Gulf War in the 1990s. Abachas regime was also notorious for reckless looting of the treasury. It was estimated that Nigeria realized $20 million daily from crude oil without any disclosure by the regime. It was confirmed that about $5 billion have been stashed in Swiss, UK, German and American banks respectively. Within the few months of General Abdusalami Abubakars regime, the sum of $7 billion external reserve funds could not be accounted for.

Thus, we can see how Nigerian leaders have engaged in the competing race for corruption. It is the worst paradox in economic theory of corruption that each leader that rules the country wants to be applauded for having stolen more than his predecessors. The same scenario applied to those in the public offices whose looting has earned the country the title of the third most corrupt nation in the world. It is not surprising to any keen observer of Nigerias corruption index profile that the following persons have been celebrated corrupt officers not in the law court but the court of public opinion. The former Minister of Housing under Obasanjo civilian rule , Mrs. Mobolaji Osomo was relieved of her appointment because of a housing scandal involving about 207 top government officials, the former Minister of Education Prof. Fabian Osuji was similarly sacked for offering bribe to the tune of N55 million to some Senators including the Senate President Adolphous Wabara; a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Miss Patricia Etteh was also involved in misappropriation of $5 million for the purchase of 12 cars and refurbishing of two houses. These are just a tip of the iceberg as there are other instances well known to everyone. The Code of Conduct Bureau in exercise of its investigative function reported in September 2005 that 14 state governors were operating foreign accounts. Empirically, there were some celebrated fraudulent cases of some governors of Plateau State, Joshua Dariye, Bayelsa State Diepreye Alamieyesigha, Delta State, James Ibori, Edo State, Lucky Igbinedion and the Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun.

Joshua Dariye was arrested in London in 2005 for money laundering and was granted bail but later jumped the bail and subsequently returned to Nigeria, contested and won election into the National Assembly as a Senator. Diepreye Alamieyesigha was arrested at the Heathrow Airport in London on September 15, 2005 and was equally charged for money laundering. He was found with about 1 million cash during a search of his London residence by detectives from the Scotland Yard. This is in addition to the sum of 420,000 and 470,000 found in different bank accounts and assets worth 10 million. In Nigeria, Alamieyesigha was accused of diversion and misappropriation of public funds to facilitate the acquisition of N1 billion shares in Bond Bank Plc and purchase of Chelsea Hotel in Abuja for N2 billion. Similarly, Tafa Balogun as the then Inspector-General was charged for corruptly enriching himself to the tune of N17 billion while in office thereby impoverishing men and women of the Nigerian Police Force.

For a country that aspires to be a regional influential but found itself deeply immersed in corruption, it is the worst contradiction. Politics is a game of influence and for a country to influence others, it must be seen to be influential. This is the paradox of Nigerias quest for leadership in Africa and a major player in global politics. For those steering the affairs of the Nigerian state to engage in transnational criminal activity with impunity and without the slightest compunction smacks of gross irresponsibility.

Notwithstanding the setting up of two main institutions to fight corruption Independent Corrupt Practices and other related Offences Commission (ICPC) and Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), it is not yet clear that the government is serious about fighting corruption and reducing it to the barest minimum. Recent state pardon granted to DSP Alamieyesigha by President Jonathan generated international and local outcry to the extent that the proposed visit by the US President Barack Obama to Nigeria was cancelled. United States diplomatic relations with states is tied to fundamental principles of rule of law, good governance, transparency and accountability. Thus, it is not until the government begins to show seriousness in fighting corruption that Nigeria will be taken seriously at the international level.

It is one thing to device a slogan at home, such as the one designed by the then Minister of Information, Dora Akunyili good people, great nation, it is another thing to back it up with good diplomatic conduct abroad. Until the fundamental domestic sources of the image problem are addressed, Nigerias aspiration as a regional influential will remain an illusion. This is why Nigerias aspiration to occupy one of the exalted seats in the United Nations Security Council as a permanent member will be a wishful thinking because of loss of confidence in Nigeria by the same African countries that would have flexed muscles to support Nigeria.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, another fundamental contradiction in Nigerias foreign policy is its policy of Afro-centrism. The successive Nigerian leaders have invested so much resources, both material and human, in the prosecution of this policy of Africa being the centre piece of diplomatic relations. In other words, it committed itself resolutely to certain actions to demonstrate its unflinching support for Africas cause. Unfortunately and disappointingly, many of the countries that have benefitted tremendously from Nigerias largess often turned around to show ingratitude to both its citizens and the government itself. Not quite long, South Africa exhibited xenophobic attack against Nigerian citizens living in that country. This was a country that every child at secondary school then contributed money to ensure the freedom of the black population. It is most ironical that it was the same blacks that marked Nigerians living in their country for extermination. Besides, the countries it has supported financially, diplomatically and strategically becomes but the butt of derision and envy by them.

Some of these countries equally harbour or even offer training facilities for terrorists, while others campaign openly against Nigerias bid to occupy one of the permanent seats of the United Nations Security Council. What this implies is that the policy option of Africa as the corner stone of its foreign policy is largely unrequited and unappreciated. To say the least, Nigerias leadership position and role as a regional and continental power is unbelievably and visibly challenged.

Furthermore, this despicable display of attitude of ingratitude became obvious in 2010 when Nigeria contested for the non-permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, and what ought to be unanimous election for Nigeria was grossly eroded by the abstention of the Guinean Permanent Representative and most embarrassingly the outright voting against Nigeria by Liberia and Sierra Leone. These were countries that Nigeria sacrificed both human and material resources to safeguard and ensure their survival from the fratricidal wars that threatened their nations. From these instances, it has become clear that the age-long philosophical notion of Africa as the center piece of the countrys foreign policy has become moribund, mundane and anachronistic.

The policy of Afrocentrism and non-alignment are long overdue for review. In the midst of economic challenges, the country cannot pretend to be comfortable in carrying the burden of leadership in Africa and claim at the same time to be non-aligned. It follows logically and reasonably to argue that the dynamics of the contemporary global system makes it politically expedient for states to define their foreign policies and external relations within the context of their national resources and geo-strategic location. Besides, Nigeria is caught in the system that is contemporaneously characterized by a new phenomenon of globalization. Despite its huge natural resource endowments, there are distortions in the nations economy as a result of its incorporation into the global economic relations.

Nigerias development impotence is largely attributable to its weak domestic economic structure. The international political structure through which power is exercised must be congruent with the structures of economic production. Nigeria has continued to depend on oil production for its foreign exchange earning. At any point in time, there is a fall in oil price in the international oil market; Nigeria is put in a traumatic and helpless situation. This helps to explain further how and why Nigerians are caught in the desperate mood to strike a balance between the old life-style and new life-style occasioned by either rise or fall in oil price. This is partly the reasons why some Nigerians sought to maintain themselves by acting as couriers of illegal drugs. This is not good for a country that aspires to be great.

This gathering deserves to be told the truth that since the introduction of Structural Adjustment Programme by the Bretton Woods institutions - World Bank(IBRD) and International Monetary Fund (IMF), the economies of African states have become externally managed. The phrase, structural adjustment as coined by the then President of World Bank, Robert MacNamara, at a meeting of the Banks Board of Governors in Belgrade in October, 1979 was designed to address the problems in African economic management as articulated in a number of reports commissioned by the World Bank such as Accelerated Development in Sub-Saharan Africa (known as the Berg Report of 1981); the Bank report on Africas Adjustment and Growth in the 1980s of 1989; and Governance and Development report of 1992. In all these, the Bank consistently took a liberal or market-oriented approach to economic management on the assumption that economic rationality was a constant across all societies. This approach negates the development of independent economic management policy. It is against this background that Nigerias economy vis--vis the Structural Adjustment impacted negatively on the countrys aspiration to be one of the top 20 world economies by the year 2020.

Structural adjustment challenged the political as well as the economic basis of power and independent statehood which the governing class sought to establish and maintain from the beginning. These elites needed to extract resources and control the resources in order to sustain state power. The elites are caught in a dilemma of either following the Bretton Woods institutions injunctions and allow the citizens to die in hunger or to disobey the institutions and face the consequences. Majority of us in this auditorium were witnesses to the SAP riots of 1989. In a similar version in 2012, the Occupy Nigeria and Save Nigeria Group protest was a fallout of the sudden removal of subsidy from petroleum product. This shows the link between economic benefits and political stability. However, the imposition of political conditionalities by the Western financial institutions such as multiparty electoral democracy, political accountability, good governance, rule of law, human rights, due process etc, have made it difficult for the country to operate freely in the international arena as a truly unfettered sovereign state. Whereas, it is plausible to argue that the implementation of structural adjustment policies requires a courageous, ruthless and perhaps undemocratic government. This explains partly the action of the government in 2012 during the protest to call the military to the street to quell the protest. Frankly speaking, Nigeria cannot afford to be indifferent or be isolated from the global economic interplay. This is why conscious efforts should be made by the leadership to transform the nations economy so as to fully harness the benefits of globalization. The various endogenous and exogenous factors that have attempted to undermine macro-economic stability in the country should be frontally tackled. The critical sectors of the economy such as agriculture, mining, industry, and energy should be the focus of economic diplomacy of the countrys foreign policy, for the purpose of sustainable growth and development.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, the issue of insecurity affects all of us in this gathering; therefore it must be taken seriously. Nigeria has been grappling with the problem of armed insurgency in the genies of ethno-nationalist movements in the Niger Delta region and the Northern region. The various movements described as ethnic militias such as Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC), Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP), Egbesu Boys, Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta(MEND), Boko Haram etc. Nigeria is perceived both at home and abroad as an unsafe place to live and do business. At a critical time of armed insurgency in the Niger Delta, most of the multinational oil corporations shut down their operations. There were frequent cases of armed robberies, kidnappings, economically and politically orchestrated assassinations and killings, etc.

This is the worst paradox and contradiction for a country that desires to be among the twenty most developed economies of the world in the Year 2020. This was why an intelligence report predicted in 2006 that in the next fifteen years, Nigeria may no longer be seen in the world map. This prediction was greeted with serious criticisms by Nigerias leadership. If we must tell ourselves the truth, the terrorist attacks against public institutions, religious homes, and international institutions cannot be justified in a decent society. Given this scenario however, the country may gradually degenerate to hobbesian state of nature, where it was a war of every man against everyman. The most recent prediction was after the 2011 presidential election, former American Ambassador to Nigeria, John Campbell, raised the fear that Nigeria would likely break up along religious and sectarian lines if President Goodluck Jonathan, a Christian from the Southern part of Nigeria was returned as President at the expense of General Muhammadu Buhari, a Muslim from the North. Even though Nigeria has not broken up as predicted, the situation in the North gives cause for concern.

Since the assumption of Goodluck Jonathan as the president of Nigeria, the country has acquired the unenviable notoriety as a veritable theatre of terrorism and implosions unleashed by the Boko Haram insurgency. Thus, this has posed serious insecurity to the country and a threat to foreigners and investors. Nigeria has remained on the front burner of contemporary global discourse. This security challenge has diminished the countrys ability to command global respect. Former Commonwealth Secretary General and current Chairman, Presidential Advisory Council on Foreign Relations, Chief Emeka Anyaoku pointed out that: the security in the land is a drag on our foreign policy no doubt, because our standing abroad depends on our domestic conditions. So to the extent that we have insecurity at home, it is a drawback to our foreign policy. This explains why America gave Nigeria the condition that for it to be delisted from the list of countries on the terrorist watch list, the country must demonstrate seriousness by passing the anti-terrorist bill. Recently, also, America has announced $7 million reward for anybody who could give information about the leaders of Boko Haram. This shows the importance attached to security in the conduct and prosecution of foreign policy. As Ogunsanwo observed, the domestic architecture that represents the infrastructural foundation of Nigerias foreign policy must be adequately re-worked in order to ensure that the countrys foreign policy stand on a firmer ground.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, you will agree with me at this juncture that Nigeria is suffering from internal decay which poses a considerable threat to international order. The security debacle has created a common space within which we situate the health of Nigeria in global trade. So, while terrorism and proliferation of small arms and light weapons are clearly discernible, we must go to the root of the problem which has to do with poverty, illiteracy, and underdevelopment. Although, one cannot justify the act of terrorism and other means of protest or resistance by groups on political, philosophical, ideological, religious or ethnic grounds. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that there is a correlation between conditions of extreme poverty, injustice, hopelessness, marginalization, political oppression and the likelihood that people may take up terrorism as a means to vent their discontent. It becomes most imperative for the government to address the socio-economic challenges that the people face in Nigeria to avoid further contradiction in our global quest for power and influence. The more insurgent movements continue to spring up from different parts of the country, they may for the purposes be regarded as quasi-states, and then begin to exercise many of the functions of statehood, including the conduct of external relations.

Beautiful Abroad but Ugly at Home: My thought about the future of Nigerias Foreign PolicyMr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, let me at this juncture explicate on the metaphorical import of the topic of this lecture. To be beautiful is to be attractive, elegant and comely. A beautiful behaviour by individuals or an institutional entity like Nigeria connotes acts of benevolence, kindness and sometimes sacrifice geared towards the good of others. Over the past fifty years of independence, Nigeria has executed various foreign policies, much of which moral referent can be interpreted as beautiful. From the altruistic involvement in the fight against apartheid in South Africa, to the deployment of massive human and material resources to the operation of ECOMOG in Liberia and Sierra Leone, among others were acts of benevolence. The beauty in Nigerias foreign policy can steal the heart of the most disinterested suitors. The various commendations and awards on peace keeping operations that the country has received from international organizations such as the United Nations Organization attest to the aestheticism that characterize and define Nigerias foreign policy.

Let me emphasize that if only the political elites have complemented the external beauty with internal virtues, the country would have assumed a commendable position in the global affairs, and the green-back passport would have been carried with a sense of pride and dj vu. Alas, as the Great Preacher, King Solomon noted in Proverbs 31 thousands of years ago, Beauty is vain and favour is deceitful. It is axiomatic that while Nigeria has been exhibiting acts of benevolence abroad, the domestic environment has been marked by ugliness in terms of tolerance for corruption, avarice, greed, primitive capital accumulation and sheer lack of direction on how to achieve development. The fallout of these unfortunate domestic conditions are the high level of poverty, inequality, insecurity, mutual distrust, individual disillusionment and hopelessness among the old and the young and ethnic antagonism (instead of cohesion) that now define the daily existence of an average Nigerian.

It is instructive to note that as a Policy Science, Foreign Policy and the returns or benefits that a country derives from it are a function of strict observance of certain immutable laws and generalizations. The most salient of these is how healthy is the domestic condition in terms of political stability, economic buoyancy, social cohesion and that sense of pride of the individual citizen, (patriotism) that may warrant dying for the sake of the country. To all intents and purposes, these qualities are below expectation in Nigeria as of today.

Notwithstanding the current unpalatable domestic situation and the attendant losses in the foreign policy milieu, there are ample opportunities for the country to derive some benefits from its foreign policy. This will involve turning around the ugly domestic situation around through social and political re-engineering of the country, which will involve a change in the nature and character of the state, entrenchment of a culture of participatory democracy, active citizenship, taming the monster of corruption and value re-orientation. Of course, the economy must also be strong both at the level of performance as indicated by growth but also structurally, with equitable distributive impact. At the specific level of foreign policy formulation and implementation, the government must discard the current top-bottom approach, which to all intents and purposes has been dysfunctional and unproductive. To the extent that foreign policy affects the lives of people at micro and macro levels, the citizens must be involved in its formulation through consultation and dialogue. The neglect of the intelligentsia in foreign policy making in Nigeria has been one of the Achilles heels. This must be urgently addressed by ensuring that experts in various fields such as Political Science, Economics, History and Strategic Studies, Mass Communication and so on are involved from conception to implementation.

Achievement of dynamic, virile and robust foreign policy as an instrument of obliterating Nigeria from the docile and fragile foreign policy constitutes a critical issue that dominates contemporary diplomatic agenda. Regrettably, the variety of diplomatic strategy that has consistently been adopted to achieve this end has not realistically resolved the debacle in a fundamental sense. This lecture contends that it is only through a well articulated, cohesive foreign policy plank that Nigeria can obviate its perennial, incoherent foreign policy.

I allude to Atah Pines submission that while there have been conceptual and doctrinal transitions in Nigerias foreign policy, in reality, these have not been borne out of political faddism, pragmatic exigencies, conceptual elegance and regime identity. Hence, Nigerias foreign policy over the years can be summed up to be change and continuity, motion without movement, and dynamism without surge.

Almost fifty-three years has passed in Nigerias foreign policy pursuit. The time is auspicious now for government to outline its visions of the countrys foreign policy in the next 47 years. There is need for a paradigm shift in the manner of conducting our foreign policy. It is incumbent on the government to reconstruct the nations foreign policy and put it back on the path of dynamism and aggressively engage in diplomatic assertiveness and proactiveness that characterized the Murtala/ Obasanjo foreign policy pursuit in the seventies when Nigeria was visibly brought into global reckoning. The domestic and international conditions have changed and there is the need to overhaul Nigerias Foreign Service apparatus through the instrumentality of the Foreign Affairs Ministry. This becomes imperative in view of the fact that the Ministry requires now, more than before, highly competent and professional diplomats that are well informed, adequately versed, representing honest opinions seriously held and convincingly expressed on the nitty gritty of Nigerias diplomacy and diplomatic practice. For the Ministry to perform its sacred diplomatic responsibilities as expected, government should ensure proper funding of its foreign missions. It is incumbent on the Jonathans administration to re-organize the obtuse and rapacious Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The ministry in partnership with the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) and the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies(NIPPS) as think-tanks are expected to be veritable avenues and very highly-respected platforms for canvassing and articulating critical issues on Nigerias foreign policy in contemporary context.

Conclusion

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, so far, I have had a panoramic view of Nigerias foreign policy, provided an epigrammatic account of it, engaged in deep and philosophical reflections on it, articulated its historical trajectory from its foundation, examined critically and holistically the diplomatic algorithm, diagnosed the matrix of diplomatic disarray and disjointedness, dissected the gamut of the diplomatic odyssey, highlighted the ebbs and flows of events that characterized the various epochs, and x-rayed the dysfunctionality of the foreign policy and the diametric disequilibrium between foreign policy formulation and execution. This is the tradition in academics, that is, the ability to navigate around issues and proffer solutions.

All that is left for me is to stress pungently that the weakness or outright dysfunctionality in Nigerias foreign policy has proven distinctly unremarkable, and it is evidently detrimental to the interest and survivability of the nation. There is therefore the need for a paradigm shift and proactive transformational plans to reverse the degeneration that characterized the nations diplomatic practice. For us to stand tall within the contemporary global community, there is the need to fashion out a new progressive diplomatic agenda that will boost the profile of the country and fundamentally conform to current global realities.

Recommendations

Mr. Vice Chancellor Sir, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, in the light of the foregoing, the following are my concrete recommendations:

1. Nigerias foreign policy in contemporary global context should necessarily involve the countrys best minds. Hence, there is need for a major re-organisation of the nations Foreign Service. Ambassadorial positions should no longer be politicized. Only career diplomats and practitioners who understudy and understand the nuances of international relations and global politics should be appointed as Ambassadors and High Commissioners. The era of arm-chair diplomacy is gone and appointment of kleptomaniac politicians to represent the country in ambassadorial position should be discountenanced.

2. Recruitment into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be based purely on merit, and not sacrificed on the altar of political expediency or parochial exigencies. Diplomacy is a game of elaborate rules requiring a thorough professional acumen. Hence, considerable emphasis should be laid on professionalism through the instrumentality of training. In this regard, the certificate programme designed for the newly recruited officers at the Foreign Service Academy should be restructured to be in tune with contemporary global realities. Similarly, the Masters degree in International Relations and Strategic Studies being run for the Ministrys officials by the Department of Political Science of this University should be further strengthened. The University should provide more congenial serenity for effective and efficient running of the programme.

3. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be re-organized to ensure adequate synergy between it and other Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDA). It should be sufficiently funded to enable it discharge its statutory obligations. The number of Foreign Missions should be streamlined to manageable proportion. The Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) should not just be an appendage of the Ministry; it should be recognized as its powerful research arm and policy think tank.

4. Since the economy constitutes the bedrock of a vibrant foreign policy, government should holistically address the economic challenges confronting the nation. The economy should be diversified and be attuned to the realities of contemporary globalization. The economic diplomacy framework of the Jonathan Administration should be radically retooled to meet contemporary challenges.

5. Nigerians in Diaspora should be properly recognized in the scheme of foreign policy articulation and implementation. They have a prominent role in advancing the foreign policy of the country and hence should be given sufficient diplomatic attention. Their input and intellect should be sought and tapped for the benefit of the country.

6. There is the need for a strong strategic plan and long term projection of the nations foreign policy posture with a view to fashioning out a roadmap for Nigerias diplomacy. A realistic and rational analysis of our foreign policy scenarios will give room for strategic calculations of the costs and benefits of the nations diplomatic practice.

7. There is the necessity for an urgent remedy to the current abysmal security challenges in order to spruce up the battered image of the country. Government should robustly unravel the root causes of the insurgency. The nations security intelligence should be reappraised while the security operatives including the Police, State Security Service and the National Intelligence Agency should be adequately equipped to fight terrorism. The Boko Haram insurgency must be fundamentally contained and nipped in the bud. Government should not under any illusion or pretext grant amnesty to the Boko Haram terrorists who have been persistently involved in serious human rights perversion. Instead, members of the sect and their sponsors should be fished out and brought to justice.

8. While the internal logic of reforms of the Jonathan Administration seems to be coherent and predicated on the perception of Nigerias social reality, it failed to address the fundamental problem of corruption which has become a cankerworm that has eaten deep into the fabric of the nation. There is therefore the imperative need to frontally confront the pervasive, corrosive, systemic and episodic character of corruption in the nation.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude by reiterating emphatically that Nigerias forei