THE DANGER OF ADOPTING THE STREET APPROACH TO NIGERIAN FOREIGN POLICY

By Prof. Hassan Saliu

Students of Nigerian foreign policy are excited about the high level of interest that Nigerian foreign policy has generated in recent times in public discourses. This, no doubt, speaks to the impact of democracy on the country’s foreign relations. Beginning with the high profile of foreign trips being embarked upon by President Buhari and their contents, Nigerians have not stopped interrogating some aspects of the nation’s foreign policy. Of particular interest to me in this intervention is the tendency by some Nigerian commentators especially members of the political class to be taking steps using the formal structures of foreign policy to canvass their personal views and perspectives on the thrust of Nigerian foreign policy under the current government without minding their long time implications for Nigeria. One of such occasions was the recent visit to China by President Buhari to seek economic support to implement the 2016 annual budget. As expected, opinion differs on why Nigeria should be going around the world to shop for funds with which to fund the high level of deficit contained in this year’s budget. While some Nigerians who were opposed to the visit of President Buhari to China in the second week of April, 2016 at the instance of the Chinese have based their disapproval of it on some geo-strategic and imperialistic considerations, there are others who have argued that there is nothing unusual in Nigeria reaching out to other parts of the world for economic assistance.
Specifically, this paper examines the implications of the decision of Mr. Ayo Fayose, the Ekiti State governor to set aside all caution to write a letter opposing the federal government in seeking to get loans and/ or investment capital into the dilapidated infrastructural sub-sector of the country’s economy from China, the second largest economy in the world. As events later turned out, the Buhari government, contrary to the assumptions of Governor Ayo Fayose, was mainlyinterested in attracting investment into the country under favourable terms.
Also, it was agreed that the Chinese currency would be used as an alternative to the US dollar in transacting businesses at the world stage with a strong possibility of the country serving as a kind of hub in West Africa on this score. Not waiting to get the details of the agreements reached with China and perhaps informed by his motives, Fayose went overboard in advising the Chinese authorities not to borrow the country money judging by the high level of resources being committed to servicing the accumulated external debt of the country. Good as the intervention was in terms of citizens’ engagement of foreign policy, the resort to writing to the Chinese President through the embassy of China in Nigeria and his decision to back this up with his visit to China, were awkward approaches that have betrayed the little understanding of the inter-state relations especially its delicate context that often compels actors on the international scene to be mindful of the actions they take in the international system.
If Fayose had expressed his opposition to the China trip and the expected outcomes which may look offensive to him, using internal platforms in the country, probably not much fuss and indignation would have followed his concerns as a citizen of Nigeria. But on this occasion, he chose to externalize his engagement.
By his action, he has poorly digested the whole concept of citizens’ engagement of foreign policy. Taking after Fayose, Femi Gbajabiamila has equally written to the president of China, Xi Jinpin to repudiate whatever arguments that Fayose had massaged in his letter. Also, as a citizen and the House leader, no one can stop Gbajabiamila from resorting to self- help on behalf of his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC). But the problem is that no matter how open a society may be and what one feels about an issue, there is the need for restraint in dabbling into international issues given the nature of the international system. Again, how can one justify and defend his own intervention beyond the interloping theory that he has propounded on Fayose?
As the leader of the House of Representatives, his brief does not include writing to the sovereignty of another country whatever may be the issues and how he feels about them. While no one denies that patriotism could be the motivation for the two letters, the Chinese have the right to deconstruct them and draw their own conclusions which one is almost certain would not be in accord with the pedestrian considerations of the two personalities. This is the worry of this writer. Foreign policy is such a sensitive policy arena that does not require any self help by people who have no mandate to do so or are operating at the margins of being spoilers or attention-seekers.
To forestall misunderstanding, foreign countries, their agencies and indeed, international actors always watch events as keenly as possible to draw their far reaching conclusions on the next steps to take about other countries. Unfortunately, neither the President nor other intruder politicians may be in a position to anticipate or erase the backlash effects that may follow the street approach to the country’s foreign relations.
At this point, one wants to sketch out some of the costs that Nigeria is attracting by allowing personalities who are not officially designated to speak for her to invade the foreign policy turf with a careless approach. Before going into that, it is also important to caution even some government officials to mind the briefs of their offices by not meddling into the foreign policy arena through their deep commentaries. Two of such personalities are Raji Fashola and Lai Mohammed. While Alhaji Mohammed can be forgiven at times because he is the spokesperson for the Buhari government that consideration can hardly be extended to Raji Fashola.
Nothing guarantees Fashola, a cabinet minister the right to reflect deeply on Nigeria’s Foreign Policy outside the cabinet and making such public. As a kind of super Minister, he already has his plate full especially with housing deficit, bad roads and darkness that the country has been condemned to by her leaders. Surprisingly, he still found the time to render unsolicited self help to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Geoffrey Onyeama who a week or two later came out in Lagos at a Town Hall Meeting to agree substantially with Fashola in his defence of the foreign trips of President Buhari.
As for Alhaji Lai Mohammed, his information on the China trip flew in the face of the realities of the trip as given by Garba Sheu and Femi Adesina, both aides of the President, indicating that not much has changed in terms of uncoordinated approach to Nigerian foreign policy. As remarked by a columnist, the Minister of Foreign Affairs was completely missing on the radar and when he eventually showed up to make some clarifications, Professor Bola Akinterinwa was not sure if his clarifications were even needed on the issue of currency swap as the explanations he offered have since been countered by some officials of the government such as the Governor of the Central Bank, Mr. Godwin Emefiele and some Chinese officials who have spoken on the visit and the numerous agreements reached.
Back on the issue of the dangers of the resort to street approach, one notable danger is the confusion that this will transmit to the outside world especially now that the image of a country in some instances is much more important than the reality of its existence. No doubt, the image will suffer not minding the courteous remarks of the outgoing Chinese ambassador, Gu Xiaojie when he visited the President in May, 2016. The point being made is that in 2013 when President
Jonathan visited China with a large entourage and signed some agreements, not much was realized by Nigeria let alone now that the bent of street approach is the high point in Nigeria-China relations. This author is afraid to remark that more work will certainly need to be done to make the goals of all the visits realizable based on President Buhari’s promise of working on all the previous agreements.

However, agreements in inter-state relations are works in progress that still have a long road to travel before they become manifest achievements. Any untoward action such as writing a letter to the Chinese not to assist Nigeria in overcoming her economic challenges is tantamount to sabotaging the country and a development that can be latched on by low spirited economic partners of Nigeria. Politicians and even Nigerians generally can hold a different view from that of the government and go public with it. It is however bad politics to turn the global arena into an avenue to ventilate their ill- conceived ideas based on the nature of politics within the country.

Nigeria does have rivals in Africa in terms of counting on China for support. South Africa, Zimbabwe, Angola, Ghana, etc., are surely some of them. If these countries show more decorum than Nigeria, the expectation that with a large market, the country can behave as she likes may not make the efforts of President Buhari to count much especially given the grim economic circumstances at home.

More signs of disunity are likely to be seen by the international community through the reckless incursions of some Nigerians into the foreign policy arena. Neither Mr. Fayose nor Gbajabiamila has the mandate to speak for the Federal Executive Council or write to the President of another country. It is only the President or his designated officials that are expected to do that. To that extent, the bitterness that motivated Fayose may be interpreted more deeply and seriously than
the word that THISDAY newspapers has found for his letter in one of its recent editorial- silly resort. What the fayose episode has therefore shown about our political parties is that they are as disoriented as most of their members. The point being made by the governor save writing to the Chinese would have been made better by his political party, PDP through well informed reactions made in the country that would have carried the necessary weight and attracted much more attention including from the targeted country, China. Ideally, an institutional approach to opposition is much better and rewarding than operating as a one man riot squad, more so when such a person is limited both in training and experience on international issues.

Long after Fayose may have completed his term in office as governor and critic of Buhari’s government, Nigeria may still have to be paying the price. China has many requests on her table. Nigeria is just one of them. The country does not have the luxury of misbehavior in the international system and still hopes to gain handsomely from it. More worrisome is the fact that the trade balance between the two countries is more in favour of China and the country is not yet the largest economic partner to China in Africa beyond her potential large market being eyed
by Beijing. Fayose ought to have appreciated all these before he took a gamble with his letter to the Chinese President. Gbajabiamila was therefore correct in describing Fayose “a meddlesome interloper”.

One cannot agree less with the description as seeking loans and other economic transactions from the global system in the current federal system in Nigeria are a federal responsibility, not that of the states. Moreover, the governor got his facts wrong when he argued that the efforts of the president at seeking assistance from China enjoyed no legislative backing. Other factual errors such as the amount involved in the transactions, the percentage being committed to servicing debt in the country, etc., would suggest poor understanding and the penchant towards propaganda on the part of Fayose. Based on all these, the Governor should have minded the myriad of problems facing his state that he has the constitutional backing to attend to instead of displaying his ignorance on the international scene and thus abdicating his responsibility to the good people of Ekiti state.

Unknown to Fayose, as President Buhari was being received in China, another global event was taking place in Japan to commemorate the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan with the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, in attendance. As an interested party, the Chinese viewed the event more seriously given the raw deal they had received in the hands of Japanese during the Second World War. The implication is that China had a divided mind when meeting with Nigeria and the tempestuous letter of Fayose may be the excuse needed to renege on some of the agreements reached. Nothing is cast in iron and stone in the international system. It bears repeating that not all the previous agreements reached with China have been fully implemented but with Fayose’s irritant letter, all may not be equal in the circumstance as the element of reluctance can show up anytime to deny the country the much expected financial elixir from China.

The memory of the Fayose missteps can linger on for long. He may not have anticipated the dangers of his approach but those actors who relate with the country may not be in a hurry to forget the letter, its contents and what it portends for Nigeria’s international relations. Its impact may begin to show in the further reduction in the influence level of Nigeria that is already a reality in the international system.

Calls may start pouring in on Nigeria to review some economic agreements she had previously signed with some countries on account of the strong views expressed in Fayose’s letter to the Chinese. If this happens, the Ekiti governor may inadvently be harming his own state as whatever happens to the nation will also affect the people of Ekiti state whose interest is being appropriated by the unusual tenant in Government House in Ado Ekiti. As repeatedly made known by the President especially during the signing ceremony of the 2016 budget, the economy has been ran aground by his successor in office. Concerted efforts are therefore required by all Nigerians and their foreign friends to revamp it. To that extent, Fayose ought to have thought through his option of writing a letter to the Chinese President because of its repercussions that may be more devastating than the base politics that he is more familiar with.

From the foregoing, Mr. Fayose can be considered a credible threat to Nigerian Foreign Policy and by the same token, a compounder of the country’s external image problem. It is in the nature of international relations to be sensitive to any wave or current especially when it touches on long term economic relations between and among countries. One immediate potential cost of the garage approach adopted by Fayose is the reversal of the tangible and intangible diplomatic gains being engendered by the President that are encapsulated in good external image for the country. More Nigerians need not to take after him in his reckless pursuit of opposition. We recognize his right to disagree with the APC and even the President but extending that opposition across the borders in the form of writing a formal letter to another sovereignty when no personal danger is being anticipated and when he is not the symbol of Nigeria’s sovereignty, is reckless and unexpected of a state governor who should show more exemplary conduct and behaviour in the country. To be sure, Fayose in his tactless incursion into the foreign policy stuff was not well briefed and he is therefore not a good model on how citizens can engage Nigerian foreign policy with a view to effecting more desirable change in its content and orientation.