Foreign Policy in Yaradua’s Administration
CHAPTER ONE
Objectives of Study
This study seeks to analyse the relationship between the personality of President Umaru Yar’Adua and his foreign policy statements and administration. It aims tounderstand if the personality of Nigeria’s Yar’adua had a role to play inhis policy statements and objectives.
- To review the late presidents Yar’adua administration on the foreign policy.
- To examine the performance of his administration
- To identify the impact of his administration on Nigerian
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
Foreign policy has become a useful component that defines relations between and amongst states. Generally, we may say, a country’s foreign policy thrust bottles the totality of the acts, strategies and manipulations by a given state in her process of launching her domestic resolve in the international arena. Chibundu (2003:1) crisply notes that foreign policy is “a country’s response to the world outside or beyond its own frontiers or boundaries. Such response may indeed be friendly or aggressive, casual or intense, simple or complex, but it is always there.” This means that the said „response‟ which critically requires a dependable and accurate means of attainment has a vital quality. That is why it is generally accepted, both in theory and practice, that in relations with one another, nations should vigorously pursue their national interests and seek to protect it at whatever cost. Certainly, a nation’s foreign policy is the political instrument or technical framework upon which it pursues its domestic interest. To be clear, Morgenthau (1973) asserts that “no nation can have a true guide as to what it needs to do in foreign policy without accepting national interest as a basic guide.” If this is to be likened to the Nigerian scenario, for example, then, the overall concern should be focused upon those parameters of Nigeria‟s core values that constitute essential components of her foreign policy. Therefore, it is important to contemplate: Do various Nigerian leaders consider the country‟s national interest at all, in the pursuit of foreign policy thrusts? It is worth mentioning, herein, that since the First Republic, Nigeria‟s foreign policy has been largely Afro-centric in posture. Take for instance, in an official statement just before independence, on August 20, 1960, Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, at the Federal House of Assembly stated that Nigeria was, “adopting clear and practical policies with regard to Africa; it will be our aim to assist any country to find solution to its problem” (Tafawa, 1960:3). Similarly, one significant event that took place under late General Ironsi‟s regime was the June 1966 Ambassadors‟ Conference, held in Lagos to re-examine the premises and directions of Nigeria‟s foreign policy. Among other issues ironed out, the conference re-dedicated Nigeria‟s external outlook to the total emancipation of all African territories still under colonial tutelage and racial discrimination. This position was further reinforced when General Ironsi persuaded everyone into the assumption that, „in the whole sphere of external relations, the government attaches greatest importance to our African policy‟ (cited in Al-Hassan, 2008:7). It was under the above foreign policy directions, mainly, that the Nigerian state delicately ventured into the complex theatre of international relations in the first place (Asobie, 1990:13). This position could be better appreciated when we consider the fact that successive regimes in the country accorded significant attention to Africa as the centre-piece of Nigerian foreign policy. Whatever had been the case, definitely, we may have to adjust our mindsets towards the understanding that nation-states all over the world necessarily design and implement foreign policies in order to guide their external relations as well as protect, promote and defend their vital national interests (Aluko, 1981:9).
CHAPTER THREE
EVALUATING YAR’ADUA’S FOREIGN POLICY ACTIONS
First to be stated is that human beings articulate and pursue foreign policy objectives. Even though Obasanjo was on top of Nigeria‟s foreign policy articulation and implementation during his regime, and virtually boycotting his foreign minister, Yar‟Adua was never. Let us just say that the late President Umaru Musa Yar‟Adua was in so many ways the opposite of Obasanjo‟s personality. We may not be very interested in commenting elaborately on his health issues though, which in the first place diminished any sense of personalization of the foreign policy structures. More in particular, the foreign policy machinery naturally deducted itself from the office of the President, which it was hitherto arbitrarily and forcibly subjected to. This was the reason why the country‟s foreign policy was rightly left for the Foreign Affairs Minister, Chief Ojo Madueke, to etch and achieve. In this sense, technical competence and objectivism were rationally employed into the art of diplomatic relations, such, leading to ambitious diplomatic designs and frameworks that were to genuinely translate into favourable outcomes. The only seeming misfortune about this new development, however, was that owing to his indisposed nature, a natural causality, Yar‟Adua was particularly unable to play virile part in certain areas of bi-national and multinational diplomatic concerns that practically demanded outright invocation of astute personality and firm authority. Generally speaking, there were in fact compelling convictions, as most analysts adjudged and in line with the thrust of citizenship diplomacy, that Yar‟Adua had a genuine intention for the country‟s image and people abroad. Remarkably, the Administration had in various ways fought hard for the welfare and good of Nigerians in diaspora. Mainly, the plight of Nigerians, a large number of them, languishing and perishing in various countries of the world became an important port of concern and concentration for the Administration. The Administration did not only develop a rescuing urge but focused vast attention and resources toward salvaging Nigerians dying in foreign prisons. An outstanding step taken by the Administration in this regard, therefore, was the negotiation for exchange of prisoners with other countries. In fact, the regime made painstaking efforts and calls, which rather fell on deaf ears, to intervene in the cases of over twenty thousand Nigerians serving merited and unmerited jail terms in prisons across Europe and Africa (1,500, in Libya; 391 in India; 15 in Nepal; 14 in Japan; 13 in Canada; 40 in Niger Republic; 150 in Togo; 1400 in Britain, etc) (see Omenma, 2009:263).
CHAPTER FOUR
THE FOREIGN POLICY OF CHINA IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT
The People’s Republic of China is a socialist republic governed through the Communist Party of China, the Central People’s Government and their provincial and local counterparts. The leadership of the Communist Party is stated in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Under the dual leadership system, each local bureau or office is under the theoretically coequal authority of the local leader and the leader of the corresponding office, bureau or ministry at the next higher level. People’s Congress members at the county level are elected by voters.
The President of the People’s Republic of China, officially appointed by the National People’s Congress, is an office under the National People’s Congress and it is the head of state. The National People’s Congress is the highest authority of state power in China. It meets every two weeks to review domestic and foreign policy matters. The State Council also has a significant role on policy designs.
The post of President alone holds a merely ceremonial position with no real power. Before the 1990s, presidents did not have any administrative power and the position was that of a powerless figurehead. Without veto he had to execute the decisions of National People’s Congress. However, since 1993 the President also serves as the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China. This not only gives him the position but also power and makes him responsible for establishing policy and direction for the state as well as foreign policy decisions.
China officially states it “unswervingly pursues an independent foreign policy of peace. The fundamental goals of this policy are to preserve China’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, create a favourable international environment for China’s reform and opening up and modernization construction, maintain world peace and propel common development.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
Foreign Policy is made and conducted in complex domestic and international environments. Decisions made the head of government are a result of complex interactions. There are no definite answers on why leader’s take the decision they do. In this paper I have merely attempted to highlight some motivating factors for foreign policy decision making especially bringing out the impact of political environment. The reason why I have chosen political system as the foundation for decision making by the head of government is because, regardless of the kind of system the head of government’s ultimate goal is to remain in power. He is to some extent first and foremost obligated to fulfil domestic expectations before making any foreign policy decisions. Even a completely Monarchic leader has the fear of being overthrown. Acceptability in domestic politics is therefore crucial to the head of government. As mentioned earlier, foreign policy is made and conducted in complex domestic and international environments. Domestic politics influences foreign policy decisions and if a policy is not accepted at home it unlikely to succeed in the international context. Foreign Policy analysis needs to be multilevel and multifaceted in order to understand the complicated motivational factors and nature of foreign policy. Sometimes, leaders may have to resort to suboptimal foreign policy due to domestic political demands. In an earlier cited example we can see that the head of government in India, Manmohan Singh, was willing to sacrifice a very legitimate foreign policy agreement which would have beneficial for the country itself also, to safeguard his position in office. Also in the cases cited I have highlighted how in different political systems the head of government is influenced by the domestic politics. In the United States we have seen that, it being a democracy, acceptability and consensus of the senate is a prime concern for the head of government. On the other hand China is not afraid to adopt stringent foreign policies because rather than acceptability and popularity, achieving domestic agendas holds greater importance. In Jordan we see that despite being a Monarch where decisions solely lie on the head of government, the decisions taken by him were to maintain domestic popularity. It was King Hussein who had the authority to take decisions as he pleases but he chose to maintain a good face at home rather than pursue a foreign policy that was urged by great powers such as the US and Saudi Arabia. I have also touched upon other factors that may influence the head of government in foreign policy decision making such as rationality and individual cognition. The role of International Organizations and media was also mentioned in the later part of the paper. However from all the examples cited I can conclude in most cases, domestic politics forms the basis of any decision making for the head of government. After that many other factors come into play and may steer his decisions in different directions.
Conclusion
In this study, we made objective attempt to evaluate Nigeria’s foreign policy under President Umaru Musa Yar‟Adua. As earlier demonstrated, citizenship diplomacy was mainly a pro-citizenship philosophy and assumption, targeted at safeguarding the welfare of the country’s citizens, both home and abroad. Even though we recognized that such foreign policy thrust was so positively unique and laudable, certain distorting inactions prevailed upon and hastened the abridgement of the policy. Otherwise put, the inability of the Yar‟Adua‟s Administration to equate such attractive foreign policy with relevant actions, owing mainly to the inhibiting health challenges of Yar‟Adua while in office, worked hard to impinge on the successful attainment of the goals set out in the policy of citizenship diplomacy. particularly, bargaining, lobbying and severance were not proactively and preemptively applied where and when necessary, mostly as a result of Yar‟Adua‟s unavoidable indisposed nature and/or absence in office. All the same, there are some important lessons to learn from the evaluations made in this study. For one thing, foreign policy ought not to be articulated in a vacuum without a view and assurance of the available wherewithal for its implementation. For another, to make better sense, foreign policy should be positively matched with relevant actions. Since foreign policy is inexorably dependent upon a number of sustainable foreign policy actions, it is therefore only rational and contextually proper that every available diplomatic ingredient to that effect, be simultaneously approximated alongside the articulation of whatever foreign policy that is to be adopted. What we mean here, ordinarily, is that it is not enough for a country to fashion out a fashionable foreign policy. Every foreign policy to be prompted and promoted must in reality go with such considerations as to: What financial muscle do we have to do this? What military power do we have to do this? What voting advantage do we have to do this? What this, what that, etc. Such logical diplomatic congruence legitimately determines the level of achievement to be recorded in the international field of play. All this while, these vital logicalities have either been neglected or entirely overlooked by successive Nigerian leadership, including the Yar‟Adua‟s Administration in focus, and after. Though one political reality remains that, Nigeria, as the most populated black nation in the world, has a reservoir of potential diplomatic willpower to effectively back up, achieve and sustain whatever proactive foreign policy option it desires or takes up. Upon this persuasive premise, therefore, Nigeria shouldn‟t relent at all! She should not appear politically reluctant and docile – doing nothing and watching things spoil for her out there. All necessary diplomatic tools must be holistically harnessed and deployed accordingly in radical pursuit of her foreign policy. In all, it is our utmost conviction that citizenship diplomacy is a sound foreign policy thrust of vital substance and significance. As such, it is suggested that subsequent Nigerian leadership should elaborately incorporate the essential elements of citizenship diplomacy in molding their foreign policy thrust and build therein afterwards.
Recommendation
Nigeria’s foreign policy has since independence been consistently guided by the same principles and objectives. However, the emphasis that has been persistently laid on them by successive regimes in the country differs depending on the domestic context with which decisions are made, the external environment and the attitudinal posture of the foreign policy makers at a given point in time. The foreign policy environment of the country in the future is likely to be influenced tremendously by the same principles and objectives with necessary adjustments and modifications depending on the orientations of the political leadership and the existing circumstances in the global system. Thus, Nigeria’s national interest will continue to be jealously guarded by any government in power irrespective of its political or ideological inclinations.
The researcher therefore recommends that the foreign policy principles of Nigeria should be modified by “economic diplomacy” that tackles effectively, issues such as debt relief, foreign investment and promoting the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). It is therefore necessary for the country’s political institutions including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, and the Presidential Advisory Council on International Relations to be strengthened for re-effectiveness in executing this policy. Nigeria should domesticate goals of democracy, good governance and respect for human rights in order to ensure that its leadership role in Africa is credible. It is also imperative for Nigeria’s foreign policy makers to enhance their own sectoral legitimacy by consulting more widely through the instrumentality of public opinion and by adopting a proactive stance of explaining its fundamental objectives to the wider Nigerian society
References
- Adeniran, T., (2007) Introduction to International Relations, Lagos: Macmillan Nigeria Ltd.
- Adeola, G. L. & Adeola, A. O., (2015) the politics of globalisation in Africa: Averting industrial failure in the New Millennium. International Journal in Management and Social Sciences (IJMSS) 3 (2) (February) USA www.ijmr.net.us
- Agbu, O., (2007) Nigerian foreign policy under President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua: Challenges and prospect. Being a paper Presented at the One-Day Seminar on Citizen Diplomacy organized on the by the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (N.I.I.A), Lagos, 29th of November
- Akinboye S. & Ottoh F. O., (2005) A systematic approach to international relations, Lagos Concept Publications [4] Akindele, R. A., (2003) Foreign policy in federal politics: A case study of Nigeria. Lagos: World Press.
- Akunyili, D., (2009) the time is now: Speech Delivered as the Honorable Minister of Information and Communications at the Launch of the Re-branding Nigeria Project, March 17, 2009.
