Nigeria
says other nations interfere in its internal affairs. It may have to
take a second look at a few things. One is how elastic words such as
internal affairs and sovereignty have become in contemporary global
reality.
Egypt
is close by as an example to look at, anyway. It’s one country that has
itself learnt to look at the United States of America which has
perfected the art of overlooking claims of non-interference in internal
affairs to deliver punches on enemies wherever they may be. There’s also
the Vatican where the Pope presides. For long, it abhors use of
military force in other people’s territories. Seeing the horror of
decapitating heads that the Islamic State perpetrates in Syria and Iraq
lately however, the Papacy has nodded to the use of military force
against IS which everyone says is really a death cult. Such are the
blows the concept of sovereignty has received in the face of new
realities.
If the Vatican doesn’t look at the
US at all, it sure realises now that the world is such that power and
use of force are the only words a few hardened actors on the
international stage respect. Yet, on that stage, everyone takes a cue
from someone else. Who Nigeria copies from is of concern to this writer,
if it copies at all, and if it understands that there are new
challenges in the international system that demand shifting borderlines
of concepts and principles in order to meet them.
Take Egypt for
instance. Some extremists chose to decapitate its citizens so it went
after them in Libya. It wasn’t the first time Egypt was reported to have
crossed the border into Libya on a similar mission. Some nations on the
continent hold the opinion that Egypt infringes upon the sovereign
rights of Libya, no doubt. But the African Union has not released a
statement of that nature in the name of its member states from its
glistering office in Addis Ababa. One is sure however that if it calls
for a vote on the Egypt-Libya matter, Nigeria will be among nations that
feel Egypt has trespassed. What makes one think this way is the
long-term conservative, unbending view of this country on foreign policy
issues: Each country must be absolutely sovereign in its internal
affairs, there are no two ways about it, where Nigeria is concerned.
Reading
Nigeria’s foreign policy makers, a matter concerning sovereignty is
ever black or white. It doesn’t matter that a leader has killed
virtually all his people under a dictatorial rule, the complications of
which Nigeria will be among the countries to be called in to untangle.
It’s the reason this nation doesn’t say a thing when one expects
officials to stand on a podium in Tafawa Balewa House in Abuja and send a
word of caution to African nations whose leaderships veer off the path
of sanity into the path of disaster. Nigeria doesn’t; not even when a
public declaration of the official position of the nation (as the US
does regularly) may be good enough to reprimand an African nation that
takes steps in the direction of becoming a failed state. It explains why
Nigeria considers the interest as well as the actions of some western
nations in the 2015 general election as an undue interference in its
internal affair. It also explains why Nigeria has some inherent powers
it can exert on the international stage but never seems fit to utilise
it.
Not long ago, Nigeria’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Ambassador
Aminu Wali, called members of the diplomatic mission in the country to
Tafawa Balewa House and spoke to them of how they should learn not to
interfere in what was the country’s internal affairs, accusing some of
them of going beyond known practices in a foreign country. Now, where
this piece is heading is farther than that. How no nation can expect to
be taken seriously except it shows its muscles for others to see is one
of them. How long established concepts and doctrines are being adjusted
and adapted to meet new challenges on the international stage is
another. Both say a thing on Nigeria’s view of what interference in its
internal affairs means.
One leader was informed that he should
give another nation its due respect. He had asked something like, how
many soldiers can the nation put on the battlefield? The leader was
former Soviet Union leader, Joseph Stalin. The man understood only one
thing – power, military or otherwise. He knew it’s what the world is
ruled by. He must have read the work of political theorists such as
Nicolò Machiavelli and Hans Morgenthau who believe power is the
commonest denominator on the international stage. This writer believes
it too. Power is at the centre of how nations relate, and it determines
what a nation gets, how it gets it, and whether it retains what it gets
or not. This is seen in the different ways by which political
scientists, historians and diplomats see and use the concept, and the
different purposes for which nations pursue acquisition of power. They
make reference to state power which indicates both economic and military
power. States with significant power within the international system
are tagged middle powers, regional powers, great powers, superpowers, or
hegemons all indicating relevance of power in international relations.
As
such, having power can be a goal and, in fact, it’s an inherent goal of
mankind and of states. Internal political, economic, military or
cultural development is viewed as ingredients for attainment of
international power. Power may be used in terms of an actor’s ability to
exercise influence over other international actors. Practical means of
exercising influence can include the threat or use of force, economic
interaction or pressure, diplomacy, and cultural exchange. Meanwhile,
power can be in form of security; this is when describing states that
have achieved military victories or security on the international stage,
and nations can also be described as powerful if they successfully
protect their security, sovereignty, or strategic interests from
challengers. Power also describes the resources and capabilities of a
state.
Everyone knows that on all these counts the US is at the
forefront. It’s why it can gather men and materials and go shooting
wherever it feels threatened. It’s why other actors take is seriously.
Note also that Germany doesn’t go shooting but because of its economic
power it influences the direction of Europe as the case of Greece’s debt
has shown. Egypt however did something close to what the US normally
did, earning respect, when its citizens were killed and it deployed
aircraft to strike targets in Libya. One took note of this, more so as
it happened at about the time Nigeria called the diplomatic community to
Abuja and warned them not to interfere in its internal affairs. This
writer thinks there is a link between the warning and how Nigeria
generally maintains silence rather than speak up when things are going
down the slope in other countries on the continent.
Aside from
internal inconsistencies that have not allowed the nation to turn its
potential power into strength and be a force on the continent, there’s
something about the disposition and political will of the nation’s
leadership that never allow it to be a voice especially from a
preventive angle on the continent. This bothers. It does because when
other nations that have the strong disposition sit up and do all they
can to ensure that the 2015 elections is a success for the sake of
Nigerians and the continent at large, Nigeria reacts the way it does.
There’s
no doubt that no nation should allow its sovereignty to be trampled
upon. But it’s also a fact that when things go wrong, the same nations
that are considered interlopers will be accused of failing to do
something on time. Liberia, Sierra Leone and Rwanda are examples,
evidences that borderlines of concepts such as non-interference and
sovereignty have been extended. Considering that Nigeria asks for
assistance when it needs it from the nations it warns, and that these
nations sincerely wish to assist in the way they know in order to make
the 2015 elections a success, using advocacy visits and offer of needed
election-related materials, Nigeria’s reaction to their efforts that
time should have been more subtle, rather than being so strong.
No comments:
Post a Comment