Foreign Policy of Nigeria

First, Some reiteration as follows:

In any country, foreign policy and international diplomacy aim at

accomplishing and preserving the country’s national interests. When a state
achieves its foreign policy goals/objectives, then it is positive, but if the
objectives are undecided or unattainable, it is negative.

Broadly speaking, foreign policy goals of states aim at maintaining sustainable

world peace and international environment; ensuring balance of powers;
deploying alliances with allies to resolve international problems; and
promoting democratic values: justice, fairness, equity, human rights.

Foreign Policy can be soft or hard, flexible or rigid, aggressive/antagonistic or

friendly, good manly, appeasing or police manly in nature. A country can
decide which to go or feature its foreign policy wears. Whatever the option,
the goal remains benefits the state aspires to get. Foreign policy wearing
containment appeasement features for instances, are targeted at maintaining
peace, and preventing armed conflict/war at all cost. Besides the domestic and
global factors involved, a state’s choice of type/form of foreign policy to
pursue also depends on its values, human and financial resources, and even its
natural endowment such as oceans or territorial waters. A state that is land-
locked not having access to an ocean is naturally bound to be friends with one
having it, or at least not antagonistic. The United States can afford to sustain its
‘’foreign policy police manliness’’ on account of its huge human and financial
resources/prosperity.

Some factors limiting a state’s foreign policy include but are not limited to its
reintership of organisations/associations, existing relationships with its
neighbours, and its external commitments such as alliances, treaties, etc. all of
which commitments are bringing. Besides a state is bound to recognise and be
mindful of the rights of other states in order to preserve global peace and
harmony or risks war.

Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Objectives

The following are the main objectives of Nigeria’s foreign policy since 1960

a. Maintaining Nigeria’s foreign policy towards peace and stability at home,

in the West African sub-region, Africa and the rest of the world.
b. The achievement of a functional economic integration of the African
continent.
c. The promotion of the economic and social development of Nigeria and
other African States.
d. The furthermore of the political unity of the continent.
e. The rapid and complete removal of all traits and vestiges of oppression,
suppression and degradation in the African continent.
f. The enhancement of world peace, stability and development.
g. The promotion if ideas and mutual.
h. The defence and promotion of the dignity of the Black man anywhere in
the world.

The foreign policy of Nigeria is rooted or entrenched in the concept of Africa as

its ‘centre piece; taking African development as a major concern and top
priority.
The guiding principles of Nigerian foreign policy

The defining or guiding principles of a state’s foreign policy are underlined

essentially by the state’s history, geography, hopes, aspirations and goals it
sets out to achieve. These principles are not cost in iron; they are dynamic
changing with time and prevailing circumstances. Talking about time for
instances. Nigeria’s foreign policy before and shortly after 1960, its year of
independence was done under the shadow or talon of its erstwhile colonial
master, Britain, or greatly influenced by it.

Therefore, at about the year of Nigeria’s independence being a creation of

British imperialists with accompanying colonial heritage, the prime concern or
principle guiding Nigeria’s foreign policy was the need to protest its
independence and territorial integrity, and how to go about this.

Secondly, Nigeria aspired to secure its unity by sustaining its economic

prosperity and maximally using its resources with a view top
securing/ascertaining the welfare of its citizens (for which a state primarily
exist).

Further, Nigeria’s foreign policy was/is based on the principles of equity and
parity in its relations with other states such that the labour of its citizens are
fairly and sufficiently comparatively rewarded/compensated.

Another one was the guarantee and respect for the liberty or freedom of the
Black man in Africa and the rest of the world.

Similarly, Nigeria’s foreign policy was based on the principle of shared mutual
benefits of common relationship between it and other former British colonies
coming together under the acgis of Commonwealth of Nations.
In furtherance of the penultimate point, Nigeria supported/assisted both in
kind and materially the liberation struggles of Angola, Namibia, Mozambique<
South Africa and Zimbabwe from colonial talons of imperialists/colonisers;
while it supplied peace-keeping troops to halt armed conflicts of fratricidal and
genocidal proportions in Liberia; Sierra Leone, Gambia, Rwanda, Burundi,
Ethiopia, Sudan, among others. Nigeria’s interventions were effective at
preventing total collapse or state disintegration in these countries.

In addition, some principles guiding the emergence and running of the

organisation of African unity since 1963 also specifically apply to Nigeria’s
foreign policy. One of them is the strict compliance with the provision of
international law relating to onn-use of (letha) force including premature
recourse to military force in the conduct of international relations, but
preferring negotiations & the likes.

Yet another is the principle of respect of boundaries demarcating African

countries as geographically carved out by former colonial lords.

Another notable principle is that of maintain good neighbourliness, as well as

respecting the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of another
country.
Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Potentials

It is worth-reiterating that the resources of a country have direct bearing on its

foreign policy scope, magnitude, and effectiveness or otherwise.

Besides leadership consideration, the United States of America’s resources –

human, economic, and natural – have been force or support structure for its
foreign policy since 1776 its year of the declaration of independence, or
thereabout.

Similarity, it is pertinent to ask if Nigeria ever had or now has the resources or
means required tosucceed with its huge/ambitions foreign policy goals or
objectives.

Its potentials can be examined from diverse new points.

 Its geographical size

 Quality of its soil: large arable land
 Population size: Africa’s largest world’s biggest black population; and
quality of the population.
 Its natural resources such as crude oil, many rivers, clement weather.
 Its economic strength with close to $500 billion GDP and market size for
buying and selling
 Its comparative military strength, size, and previous exploits on the
African continents such exploits were both political and economic in
nature Muritala – Obasanjo regime supported Angola’s independence. It
backed the people’s movement for the liberation of Angola (MPLA),
even against the U.S Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger support for the
National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA). Nigeria
especially and Togo led then birth of the Economic Community of the
West African States (ECOWAS) promoting trade liberalisation, and
freedom of movement among member states. Following the principle of
resolution of conflict without use of war/f0rce, Nigeria avoided war with
Cameroon over Bakassi Pennisula and accepted judgment of the world
court in Hagne, the motherlands. Besides, it did prosecute its 3 – year
civil war 1967 – 1970 without being financially indebted to any country.
Further x-raying its economic / financial potential, Nigeria busted the
Lagos plan of Action (LPA) hosted by the organisation of African Unity
(OAU) – now AU in the 1980s, aimed at producing the blue print and
guidelines for African development in accordance with its foreign policy
principle of self-determination and self-reliance.
With these notable points at the background Nigeria stood, and still
stands a great chance of achieving its set foreign policy goals, even much
more. But whether or not Nigeria can today is another talking point
entirely. America consistently builds on its foreign policy goals and
actions, but Nigeria seems to be the opposite line.

Nigeria Foreign Policy 1960 – 1966

The major state actor in Nigeria’s foreign policy was its First Prime
Minister, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa. Before Nigeria’s independence
in 1960 the prevailing domestic circumstances background or
environment was such that the political landscape was dominated or
influenced greatly by three major ethnic – based political parties namely
Northern People’s Congress (NPC), headed by Sir Ahmadu Bello, who
was the Sardauna of Sokoto; Action Group (AG) led by Chief Obafemi
Awolowo; and National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons
(Originally) changed to the National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC)
 headed by Dr Nanmdi Benjamin Azikiwe. The three parties had their root
and support base in three major ethnic groups: Hausa – Fulani, Yoruba
and Igbo respectively.
Between some Nigerian nationalists and party leaders / politicians and
British colonialists there were constitutional conferences held in 1957
culminating in Nigeria’s independence on the 1 st of October, 1960. In the
preceding year 1959, Nigeria’s pre-independence general elections were
won by the NPC, but it did not win the required constitutional votes to
from a government. NPC, as a matter of necessity formed a coalition
government with one of the other two, NCNC, and both formed a
government of national unity. NPC provided the Prime Minister, NCNC,
the lesser of the allies provided the Governor General, while the AG
became the opposition party providing leader of the opposition in the
federal parliament.
Eventually, Nigeria’s independence was obtained in 1960. Happily, fight
for Nigeria’s independence was without armed conflict/war, or
prolonged violent repression, like South Africa experienced. For
example.

Obviously, at independence, the antecedents Nigeria’s Prime Minister Tafawa

Balewa had to learn from were colonial policies made and carried out by the
British foreign affairs staff. At that time, in spite of independence, the Queen
was still the Head of State, whereas by constitutional arrangement the
Governor. General represented the Queen, to whom he reported Nigeria’s
domestic affairs. Further, at this time, Balewa, the Prime Minister’s experience
and knowledge of both domestic and international politics were insufficient /
limited.
Having this at the background, Balewa’s foreign policy was noticeably, in fact,
inevitably characteristics with cautions optimism in response to the domestic
environments / events. His inexperience and the Queen’s influence were
limiting factors.

Secondly and similarly, the magnitude of the domestic challenges especially

the in cogment political environment further incapacitated the Prime Minister,
who was also head of government, from effective foreign policy formulation
and execution.

The Tafawa Balewa administration led Nigeria into becoming a member of

Commonwealth of Nations, an association of former British colonies.

Nigeria’s membership gave the country and its experienced leader(ship) learn
global politics from much older and experienced Australia, Britain, and Canada,
all members/connected by the Commonwealth.

Balewa led Nigeria to join non-aligned movement early 1960s aimed at

protecting young independent Nigeria from global politics vulnerability. When
Nigeria became Republic in 1963, the Queen of England ceased being Nigeria
Head of State, thus no longer exercising control over its foreign policy.
Nigeria’s Republicanism strengthened / entolden Balewa more; he could
exercise more foreign policy dominion.

Besides in experiences, problems with Balewa’s foreign policy success was the
domestic environment and events both marking and burdening its
era/administration. The 1960 alliance between the NPC and NCNC did not go
smooth or last long enough. There were discords and poor bonding as parties
involved lacked common political purpose. The 1964 census results were not
widely acceptable, as many Nigerians and groups regarded it as a slam.
The elites and some radical intelligentsia of the time did not trust Balewa’s
competence to handle or mancuvre Nigeria’s government structure /
governance well. They were disillusioned about Balewa’s incompetence – real
or imagined – to manage the growing discomfort. The West considered the
census skewed against it, considering the results unreliable, also calling for its
cancellation. Only the North noticeably objected the concensus to nullify the
census. Balewa did not show willingness to correct/address the situation
promptly or proactively. It was an ambiguous lukewarmness, ineptitude or
silence that portrayed nepotism or ethnic trigotry.

Further, the Balewa administration similarly failed to promptly and correctly

address the mistrust and division existing among major political parties in
Nigeria’s 1964 general elections. The Action Group, foremost Western Nigeria
Political Party headed by Chief Obafemi Awolowo boycotted the election, but
Balewa went ahead and held the election, ignoring or despite fear of
unfairness. Balewa and North-based NPC produced an unacceptable and
exclusive minority federal government.

The inter-party and intra-ethnic unrest in the West compounded the situation.
The Action Group had its break-away faction, NNDP: Nigerian National
Democratic Party to contend with the AG was more unanimously ‘Western’
and popular than the factional NNDP under Awolowo’s former deputy Chief
Samuel Ladoke Akintola perceived as a product of rebellious betrayal and
blatant disloyalty. The Western Region elections were held in 1965. The Yoruba
electorate had voted en masse for AG for its ethnic popularity and especially
considering AG winning elections as an instrument of facilitating release of its
leader Obafemi Awolowo who had been sentenced to a 10 year imprisonment
term in 1963 on the grounds of seditional treasonable felony. The West
believed the results were skewed in favour of NNDP by the Balewa
government, the West became disenchanted or disillusioned. The response to
the perceived rigged elections or blatant robbery was the Western Nigerian
Crisis/violence of 1965 usually called ‘Operation Wetie’ in which many were
gamesomely burnt to death openly. Balewa’s handling or poor handling of the
entire crisis or his inertia party led to the failure of his government and the
souling of his foreign policy domestic environment.

Regardless of unfavourable domestic environment and inexperience, and in

addition to a number of foreign policy actions, the Balewa administration
practically laid the foundation for Nigeria’s foreign policy practices, on which
successive administration – military or civilian – had to build.

The Nigerian government under Balewa boldly reacted to France testing

atomic bomb in the Sahara desert. In response to Nigeria’s warning to France
not to do so, Nigeria under Balewa broke diplomatic ties with France, which
was supported by some Francophone Africa.

The Balewa government firm foreign policy role in supporting the motion for
the expulsion of Rhodesia from the Commonwealth of Nations. The action was
instrumental to the commencement of the processes pushed in self
determination which eventually led to the independence of Zimbabwe in 1980.
Earlier he had opposed the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) by Ian
Smith in Rhodesia (as it was called then, now today’s Zimbabwe).

Balewa used a form of cultural or conference diplomacy when he hosted a

Commonwealth meeting in Nigeria on Jan. 14, 1966, involving Commonwealth
Heads of State and Government. But it was a wrong turning, at the time that
Nigeria was engulfed in political crisis. This was an unacceptable presumption,
laced with political naivity, as well as insensitivity to domestic environment and
citizens’ safety / wellbeing.

Also worth-,mentioning is the foreign policy action in its shuttle diplomacy

deployed by Balewa government at reconciling or harmonising the radical
cassablanca Group with the Conservature Monrovia Group. This action is
believed widely to have culminated in the birth or formation of the
organisation of African Unity in 1963. In all Balewa government foreign policy
was the processetor pathfinder, and foundation of Nigeria’s successive foreign
policy practices.

Sadly nonetheless, Balewa’s naivity, indecision or sluggish policy, inertia

revealed in his not using force or peaceful intervention or authority of official
snifty and correctly laid the foundation or became justifications for the January
15, 1966 coup, first of its kind in Nigeria that brought his government, and his
own life to an abrupt end. External dictators prominent in Balewa’s
government was a huge dent on Nigeria’s political autonomy and independent
decision-making. His foreign policy was noticeably (and unavoidably some
could argue) pro-west / pro-colonist. Since the military junta took his life, he
appeared to have been a preventable human sacrifice for the success or failure
of his foreign policy, and personal / official shortcomings.
Afrocentrism / Afrocentric Nigeria’s |Foreign Policy / Africa as the centrepiece
of Nigeria Foreign Policy

Afrocentrism simply means or refers to Africa being a focal, or a cornerstone,

focus, the centrepiece of the foreign policy of Nigeria. Nigeria and Nigeria’s
foreign policy considers Africa as being very important, almost indispensable in
the execution of Nigeria’s foreign policy. The doctrine of Afrocentrism is based
on the leadership position/role – real or imagined – of Nigeria as bestowed
upon it by nature in terms of its geographical size and population, the biggest
in Africa.

Origin of Afrocentrism

Afrocentrism originates from the administration of Sir Abubakar Tafawa

Balewa. In two of his addresses August to October 1960, the former Prime
Minister of Nigeria describes Africa as the centrepiece of Nigeria’s foreign
policy. He does maintain that Nigeria belongs to Africa and must therefore
pursue a realistic African policies such that the continent should be given
policies. Such that the continent should be given a strategic forms and
attention in Nigeria’s foreign policy formulation and implementation.

Subsequently, other political administrations in Nigeria particularly Muritala =

Obasanjo pursues this policy practically deliberately.

Nigeria’s reasons/motivation/justification for adopting afrocentrism.

Nigeria is driven, propelled or motivated by a number of considerations/factors

to adopts its afrocentric foreign policy, some of which are as follows:

1. The need to have friendly association.

2. Nigeria’s opposition to aggression.
 3. The necessity to speak with one voice.
4. Desire for peace and order in Africa.
5. Nigeria’s leadership position or role in the continent.
6. Another is Nigeria’s large size and population.
7. Desire to pursue/promote unit, and prevent ideological rivalry in Africa.
8. The necessity to decolonise all African States.
9. The desire to be able to provide assistance to other African States in the
Spirit of brotherhood.

Proof of Africa being centrepiece of Nigeria’s foreign policy

In several notable ways. Nigeria has been able to show or demonstrate its
afrocentric policy, including but not limited to the following.

1. So far Nigeria had deliberately established friendly relations with all

African states, such that it does not discriminate against any. It
maintains such friendship partly using the instrument of sports. It
participants and hosting African games, has been participants and
hosting African Nations cup, among others. It is also involved in bilateral
economic/political relations. Also relates multilateral using Chad, Niger
Basin Commission.
2. Nigeria promoted /promotes restoration of peace in the event of
breakdown of public peace in concerned African countries using and
actively participating in Ecowas Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) a military
peace keeping mission, Nigeria intervened sacrificially at restoration of
normally in war-torn Liberia & Sierra Leone some decades ago. It
similarly partook in conflict resolution in Congo crisis.
Similarly, Nigeria initiates, promotes, and participates in peaceful
resolution of conflict/crisis such as in Chad, Liberia, Somalia & Sudan,
 It does the same with its immediate neighbours, such as in allowing
peace resolution of Nigerian-Cameroon Bakassi Pennisula boundary /
territorial dispute.
3. In the same vein, Nigeria has been encouraging and promoting
democracy and democratic rule in African States, particularly since it has
come out of its own military rule interregnum. In Liberia and Sierra
Leone for instance. After years of civil war in Liberia, the country
produced its first female elected president. It has not been favourably
disposed to change of government using military coup, for instance in
Sudan and Mali.
4. Nigeria has also promoted or been involved in promotion of African
unity and solidarity. It has much positive role in formation of
organisation of Africa unity, and African union, which succeeded the
former.
5. Nigeria was very vocal as a champion of anti-colonialism and anti-racism
on the Africa continent against any African states, it supported the
independence/liberation of Angola, Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe
(former Rhodesia) morally, politically, and financially. This is directed
directly at seeing to complete eradication/elimination of colonization of
Africa.
6. Another point is Nigeria’s deliberate involvement in and promotion of
bilateral and multilateral political and economic relations with
neighbours, such as Chad and Niger, and also taking active part in intra
Africa economic cooperation, such as in the formation of Economic
Community of West
Some challenges Nigeria faces from making Afrocentrism Africa its foreign
policy.

Nigeria’s Afrocentrism foreign policy does not come cheap or it is not without a
huge cost of the Nigerian state in diverse ways, such that some concerned
persons call for a review.

The challenges confronting Nigeria include mounting economic or financial

burden, increasing brain drain syndrome, being victim of illegal immigration,
increasing hostility as , and many times outright loss of human lives. Some
scholars opines that Nigeria’s human and materials resources used for the
greater good of African countries are not rewarding (enough), whereas some
think otherwise that Nigeria’s commitment to using these resources practically
revamps or boost its declining image.

1. At any rate the dwindling economic tortures of Nigeria narrows its

commitment to financing or financially supporting other African states
unlike in the 1980s, the 1990s when Nigeria appeared to be financially
sufficient to support sister African states, such as Liberia and Sierra
Leone in peace keeping missions among others the financial burden at
home practically infringes on executing financial support outside or
‘without’ Nigeria today is a heavily indebted country with over N45
trillion worth of debt obligations/indebtedness to several creditors.
2. As a result of many factors including harsh economic conditions and lack
of actualisation as domestic environmental factors, Nigeria loses its
professional/experts/human resources to other African states in what is
often regarded as brain drain (syndrome). This happened / happens not
necessarily that the receiving countries are richer or more developed
that some have appreciable development in certain sectors that are
 better and more attractive than what is obtainable at home. Nigerian
participants and beneficiaries of Nigerian’s Technical Aids Corps Scheme,
for example, would decide to reside in the receiving state or a third
country should they find the opportunity instead of returning home. This
cumulative out flux badly depletes human resources or human capital
development in Nigerian, thus harming the Domestic interest of the
country in favour of such African States.
3. Nigeria’s policy to open its done unfettered to African brothers leads to
influx of aliens from neighbours and other African States. This is in
compliance to or besides the free movement policy of ECOWAS influx to
of Nigerians, Chadians, etc to Nigeria is noticeable today, especially
under President Muhammadu Buhari administration. This has negative
impacts on Nigeria’s economy peace and stability, especially with a very
unproductive population doing the influx.
4. Despite the spirit of brotherhood/brotherliness Nigeria showed/shows
African states, some of them have paid back Nigeria in a bad coin. In
other words, Nigeria has been a victim of state hostilities from
neighbours / African states. Despites the noticeable or remarkable roles
played in the liberation struggles of South Africa, it has experienced
hostility to its citizens by and in South Africa in what is usually referred
to as xenophobia / xenophic attacks by some disgruntled citizens.
Sometime in 2022 South Africa to have rudely disrespected Nigeria by
disconnecting electricity supply to Nigeria’s embassy (office) in South
Africa on the grounds of unsettled indebtedness. Ghana also embarked
on attack and forced closure of Nigerians business /shops in what
appeared to be a direct attack on Nigeria’s image and national dignity.
5. Another is preventable loss of lives. This resulted/results from such
hostile attacks. Nigeria has recorded instances of loss of human lives
from attacks from migratory violent alien cattle leaders, especially
during the administration of president Muhammadu Buhari whose body
language appears to be favourably disposed to unfettered influx of aliens
sharing similar root/extraction/ethic character with him.
6. African states (ECOWAS) formed in 1975 during the military
administration of Yakubu Gowon. It is a member of African Petroleum
Producers Association. It is a actively involved in Africa Development
Bank (ADB) with one of its own. Dr Akinwumi Adesina being the
President of the Bank.
7. In the spirit of Africanress, brotherliness or brotherhood, Nigeria
demonstrates its generosity and magnanimity by offering relief materials
or engaging in humanitarian intervention in the course of man-made or
natural disasters.
8. Nigeria similarly offers grants and aids in support of or assisting African
states needing them. Nigeria has been involved in Technical Aids Corps
Scheme enabling access to Nigeria rich human resources in other states’
socioeconomic sector.
9. In ensuring further peaceful mutual relations and cultural integration,
Nigeria initiates, promotes and participates in cultural activities such as
the Festival of Culture popularly called/tagged FESTAC ’77, in Nigeria in
1977, under the military administration of Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo.
Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Concentric Circles/Rings Domestic Policy

First, recall that national interest is the basis or the foremost consideration for
foreign policy.

Recall also a major objective of Nigeria’s foreign policy namely:

 Maintaining Nigeria’s foreign policy towards peace and stability at

home in the West African sub region, Africa and the rest of the world:

Form or in this objective, four entities are noticeable or identifiable. First of

them is Nigeria itself. West Africa or West African sub-region, the entire Africa,
the other continents and/or the entire world.

The next impatant point to note is that Professor Ibrahim Gambari (today
currently, President Muhammadu Buhari’s Chief of Staff, a former Nigerian
ambassador) is the diplomat who evolved/evolves for Nigeria the theory/or
concept of foreign policy concentric rings.

(This concentric circle concept is figuratively conceived, so imagine the picture

you get when you drop a small stone in a pool. The picture you get is that of
ripples go in cyclical forms, from the immediate and the smallest ring to the
farthest and largest one as the rings move outward expanding).

Since inception, this principles of foreign policy concentric circles remains

Nigeria’s focal point, or modus operandi of Nigeria’s foreign policy/ this
practically means that Nigeria’s foreign policy is executed strictly, and primarily
on the basis of priority and proximity such that the circles reception enlarges
outward, starting with home/Nigeria itself, then its immediate neighbours/the
West African sub-region, then the entire African continent and then each and
all continents and/or the rest of the world.
In a much simpler explanation, from the newpoint of the concentric rings, the
immediate neighbours of Nigeria should be its concern next to Nigeria’s own
interest. The peace, stability, growth, development, and good governance of
these neighbours are necessarily the concern and primary interests of Nigeria,
and must be seen and treated as such. The goal in sight is so that these
neighbouring states would not become sources of trouble, sabotage or
disintegration of Nigeria. In summary, these neighbours’ future, and mutually
dependent. Nigeria can hardly make any progress or prosper, if it leaves the
poverty, deprivation, happiness, interest of these countries
unminded/unattended to.

The next ring of the concentric circles is Africa.

Since the year of Nigeria’s independence, Africa has been seen as very
important to external powers. For example, a chinese writer/scholar Feng Zhih
– Tan captured Africa’s importance in an article, ‘The Awakening of Africa’ for
publication in the Beijing Review No. 27, July, 1860. Zhin – Tan states that
Africa ‘accounts for 99% of the columbite; 98% of diamonds; 80.1% of the
cobait, 47.7% of the antimony, 24.4% of the copper and 29.4% of the
manganese ore. Africa’s output of uranium exceeds the combined production
of the United States and Canada and between 60% and 80% of the total output
in the capitalist world is produced in Congo alone. To a considerable extent the
magic imperialist countries such as the United States, Britain and France
depend on Africa for the raw materials in their manufacture of weapons of
mass destruction.

The African continent as a whole ring is more complex, more diverse, more
culturally divergent, more difficult to predict or deal with than the preceding
ring, West Africa, which is smaller, and also shares common colonial heritage
with component states. These diversities and multiple interests must be
carefully considered, and also be bones contention in Nigeria’s foreign policy
execution, in relation to Africa.

The goal of Nigeria is to become a global player in the current 21 st century

politics

It aimed at becoming one of the twenty largest economies in the world by the
year 2020, but that did not happen practically. Pont it still aims to be so, and
become also a major decision influencer in the world.

Nigeria occupied a non-permanent seat on the Security Council, and openly

expressed desire to become a permanent member of an enlarged Security
Council some internal and external factors go a long way to determine the
realisation of Nigeria’s ambition. Nigeria’s domestic environment is one, while
one major external factor remains the attitude of other African countries on
this ambition. If they oppose Nigeria’s, the rest of the world would consider it
an African problem that needed to be resolved at home first.

Another external factor may be strong objection or scepticism of one of the

five super powers. They entertain fear about the possibility of Nigerian
government, someday using the position to block decisions on matters of
human rights and bad governance in Africa. China and Russia, for instance,
have been accused of doing so.