HE may not need any introduction, but for the benefit of those who may not know him, Professor Jide Osuntokun is the dean of humanities at the Redeemers University (RUN), along, Lagos-Ibadan Expressway. Hitherto, Osuntokun, a recipient of a national honour (OON) is best known as an expert in international relations, and has taught that subject as well as history in several Nigerian universities. Indeed, he was ambassador of Nigeria to Germany from 1991 to 1995, and he also keeps a column in The Nation newspaper.

Thursday, October 31, he was the guest speaker at the 12th session of the Iju Quarterly Forum on Public Affairs, convened by another egghead, Professor Ladipo Adamolekun. Osuntokun delivered a paper entitled "Nigeria's National Interest and Foreign Policy: A Panoramic View." Chairman of occasion was another former ambassador of Nigeria to Germany as well as former education minister, Professor Tunde Adeniran.

In the course of the paper, Osuntokun made clear the connection between a vibrant foreign policy and sound domestic situation vis-a-vis the performance of the Obasanjo administration. His words: "Since foreign policy cannot be completely divorced from domestic politics, whatever Obasanjo's succeses might have been abroad have been devalued by his failure to conduct credible elections to usher in his appointed and anointed successor Umaru Yar'Adua. This lack of legitimacy constitutes a burden which the much ballyhooed "citizen diplomacy" articulated by his foreign minister cannot lighten.

"This policy has raised unmet hopes in ordinary, bedraggled Nigerian economic migrants and the policy has been exposed as full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Nigeria will only be respected abroad when it gets its acts together at home, especially through rapid economic development. Nigeria must first of all confront her domestic problems, consolidate democracy.  While democracy is not just the holding of periodic elections, important as this is, it means developing a democratic culture underpinned by the rule of law."

Further to sorting out the domestic situation, he stated: "We must face the question of the economy squarely. We still operate a dependent economy based on export of raw materials and industries of import substitution forty-eight years after independence. We must reverse this process by building industries, particularly agro-based industries in which we have comparative advantage. Our country can certainly support huge textile and garments industries based on local production of cotton." On the sidelines of proceedings at Iju Forum, Osuntokun spoke more on the nation's foreign policy in an interview. Excerpts:

YOU are an academic, but you've been involved in foreign policy execution as an ambassador. How would you situate Nigeria's foreign policy at this point in time?

Well, the declared foreign policy as of today is what they call citizen diplomacy. Citizen diplomacy, I must confess, doesn't make sense to me because we don't see beyond what is the obvious. Missions and embassies, wherever they are located, are supposed to protect the interest of the sending country; so when you talk about your foreign policy to protect the right of your citizens, I think I see the obvious. Now, for the past few years, economic diplomacy was supposed be the foreign policy of Nigeria and, I can tell you, I am part of those who formulated that policy.

Prof Osuntokun

If it is weak at home, nobody will pay attention to what that country is doing abroad. So the current policy of citizen diplomacy..... and I think that the things I see are too weak to make any sense to people like us. I think a much more obvious foreign policy of economy diplomacy would have been much better. There's nothing wrong in continuity, you don't have to change all the time.

One would think that by operating citizens diplomacy, the foreign policy will be more cohesive towards the protection of Nigeria's interests, especially that of the citizen's abroad and those in the diaspora but the reverse seems to be the case if you consider the treatment meted to our people in South Africa during the xenophobic attacks, and recently, Nigerians shops were shut in Ghana when a 1994 law was selectively invoked and targeted at Nigerians. Do you think government is really clear about citizen diplomacy?

Well, it's just under all the points I was making; if we have a strong economy at home there'll be no need for our people migrating to all parts of the world in search of greener pastures. If we are strong at home, strong domestically, strong in terms of defence, our leadership will be obvious. A country like Germany or Japan does not have to protect its citizens by shouting about it because everybody knows that even an unarmed Japan, Germany are strong countries even in terms of global ranking.

The Germany economy and Japanese economy are first and second respectively. So the point I am making is, it is the strength at home that determines respect abroad. If your people are noted for roaming all over the world - you know we are in South Africa doing all kinds of odd jobs to make a living; we are in Ghana into retail business - if we have a good economy at home, there's enough work for us to do at home.

You wouldn't find Americans doing the kind of things we are doing all over the world; so I don't want to say it's dishonest to give Nigerians the impression that you can protect their interest all over the world because citizen diplomacy means that you can protect Nigerians wherever they are.

We don't have the power; what we can do is to strengthen  ourselves at home to make it unprofitable for Nigerians to migrate abroad. We have the biggest market in Africa, why should we be going abroad doing little things and people look down at us?

If we're okay at home, we'll be respected abroad, that is the key to it. If I have the opportunity to serve in any capacity in this country, what I will be acting upon is that we must be strong at home. If we are strong at home, people will beg us; they will want to be related to us, they will invite us to come and teach them how we did it; but if we are weak at home, no amount of shouting or grammar at the UN will attract anybody.

Look at what has happened. For example, in recent times, there's a meltdown in the markets everywhere including our own country, Nigeria, but nobody mentioned us. All they are talking about is markets in Asia, Europe and America. This gives you the idea that we are not being taken seriously and the only way to be taken seriously is to be strong at home; not by declaring some pious citizen diplomacy or something like that and that was the whole essence of economic diplomacy.

We must put our foreign policy to back our domestic policy. We must make sure that wherever we go all over the world, it is either to seek for trade avenue or technical cooperation or investment in order to build this economy at home. Nigeria should not be poor, we have the resources, land, the people, you know, it's just that we need to mobilise ourselves for the purpose of economic development at home.

You've mentioned the economic diplomacy of Obasanjo. Now Yar' Adua's been there for about 18 months. What have you been able to discern as an academic between the foreign policy drive of Obasanjo and that of Yar' Adua?

Even a blind man knows that the (Obasanjo) foreign policy was very dynamic, was very active, very aggressive. Don't forget that it was during his time that we had the debt relief, don't forget this was also the time we were able to put our feet down in countries like Togo; because what happened in Togo was more or less a military coup. Also, that kind of intervention took place in other countries like Cote d'Ivoire, Somalia, Sao Tome & Principe, and others. We made such an impression to the point that we were now regularly invited to attend as an observer the G-8 summits. Now, there is definitely a slow down in activity. I keep talking about domestic policy, you know, if there's no slow down at home, there's a reflection of it abroad. In order to build a vibrant foreign policy, we must anchor it on a strong domestic policy.

There is the problem of inadequate funding for our missions abroad to the extent that many of them can hardly live up to the billing of a mission, and are thus hampered in executing their schedules....

You are right in that but I think the solution is probably to reduce the number of missions. You know I served in some kind of advisory position during the Obasanjo regime. Then he created what he called Presidential Advisory Council on Foreign Relations; I was a member of that council and we recommended to him the pruning down of the number of missions abroad, reducing the number of staff in each of the missions so that whatever resources we have can be well managed. There's also the problem of corruption in some of the missions.

You know there are political appointees in many of these missions. Politicians don't seem to be bound by civil service rules - how to spend money, how to manage money and one of the things that happened during the Obasanjo regime was that while we were recommending to him to prune down foreign missions and he seems to have accepted, he also expanded it at the same time. He created more; like the ones in Hungary and Singapore. Singapore from Malaysia is only one hour by air; so what was the point of having a new mission in Singapore since the mission in Malaysia can conveniently cover Singapore?

If you have this same money being shared out by several missions, you know you are going to have problem; so the solution is to prune down. I was ambassador in Germany from 1991-1995. This problem we had then, so this is a problem that has a long gestation period. It's been on for almost 20 years and, during the Obasanjo regime, I remember that, after giving the foreign missions their normal budget, there's another $100 million to pay up the debt of those missions, but as they were being paid up, new debts kept coming in and also there was this problem of corruption.

The way to tackle it is to critically look at the missions and see which ones you can remove. I actually prepared a paper for the president one this particular thing. Let me give you an example, we have missions in Havana (Cuba), Trinidad & Tobago, Jamaica, Venezuela, Brazil, you look at the missions we have in all those islands, they are all in the same basin, just one hour or so from each other. In the US, apart from having the embassy in Washington, of course, there's nothing you can do about the permanent mission, it's a separate mission, we have a consulate-general in New York, another in Atlanta. We closed the one in San Francisco and had the one in Atlanta. These things can be rationalised. 

If we look at even small Switzerland, we have a mission in Bern, which is to be in control of Switzerland, then we have another one in Geneva. Is it not possible to cover the one in Bern from Berlin? Why do we need to have a mission in Vienna, another one in Hungary?

We can reduce the missions and still be effective. As I told you, we have one in Malaysia, we now have another one in Singapore. They are just too many in the same area, we have to tailor our resources for the purpose we want to achieve. Of course, I know civil servants will want us to have a thousand missions so they can be posted all over the world but the money is not there.

Coming back to the issue of politicians and political appointment in the diplomatic service, how do you think those ones have fared in the execution of foreign policy objectives in the missions to which they are posted compared to career diplomats?

It depends on the quality of the politician. If you appoint a quality politician, if he knows what to do, he can be more effective than a career man. A career man is limited by deference to protocol, to civil service rules; he's afraid to state his mind or state the position.

If Nigerians are being killed for example in France, a typical professional diplomat will not come out with frankness to say this is wrong; he will start finding excuses like, maybe the Nigerians themselves are not behaving properly, whereas a politician will speak out his mind and call it racism if he thinks it is racism. It depends on the quality of the politician. But there are some cases in which people, who have never held a passport in their lives, who've never been out of Nigeria, who've never been to Benin Republic or Ghana, suddenly find themselves being appointed ambassador.

Write Comment
Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Title:
Comment:
Code:*
	I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Be the first to comment on this article