INTRODUCTION
Afrocentrism is a guiding principle that informs the conduct of Nigeria’s foreign policy. The Afrocentric policy of Nigeria encompasses a dual set of interrelated notions. Initially, the objective is to promote the welfare and prosperity of African nations via various intra and extra-continental diplomatic avenues. The rationale behind assuming a representative role for Africa in international forums and the significant efforts invested in this endeavor is to elevate Nigeria’s position as the unchallenged leader of the African continent. Despite the efforts and sacrifices made in the implementation of the policy, Nigeria has experienced setbacks and hardships.
Nigeria has consistently prioritized its diplomatic engagements with the African continent, while also maintaining cordial relations with other regions across the globe. Since achieving independence, Nigeria has placed significant emphasis on issues pertaining to the African continent. Nigeria has since 1960 taken it upon herself to play major roles in the politics of Africa and has adopted Afrocentrism as the pivot of her fealty (Akinterinwa, 2012). This has been partially triggered by the colonial condition that characterized Africa during her independence and partially due (and enabled by) her hegemonial indicators within the continent (including rich natural resources, largest black population ranking, strong economy, and military, etc., which afforded her the “giant of Africa” status) (Idehen, 2016; Folarin, 2011).
In order to facilitate comprehension of this paper, it is imperative to establish conceptual precision. Thus, foreign policy may be defined as the set of actions and behaviors that a nation employs in its interactions with other nations. According to Folarin (2011), one might compare a nation’s foreign policy to a marriage between that country and the international community, with all of the internal aspects of that country being included. The author’s definition characterizes the actions of a state that are directed toward external factors and are shaped by the state’s domestic circumstances. Balewa’s characterization of Afrocentrism, as articulated prior to independence, denotes a prioritization of Africa-centered concerns over those that are external or beyond the continent (Idehen, 2016).
NIGERIA’S FOREIGN POLICY AND AFROCENTRISM
Balewa’s pre-independence speech in August 1960 played a significant role in shaping Nigeria’s external policy. Since then, Nigeria has maintained an Afrocentric configuration, albeit with some variations under different administrations (Danfulani, 2014). As per the works of Ogunnubi and Okeke-Uzodike (2016), Nigeria has made significant endeavors in the fight for independence and against oppressive regimes in Africa, with a focus on promoting peace, security, and safeguarding human rights.
In 1977, Lagos, Nigeria hosted the inaugural United Nations conference on anti-apartheid and established a dedicated committee with the objective of combating apartheid until its dissolution in 1994. After the cessation of apartheid, Nigeria initiated the Southern African Relief Fund (SARF), which necessitated the withholding of a portion of its employees’ wages (Aremu, 2013). According to Osuntokun (2005), Nigeria relinquished its Western economic ties by nationalizing British Petroleum, Barclays Bank, and other entities as a means of supporting the Rhodesian liberation movement. Nigeria played a significant role in various international affairs, including the fight for Angolan and Namibian independence, peacekeeping efforts in Chad, Liberia, and Sudan, and the establishment and financial support of sub-regional and regional international organizations, as noted by Idehen (2016). The authors Ogunnubi and Okeke-Uzodike (2016) assert that Nigeria’s influence in the pursuit of emancipation has surpassed that of other African nations, indicating an unparalleled impact.
In light of Nigeria’s foreign policy, it might have been expected that the country’s significant philanthropic efforts would result in favorable outcomes. While this was indeed the case, as evidenced by Nigeria’s recognition as a frontline state in 1976, according to numerous studies, the drawbacks of this approach far exceed the benefits (Tella, 2018). According to Saliu’s (2006) perspective, the policy configuration has failed to elicit a reciprocal response. He argues that the global system discourages the act of giving without receiving an equivalent, which is the situation in Nigeria. Consequently, Saliu places the blame on Nigeria for operating as a Santa Claus in an era that is increasingly characterized by nationalism, competition, and logical components. In a corroborative manner, Ambassador F. George expressed his concern regarding the indifferent condition of the global community towards Nigeria’s significant investment of resources towards fostering stability in Africa, particularly in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Chad (Ikedinachi, 2015).
According to Idehen (2016), Afrocentrism can no longer be maintained because its pursuit has continuously proven to be at the expense of the Nigerian state. An Afrocentric policy has weakened focus on internal issues plaguing the country, leading to increased corruption, worsening job scarcity, a declining economy, accumulated debt, and a variety of other problems. The concerns may be ascribed to the occasional allocation of crucial resources, particularly financial, towards the maintenance of ineffective Afrocentric practices (Ujara & Ibietan, 2017). Nwoke (2014) highlighted the importance of internal focus and its impact on Nigeria’s international perception. This perception is reflected in the mistreatment of Nigerians abroad, including acts of violence such as maiming, ransacking, mandatory deportation, and xenophobia. The author suggests that Nigeria’s poor domestic state, characterized by corruption, weak democratic values, tribalism, and incompetence, is a contributing factor to this negative perception. The perception has persisted despite the emergence of Afrocentrism (Akinboye, 2013). This is because foreign policy cannot be viewed in isolation from domestic policy and national interest.
Undoubtedly, the implementation of Nigeria’s Afrocentric policy has yielded certain benefits. According to Saliu and Oshewolo (2018), the policy has resulted in the enlargement of Nigeria’s diplomatic sphere as a prominent leader on the African continent and has elevated its political, military, and diplomatic standing within the global system. Despite Nigeria’s significant contributions in terms of human, material, and financial resources to the African continent, there have been instances where certain African nations have not reciprocated this support when Nigeria has needed it. In 2010, during Nigeria’s bid for a non-permanent position on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), certain African nations refrained from providing their endorsement for Nigeria.
In summary, after careful analysis of the argument, it can be posited that although Afrocentrism may have contributed to global acknowledgment, it has not produced significant positive outcomes or maintained mutual exchange, particularly in a constantly competitive and unstable international environment. It is recommended that a prompt review of policies be conducted to enhance congruence with the interests of the nation (Nigeria-centric).
REFERENCES
Akinboye, S.O. (2013). Beautiful abroad but ugly at home: Issues and contradictions in Nigeria’s foreign policy. Lagos: University of Lagos Inaugural Lecture Series.
Akinterinwa, B. A. (2012). Overview of Nigeria’s foreign policy, 1960–2010: Challenges and recommendations. In E. Anyaoku (Ed.), Review of Nigeria’s foreign policy: Issues and perspectives (pp. 15–34). Lagos: NIIA.
Alli-Balogun, G. (1986). Nigeria and eastern Europe. In Olusanya and Akindele (Eds.), Nigeria’s external relations: 1st twenty-fives. Ibadan: University Press Ltd.
Aremu, I. (2013). Africa: Wither whither South Africa-Nigeria bi-national commission?
Danfulani, J. (2014). The end of apartheid: A redefinition of Nigeria foreign policy. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(11), 53-57.
Folarin, S.F. (2011). The politics of international visibility and relevance: An overview of Nigeria’s role conceptions in world politics. African Studies Review.
Henderson, C. (2005). International relations: Conflict and cooperation at the turn of the 21st century. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Idehen, R.O. (2014). Nigeria role in Africa affair at the multilateral stage. Edo: EDRIC Publishers.
Idehen, R.O. (2016). Defending the Africa renaissance: A critique of Nigeria policy of Afrocentrism. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(2), 1-9.
Ikedinachi, A.P.W. (2015). A critical evaluation of Nigeria’s foreign policy at 53. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(2).
Nwoke, C.N. (2014). Towards a knowledge economy for genuine transformation in Nigeria: The crucial role of leadership. In C.N. Nwoke & O. Oche (Eds.), Contemporary challenges in Nigeria, Africa and the world (pp. 51-67). Lagos: The Nigerian Institute of International Affairs.
Ogunnubi, O. & Okeke-Uzodike, U. (2016). Can Nigeria be Africa’s hegemon? African Security Review, 25(2), 110-128.
Osuntokun, A. (2005). Nigeria and the United Nations: Service deserves its rewards. In B.A. Akinterinwa (Ed.), Nigeria and the United Nations security council. Ibadan: Vantage Publishers.
Saliu, H.A. (2006). 100 days of Obasanjo’s foreign policy: Opportunities and problems. In H.A. Saliu (Ed.), Essays on contemporary Nigerian foreign policy (1st ed., pp. 356-363). Ibadan: Vantage Publishers Limited.
Saliu, H. A., & Oshewolo, S. (2018). Nigeria in African affairs: Hegemonic and altruistic considerations. The Round Table, 107(3), 291–305
Tella, O. (2018). Is Nigeria a soft power state? Social Dynamics, 44(2), 376–394.
Ujara, E.C. & Ibietan, J. (2017). Foreign policy and regional hegemony in Africa: A study of the Nigeria-South Africa (2014) arms deal debacle. ACTA Universitatis Danubius, 10(2), 122-142.
XENOPHOBIA AND SOCIAL MEDIA
