Right of Reply: Re-Yusuf Tuggar’s Strategic Autonomy and Nigeria’s Non-Alignment Policy, Beyond the Dangerous Neighbourhood
Oladimeji Badmus
It’s good to see the Minister’s article on Nigeria’s foreign policy and its implementation sparking an intellectual debate. Bola A. Akinterinwa’s article, “Re-Yusuf Tuggar’s Strategic Autonomy and Nigeria’s Non-Alignment Policy Beyond the Dangerous Neighborhood,” published in the ThisDay Newspaper on January 12, 3025, is a healthy and enriching contribution.
That said, it’s important to stick to facts and attribute statements to those participating in this much-needed discourse the way they told it fairly.
The Minister mentioned Strategic Autonomy as the fulcrum of the Tinubu Administration’s agenda, not as Nigeria’s sixth foreign policy objective. Nowhere in his article did he try to amend the Constitution and ascribe it as an additional foreign policy objective. What Akinterinwa has done here is to use casuistry to turn epistemology (Strategic Autonomy, Democracy Demography, and Diaspora, etc.) into Ontology (the five foreign policy objectives of Nigeria stated in the Constitution). These are two different things. Akinterinwa should have instead listed Strategic Autonomy along with Bolaji Akinyemi’s Consultation Doctrine, Gambari’s Concentricism, and Olu Adeniji’s Constructive and Beneficial Concentricism.
Strategic Autonomy is the 21st-century version of Balewa’s non-alignment. If non-alignment was never mistaken to be a foreign policy objective, how can Strategic Autonomy be deemed to be one?
The executive arm of government is responsible for implementing agenda to achieve the foreign policy objectives, not to question the said objectives government officials, both political appointees and civil servants are sworn to protecting and abiding by the requirements of the Constitution. They do not have the luxury to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are right or wrong, as Akinterinwa’s article seems to regress. He even appears to romanticize the irredentist notions of IPOB and Oodua groups and justifies it as the right to self-determination.
One may then ask, how well are South Sudan and Somali Land fairing (two recent examples of irredentist movements that achieved statehood)?
A process for amending Nigeria’s constitution requires the support of the two chambers of the National Assembly and two-thirds of the state houses of assembly. We Nigerians expect the foreign minister to focus on actualizing our foreign policy objectives and abiding by the constitution, not pursuing amendments to please irredentist movements or neighboring countries. The Constitution may have got it wrong by mentioning the protection of national interest and respect for international law as objectives instead of an act. Still, so it remains until it is amended. We should not expect an administration or its foreign Minister with a four-year term to focus on such pedantic hair-splitting. Their focus should be on what they swore to uphold. The executive arm of government is responsible for implementing the agenda to achieve the foreign policy objectives, not to question the said objectives. Government officials, both political appointees and civil servants, are sworn to protect and abide by the requirements of the Constitution.
Akinterinwa argues that distancing ourselves from France because some of our neighbors do not get along with her would help African integration. This is a simplistic view of complex global politics. We must not take a Manichaean view of our relationships with other countries. It is not a Cowboy movie where all the good guys wear white hats and the bad guys wear black ones. As an intellectual, I would have expected Akinterinwa to unpack the contents of Nigeria’s relationship with France. It is presently I-Dice through which thousands of young Nigerians are to be trained in digital technology. Investments in renewable energy are needed to provide electricity. It is also in getting the support of France to become a member of the G20 and a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, where Nigeria’s big voice will help actualise the very same African integration and also assist more deliberate developmental support for the likes of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger.
In terms of working with our neighbors toward a more secure neighborhood, I believe the Minister mentioned in his article that working with Saudi countries alone will not fix the security challenges without fixing Libya. You cannot fix Libya without working with the very same major powers, including France, that created the problem in the first place. Engaging with France based on the above is not tantamount to being bellicose towards our neighbors. And what happens tomorrow if there is another coup in Niger and the new government says they have kissed and made up with France? Would Akinterinwa then expect the Nigerian government to immediately pivot and start being friendly with France because Niger’s leadership says it’s ok? This would be the tail wagging the dog, Niger leading Nigeria.
Oladimeji Badmus is the Convener of Mwalimu Peers, a Pan African International Affairs Think-Tank
