POLS409 - NIGERIA FOREIGN POLICY

Basic Concepts

International Relations: International relations is made up of different aspects of relations such as

international politics, strategic studies, diplomacy, foreign policy. it is the sum total of all interactions across
countries. it involves both state and non-state actors.

International Politics: It is an aspect of international relations. it is an important aspect of international

relations.

Diplomacy: Diplomacy is an instrument employ by actors in their struggle to pursue their interests.
diplomacy is an instrument of foreign policy.

Foreign Policy: foreign policy is a strategy that state actors employ to pursue their national interest in the
international arena.

Some Definitions of Foreign policy

Foreign policy constitutes the goals that a country’s officials seek to attain abroad, the values that give rise
to these goals, and the means used to pursue or in pursuing them.

Foreign policy is a process whereby a country adjusts its actions to those of other states so as to minimize
adverse action of others in the external environment.

Foreign policy is a combination of aims and interests pursued and defended by a country through its ruling
class in its relations with other states, and the methods and means used by it for the achievement and defense
of these purposes and interests.

Foreign policy is the coordinated application of the elements of national power for the promotion of the
national interests as defined by the ruling class in relations with states and other international actors.

Nigeria Foreign Policy

Nigeria foreign policy is any action or inaction perceived by designated decision makers and their agents
towards promoting the national interests on behalf of the Nigeria state in the international arena.

Determinant of Foreign Policy

1. Decision maker
2. National interest
3. Objectives or goals
4. Strategy
5. Instruments
6. External environment
7. The outcome

1
 National Interest as Determinant of Foreign Policy

The goals of the foreign policy of a country are shaped by what the leaders perceived to be the
national interest.

The national interest of a country can be seen as those discrete objects of values that a country uses
to bargain in the international politics. They consist of tangible and intangible values that are seen as
worthwhile to pursue. They can be categorized along three (3) levels:

1) Core or primary interest: that is, preservation and stability.

2) Vital or secondary interest: that is, social economic well-being of a country.
3) General or tertiary interest: that is, international peace and security.

With respect to Nigeria, Olajide Aluko identified the national interest of Nigeria within the context
of its foreign policy objectives:

1) Nigeria’s self-preservation has a severing entity.

2) The defense and maintenance of its independence.
The two above constitute the core interests and they are nonnegotiable.
3) The socio-economic well-being of Nigeria citizens.
4) Promotion of African unity and solidarity.
5) Promotion of international peace and security.

Domestic and External Determinants of Foreign Policy

The foreign policy of a country is a product of domestic and external determinant, depending on the
country. These determinants can be in conflict or harmonious with each other at different period. In essence,
it is the combination of these determinants that shaped the behaviour of the country in its quest to pursue the
national interest. In the case of Nigeria, we have self preservation.

Domestically, these determinants have been defined in various ways by existing literatures. For
example, Yusuf Yakubu identifies a number of domestic determinants: the size of the country, its degree of
natural endowment, location, industrial capacity, and military strength. On the other hand, O. Mbachu cites
domestic determinants in terms of the country economic base, the ideological orientation of the country, the
level of political stability, and the country historical background. In his analysis, P. P. Isah identifies these
domestic determinats as factors with reference to Nigeria. He looks at the economies, the system of
government, and the degree of division among the leading political forces of the county.

Generally, the domestic determinants of foreign policy for a country like Nigeria relate to issues such
as the economy and the desire for national unity and stability.

2
 The external determinants of foreign policy in the international system is a product of many factors,
issues and events that take place outside the country that facilitate or constrain the ability of a country to
pursue its national interest. For instance, when Nigeria has a buoyant economy in the 1990’s, its orientation
towards the external environment was afro centric. However, the economic downturn that have span over
three decades has compelled Nigeria to softened this radical posture as its economy became increasingly
dependent on the international environment.

Instruments of Foreign Policy

1) Diplomacy: This is the most common instrument for the articulation of foreign policy; in fact,
diplomacy is the spice of foreign policy. Diplomacy involves persuasion, bargaining, threat or
coercion, exchange of visit. Diplomacy is undertaken through internal and bilateral engagement.
2) Propaganda: involves the use of tactical use of communication channels to manipulate the attitude of
the international community along the pre-determined lines.
3) Soft Power or Cultural Relation: Soft power involves the use of non-coercion aspect of power such
as ideology, democracy and religion to promote the prestige of one country over the interest of other
countries.
4) Clandestine Activities: the use of discreet means to obtain information from abroad or sponsoring
persons in other countries to undermine their power base. E.g, espionage, spying, subversion,
sabotage etc.
5) Demonstration of Force: the sheer display or threat to the use of force against a

Some Relevant Approaches and Models in the Analysis of Nigeria Foreign Policy
Prof Asobie Assisi University of Nigeria, Nsukka, wrote an article called (Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign
Policy: Nigeria Experience 1960 - 1975), he identified number of models and approaches on Nigeria
Foreign Policy. They are:
1) Super-structural Approach / otherwise known as Classical Realism Approach
2) Sub-Structural Approach / otherwise known as Political Economy Approach
3) Rational-Actor Model
4) Bureaucratic Politics Model
5) Marxist Instrumentalist Model
6) Internal-External Settings Model
Explanations
2) Super-structural Approach / otherwise known as Classical Realism Approach: This approach looks at
how changes in government affect the foreign policy orientation and pursuit of Nigeria This
approach examine the difference in the regimes in their foreign policy.
2) Sub-Structural Approach / otherwise known as Political Economy Approach: This approach draws
its inspiration from the dependent nature of the Nigeria dependent economy for external support.
This dependent nature affects Nigeria’s foreign policy. According to this approach, the orientation
3
 and role of the dominant classes in the arena of decision making are what define the nature and arena
of Nigeria national interest. Typical example of proponent of this approach is Aeron Gana, Chibuzo
Nwoke.

3) Rational-Actor Model: A good example of this model is the work of P. P. Izah “Continuity and
change in Nigeria Foreign Policy”. Nigeria’s foreign policy is understood within the context of
some personalities who are officially designated to make rational or calculative decision on behalf of
Nigeria in the international arena. This rational decision-makers look at conditions in the external
environment against the backdrop of options available in order to make decisions.

4) Bureaucratic Politics Model: This approach looks at the structure of government and how it shapes
foreign policy making administration. It examines the bureaucratic processes involved and the
bargaining power of groups to bargain in shaping foreign policy decisions. Example: Prof Asobie
Assisi “Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy: Nigeria Experience 1960 - 1975”.

5) Internal-External Settings Model: Typical example include, Gordan J. Idan “Nigeria: Internal Politics
and Foreign Policy 1960 – 1966)”. This model employs a systematic analysis of the interaction
between Nigeria’s domestic environment and its external setting and how it shapes foreign policy
making and implementation. This model derives its inspiration from the behaviouralist school. The
external setting covers the factors and conditions outside Nigeria’s territorial boundaries, while the
internal settings consist of the social strata of Nigeria or the aggregate behaviour of its citizens. The
decision making process where foreign policy is made refers to the actors and institutions who takes
in to cognizance, the internal and external settings. This model has given rise to the linkage theory of
international politics which argues that domestic politics is shaped by external and vice-versa.

6) The Marxist Instrumentalist Model: This approach looks at how the state is employed by the
dominant class in Nigeria society as an instrument of promoting capitalist accumulation and profit.
The dominant class in alliance with foreign capital uses the institutions of the state to define
Nigeria’s behaviour or official position in the international arena. The work of Aeron Gana falls on
this approach.

4
 PROBLEMS IN THE STUDY OF NIGERIA FOREIGN POLICY
Scholars of international relations have suggested various models and framework to analyse foreign
policy behaviour of nation-state. Traditionally, diplomatic historians and other scholars have tended to take
on historical approach whereby description of continuities and discontinuities of the foreign policy
behaviour is undertaken. This method has been criticized for its lack of rigour in its organization of data,
explanation and prediction. Apart from this, there is also a problem of unit or level of analysis, should the
analysts focus on the state or the international system?
Theorist like Morgenthau and the realist school in general focused on the state as the unit of analysis,
thus, taking state as the sole actor approach. Other scholars like Kaplan argued and suggested the whole
international system as the most appropriate level of analytical investigation.
Theoretical framework or models have to choose between micro (state) or macro (international) level
of analysis. Neither of these has been found to be fully satisfactorily in either explaining foreign policy
behaviour or international politics over a period of time, either within a single particular state or across
varieties of states. The state as sole actor approach was criticized on the basis that, it assumed that state are
unitary rational actor whereas in reality, that is not the case that states are made of individual human being
on whom analysis should focus. In other words, states are made of individual players who influence and take
decision on behalf of the state. It is therefore necessary for focus on those who involve in the decision
making process, if the analyst is able to focus on the individual decision maker and is able to penetrate their
minds, will and heart, then he or she will be able to understand, explain and predict the reality of state
foreign policy behaviour. Even among those who argued that it is more profitable to focus on individuals as
actors do not agree among themselves on which aspect of individual actor one would analyze. For example,
Cotam, in order to explain foreign policy behaviour, you have to (you must) find out what motivate the
decision maker(s). The foreign policy motivation of the decision makers can be explained by identifying
their world view (their guiding principles, their philosophy) and their perception of external environment.
C. T. Allison, on the other hand suggested three models:
1) Rational actors 2) Organizational Model 3) Bureaucratic Model
His argument is that, the rational actor and organization model give only part explanation. The
bureaucratic politics model is not only against the rationality assumed in the rational actor model but also
emphasis the interest of bureaucrat and organization.
According to him, because of bureaucratic and organizational interests which go into the decision
making process there is result bargaining, pushing and pulling of interest, thus resulting in compromises in
the decisional output.
Because of this bureaucratic politics, therefore, we cannot assume that the state or the leader (the
actors) act rationally in their external behaviour. This bureaucratic politics model therefore, denies that,
there is in existence, a set of policy option from which decision maker select the one that best optimizes their
own.

5
CRITICISM OF ALLISON
Stephen D. Krasner has criticized Allison’s model, he argued that, using the bureaucratic politics
model to analysis foreign policy is misleading, dangerous, and compelling. It is misleading because it
obscures/prevents the power of the president. He argues that, it is dangerous because it undermines the
assumptions of democratic politics by relieving the officers of his responsibilities. It is compelling because it
offers leaders an excuse for their failures, and scholars use the opportunities and complications.

Tuesday, 2nd February, 2023.

POLITICAL ECONOMY OF NIGERIA FOREIGN POLICY
The post-colonial economy
In February, 1977, at the University of Ibadan, Joseph Garba said “no nation can effectively pursue a
dynamic and independent foreign policy with a weak and independent economy”.
At the time of independence (1960), Nigeria was primarily an agrarian society [depend on
agriculture], and by that we mean that, the mainstream of the economy was agriculture while the vast
majority of people were farmers keeping small plot of land, they produce food for domestic consumption
and export. Crops such as cotton and groundnut in the North, cocoa, rubber and palm product in the South
were the main export commodities. Export earnings were considerable and helped to build up regional
infrastructure in the 1960s giving the region regional for political advantage. To maximize on the
contribution of the agricultural sector to the national development, the regional governments after the
attainment of self rule embarked upon agricultural extensions service schemes and farm settlement which
proved very successful.
Establishment of Market boards
The boards were marketing monopolies that fixed prices for produce which they purchase from the
farmers and sold to consumers mainly in the industrial metropolitan centre of Europe and America. The
marketing boards became major sources of revenue to the new Nigeria government which were already
trying to cope with the rising frustration of its urban dwellers whose expectations have been raised by the
promises of the nationalists’ politicians conversing for public offices. A consequence of this was a
significance transfer of the surpluses generated by the rural farmers to the urban centers. For example, cocoa
house in Ibadan and western house in Lagos were built from surplus from marketing boards with the capital
gains from agriculture not in returning in any reasonable sense in form of reinvestment in rural areas, many
farmers started migrating to urban centers.
So, the discovery of oil changed everything in the agricultural sector from less than 30% of total
earnings, the contribution grew up to steadily in Nigeria until it reached over 90% in the 1980s. Following
Nigeria joining of OPEC in 1973 which also coincided with the sudden rise of in oil prices, Nigeria export
earnings rose dramatically. Therefore, Nigeria joined the league of major oil producers and exporters
playing significant role in international politics. This was evident in Nigeria visible role in anti-apartheid

6
struggle in the 1970s as Nigeria economic status changed for better, so also its political structure and social
formation.
Monday, 6th February, 2023.
With the oil proceeds (profits) accruing in the federal government in the 1970, it was possible for the
government to embark on a number of projects such as universities, teaching hospitals, urban road networks
were constructed. The land use decree was promulgated in 1978 to harmonize land use and ownership in the
country, vesting the land in the state. The oil proceeds (profits) were used to develop the new state capitals
and local government headquarters, while this was going on, a new pattern of life emerged, particularly
among the rich and those in power, the misuse of public resources and corruption became the order of the
day. Since 1979, every government that came to power has launched a campaign against corruption, today
the government is still fighting against this vice (corruption) under ICPC and EFCC. A Comprador class
(parasitic class) grew up whose primary concern was to accumulate wealth at all cost. This was done in
collaboration with other foreign agents (interests).
By the beginning of 1980s, however, a major world recession hits the oil market and the prices fell
drastically from about $40 dollars per barrel in 1970s and went down to $8 dollars per barrel in 1986. Total
daily oil production also went down considerably. One consequence of this was the general decline of
foreign exchange earnings with agriculture in the decline and a stagnant manufacturing sector, the impact of
the oil crisis was devastating.
The crisis of the Nigeria economy however, was worsening by the huge national debt which rose from
only 8.0 billion Naira in 1980s to 20.9 billion naira in 1986. So, servicing this debt alone, Nigeria was
spending nearly 40% of its export earnings. By 1993, Nigeria external debt was up to 33.0 billion naira. It
was against this background that the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAF) was launched in October
1986. The social and political consequences of all these led to further weakening of Nigeria as a nation
undermining its image and credibility as a leading Africa nation. The persistent economic decline created
deep dislocation (confusions, crises) in the Nigeria Society. In the 30years or so, crime rate such as armed
robbery, murder, arson, banditry, boko haram and so also urban uprisings first by various religious sects and
subsequently by the lumpen proletariats (comprador). Although in the early 1980s, the religious crises were
intra-denominational, subsequent ones were interdenominational. Increased economic hardship also led to
xenophobic tendency among the various nationalities in Nigeria.
Because of social and geographical mobility over the years, most urban and rural communities in
Nigeria are inhabited by various cultural and ethnic groups which are co-existed peacefully for many years,
but the seeds of discord son by the colonialism were fertilized by deepening economic crises in Nigeria. This
led to narrow trivial exclusive tendencies, sectarian politics, hostilities and even violence. In most urban
cities in the North, where the economic crises bite harder, violence erupted. In the countryside (rural areas),
the issue of land, boundary disputes and common quarrels, even over cattle hitherto (before now), resolved
amicably, now resulted in violence and death. In the southern part of the country where pressure over land
was very great, boundary and inter-communal tension and conflicts were very common features throughout
7
1980s and early 1990s. From all these, it is clear that, the various phases of evolution (emergence) of
Nigeria as a nation has at one level succeeded in bring about the emergence of Nigeria as a single country,
but over the years because of both historical factor and contemporary development, the idea of Nigeria as a
nation is still in the process of evolution.

9th February, 2023.

NIGERIA FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES
Nigeria since independence in 1960 has consistently retained as part of the primary objectives of her
foreign policy, the critical question of independence, national self-determination, national unity, national
security, territorial integrity, economic prosperity (development) and the advancement of freedom and
justice to the black race in Africa and in the Diaspora. These goals are what came to be known as the Nigeria
national interest precepts [guidelines] that were used to mobilized Nigeria. This precept also formed the
basis and genesis of Nigeria’s participation in the UN’s system, the formation of the defunct OAU and now
AU, the joining of non-alignment movement and her commitment towards the decolonization struggle in
Africa.
At the end of civil war in 1970, the second national development plans from 1970 – 1974 stated
Nigeria foreign policy objectives as follows:
a) The promotion and protection of national interest.
b) The promotion of the total libration of Africa.
c) Promotion of international cooperation.
d) Respect for international law.
e) The formation of a just world economic order.
Nigeria first Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa confirmed these goals at the UN formal
admission/induction in October, 1960. In his word: “it is maybe better to state briefly, the principles or
objective which we have accepted as the basis of our policies in the international relations.
Firstly, the desire of Nigeria to remain in friendly terms with all nations and to participate actively in
the in the work of United Nation organization.
Secondly, Nigeria had absolutely no territorial expansion intentions.
Thirdly, we (Nigerians) shall not forget our own friends.

13th February, 2023.

Thirdly, we (Nigerians) shall not forget our own friends, and we are proud that we have been accepted
as a member of the UN, nevertheless as a matter of routine with any of the power blocs. We are committed
to uphold the principles upon which United Nation is founded.
Fourthly, Nigeria holds to work with other African state to the progress of Africa and to assist in bring
all African territories to a state of responsible independence.

8
 His foreign minister, Jaja Nwajukwu said: “we want Africa to live in peace, we do not want her
continue in pieces. Nigerians believe in the integration of African continent, pan-africanism is no longer a
theory, it is a fact’.

Nigeria was said to have particularly included non-interference in the internal affairs of other states
because:
1) The principle is part of the UN charter, and Nigeria had promised at independence to abide by the
charter.
2) The fact that Nigeria, like other African nation is multi-ethnic and multi-religious and so tried to
avoid foreign maneuvers likely to generate internal instability which could inhibit (prevent) the multi
desire (much needed) national integration and economic development.
3) That Nigeria was one of African states that pressed for and secured the inclusion of this principle in
the OAU charter.

Ideological Confrontation
On the issue of ideological confrontation between the west and east, the prime minister said it has
presented Nigeria the opportunity to join international community without prior commitment. In reality,
however, Nigeria had a contradictory policy on the ideological confrontation between the two blocs. For
example, the prime minister amended a motion at UN level moved by the defunct Soviet Union which
proclaimed the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional ends to colonialism in all its forms and
manifestations. Meanwhile his government at home refused to established diplomatic relations with the
defunct Soviet Union and Eastern Europe until 1963, it was the British embassy in Moscow that catered for
Nigeria’s interest in that country, while only a restricted number of Soviet officers were allowed in Lagos,
the then Nigeria’s capital city.
Furthermore, despite the government’s verbal commitment to anti-colonial struggles, it refused to
recognize any of the liberation movement because, the West considered them as Soviet sponsored. Hence, in
1962, Nigeria government refused to train Armed Forces for Anglon nationalists who were fighting against
Portuguese) colonialism in the pretext that it will mean we are training Africans to fight Africans.

Monday, 20th February, 2023.

The review of Nigeria foreign policy under Professor Adedeji Adebayo was accepted in May, 1976.
Thus include:

1. The defense of Nigeria sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.

2. The creation of the necessary political condition in Africa and the rest of the world as it would
facilitate the promotion and defense of territorial sovereignty and independence.

9
 3. The creation of necessary economy and socio-political condition in Africa and the world so as to
facilitate the promotion of self-reliance of Nigeria and rapid economic development.
4. The achievement of collective self-reliance in Africa and the rest of world.
5. The promotion and defense of social justice and respect to human dignity.
6. The promotion and defense of world peace.

An objective assessment of the sixth stated goals of the Nigerian foreign policy (except the first one)
shows that the rest were and are still unrealistic by the logic of their unattainment and sustainable nature
given the lack of economic independence of Nigeria which have been a bottleneck to its sociopolitical
stability. In other words, the means to pursue these goals are not there since Nigeria was and still is
economically, politically and militarily weak to undertake such out of proportionally goal. As a result
therefore, Obasanjo reviewed and reduced them to a manageable three (3) goals:
1. To maintain the stability and unity of Nigeria territorial sovereignty and independence.
2. To promote socioeconomic development through modern technology.
3. To promote world peace and security.

The 1979 federal constitution further provided the following foreign policy of Nigeria:
1. The promotion of Africa unity.
2. The promotion of the total political, socioeconomic and cultural interaction (That is, liberation of
Africa).
3. The promotion of all forms of international cooperation conducive to a consolidation of universal
peace, friendship, and respect among all the states and people.
4. Finally, to combat racism and quicken the process of decolonization and racism in all his
ramifications.

DETERMINANTS OF NIGERIA FOREIGN POLICY

Economies of Nigeria Foreign Policy (Economic Factor of Nigeria Foreign Policy)
A good understanding of Nigeria foreign policy is properly the only basis to understand the political
and organization process of Nigeria society. Nigeria at independence in 1960, inherited the political power
without economic independence (without economic power). This was a result of colonial domination and
exploitation of both Nigeria natural and human resources without any real development capable of rural-
urban integration type of economy. This type of economy ignored the development of productive force
which resulted in the distortion and disarticulation of Nigeria economy. Nigeria thus depends on mono-
cultural primary producing economy which does not make for autonomous development but rather a
dependent economy. This situation demands that Nigeria's underdeveloped economy is closely tied to the
dictate of the western developed economies. Up till 1970, Nigeria economy was largely dependent on
agriculture.
10
2. The Military Factor of Nigeria Foreign Policy.
The military factor is an important factor of a nation's foreign policy as it concerns efforts towards
safeguarding the country from external threat or aggression or in a danger of being attacked and defeated.
Although, the military in Nigeria is concerned with external defense, the relative peaceful pace (phase) have
brought into internal politics. Thus, the military complimented the police force in the case of Maitatsine in
Kano riot in 1980, and Bakolori peasant riot in Sokoto in 1982. At independence, Nigeria inherited British
trained armies. Britain also reserved the monopoly of supply military hardware and logistics. It is important
to stress that, Nigeria got her independence free from any form of violence. Nigeria’s military has not been
conceived as a powerful instrument of foreign policy, although Nigeria played an important role in the
United Nations peacekeeping mission in Congo crisis (1960 – 1966), on helping Tanzania in suppressing
mutiny against the governed in 1964. It was only the Nigeria civil war (1967 – 1970) that seriously engaged
Nigeria military after which there has been no (there has not been) credible external aggressions. After the
civil war, Nigeria has a standing army of about 250,000. This (having this army) was conditioned by the
quest to display military deterrent (deterrence) power relations in both sub-region and the continent at large.
Basically, this was possible because of the oil boom which provided for high defense expenditure which
went virtually into personnel salaries and monuments. However, between 1979 and 1988, Nigeria military
capability stood approximately 173,000 armies. 160,000army, navy 6000 and the air force 7000men
respectively. Now, the numerical strength of Nigeria armed force is said to be below 100,000. Part of the
problems of the Nigeria military is that, it is heavily dependent on western countries for its military and
logistics needs. Secondly, Nigeria air force is not capable to give adequate cover air to ground cover to the
infantries partly because of the inadequate bombers (aircraft) and detective rader system. Third, Nigeria
navy lacks sophisticated equipment and training to combat incessant maritime insecurity of fraud,
smuggling, and economic sabotage in the Nigeria territorial water.

3. The Political Factor of Nigeria Foreign Policy

Nigeria political structure and political relations greatly affect how Nigeria society is organized,
managed and reproduced. At the political independence of Nigeria, the ruling elites of Balewa
administration inherited political power in a structurally dependent economy polity (nation). Logically, since
neocolonial state was not a captain of industry, it only used the state power at disposal for capital
accumulation to compete for political power rather than to transform the economy. The net result (or gross
result, or final result) was that politics was highly commercialized as the economic power becomes a
precondition for political power. The ruling elites in control of the state power actively collaborate with the
multinational corporations to deepen and sharpen Nigeria dependence on external economies for its needs.
The problem of commercialized politics combined with regionalism to sharpen political conflict
especially as tribal and ethnic loyalty became solidarized. It was largely because of the political conflicts
and crises as well as cases of bureaucratic corruption which accounted for the fall of the first republic which

11
threw the country into the civil war (1967 – 1970). The military administration of General Yakubu Gowon
after the civil war did not use the oil boom to transform the economy until he was overthrown in 1970.

Friday, 24th March, 2023.

External Environment of Nigeria Foreign Policy

External environment means the place of other actors or events in the international system. Here, the
issues to be considered include:

1) Nigeria’s relation with concentric cycle (from West Africa to Africa then to the world). For example,
ECOWAS sub-region in terms of political, economic, military, bilateral or multilateral terms.

2) Relations with African continent in terms of the sum total of relations with member states of the
OAU (now AU). Nigeria’s relations with the OAU (now AU) in respects to/with its continental,
socio-economic and political needs, and the decolonization of Southern Africa.

3) Relations on a global level which includes patterns and forms of relations with the super power in
terms of the cold war and non-alignment, the UN, the Common Wealth and the OPEC to mention a
few.

Domestic Factors of Determinants of Foreign Policy Constitute the Most Important Factors
The fundamental point is that, a nation's internal security climate, its economy and polity cannot be
divorced from its interdependent patterns and forms in the international environment.. Hence, the external
setting has been a log in the wheel of the progress of Nigerian foreign policy. This is not only by the reason
of the nature of the domestic economy, but to the extent it affects Nigeria's images or perceptions of the
actors or events in the international politics.

Perception or Psychological Factor

Foreign Policy of a nation is not only the interplay or forces between the domestic and external
setting. A nation is perplexed by the images of friendliness or hostility, and this is not easily interpreted.
Misinformation or misperception of actors or events in the external setting is politically disastrous on any
country (nation). Hence, perceptive powers of Nigeria primarily depend on;

1) Its historical background which include education, legal system, colonial heritage, and ideological
lineage.

2) Orientation and personal values, preference or interpersonal relations of the decision makers.

12
 3) The availability of adequate and timely information because information is very important to be
dangerously left unchecked.

4) Its image of itself in terms of domestic capabilities. Hence, Nigeria has maintained the leadership
syndrome in Africa affairs because of its size, population, natural and human resources as well as its
considered military potential, its highly decayed, corrupt and vulnerable society notwithstanding.

EFFECTS OF CIVIL WAR ON NIGERIA FOREIGN POLICY

Propaganda and Foreign Policy
Massive propaganda as a foreign policy device is to keep Nigeria one. The threat of secession forced
the government of General Gowon to embark on a massive campaign to explain the cause of the crisis and to
prevent external interference. Gowon began this effort by summoning all heads of the diplomatic missions in
Lagos to conference as early as March 1967, at this conference, he sought the cooperation of their
governments for whatever action he might take should the East secedes. He told the diplomats that the
decision agreed at the Aburi meeting not to use force to settle the Nigeria crisis would remain valid if there
was no attempt by nobody to disintegrate Nigeria. Ojukwu however accused Gowon of deliberately
attempting to misinform the diplomatic community on Nigeria’s situation.. He (Ojukwu) would therefore
forward all relevant documents in connection with Aburi meeting in Ghana. It therefore became apparent to
General Gowon and his government that, they must double their efforts. Thus, in April, Gowon again
summoned the heads of diplomatic mission in Lagos, he urged them to do nothing that will damage the
integrity and corporate existence of Nigeria. He said “you will agree with me that, as the head of military
government, I am duty bound to protect against any act of rebellion and any threat to our continued
existence, as a nation, we are approaching a Katanga situation”.
With the formal secession in May 1967, it became even more necessary for federal government to
put greater efforts than ever before to explain its actions (activities) to the world. The Nigeria government
(under Gowon) sent diplomats to visit various countries, particularly those in Africa to explain the situation
of Nigeria.

Monday, 27th March, 2023.

The Nigeria government was quick to point out that, foreign interests were anxious to control the oil
of the eastern region as they tried to control the copper in Katanga. According to Gowon “oil found in the
Nigeria Delta has become strategically very important, everyone knows that it will be to the advantage of oil
companies if they cannot get the better deal from the Biafra in the future, should they encourage her to
succeed”.
From this speech, it could be seen that, clearly, Gowon was blaming the West. This definitely was a
turn in Nigeria attitude towards the West. As was noted earlier, the civilian regime had seen the West as a
traditional friend, but the present circumstances had forced Gen. Gowon to be suspicious. Gowon said “the
13
method of certain Western powers in Katanga has been reproduced in Nigeria, although there is no formal
recognition, there is hardly concealed attempt to plead that Ojukwu like Tshomba is in control and should be
dealt with on an ad hoc and pragmatic basis.
Impacts
The civil war that broke out as a result of the Nigeria police operation to put down the rebellion was an
important turning point in Nigeria foreign policy.
The war called into question some of the old values and beliefs about Nigeria role in international
relation.
Apart from the fact that the war had united the remaining region completely behind General Gowon in
his effort to crush the rebellion, it reinforced the indivisibility of Nigeria in the minds of Nigerians. Thus, the
slogan by Gen. Gowon: “keep Nigeria one” became a common household word. Gen. Gowon enjoyed an
overwhelming popularity in such a way that no Nigeria leader has ever experienced, with what it remained
as Nigerian solely behind him, he was in a position to launch a diplomatic offensive to restore the territorial
integrity of Nigeria. To crush the rebellion, it was necessary to buy more arms, Nigeria then turned to her so
called tradition friends, namely: Britain and USA for the purchase of arms and ammunitions, however, the
British government was divided on the issue, some members of parliament had argued that, the sale of arms
to the federal government would prolong the war and cause more death of children and women. This view,
ridiculous as it was, seemed to have prevailed throughout 1967, and only limited arms were supplied. The
USA on its own part refused totally to sell arm to any of the sides, this came to the Nigerian leaders as a
shock, for they had taken Britain and America, indeed the whole West (the West as a whole) as their friends,
but these friends had let them down at the hour of their needs, they (that is, from Nigeria side) could not
understand why the United State which had faced similar situation in its history would failed to come to the
aid of the federal government.. The federal government therefore had no other choice than to come to other
sources for the supply of arms. The defunct Soviet Union was obviously the other possibility, and she was
quick to supply arms to Nigeria. The reaction in Nigeria was very favorably to this new development, and
there were agitations that, Nigeria should quit the Common Wealth immediately. The Soviet Union suddenly
became Nigeria true friend because a friend in need is a friend indeed. This new development led Nigeria to
open more channels of contact with the Eastern Europe. For the first time, Soviet presence in Nigeria was
publicly welcomed. Ojukwu seized this opportunity to appeal to the USA in particular to intervene to protect
democracy in Africa (Nigeria). (Ojukwu was indirectly seeking America’s support). Nigeria according to
Ojukwu “had brought communism to happen, for years, Russia tried to get into Africa through the back
door, but they failed, now they were being invited through the front door”. Although, the USA did not
change its official position of arms embargo (ban) on both sides, the American public were sufficiently
arouse to contribute generously to the humanitarian relief funds on Biafra.
Britain on the other hand was much more frightened about this new development as it was evident in
the words of conservative member of the parliament; ‘diplomatically refusal by Britain to sell arms to the

14
Federal Government had been a disaster to Britain. She had been espoused as weak and poor friend in time
of need, we can only hope that the Nigeria will forgive our callous indifference to their plight”.
Britain was placed in a very difficult position, the refusal to sell offensive weapons was been
interpreted in Lagos as sympathy to the rebels, and at the same time, the rebels accused Britain of colluding
with the Soviet Union to annihilate the rebels (that is Igbos). The British government fearing the possibility
of dominant Soviet influence in Nigeria. The British government resumed the sales of arms to Nigeria in the
mid August, 1968, even with the resumption of sales of arms, Nigeria has learned a lesson not to keep her
diplomatic eggs in one basket. She continued to improve relations with Soviet Union and the Eastern
Europe. For instance, in July 1968, Chief Anthony Enahoro paid an official visit to the Soviet Union after
which a cultural co-operation agreement was signed, and this was immediately followed by an offer of 145
scholarships to Nigerian students to study in the Soviet Union. Similar agreements were also reached
between Nigerian and several Eastern European countries.
There were other aspects of the Civil War which also led to what we called “the radicalization of
Nigeria foreign policy”. For instance, during the war, as a result of propaganda by rebels various
humanitarian organizations such as International Committee for the Red Cross and various other
organizations attempted to send materials to the rebel areas (that is Biafra), the rebels often misused this and
imported arms in the process. In due course, the Nigeria government had to insist that all relief supplies must
be channeled through Lagos and checked before going through lands to the rebel held areas. This was very
much against some influential opinion in the west. For instance, the former American Vice-President, Mr
Richard Nixon demanded that, it should not be checked.

15