NIGERIA AND INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS: CAN NIGERIA STAND
ALONE?
By
Olufemi P. Adelusi (Ph.D)
ABSTRACT
The chapter examines the relationship that
exists between Nigeria and the Key Countries of the World in the face of avalanche
of sanctions (Political, economic, sports and others) imposed on her by her
trading partners.
The likely negative as well as positive
impact and effects, which these sanctions could engender on the country, were
also discussed. The study posits that
the greatest source of negative impact lies in the realm of the dependent
nature of her economic and technological demands, while the positive angle
explores the likely spin off effect of such sanctions on arousal of the
creative and ingenuity of the citizenry.
The chapter concludes with likely answers
to the main question that arose in the study, which is, can Nigeria
stand-alone? The answers offered were
placed at the steps of the forces that push any of the negative or positive impacts
to the fore; in other words, the forces that are predominantly two; namely
those that ensure that the sanctions are maintained or reinforced (these could
come from internal and external) and secondly, those that surround the
dependent character of the economy and the inclement Socio-political
environment prevailing in the country (which weakens citizens’ resolve and
positive patriotism).
I – INTRODUCTION
The choice of the topic
for this study was determined by the prevailing avalanche of all sorts of
sanctions newly imposed on Nigeria by her trading partners. The main question raised in the study is; can
Nigeria stand alone? This implies
whether the Nigerian nation can withstand these sanctions and rebuff is
considered for the study.
The line of discussion
taken in this study is that the sanctions imposed on Nigeria have positive and
negative angles to them. These angles
would be discussed extensively. Answers
to the main question in the study would also be provided by weighing of the
various forces that are behind both the positive and negative impact of the
sanctions on the country.
For convenience, the
chapter is arranged into five brief sections; the first being the introduction;
the second; a brief discussion of Nigeria and the World before the sanctions; the
third; analysis of the situation between Nigeria and the world since the
sanctions. The fourth; An examination of
the question; can Nigeria stand alone?
The conclusion makes the fifth section.
II – NIGERIA AND THE WORLD BEFORE THE SANCTIONS
A brief look at the
relationship between Nigeria and the world before the sanctions would reveal
two important aspects of such relationships.
These two aspects could be described as the commercial and trading
relations with major countries of the Developed World and the Newly
industrializing world on the one hand; and the participation by the way of
acceding to international treaties as well as enjoying the benefits and
obligations of membership of international organizations; on the other hand.
NIGERIA AND HER COMMERCIAL/TRADING PARTNERS
Nigeria trades with most
of the industrialized countries of Europe, America and Asia. Specific mention need be made of United
States and Britain as well as France, Germany, Spain and Japan; in that order.
The American government buys about 10% of Nigeria’s petroleum. (The Guardian (Lagos) 1995: 1)
The
figure used to be high about 14% up till 1980 when former President Shedu
Shagari threatened U.S to fight Apartheid by employing oil sales sanction (Ate,
B.E. 1988) Britain is another country which falls within the category of
countries with which Nigeria has “relations with long tap roots nurtured over
decades” (The Guardian
(Lagos) 1995:40), Nigerians know more of
British goods and services than British buying Nigerian things. The colonial historical links are the main
reasons responsible for this trend.
Franco-Nigerian economic
and commercial relations have been developed greatly since the end of the
Nigerian Civil War of 1967-1970. indeed,
the most popular car in the country now is French mark Peugeot with its joint
project factory (Assembly) P.A.N. at Kaduna; other notable ones are Mitchelin
e.t.c. Indeed, these relationships have other faces in the banking, insurance,
construction, cultural and education sectors.
Germany has always been a silent operator. The Nigerian-German relations have been more
of bilateral aid than commerce. Though
VW Assembly plant which symbolizes commercial relationship has nearly gone
underground for faulty management and financial liquidity problems. Spain buys Nigerian oil too. Japan sells more to Nigeria than she buys. A
common trend that runs through Nigeria’s commercial and trading relations with
the above countries is that of modern high performing technological products
and services, thus, you find American firms in oil exploration and refining,
the British both in oil and food processing, while France has eyes in all the
sectors (Adelusi. O, 1988:300)
Almost making Nigeria more francophone
industrially than Cameroon. All the
three leading commercial partners of Nigeria also sell military equipments or
their parts to the country. Japan’s
electronics have conquered the minds of generations of Nigerians.
Finally, Nigeria sells
petroleum as her main export commodity.
This brings about 90% of the export revenues and about 95% of the
federal collected revenues of the country.
NIGERIA IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Nigeria on according to
flag independence in 1960, was prepared to fully participate as a responsible
member of the international community.
Indeed,
“When
Nigeria first emerged as an independent state, it did so as a democracy
adhering to the principles of the Rule of Law.
By seeking admission to the United Nations, it held itself out to the
international community of Nations, Charter on Human Rights. We also voluntarily subscribed to the African
charter of Human and Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” (The
Guardian (Lagos)1995: 2,The Punch (Lagos)1995:1 & 2)
This
above observation applies to all international organizations to which Nigeria
is a member. At a very simple level,
rule of law demands that one accent to the observation of laws governing
conduct of affairs of men or institutions.
In the case of international organizations, it means respect for laid
down rules of conduct for the members.
Besides the membership of
the United Nations, Nigeria also belongs to the commonwealth. This is a voluntary association of Great
Britain and a number of its former dependencies who have chosen to maintain ties
rooted in common culture, language, educational and legal systems wrought by
their colonization by Britain. Apart
from its impact on international affairs, the 52 member organization is useful
in the area of commonwealth foundation develops and promotes professional
standards and supports educational activities among member states. At the Singapore meeting in 1971, the
commonwealth fund aid was instituted to combat poverty in member countries. If U.N has a charter on Human Rights, the
commonwealth evolved what later became the 1991 Harare Declaration which itself
was substantially fed from an earlier one in 1971 tagged the “Singapore
code”. This was hailed as the blue print
for the group’s action for the 1990s and the next century (Iyioke.A and
Nwosu.S, The Guardian (Lagos)1995:11)
Given the centrality of
issues to be discussed in this paper, it might be pertinent to let us into the
Harare Declaration.
“The Harare
Declaration can be summarized under nine points, having reaffirmed the
principles to which the commonwealth is committed and reviewed, the problems
and challenges which the world faces, members joined their voices to work with
renewed vigour to concentrate on the protection and promotion of the
fundamental political values of the commonwealth, democracy and democratic
processes and the institutions which reflect national circumstances, the rule
of law and the independence of the judiciary, just and honest government,
fundamental human rights, including equal rights and opportunities for all
citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief and protection
of the environment through respect for the principles of sustainable
development” (Ibid)
Nigeria belongs to the
organization of the African unity, whose African Charter of Human and People’s
Rights, she had enacted into cap 10 of the laws of the federal republic of
Nigeria. Economic Community of West
African States is another of such international organizations that Nigeria is
an important member. This organization
has a treaty, which in effect had been revised recently (Treaty of 1993” West
Africa (London)1995 :782-783)
Among the provisions of
the revised treaty is that which makes room for an ECOWAS parliament. This points to the desirability of having
democratic voices in the shaping of the future and the relevance of the
organization to the citizens of the sub-region.
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, South-South Commission
and the Non-Aligned Movements are other visible international organizations,
which are not sporting or cultural but are influential in the course of
international affairs to which Nigeria belongs also.
From the above discussion,
it could be seen that Nigeria in her relations with the world and enjoyed
peaceful and reciprocal interactions.
The underlying factor that supported this state of affairs was that,
“As
a member of the international community, we have voluntarily surrendered a part
of our sovereignty and more over, there is nothing like absolute sovereignty”(“Ekpu, The Guardan(Lagos)1995: 4, S. T.
Oluga,This Day (Lagos)1996 :22)
III – NIGERIA AND THE WORLD SINCE THE SANCTIONS
Nigeria in her relations
with the world, it was observed, she must have solemnly promised to observe the
relevant treaties, Charters and Grand Norms which regulate the relations among
member states and in which the organization(s) believe in or stand for. Indeed, there are some standards of behaviour
which membership of international institutions imposes on the member-States. Some of such standards have become
universally acknowledged and so have become obligations, or duties. One of such is the U.N charter on human
rights and the others are the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ rights, and
both the 1971 Singapore code as well as the 1991 Harare Declaration of the
commonwealth.
In order that member
states of the U.N are equally respected and not bullied by the stronger
members, other provisions of the main charter of the U.N were also
enacted. The most important and
interesting one is that of Article 45, which spells out the non-interference
policy in member-nations’ internal affairs.
The letter is one thing; the Spirit behind it as explained above is
another thing. Events have hastened up
since the end of the Cold War era in the fall of 1989; which have made the
letters of the charter of the U.N no more sacro-sanct ( The Guardian (Lagos),1995:5)
With the near unanimousity
on the part of the members of the organization, the Spirit behind most of the
provisions of the charter are mostly considered in their relevance to the
orderly relations among the members.
Just as it is common to her Humanitarian International Intervention to
save lives of citizens of failed member stated, or states in distress, so also
do we have the elevation of the respect for human rights to a status of a jus
cogens (pre-emptory norm) (Oyebode,A, The Guardian(Lagos) 1995 :17)
Thus, “we must have realized
that in this century, the obligations of our country to uphold universally
acknowledged standards of the human rights are owed not only to our own people,
but to the entire world” (Sagay, A op. cit)
NIGERIA AND THE AVALANCHE OF SANCTIONS
To many ‘unprincipled
military hirelings’ or for those reasons that bothers on intellectual
dishonesty and fraud, (Alkali,R.A,
New Nigerian 1996:7) or
all the above; many mal-informed are wont to input the avalanche of sanctions
to the reactions of the international community to events that followed the
following conversation;
“How did the meeting go sir?
The
G.O.C cleared his throat and replied; the PRC deliberated on a number of
pending issues among which are the confirmation of the appointment of some
judges, some Khadis and retirement of some.
We took the time to deliberate on the sentences by the special Military
Tribunal on the Ogoni crisis. The PRC
unanimously agreed and accepted the verdict of the tribunal” (Awoniyi,O, Sunday Tribune, (Ibadan)
1995:22).
What was the
verdict of the Tribunal?
“Nine men were convicted On
October 30 and 31 by the Justice Ibrahim Auta Tribunal for their alleged roles
in the murder of four prominent Ogoni sons on May 21 1994. They had one month’s grace to appeal but
barely a week after conviction they were executed” (Iyioke.A and
Nwosu.S)
The event of
November 10, 1995.
“Unhinged local and international
emotions and opened up repressed reactions towards the perceived shot-comings
of the Nigerian military leadership and the subsisting frustrations about June
12, 1993, continued military rule and the detention of pro-democracy
activities,… The result has been sanctions and diplomatic tussles, from the
commonwealth, the European Union, United States, Canada, South Africa and
others. Even the United Nations had to
pass a resolution condemning the drift into tyranny in Nigeria” (Abati.R .The Guardian (Lagos)1996:9)
Announcing the
commonwealth’s decision, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jim Bolger, who was
the chairman of the gathering stated,
“In response to developments
in Nigeria which have constituted a serious violation of principles of Articles
of the Harare commonwealth declaration, commonwealth heads of government with
the exception of the Gambia and Solomon Islands have agreed to suspend Nigeria
from membership of the commonwealth, pending the return t o compliance with the
principles of the Harare Declaration” (. The Guardian
(Lagos) 12 November 1995:1)
In addition, the 52 member
organization called for the immediate and unconditional release of the 43
persons currently serving jail terms for alleged coup plot against the regime
and Chief Moshood Abiola, the assumed winner of the June 12, 1993 presidential
election (Ibid)
The leaders present at the meeting in Auckland
also decided that Nigeria would be expelled from the organization if no
demonstrable progress is made towards the fulfillment of the foregoing
conditions, within a time-frame of two years (Iyioke.A and Nwosu.S, The Guardian (Lagos), The
commonwealth suspension of Nigeria, besides the humiliation it brought to
Nigerian Leadership, it translates to denial of access to her citizens of the
following inter states co-operative ventures; Commonwealth fund for Technical
Cooperation, Commonwealth Foundation for Socio-Economic Assistance;
Commonwealth Science Council Assistance; student and Youth Programmes; consular
Relations, Employment and Labour and Technological schemes, commonwealth Woman
Development Programme (The Guardian (Lagos),1995:1)
Following the Commonwealth
action, other International Organizations became emboldened in imposition of sanctions
on Nigeria to protest the state of affairs in the country as well as publicly
condemn Nigerian government. Three days
after the execution of ‘Ogoni nine’, most ambassadors of U.S., Canada,
Netherlands and the European Union members and Russia started to leave Nigeria
for the purpose of briefing their home governments and to take instructions
(Ibid).
At the heels of the
withdrawal of the 15 European Union’s ambassadors’ was the suspension of
development aid to Nigeria by the European Commission. It also recalled its chief of delegation from
Lagos22. Let it be mentioned in passing, that Britain announced
immediate arms embargo. While U.S.
announced a ban on sale and repairs of military goods and services to Nigeria
(Ibid).
The European Union’s foreign
ministers at their meeting in Brussels on Nigeria, decided to place arms
embargo, aid freeze and visa restrictions to underscore their displeasure over
the state of Affairs in Nigeria aggravated by the November 10 1995 event. (The
Guardian (Lagos),1995:1) Although not all the member countries of the E.U sell
weapons to Nigeria, the major arms trading partners include Britain, Germany,
France and Belgium, the implication of these sanctions on Nigeria would be
expatiated on in the next section; European Union of late adopted additional
punitive measures against Nigeria which will be reviewed every six months
according to details of the E.U common position. The measures, which are reportedly to include
a ban on sporting contacts with E.U member countries and the withdrawal of
military attaché (Aite-Oshoiribhor.D.The
Guardian on Sunday (Lagos),1995: A3). The union, intends to actively pursue among
other courses of action; the adoption of a resolution on Nigeria at the 50th
United Nations General Assembly and the inclusion of the situation in Nigeria
on the agenda of the U.N Commission on Human Rights while
“Further measures will be
considered, including sanctions, if specific steps are not taken by the
Nigerian authorities towards an early transition to democracy and to nurse full
respect of human rights and the rule of law” (Ibid)
Parliaments or National
Legislatures in some of these developed countries – trading partners of Nigeria
took some time into looking into the Nigerian situation. The U.S. senate had an opportunity to
consider and commit to committee reading a bill sponsored by a senator Mrs
Nancy Kassebaum, entitled “Nigeria Democracy Act” Central to this bill is the
preamble that posits that;
The
continued military rule of General Abacha undermines confidence in the Nigeria
economy, damages relations between Nigeria and the United States, threatens the
political and economic stability of West Africa and harms the lives of the
people of Nigeria” (The Guardian (Lagos) 1995:1,The Guardian (Lagos)1995:5)
Besides the special
session on Nigeria held in the U.S. House of Representatives. Ten bills seeking tougher sanctions on
Nigeria have been reported to have already been introduced in U.S congress as a
fall out of the Ogoni Nine debate .(Vanguard
(Lagos)1995:1 & 2). The German Parliament was also reported to have
unanimously passed a motion urging the government to promote multilateral
efforts at extending the scope of existing measures. The parliamentary motion
demanded that German Government,
“in the international arena, more strongly promoted an
extension of sanctions and an import ban on Nigerian Crude “(The Guardian (Lagos),1995: 2)
With 98 votes to 12, and
42 abstention the third committee of the United Nations General Assembly was
reported to have overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning Nigeria over the
‘Ogoni nine’, while calling on the authorities of Nigeria to respect human
rights and take “immediate and concrete steps” to install democracy.( The
Guardian (Lagos),1996:15, The Punch (Lagos),1995:1)
Another international
organization that raised its voice in form of verbal sanction against Nigeria
is the Francophone Summit of Heads of States and Governments that took place at
its sixth Summit held in Cotonou, Benin Republic from 2nd to 4th
December 1995. It called for earnest
return to democratic governance and the rule of law (The Guardian
(Lagos),1995:1 & 2). It is to be noted also that “Western” Nations have
been observed of recent to have been ostensibly staling renewal of various
bilateral agreements which have lapsed over the years (The Guardian
on Sunday (Lagos) 1995:1 & A2). Certain reasons were canvassed for this;
such as Nigeria’s huge external debt and incidents of advance fee fraud, but
the real reasons according to diplomatic Sources Seem to be the “lack of
commitment to democracy”, the human rights records of the government .(Ibid) On the continent of Africa, the
natural constituency of Nigeria, were there sanctions from the African
countries? Just as the British
Government through Baroness Lynda Chalker the British Minister of Overseas
Development was quoted to have for years
“been
warning that things weren’t getting better.
They have certainly got worse. Since June 1993 we have gone on trying to
make Nigeria to accept that change would have to take place. There is an urgent need for a return to
civilian, democratic rule”,
(The Guardian on Sunday (Lagos),
1995: A2.)
Many African leaders
including President Mandels and Mugabe were reported to have seized the
opportunity provided by the Commonwealth Summit to join other Nations for
sanctioning Nigeria. Nigeria’s suspension from the commonwealth was reportedly
championed by South African President Nelson Mandela, who was supported by many
other African Leaders. Indeed, the secretary general of the organization of
African Uity Salim Ahmed Salim revealed the efforts of President Mugabe and
President Mandela, both who visited Nigerian Authorities earlier enough to
reason them out. That President Mandela
sent Thaba Mbeki South African Second Vice-president and Arch bishop Desmond
Tutu as well as some others, but,
“there seemed to be this element of disdain which seemed to have
caused all this” ( The Guardian on
Sunday (Lagos),1995: B3).
South Africa as a country had imposed some limited
sanctions against Nigeria. The country’s
president is co-ordinating on-going efforts to ensure a multilateral embargo on
Nigeria’s crude oil. The South African
Football Association withdrew the invitation extended to Nigeria to participate
in a four-nation tourney in November 1995.
There was the expulsion of a Nigerian beauty queen from a pageant
competition. All these constitute the
most visible of any set of sanctions from any African country against Nigeria
“(The Guardian(Lagos)1996: 1-2)
South Africa’s President explaining his
position was quoted as saying;
“We tried to resolve the
matter by peaceful means. It is
something quite diplomacy to persuade them to refrain from the action that they
have taken. My conscience is therefore
clear in taking this action. (Commonwealth
Suspends Nigeria op. cit.: A2)
Furthermore, he was quoted
as having emphasized that;
“South Africans are not
against the people of Nigeria. what we
are proposing are short and sharp measures which will produce the result
Nigerians and the world desire” (Ibid).
For according to him;
“We are dealing with an
illegitimate, barbaric, arrogant military dictatorship which has murdered
activists using a Kangaroo court and false evidence. That is what we are against. Our impatience at the developments in Nigeria
is a feeling of sympathy towards Nigerians, that a nation that we look up to
should be subjected to tyranny and undermines Africa’s revival and the status
of the continent in the eyes of the world” ( The Guardian on Sunday (Lagos) 1995: 1)
His counterpart in the
Southern African region Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe summarise the
feelings of African countries;
“For all of us, I think in
Africa, are fully angry at what has happened.
We have done everything within our power as friends and as brothers to
assist but apparently they are inexorable set on a course of self-destruction”
(Ibid)
IV – CAN NIGERIA STAND ALONE
In order to be able to
adequately posit an answer to the above question, one will need, in the first
instance know against what specific sanctions are there to stand against and
also, the varied factors that could indicate what direction the likely answer
to the above question could go. That is, whether positively and or negatively;
Nigeria could or not stand alone? At cursory look at the likely areas of the
sanctions imposed and the contemplated ones would be in order. Britain, the U.S. had imposed some sanctions
in the wake of the annulled June 12, 1993 presidential elections in
Nigeria (Adelusi .O.and A. Lipede, 1994)
these sanctions were reportedly maintained by U. S. without additional
ones. The U.S. already had withdrawn
some aid and services to Nigeria (The Guardian (Lagos),1995: 1) Nevertheless,
taking cognizance of the fact that the earlier sanctions were from the U. S.
executive and not the congress, the text of a bill to be enacted by both houses
of the congress entitled ‘Nigeria Democracy Act’ indicates that more sanctions
are likely to tumble from the U.S. Some
of the proposed ones, range from; No Assistance under the foreign Assistance
act of 1961 or the Arms Export control Acts; Prohibition on New Investment;
prohibition of air Transportation and; Multilateral measures to promote
Democracy and Human Rights .(
The Guardian (Lagos), 4 December 1995:5)
The European Union first
met since the ‘Ogoni nine’ incident to impose sanctions in the areas of arms
embargo, aid freeze and visa restrictions on Nigeria (The Guardian
(Lagos) 1995: 1) The same Union met for
the second time over Nigeria on 4th December 1995 to impose another
set of sanctions; this time the measures include a ban on sporting contact with
E. U member countries and the withdrawal of military attaches (The Guardian (Lagos),1995:A3) We might take a
more than cursory look at some of the developmental aids that will be
immediately affected. It has been
observed that there are no fewer than 10 European Development Fund (EDF)
financed projects worth N22 billion oil palm belt development programme: There is also the N3.6 billion North-East
arid zone development programme along side the Mambilla Tea and Irrigation scheme.
A fuller details of the bilateral agreements renewal stalled include Renewal
Natural Resources strategy involving about N600 million for all the states,
which would have been a follow up to Britain’s earlier assistance under the
HIV/Hepatitis aid project that ran from 1991 to September 1995 leaving an
unutilized N200,000 that needs rescheduling (New swatch (Lagos).1995:10&11
This Day (Lagos) 1996:10, This Day (Lagos) 1995:15)
It has been observed that
most components of the last bilateral assistance from Germany to Nigeria have
lapsed and fresh hopes of renewal have dwindled. Germany has given DM 38.5 million assistance
in support of Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), DM 26.8 million for the
rehabilitation of the National Electric Power Authority; other include, DM35
million for the rehabilitation of water schemes in Zaria, Kaduna state and
Ogoja in Cross River State (The Guardian on Sunday (Lagos),1995).
Austria is reported to be
scared of a fresh agreement because Nigeria is owing her so much. At the last debt reconciliation between the
two countries, Nigeria was said to be owing Austria-Alphine Machinery in
respect of Delta Steel Complex. Also
outstanding were AS182.39 million to Deutsche Bank AG and Siemens AG for NITEL
equipment (.Ibid) As 338.47
million and AS222.24 million to bank Austria and Voest Alphine machinery for
purchases by the Niger State government. In all there are reportedly, about 18
debt portfolios various owed by Ondo, Kaduna, Lagos, Niger and Rivers State
governments, NITEL, Delta Steel, Benue Cement, Anambra Motors Company NNPC and
the Federal Ministry of Defence (Ibid) The most recent likely addition to the
avalanche of sanctions could be selective assets freeze of selected officials
of the Federal Military Government (Ibid).
The U.S. is reported to be lobbing Britain where the bulk of the assets,
mostly in cash, buildings and investments are held. About $30 billion belonging to Nigerian
officials (This Day
(Lagos),1996:1 & 2). Some unspecified amounts are said to be held in the
Middle East, mostly Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (This Day (Lagos),1996:24)
Given these sanctions can
Nigeria stand-alone? It must be noted
that the idea of sanctions comes out of the logical consequence of failure to
uphold the law. In this case the relevant
regulating provisions of the international charters, articles of association
regarding International Institutions and Relations. Just as local or Internal Law is backed by
the fear of sanctions made relevant by the signing of treaties, treatics and
relevant documentation regulating a nation’s external behaviour in
International Institutions.
Sanction have two faces
and intentions or purposes; the positive role, which is reformatory of the ‘our
of law’ or deviant, and the negative function which is to serve as a
penalty. Relating this to the posited
question. Can Nigeria stand alone in the
face of these sanctions? This study
posits that a correct reading of the message contained by the sanctions is very
crucial to the likely answer(s) to evolve out of the situation. Does Nigerian
people and the government officials read the signals emanating from these
sanctions correctly? Added to this, are
the opposing sets of forces, which namely; push for the maintenance of the
sanction (external and internal) and those that turn the reality of economic
dependency to damage limitation. Indeed,
a correct reading would unearth the likely directions out of the two sets of
forces either to encourage, discourage or to confirm. In essence, finding answers to the question
will involve an examination of the reactions of Nigerian people and government
officials to the situation and thereafter decipher from these the likely
patterns of responses around which one could veritably provide answer(s) to the
question as to, the possibility of or non-possibility of Nigerian Nation
standing alone these area avalanche of sanctions.
The Nigerian Presidency
(where there is no president) issued a statement on the suspension of Nigeria
from the commonwealth (Ibid) Cliché’s like “…with each member state
enjoying full sovereignty” and “fully respecting each other’s
sovereignty”. “Consistent with our
national aspirations, interests, dignity and self-respect” dominated this
official government statement. These
were to also set the tone for the propaganda that followed. The Nigerian Head
of state was reported to have lamented that “in recent times, the have observed
and seen absolute and deliberate interference in our national and internal
affairs” (The Guardian (Lagos), 1995: 1 & 2). The text of the
Presidency’s Statement is contained on page 2.) While his vice or the chief of
general staff, was also reported at another occasion to have said that the
action of the Commonwealth of Nations “was a conspiracy against Nigeria and was
not in conformity with natural justice” (Abacha, Diya, The Guardian (Lagos)1995:1).
All other officials of the federal and the state governments and their
parastatals as well as other supporters of the de facto power in Nigeria, who
cared to address the issues of sanctions were reportedly to have claimed that,
“Nigeria’s suspension from the
commonwealth was a gang up, pre-planned and aimed at preventing us, from
achieving our leadership potential in Africa and the world” (Animasaun K., Sunday Vanguard (Lagos), 1996:
7&22). They also accused “the international community of interference in
our domestic affairs” (Okurounmu F, The Guardian
(Lagos), 1995:29.) Once the internal shouting matches in support of the
government of Nigeria seemed to have died down, the government then raised
initially 33 but lately 50 member committee” that will find a way out of the
current diplomatic wilderness; to advise it on current attempts by the
international community to isolate Nigeria” (Ibid) .This committee
was named; the National Committee of Traditional Rulers and Leaders of
Thought. It was charged with the
following terms of reference; first, reconsidering Nigeria’s membership of the
commonwealth “by calling the bluff before we are embarrassed by sudden
expulsion”. Second, reviewing existing
foreign policy, “with Nigeria as centre-piece”.
Third, reaching out to friendly countries, fourthly, improving on
existing information system, both internationally and locally and fifthly;
improving on internal security and economy and others. Prominent among the
recommendations from the committee were; (The Guardian (Lagos),
1995:1 & 4, The Guardian (Lagos),1995:1&2). first, that government
should continue to engage in dialogue with the internal community as well as
Nigerians, both at home and abroad, who are yet to appreciate the gravity of
the situation Nigeria is in today; second, that government should take steps
that will alleviate the effects which the sanctions would have on Nigerians;
Third, that government should keep informing the people of its actions in order
to avoid misunderstanding which has placed the country in the present situation
(The Guardian (Lagos)1995:13)
Certainly the reactions of the government officials and their sympathizers do
not make a unanimous perception reflective of Nigerians views (Native Intelligence in International
Diplomacy:13) Given this polarity
between the perception of the official of government and their sympathizers and
the rest of the citizens63, Animasaun.K, Sunday Vanguard
(Lagos)1995:7, Ezea.K,This Day (Lagos),1995:8, The Guardian (Lagos)
1995:1 & 2,“Balarabe Musa The Guardian (Lagos)1995:4, Okurounmu.F “The
Guardian (Lagos),1995: 29, Bello.T
“Sunday Concord (Lagos)1995: 29,Ojo.O The Guardian (Lagos) 1996:17 ) It
is now apparent that the forces that arraign themselves towards bringing more
sanctions on Nigeria, as well as weakening the Nigeria’s resolve to live above
the sanctions not to say stand up to them are from two sources, namely the
internal and externally. Those from the
internal sources are mainly those who display the wrong ‘attitudinal
disposition’ (Ibid,Gen. Useni’s) to the main issues that brought the sanctions
as well as to what solutions or policy options that would adequately response
to the situation. Notable among them are
“the growing club of journalism teachers in government and pro-military
apologists, lobbyists and political contractors” (Nwankwo A, This
Day (Lagos),1995:17 & 18, “Ogoni
Hangings, Ofonagoro ” Vanguard (Lagos),1995:1)
who have allegedly contributed to rendering the Nigerian government
“transparently dishonest, uncoordinated, disorganized, lethargic, nervous
consistently inconsistent in public policy formulation” (Oloja.M, in
This Day (Lagos),1996:6) coming to
reinforce the force of attitudinal disposition, there is force which the
national economy represents. “The
structure of our economy is too weak to permit the kind of results expected;
our economy is unable to produce our needs; Nigeria has a value system that
does not produce, the attitudes and habits that seek or support high
productivity and greater social welfare” says Nigeria’s finance minister, Chief
Anthony Ani in his review of the 1995 budget. (Ibid) Indeed, the internal forces afflicting the
moral and soul of Nigeria have sounded the alarm in which,
“An
immoral nation will beget an unstable way of life: A totalitarian nation will breed a seething
mass of resentment, outward conformity but inward hatred for the state and all
that was precious to them and found nothing with which to replace it” ( Vanguard (Lagos),1996:12,B. Ojediran
This Day (Lagos)1996:15)
This alarm makes it dawn
on all and sundry that;
“We cannot separate our
personal morals, our ideologies, our intellectual and religious commitment from
questions of our corporate good and national welfare” ( I. B. R. A Notes on Bible Readings 1980 Surrey England. 1980:11)
Given these internal
forces, it needs no restating the obvious that;
“Sanctions on any country will definitely affect that
country. But, again the extent depends
on how a country can absorb such shock”(Ibid)
Certainly,
such methods for absorbing the shock in which
“Patriotism
is now a ‘cash and carry’ affair… state government officials now go round with
bags of tax payers’ money to hire innocent and hungry people into state
government houses where they are instantly offered placards and televised as
government supporters”{
Ajala, Adekunle , The Guardian(Lagos)1995:
1)
Or,
“As
the government was busy doling out money for its would be demonstrators in
Abuja on November 21, an ordinary meeting of the Civil Liberties Organization
(CLO) scheduled to hold three days earlier in Lagos was disapproved by security
agents. Also rally planned a week
earlier by Gani Fawehinmi led National Conscience Party was forcefully absorted
by security agents who used teargas to disperse the assembled crowed. NADECO – National Democratic coalition is
advertised rally was also declared illegal by Lagos state commissioner of
police. Thus what we now have is a
situation where only those who will echo government’s views, whether by choice
or inducement, can be heard. They can
have processions, demonstrations and rallies, protection from the police and
the army, applauded and addressed by state administrators and top government
functionaries and given prime time on the government owned television network”
(Okurounmu.F. The
Guardian (Lagos) 1995:29)
These methods do not seem to point to the fact that there is a
realization that “a lot will depend on our ability; upon how well we manage our
period of want”73. (Ibid) Managing Nigeria’s period of want involves
a thorough and sincere appreciation of the main issues underlying why the
sanctions came. The first way to
understanding the underlying issues of the sanctions is putting the incident in
proper perspective;
“That
the execution of Ken saro-wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists was not the full
reason. For the suspension of the
country from the commonwealth and the imposition of other sanctions by the
Anglo-phone union. The execution was the
last straw that broke the camel’s back in the sense of gross human rights
violation of the federal military government” (Ojukwu.C.O,The News (Lagos)1995:11)
The second way is to
squarely answer General Useni and those who may still be asking like him, the
question of “what is wrong with military government?” (Anyaoku” Sunday
Concord (Lagos), 1996:5, L. Olurode, The
Guardian(Lagos)1996:14) Towards educating such Nigerians J. N Garba,
(retired Major General’s) latest book where suggestions on how to run all
aspects of a good government were made would be in order (Gen.
Useni, Abacha, Abiola, Sunday Concord (Lagos)1996:14) By good government he
means a democratically elected one.
Similarly, the expose by Professor Claude AKE on
“the significance of
military rule ( J. N. Garba, Sungai
Books. Princeton. N. J. and Owerri. Nigeria 1995.)
in which among other
issues raised, is the fact that,
“Military rule displaces not only democracy but also
participation and replaces them with legitimation by force” (C. Ake, Third Republic in Sunday Concord
1996: M3)
Since the virtues of good
government are being considered, it is worthy to note that; withstanding the
onslaught of sanctions would count for its gains if the virtues of good
government are turned to or cultivate.
What then is good government?, why do we need good government? And what are the principles of good
government? As to what is good
government?
“Good government is not an
end in itself. It is a means of achieving wider goals, such as social and
political development, the alleviation
of poverty, and protection of the environment.
Good government cannot be precisely defined. It is a set of ideas about the legitimacy,
competence and accountability of government, about respect for human rights and
the rule of law, which together add up to what most people expect from those
who rule over them”.(Ibid)
Why do we need good
government? In the circumstances of sanctions, nothing could best encourage the
citizens to support the legitimate political Authority in its efforts at brazing
up to these sanctions than a good government; thus,
“Good government is the
essential framework within which business can flourish and provide economic
prosperity, and ordinary citizens can seek to have their health, education and
welfare needs met. Without good
government, social, economic and political progress is difficult to achieve and
impossible to guarantee” (D.
Goldsworthy, 1995)
In order to examine the
principles of good government end to be able to place them in the correct
perspective; there is need to see the absence of the practice of a set of
principles of good government.
“An order to examine the
principles of good government and to be able to place them in the correct
perspective; there is need to see the absence of the practice of a set of
principles of good government.
Thus, a country could be
considered as underdeveloped simply because it lacks the following
indispensable pre-requisites of development; on the one hand, the observance of
a set of principles of good government namely; being helpful, consent,
openness, accountability giving value for money, responsiveness, offering
information, being fair, observance of standards and observance of human rights
( Awolowo.O.. . Lagos 1968:7 )
On the other hand, education and good health,
technical, managerial and administrative competence and capital. (Goldsworthy.D
op cit.)
By the very fact of its
under-development, a country in that situation, has been observed to be
“Permanently exposed to the
foreign exploitation and deployment of its resources and hence to economic
dependence, subjection and what is now called neo-colonialism” (Awolowo.O op. cit:8)
Since we are discussing
economic dependence, this brings us to the forces that originate from external
sources, which are not likely to assist the country in standing up to the
sanctions imposed by Nigeria trading partners there are also some which may
undermine those sanctions for the benefit of the country.
Notable among those
external forces likely to render Nigeria’s efforts at standing alone in the
face of the sanctions possible are; the Amnesty International. Human Right African Watch and other
Non-governmental Organizations, which have social and Humanitarian missions
these institutions, help enforce the international legal agreements on human
and social rights of peoples of all nations.
They liaise with local associations with similar goals. The attention of Nigeria’s trading and
commercial partners are usually drawn to violations of these international
associations; there are respectable Nigerians (Ibid) some of who are on exile precisely to
canvass for the international action that resulted in the sanctions, they
include a noble laureate for literature, former participants in military
government in Nigeria and some former civilian elected governors who were
displaced by the military government in power, and some of who are workers in
the different countries of the Americas, Europe, Australasian continents, and
they are poised for action that would help maintain the sanctions on Nigeria
until democracy is allowed to work in the country’. All these added to the internal forces and
dislocations render our question; can Nigeria stand-alone against the international
community in the face of sanctions? a
very difficult one to answer the, facts as well as posers are presented. It is no secret any longer to observe that
while other European countries are observing to the letter the European
Political Co-operation and European Union imposed sanctions on Nigeria (The Guardian (Lagos)1996:1 & 2) “the
British government has evaded many of the above mentioned restrictions in
practice” (This Day. (Lagos)
1996:3) Human Rights Watch/Africa recalled that in September, British Prime
Minister John Major met in London with the former Head of the Interim National
Government Chief Ernest Shonekan, in apparent defiance of visa restrictions
(Human Right” op. cit:2) Also that the British Government has issued at
least 30: export licenses for military equipment since January 1994 (Ibid) The recall and return of the E.U
ambassadors do not fall within this negative assessment. It is normal diplomatic practice.
V – CONCLUSION
1.
This study has been an attempt at employing the modified
conflict theoretical approach in analyzing the relations of forces within
Nigeria on the one hand and the rest of the world on the other hand. The relations between Nigeria and her trading
partners did degenerate into a conflict patterned relations. Conflict is only one dimension of crisis;
which is threat to values (Ibid) the values which are world
international system hold dear are those of; observance of Human Rights and
Democracy. A system like the world international system is a set of actors; for
example Nations, International Organization etc, interacting with one another
in established patterns and through designated structures. Thus a crisis is a situation that creates an
abrupt or sudden change in one or more of the basic systemic variables. (Robinson,
J.A, Vols. 3 & 4 1968:513). Nigeria in this study has been discovered to
have stretched her “sovereignty” concept to becloud her obligations to all
international organizations which regulate the International System of
Relations. The values held dear in these
international Organizations (U.N and Commonwealth) such as Democracy and
observance of Human Rights internally, were not seen to be central to
governance and government ethics in Nigeria; thus a conflict emerged which
fulfills the definition of such category of political conflict that arises
whenever two or more groups (Nigeria and International Community) seek to
possess the same object, occupy the same space or the same exclusive position,
play incompatible roles, maintain incompatible goals or undertake mutually incompatible
means for achieving their purposes (Hermann, C. F.1969:411). The questions that,
can Nigeria stand the sanction? could best be answered from the modified
conflict theoretical approach adopted for this study. (International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.
Vols. 3 & 4, 1968) To the extent that the state of political crisis
in Nigeria spilled over into the international arena, so would the genuine
attempts at resolving such crisis affect the Nigeria’s conflict with the
international system order; viz democracy and observance of Human Rights; then
ending the conflict is a function of Nigeria’s willingness to live up to her
obligations to obey all the international undertakings which have been pledged
or signed on.
REFERENCES
The Guardian (Lagos) (1995). “U. S. May not Impose Oil
Embargo on Nigeria” in 23 November p. 1
Ate, B.E.( 1988) “Nigerian Foreign Policy
in the Second Republic: Focus on
Nigerian – U. S. Relations” Nigerian Journal of Policy and Strategy (Kuru)
vol. 3 June
The Guardian (Lagos) 1995, 7 September 1995. p. 40
Adelusi .O. (1988). Le Nigeria et La France: Une Etude de Leurs Relations Economiques et
Politiques de 1970 @ 1985 Unpublished Ph.D Thesis. University of Bordeaux I. CEAN-1EP. 300 pages.
Sagay I,(1995) “Williams, Sagay Defend Global Interest” In The Guardian (Lagos) 21 November p. 2 “Why FG must obey Rule of Law, by FRA,
Sagay” in The Punch (Lagos)(1995), 21
November. pps. 1 & 2.
Iyioke.A And Nwosu.S, (1995), “The Bogey in
the Commonwealth” The Guardian (Lagos),
20 Nov.. p. 11
West
Africa (London) (1995), “TREATY
OF 1993”). 22-23 May pps. 782-783
The
Guardan (Lagos) (1995), “EKPU
Seeks Release of Political detainees” In 29. December. p. 4
Oluga, S. T. (1996), “Weep, my beloved footballing
Nation” This Day (Lagos) 8 January p.
22
The Guardian (Lagos) (1995), “Legal Experts Fault UN
non-interference Policy” 30 November p. 5
Oyebode, A (1995) Sovereignty at bay” in The Guardian
(Lagos) 30 November, p. 17
Alkali, R.A (1996), “Nigeria must Stand Firm (II)” New Nigerian, 18 January p. 7
Awoniyi, O (1995) “Aso Rock Diary: Ken Saro-Wiwa, et al “in Sunday Tribune, (Ibadan) 12 November. p. 22.
Abati.R (1996), “The Man who Shook the Nation” in The Guardian (Lagos). 1 January,. p. 9
THE GUARDIAN (Lagos) 12 November 1995. p. 1
THE GUARDIAN (Lagos), 13 November 1995 p. 1
THE GUARDIAN (Lagos), 21 November 1995 p. 1
Aite-Oshoiribhor.D(1995), “E. U. to Review
Sanctions Every Six Months” in The Guardian on Sunday (Lagos), 10
December, p. A3.
The Guardian (Lagos) (1995) “Sanctions bill tabled at U. S.
senate”, 30 November. p. 1 and” “Nigeria Democracy Act” at US Senate in The Guardian (Lagos), (1995). 4 December p. 5
Vanguard, (Lagos) (1995), “U.S Lawmakers Focus Nigeria” in), 8
December. pps. 1 & 2.
The
Guardian (Lagos) (1995), “GERMAN Parliament Seeks oil ban against
Nigeria “, 2 December p. 2
The Guardian (Lagos)(1996), “U. N Committee Votes for
Democracy in Nigeria” 15 December p. 15
The Punch (Lagos)(1995), Text Of “U.N Resolution on Human Rights in
Nigeria” 15 December p.1
The Guardian (Lagos) (1995) “Francophone Summit seeks Democracy,
Rule of Law in Nigeria “, 4 December pps. 1 & 2.
The Guardian on Sunday (Lagos) (1995), “Western Nations suspend Bilateral
Aid to Nigeria” , 19 November 5 pps 1 & A2.
The Guardian on Sunday (Lagos), (1995), “Commonwealth Suspends
Nigeria “12 Nov. p. A2.
The Guardian on Sunday (Lagos) (1995), “No Conspiracy Against Nigeria” in,
10Dec. p. B3.
The Guardian (Lagos)( 19960, “Nations Cup:Caf gives Nigeria
Ultimatum “ 4 Jan.p. 1-2
The Guardian on Sunday (Lagos) (1995), “Mandela Threatens Shell” 26 November
p. 1
Adelusi .O.and Lipede A.,(1994) “U. S. and
European Union’s Foreign Policies Towards Nigeria: Issues of Human Rights and Democratization
(1986-1993)”, Paper Presented at N.D.A – FASS Seminar. Nigerian Defense Academy. July .
The Guardian (Lagos),(1995),“U. S May not impose oil
Embargo on Nigeria” in 23 November p. 1
The Guardian (Lagos) (1995), “Nigeria Democracy Act” at U. S.
Senate. 4 December. p. 5
The Guardian (Lagos), (1995), “E. U Stops Arms Sale, Aid to
Nigeria” 21 November
p. 1
The Guardian (Lagos)(1995), “E. U. to Review Sanctions
Every Six Months” 10 December. p. A3
The Guardian (Lagos) (1995)“E. U. Imposes arms Embargo,
Aid Freeze on Nigeria” 21 November p. 2
Newswatch
(Lagos), (1995), “How E. U. Assisted Nigeria” in 4 December, pps. 10 and 11.
Newswatch (Lagos).(1995), 4 December. pps 10 and 11.
This Day (Lagos),(1996), “E. U Sanctions Threaten British
Trade Missions” 1 January, p. 10
This Day (Lagos),(1995), “E. U, Aso Rock Row may Cripple N32b
Projects” 27 November p.15
The Guardian on Sunday (Lagos) (1995), “Western Nations Suspend Bilateral
Aid to Nigeria” 19 November.
This Day (Lagos), (1996) “U.S. Others Target Assets of
Selected Nigerian Leaders” 6 January.
pps. 1 & 2.
This
Day (Lagos),( 1996), “America, Europeans and Nigeria’s $30 Billion”
1 January p. 24
The Guardian (Lagos), (1995) “Government Recalls Envoys, Replies
Critics” 14 November. pps. 1 & 2.
THE text of the Presidency’s Statement is
contained on page 2.
The Guardian (Lagos). (1995), “Abacha, Diya Speaks on
Sanctions” 16 November. p. 1
Sunday Vanguard (Lagos), (1996), Animasaun, K. “I disagrees with
Oladipo Diya” 3 December. pps. 7 and
22.
OKUROUNMU,,.F(1995), “External Pressure is Legitimate” in The
Guardian (Lagos), 15 December p. 29.
The Guardian (Lagos), (1995), “Government Raises Panel
on Diplomatic Row” 23 November. pps. 1
& 4
The
Guardian (Lagos)(1995). “Government
Brands South Africa, Others Enemies” 30 November, pps. 1 and 2.
The Guardian (Lagos)(1995), “Native Intelligence in International
Diplomacy” 13 December p. 13.
Ezea.K(1995), “Pariah Syndrome Catches up
with Nigeria” This Day (Lagos), 17 November. p. 8
The Guardian (Lagos) (1995) “How Sanctions can hurt, by
analyst “ 20 November pps. 1 & 2
The Guardian (Lagos), (1995) “Balarabe Musa Doubts
Sanctions’ Efficacy” 16 November 1995 p. 4
Bello.T (1995) “Why they can’t speak for us
“Sunday
Concord (Lagos) 15 December. p. 29.
Ojo.O (1996), “Deceit as a Moral Code” The
Guardian (Lagos) 4 January. p. 17
R. Echols, (1996) “My Meeting with Abacha,
Abiola & U. S Diplomats” in Sunday Concord (Lagos) 7 January p.
M1, See, Gen. Useni’s Question of “What is wrong with military government?
The Guardian( 1995), “Abacha Warns against foreign
fraudster” 27 October p. 1
Nwankwo A, (1995) “June 12: Our Last Chance” in This Day (Lagos), 8
January. pps. 17 & 18,
Vanguard
(Lagos) (1995), “Ogoni Hangings, Ofonagoro admits blunders”, 28 November
p. 1.
Oloja.M.(1996) “In Defense of Journalist”
in This
Day (Lagos), 16 January p. 6
Vanguard (Lagos), (1996) “CROSS Fire-Between the Soldiers and
the Civilian” in I January. p. 12;
Ojediran B., (1996). “Devaluation of the Naria and the Question of
gains” in This Day (Lagos). 23 January p. 15
I.B. R. A Notes on Bible Readings 1980 (1980), Surrey
England. p. 11
Ajala Adekunle (1995),
was Quoted in “How Sanctions can hurt, by
analysts” in The Guardian(Lagos) 20 November. pps. 1 & 2.
Ojukwu.C.O (1995), “I am not Abacha’s Ambassador” Text
of an Interview with The News (Lagos) 4 September p. 11
Sunday Concord (Lagos), (1996), “Commonwealth May Expel Nigeria –
Anyaoku” 14 January. p. 5
Olurode, L.
“Personalizing Nigeria’s Isolation” in The Guardian (Lagos) 13
January 1996 p. 14
Garba, J. N.( 1995),
Fractured History: Elite Shifts and Policy Changes in Nigeria. Sungai Books.
Princeton. N. J. and Owerri. Nigeria.
Ake. C (1996), “The Significance of Military Rule”
Text of Lecture at Concord Press National Conference on Stability of the Third
Republic in Sunday Concord (Lagos),14 January p. M3
Goldsworthy, D.(1995).Good Government. The British Council England.
Awolowo.O.(1968), The Path to Economic Freedom in Developing
Countries. University of
Lagos. Lagos p. 7
The Guardian (Lagos)( 1996), “GLOBAL Report Scores Nigeria low on
Human Rights” in 13 January. pps. 1 & 2.
This
Day. (Lagos)(1996), “France Planned to Embarrass Abacha” in 18 January.
p. 3
Robinson, J.A (1968), “Crisis” in International Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences. Vols. 3 & 4 p. 513.
Hermann, C. F. (1969), “International Crisis as a
Situational Variable” in J. N. Rosehau (Ed), (1969), International Politics and
Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research and
Theory. The Free Press,
Collier. Macmillan Publishers London and
New York. p. 411.
North, R. C.( 1968), “Politician Conflict” in International Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences. Vols. 3 &
4,.
TOWARDS A NEW WORLD ORDER: AFRICA’S RELATIONS WITH
DEVELOPED WORLD IN THE POST COLD WAR INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
No comments:
Post a Comment