U.S AND EUROPEAN UNION’S FOREIGN POLICIES TOWARDS NIGERIA: ISSUES OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIZATION (1986-1993)

U.S AND EUROPEAN UNION’S FOREIGN POLICIES TOWARDS NIGERIA: ISSUES OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIZATION (1986-1993)

                    

                                                     By

 

                           ADELUSI OLUFEMI (Ph.D)

                                          &

                           BIOLA LIPEDE (Ph.D)

ABSTRACT

This chapter sets out to examine the importance of issues of Human Rights and Democratization in the United States of America and Europeans Union’s policies towards Nigeria between 1986 and 1993.

The study reveals that there is a linkage between the internal or domestic political economy of U.S, E.U and Nigeria and their foreign policies or external relation during the indicated period on issues of human Rights and Democratization. The ascendancy of the key issues of human Right and Democratization in the internal affairs consideration of the countries discussed was highlighted. The post cold war international relations environment was observed to have encouraged the primordially of these two issues.

Attempts are made to examine the important responses of these countries to human and Democratic Rights responses of these countries to human and Democratic Rights violations in Nigeria within the designated period. The study concludes with the proposition that there is a possibility of linkage between issues of human and Democratic Rights and foreign policies of the selected countries and Nigeria. The internal demands of open free enterprise economies of U.S and European Union could best find counterparts in the economies governed by full human and Democratic Rights observances.

I-               INTRODUCTION

The U.S and the E.U’s foreign policies towards Nigeria in the areas of Human Rights and Democratization constitute the subject of this chapter. The study reveals that there is a linkage between the internal or domestic political economies of United States, Europeans Union and Nigeria which necessitates the demand for respect for fundamental Human Rights and Observance of Democratic Governance in Nigeria by her economic partners.

This established linkage has been traced to two factors namely first, the internal demands of U.S and E.U’s open free enterprise economies which could only find credible counterparts in economies governed by full human and democratic rights observances and; second, the enabling international environment of the post cold war international relations (Since the fall of 1989).

For convenience, the chapter has been divided into four main parts and two short sections. The main parts are made up of; first, conceptual clarification of human Rights, Democratization and structural Adjustment; second, the U.S and Europeans Union’s foreign policies in Africa: issues of Human Rights and Democratization: third’ Human Rights violations in Nigeria; fourth, U.S and E.U’s policies towards Nigeria on Democratic and Human Rights Violations the two sections are those of ‘introduction’ and ‘Conclusion’

II – HUMAN RIGHTS, DMOCRATIZATION, STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT: CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION.

It has been agreed that the concepts of human Rights, Democratization and free Market engendered by structural) Adjustment are Linked and sometimes inseparable. The elementary connotation in this regard is that. Democratization has its base in protection or upholding or civil liberties: which in turn frees the energies of the citizens for individual, private initiative, a motor of free market and its attendant structural adjustment.

It is important for conceptual clarification to be undertaken at this juncture in our discussion. This is primarily because of the main reasons associated with conceptual clarity in itself and the “faulty premise of the region (African)’s’ communitarian’ traditions (Mahhud, S.S.  1993). A further explanation of each of these concepts and their interconnectedness would go along way in achieving the objective of this study namely: revealing the possible linkage between the internal or domestic political economies of U.S,  E.U and Nigeria and their foreign relation among themselves.

Concerning the concept of human Rights; an expose on it as a universal concept should of necessity precede the national understanding to it. Thus, human Rights, otherwise referee to as “Civil Liberty” has been found to connote “personal, natural rights quarantined and protected by constitution e.g freedom of speech, press, freedom from discrimination e.t.c. body of law of law dealing with natural liberties, shorn of excesses which invade equal rights of other “(Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition), 1992:223 & 224,).These rights could be grouped along three categories namely, first, civil and political rights: second, Social and Economic rights and third, Environment, Cultural and Development rights. Civil and political rights are taken to “inhere in man without the requirement of any further act on the part of political authorities “(Hauserman J. 1989, General Babangia.I:128) This category of rights is recognized as impose legal obligations on  the state, on the other hand, economic, social and cultural rights are considered more as aspirations or goals of society than real human Rights and are thus mere moral Obligations which are not enforceable(Ibid). This latest interpretation may be euro-American-centric and in fact, may enter into agenda of constituting the politics of human and peoples’ Rights.

Democratization as a concept gains currency in the wake of the collapses of the Soviet Union as a state and the states system which she is the center. In the fall of 1989, there come the end of the44years of a ‘cold war’ are of internationals Relatinons:1945-1989. The former Europeans states under the preponderant influence of the soviet union regained their  sovereignty while the soviet union Federation as it was, also collapsed, leaving the component units their self determination and sovereignty choices. All these states then opted for democratization of their internal or domestic affairs. This decision created a wave and an epoch.

Similarly, at this same period, African States prompted by their former colonial ‘Overlords’ and Breton Woods institutions which these ‘ overlords’ control, joined reluctantly, this bandwagon of democratization wave. Democratization is slightly different from the concept of democracy itself. Democratization is usually associated with the term process. Thus it is often said of a democratization or democratic process. This may entail among other things, the development of free and fair elections and multiparty systems, the process that will enable people to participate and to fulfill their responsibility to make democracy work (Cohen H. J. 1997:23).

 The concept – democracy has no settled meaning asset connoted image as well as realty of politic for different political systems, rulers, citizens, actors and scholars (Oyovbaire, S.E. 1987:1). Thus, it is possible to have such a concept defined as “ a political framework from which public policies emerge and are administered for society “ (Ibid);” a certain type of institutional arrangement for arriving at and as” political, legislative and administrative decision ‘(Pateman, C. 1970) and as “political contexts in which individuals are able  to exercise effective rights over the condition of their lives” (Olagunju. I.- Oyovbaire, S.E); it has also been seen as” a way of organizing government and peoples’ participation in it, the democratic way of organizing government involves competition for the  major position of government power, it involves participation in the selection of leaders and it involves a number  of civil and political liberties “(Sorensen, G 1991:18).

 Finally, while agreeing to the fact that “the defining components of democracy are necessarily abstract, for democracy to thrive specific procedural norms must be followed and civic rights must be respected” (Schumitter P.and  Lynnkarl, T).

Indeed, one finds a distinction between democracy defined in its original pre-modern term and what is now considered as modern political democracy. Our earlier definitions in most parts reflect the earlier images of democracy, while” modern political democracy is a system of governance in which “modern political democracy is a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives” (Ibid:2).

The concepts of structural adjustment and free market are two sides of a coin; an explanation of structural adjustment of an economy suggests a more orderly reign for free market forces. Indeed, the “orthodox structural adjustment programmers, by their very design, assume that the classical instrument, by their very design, assume that the classical instrument of control of money supply, credit squeeze exchange rate and interest rate adjustment, trade liberalization which may be positive results in African economies characterized by weak and dis-articulate structures” (U.N.E.C.A, 1989). This meaning of structural adjustment seems to be limited to the original designers- the U.S and E.U propelled Bretton woods institutions for it has been critically observed that” structural change has only one meaning for the development economist: what is called, for it is not merely an adjustment but a morphogenesis to relax the orthogonal relations between mining and agriculture, between agriculture and industry ( P.Okigbo, The Guardian (Lagos), 1993:21)

If the orthodox structural adjustment programmed being implemented by African countries Nigeria in particular is taken as a base for becomes necessary when a country faces a serious economic dis-eqilibrium or imbalance between domestic aggregate demand and supply which invariably results in a deteriorating external payment position “(Ojo, M.O. 1989:38).

The objectives and strategies of the structural adjustment programmed in Nigeria were namely to restructure and diversity the productive base of the economic in order to reduce dependence on the oil sector and oil imports, (ii) to achieve fiscal and balance of payments viability over the medium term and balance of payments viability over the median term(iii) to lay the basis for sustainable non-inflationary growth over the medium over the medium and long term,(iv) to lessen the dominance of the public sector improve its efficiency and to tap the growth potential of the private sector (Falae, O, The Guardian (Lagos),1989:12.)  The strategies were also outlined as

^a.                         Strengthening of the hitter to strong demand management policies

^b.                        adoption of policies to stimulate domestic production and broaden the supply base of  the economy:

^c.                         adoption of a realistic exchange rate policy;

^d.                        further rationalization/ restructuring of the tariffs to aid promotion of industrial diversification; (e)move towards trade and payment liberalization;

^e.                         adoption of appropriate pricing policies especially for petroleum products and public enterprises,

^f.                         reduction of complex administrative controls with greater reliance on market forces and

g.              Encouragement of rationalization and privatization of public sector enterprises (Falae, O, The Guardian (Lagos), 1989:12.)  

Having mad some conceptual clarification, one may proceed to examining the perceived interconnectedness between human Rights, Democratization and structural Adjustment / free market.

“True Democracy is a collective right that would not only enable individuals to demand right but also pressure states to protect individual right “(Mahmud, S.S. op.cit:5)”.

In Africa today, more than ever before, the stubble for democracy is by definition also taken to mean a struggle for democracy is by definition also taken to mean a struggle for human rights “(Aidoo.A.1993:2). These two quotation point to a linkage between democracy and human rights. This linkage has been described as real and crucial (Ibid:2). In fact, it has also been observed that “whereas it is not possible to have human rights in undemocratic conditions; democracy will not automatically guarantee human rights, on the other hand, the struggle for human right does constitute a veritable bedrock for the sustainability foe the democratization process.. “(Ibid:2-3). The above trend of thought on the linkage between human Rights and democratization  has been lucidly put thus “ there is nothing mysterious about the foundation of a health and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are; equality of opportunity for youth and for other;  Jobs for those who can work, security for those who need it; the ending of special privilege for the few, the preservation of civil liberties for all (Arat.Z.F 1991:1) In essence, “Human Rights lie at the base of democracy “ ⁽ Aidoo.A op. Cit:3)

This point of view has been pushed further by the conceptualization of democracy and its stability as a function of a proper balance between existing civil and political right on the one hand, and existing civil and political rights on the one hand, and socio-economic rights on the other. ⁽Arat.Z.A op.cit:4) the last part of this conceptualization brings to the fore the tripartite linkage between Human Rights, Democratization and Structural Adjustment / free market.

Indeed, by association, free market quarantines socio-economic right while structural adjustment programmers are devised to liberate any of the rigidities that impede socio-economic rights. A human rights agenda motivated Democracy makes socio-economic rights and free market easy and guaranteed. This consideration leads us to examine the case of Nigeria, a victim of human Right violations under her military force of occupation at state houses during the period under review.

III-U.S AND E.U’S FOREIGN POLICIES IN AFRICA: AN OVER-VIEW OF ISSUES OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEMOCRATIZATION.

The foreign policy posture of the united stated and her N.A.T.O allies many of them members of the Europeans union was dictated by a global policy of competition and containment during the cold war are. Imperfection of their allies as regards human rights abuses and authoritarianism were tolerated in the struggle to minimize the spread of communist influence in African, inspire of the fact that as early a 1976, the u.s congress had legalized formal requirements that U.S’s foreign and trade policies should take into account, the human right policies and worker’s right performance of countries they cooperated with. Despotic sit-tight hard-line leaders in Africa, considered strategic allies in the struggle against communism were given u.s. backing and support as indeed were guerilla movement, like U.N.T.T.A (Angola)  (Nder T.J., 1985; Malone R.A., 1983) and R.E.N.A.M.O (Mozambique)  (Gann, L.H, 1975; Whitaker, P.M:1973)  In this scenario, scant respect was given to violations of human rights and the transplanting of democracy.

The end of the arms race and with it the politics of the cold war, minimized the risk of African politics being drawn into the east-west conflict and killed the case for support for strategic ideological allies. The U.S and members of the Europeans Union thus desired a new foreign policy perspective towards Africa. For the United States of America, this involved a doctrine of enlargement, predicated on the desire to consolidate enlargement, predicated on the desire to consolidate and enlarge as well as defend the common free market democratic communities. This involved making reinforcement of democracy and the protection of human right  the foreign policy pillars of the u.s. the two were also to become the major focus of their foreign assistance programmes (Christopher.W.1993:441). Other U.S agencies like the National Endowment for Democracy established in 1983, the Center for International Private Enterprise, and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs assisted in espousing and advancing the revolution in democratic practices. Since Democratic practices were the moral and operative safe guards for upholding human rights, expanding  and defending its progress was the best means to gain and guarantee those rights.

In Europe, the collapse of the Berlin wall and president Mitterrand of France’s La Baule speech in 1990, in which hecutlined the doctrines of aid its democratic conditionalities were important Landmarks, in the changing scene. French prime minister Pierre beregevoy’s 1991 endorsement of ‘la baule’ at the 17th Franco-African submit and British Foreign secretary Douglas Huard’s call on Europe to cut aid to African countries that violated human rights; set the pattern for Europeans union’s attitude towards Human Rights violations in Africa (Britain’ Pilger.J 1994:14). The U.N November 1991 Resolution on human Rights. Democracy and Development and Development has become a reference text in the field outlining as it does specific policies and actions to be adopted by the ‘west’ in their dealings with ‘third world’ countries in generals and Africa in particular (E.U Countries).  Lastly, the idea that policies on development,  cooperation should emphasize human rights and democracy were incorporated into the treaty on Europeans union signed in mastic.

Under these various provisions, ‘western’ aid was to be conditioned on improvements in human rights in a free market democratic dispensation. The prudent management of national economies and accountability by leaders were to made other prerequisite for ‘western’ aid. In addition. For Washington military assistance was to be geared towards political pluralism   (President Clinton in 1992)

During the period (1986-1993), the U.S.A and E.U allies demonstrated a willingness to implement some of these provisions in parts of Africa. In the Franco-phone West Africa, president 11.Boigny experienced a rebuff by the French, following the successful take over of the Ivorian national television station and the international Airport, as French troops failed to respond to his ell for military assistance. The U.S suspended aid worth 19 million to Togo, while president Eyadema, one of the Africa’s longest sit light dictators, until he had agreed to put the democratic process on the right path leading to free and honest elections. France and other E.U Countries also suspended aid to Togo. Inspire of this, the national conference in Coted’ lyoire, Gabon and Togo have so far not been an entire success.

In central Africa, where hither to staunch ‘western’ allies between then enjoyed over 60 years uninterrupted years of despotic rule, the U.S and Britain have attempted to pressure and prod presidents Mobutu and Banda trees in Kinshasa and Lilongwe. Elections have since been held in Malawi where the life President was defeated to a third place candidate. Iie gallantly accepted his defeat to allow Malawi move forward.

Zaire’s president Mobutu has in the opinion of the 1993 Report   to U.S congress on human Rights (Overview of the 1993 Report, Feb 1994. Vol.5.), perpetrated human rights crisis worse than any since the end of the civil war in the 1960s. There are translated into a number of extra judicial killings, torture, ethnic violence detentions and disappearances. He has also successfully fought a dogged rearguards action against political pluralism, suspending midway the National conference and its prime Minister Etienne Tahikedi as well rejecting the conference’s final recommendation even after verbal condemnation by the E.U and U.S.A. president Mobutu has for over two years, succeeded in procrastinating and delaying the transition to political pluralism inspire of the apparent verbal outage at seeming divorce between Laire and her ‘western’ allies. These have not been translated into action strong enough to force Mobutu to tow the democratic path..

The same is true of President Kamuzu Banda who has for over 30 Years kept a firm grip and grasp on the single party of Malawi. His arrest of Cchakufwa Chihama a frontline pre-democracy activist was the catalyst for punitive action by the ‘west’ Who froze 174 million worth about by banda about the introduction of multi-party’s in Malawi. A ‘yes’ vote in the referendum on the desirability of political pluralism resulted in the establishment of three new political parties, the repeal of repressive laws like the preventive ensured Act and the subsequent elections were held where Banda was shapely defeated (AFOR, UDF, PAC,).

IV – HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN NIGERIA

Indeed, the issues of human Right and political and economic reforms were the main Planks on which the Nigerian Administration between 1985 and 1993 hoped to gain legitimacy, acceptability and recognition not only from an international community that was becoming increasingly restive with authoritarianism  and despotism but with a citizenry growing impatient with military dictatorship. Presidents Babangida’s commitment to protect and uphold human rights principles and attain political liberalism at various international fore and the initial abrogation of decrees 2,3,4, and 20 which violated the fundamental human right of the citizenry should be viewed from this light ( President Babangida, 1992,.Ukeje U, 1994). The government pledges to ensure the minimal prerequisites for the success of modern political democracy     (R.Dahl, U.S.I.A Washington. Issue No 1994:2-4)

In addition to the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African charter of  peoples Right  committed them to recognize and uphold such right as civil and political rights essential for an appreciation of the possession of those civil and political rights held dearly by the ‘west’ (Osita EZE, Human Rights N.I.I.A. 1984:244-253).

However, attempts at implementing simultaneously economic and political transition in African have always posed serious problem. Although economic reforms under SAP aim at budget deficit reductions its basic elements involve privatization, trade liberalization and devaluation (Madunagu, E, African Guadian 1986.). The period of economic reconstruction under SAP is usually painfully belt tightening and the social cost of adjustment has been intense poverty and hardship, particularly where SAP has been implemented without a ‘human face’. The stresses and strains have usually meant that no meaningful observance of human right is attainable as insecurity and conflict is usually enhanced.

In Nigeria, the implementation only accentuate the problem of poverty and led to massive violations of the freedom of workers’ freedom of association, the pillar on which their ability to defend workers’ grievances, protect them from unsafe and unfair working conditions and to hargain collectively has not met the stipulated standards endorsed by the international labour organization (I.L.D). Deregulation went side by side with measures which eroded workers’ income. Privatization of government prostates threw people at the bottom rung of the ladder out of jobs in a country where the state was the highest employer. The amendment of the 181 minimum wage act and degrees 17 and 19 legacies of Buhari/Idiagbon regime ensured workers. Complicate (Workers under Decrees 17 and 19,1982 and 1988). Workers employed still faced a wage freeze and compulsory government deductions at a time when freeze and compulsory government deductions at a time when fuel prices were doubled with its resuilant fall in real wages (Decree 37    of 1986 empowered). Other SAP induced policies like fuel and food subsidy removals, a has an imports resulted in a rise in the rate of inflation to intolerable proportion.

Under these circumstances the promotion and protection of the rights of workers in their socia-economic and cultural dimensions become impossible. There is a total absence of the opportunities for the attainment of these rights. The outcome is adjustment fatigue which includes tension, discontent and violence. The government’s attempt to minimize these resulted in the use of methods not in consonant with accepted human rights norms.

The period under review was also marked by a failure by government to maintain the rule of law.  The government’s early demonstration of it’s support for the idea that political liberalization and democratization are based on fear expression by a repeat of Decree 4 which had shackled the press, was short lived. This was signified by reincarnating of Decree 4 under the guise of decree 2 between 1987 and 1992, nearly non-government media houses were closed down for varying periods (The punch (Lagos), Lagos News (Lagos), The Guardian (Lagos), champion Newspapers(Lagos), concord New papers(Lagos) and Vanguard (Lagos)).

In addition, persistent calls by human rights groups for government to respect the rule of law and the fundamental rights of the citizens led to constant harassment, arrests of the citizens led to constant harassment , arrests, detentions, prosecution and persecution of their leaders, detention, without  trial or trials outside the areas where the ‘crimes’ were committed gave all characterized the government’s  determination to defend with the last drop of its blood the intergrity   of the transition programme with all the available resources at its disposal. Leaders of the civil liberties Oragnisation (C.L.O.), the committee for the defence of human Right (C.D.H.R), the constitutional Rights project (C.R.P) and Human Rights Africa (H.R.A), among them Gani Fawehinmi, Femi Falane, Baba Omojola and Beko Ransome Kuti were among the more famous names detained and charged with conspiracy and treason. Other less popular state officials of human right groups in states like Kaduna, Kano and Lagos were also harassed silenced or arrested.

Draconian Decrees legalized the suspension of basic constitutional rights and the provisions making for indefinite detention without trial.  In addition parallel systems of courts were established in the form of Tribunals where military officers were allowed to sit with judges adjudicating sometime over serious cases.

1.              Lastly, the contradictions inherent in a military dictatorship attempting to effect a transition to democratic pluralism become obvious. With military precision and by administrative fiat, it violated the rights of the citizens to form independent associations and writing the manifestoes of the two political parties, it was willing to transfer power to. It dictated the actors and the form of the acting through 59 transitional decrees, containing 1175 sections and subsection (Ayeni O. West Africa (London). 1992:2048).

2.                It killed the early political parties that had signaled their intention to participate in the unfolding drama. It suspended the first presidential primaries because of electoral malpractice and dissolved the executive committees of the two military created parties, the Social Democratic party and the National Republican party at all levels even though they had been duly elected by the people. it disqualified all 23 presidential aspirants from the process violating their rights as adults to run for elective offices. Caretaker committees were appointed to take over functions of the elected officials (Ayeni O.1992 West Africa (London):2012). Even the cumbersome electoral process under option A4 could not prevent a military bent on organizing a transition to democracy from aborting the process when the end came. With it, it violated the right of nigerians to elect a leader of their choice. Given the above violations of human Rights recorded in Nigeria, and the most distabilising last stroke which the annulment of the June 12 1998 presidential Election constituted reactions from u.s, the Europeans union and Britain to these democratic right violations would be examined in the next section of this study.

VI – U.S. EUROPEANS UNION AND BRITAIN’S POLICIES TOWARDS NIGERIA ON DEMOCRATIC AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

Nigeria’s  place in the African policies of united states and the Europeans union countries and more specifically, their human rights and democratic postures could be determined by a series of fundamental questions and answers. Notable among the prompting questions  are; what makes Nigeria deserve the greate attention of these counties?. Could it be the case of  “prevention of pandwagon effect” of the bad student of human right and democracy not dragging other potential or loyal students among the remaining African countries in?, could it have been the importance of her touted “ large and potential internal market” for investments and viable trade links? Or could it just be the case of checkmating or nibbling the bud of dissent on the contents of the “New would Order which are human right and democracy?. Finally could it be a combinations    of all the above factors?.

The united states and the E.U countries’ policies individually or collectively have been noted earlier as having becoming integral parts of their foreign policies built around the promotion of human rights and democracy most especially since the end of  the 44 years (1945 to 1939) of the ‘cold war’ signaling the end of an are and the beginning of a new one.

If these countries’ intervention and insistence on observance of  human right and democratic practices were now routine, their recent policies towards Nigeria were perdicated on the events leading to and the eventual annulment of the “most fairest and freest presidential elections “in Nigeria ( Neng:1993, Nigerian Tribune (Ibadan), 1993:20, Sunday concord (Lagos), 1993:1to93).

3.              On Wednesday, June23 1993, the federal military government issued a short statement terminating by fiat the entire transition programme. The very manner in which the statement was made public indicated a deliberate intention to insult and ridicule the entire Nigerian people.  The statement was  undated, unsigned, unauthorized and made on a plain sheet of paper, but for the fact that it was distributed to the press by the Chief press Secretary to the Vice-president, it could very well been issued by the Association for Better Nigeria’ ( Chief M.K.O.Abiola in the Guardian (Lagos),1993:2) This was the opening part of the text of statement issued by the presumed winner of the presumed winner of the presidential Elections of June 12 1993 in Nigeria .

From this extracted part, the manner of the annulment of the June 12 electios was brought vividly to the public. The United States and the Europeans Union countries had been following Nigeria’s Transition programmes with all its adjustment. They therefore seem to have adequate knowledge of the fundamental human and democratic rights of the Nigerian people on the occasion of the annulment.

British foreign secretary, Douglas Hurd, while describing the above acting as ‘bad news’ in his interview on 24 june 1993 to R.B.C. situated the problem at the door steps of the Nigeria’s military saying that “it looks as if the military or some of the military are proposing to retain power” (B.B.C.Mr Douglas Hurd, British foreign secretary in The Guardian (Lagos) 1993:4). Having focused the problem, he speit out his country’s first set of measures which include” taking steps to stop the military training courses; no new military training courses; call back our British military advisory team, stop giving any priority to army officers from Nigeria in getting visas for here and of course reviewing all suggestions of fresh did to Nigeria’ (Ibid). He posited that an ongoing consultation with Britain’s E.U and U.S partners.

The United States on its part issued a statement through its state Department’s spokesman Michael Mccurry on 23 June 1993. The important message contained there in being that “the united United States deplores the outrageous decision of Nigeria’s military regime to annul the results of the June 12 presidential Election and cancel the transition to elected civilan rule” (Michael Mccurry, washington D.C (Washington)Vol.4,No26:472). Like Britain, he announced the first  measure against the annulment. “all aspects of our bilateral relations: including our $22.8 million in bilateral assistance are currently under review” (Ibid).

4.              On July 20, the U.S department of state convoked the Nigerian ambassador to inform him of U.S’s new steps or sanctions aimed specifically at Nigeria’s military.

5.              The steps are “reviewing with the presumption of denial applications for the commercial export of defence articles bound for Nigeria restricting the remaining Nigerian military attaches access to the U.S. government are asking five Nigerian military officers studying in the U.S. under the auspices of the international military education and Training program to depart the United States” (Michael Mccurry, Washington.D.C.1993 (Washington) 1993, Vol. 4. No 32, The Guardian (Lagos),1993:A2).

6.               (Still further, on 10 December 1993, the U.S president Bill Clinton made a proclamation restricting the entry of some categories of Nigerians into the united states. The order was targeted against “immigrants and non-immigrants who formulate or implement policies impending a transition to democracy in Nigeria or who benefit from such policies and the immediate families of such persons “(Tuesday 14 Dec1993 by U.S.I.(Lagos),1994:27) The U.S was reported to have also cut a $1 million government to government aid, $450,000 aid military education and  withdrew its security assistance officers in Lagos and the Nigerian Government’ military attached was expelled (The Guardian (Lagos),1993:2. The Europeans Union announced sanctions against the Federal Military Government of Nigeria to press for the resolution of the political quagmire triggered by the cancellation of June 12 poll. The sanction which were targeted at the Armed Forces; include a ban on visa to Armed forces and security personnel and their families has been suspended; further assistance and cooperation on military matters have been  put on hold.

The flurry of sanctions against Nigeria by the U.S has multiplied since the June election cancellation and the full re-usurpation of political power by the military on 17 November 1993. Apart from the above mentioned directly linked pro-democracy driven sanctions, there came those that were indirectly linked, in any case June 12 spoiled bilateral relations environment, neither helped positively.

There was suspension of flights to and from Murtala Muhammad international Airport in Lagos from the U.S airports on the excuse of inadequate security measures. The most recent of these sanctions were those against Nigeria for drug related trade.

Indeed, the U.S president Bill Clinton in a memorandum, he reportedly sent  early 1994 to U.S State Department gas directed that U.S officials should for the rest of the year vote against Nigeria’s request for assistance from any of the international financial institutions, particularly the world Bank and the international Monetary fund (Guardian (Lagos),1994:2). The American president’s directive entitled, “presidential certification for Major Narcotics producing and transit countries; the case of Nigeria was based on the clause that’ the president can certify a country based on the vital national interest of the united states’ (Ibid). Apparently, the “Washington’s strained relations with Nigeria’s military rulers” did not have a positive input into president Clinton’s political cognition of his country’s national interest in the Dry issue.

Britain imposed a new list of sanctions following the 17 November 1993 full return of the military to political power in Nigeria. Notable among such sanctions are the suspension of a #23 million grant for the energy sector (Guardian (Lagos),1993:1). The facility pledged under overseas Development Assistance (ODA) scheme, was packaged to energize Nigeria’s power generating and distribution capabilities; and the cutting off of a #34 million defence related aid (Guardian (Lagos),1993:3). A statement was issued by the British government to the effect that “ the movement of Nigerian Defence staff outside London will in future be restricted without prior permission. New export license applications for defence equipment to Nigeria will be reviewed on a case  by case basis with the presumption of denial and those Nigerian military students still on course in the U.K will be asked to leave “(Guardian (Lagos),1993).

On the heels of the measures taken by Britain and the U.S governments against Nigeria’s military dictators, were the E.U’s announcement of the following sanctions; travel restrictions on all military staff of Nigerian diplomatic  mission, imposition of case by case review, with a presumption of denial for all new export licenses for defence equipment; cancellation of training course for all Nigerian military personnel; review of new Europeans union aid projects on a case by case basis and suspension of all non-essential high level visits to and from Nigeria (Ibid).

The above discussion has centered on the various responses of united states and Europeans Union (E.U) as well as the British to the violations of Nigerian’s Democratic Rights, the highlight being the annulment of the 14 million voter’s decisions on the presidential Elections on 12th June 1993.

One may posit the question as to why did these countries react the way they did? Or put differently, what could have been the motivation for the considered countries’ responses to the violations Democratic and human Rights which the annulment of 12th June 199 in Nigeria constituted?. The immediate idea that presents itself is traceable to the post cold war foreign policy pre-occupations of these countries. The avowed center-piece  accorded the issues  of human and democratic rights. The stand of this study is that even if the above factor is retained, there is the latent function of ‘free market’ world being guaranteed by democratic governance.

Nigeria’s position in African affairs in terms of potentials and not real actualized power is seen as a got pedestal for An African democratic governance, example and successful motivator nation for the post cold war international system. Added factor to the political turning point which  Nigeria represents, is that which make her potentially viable internal market and the foreign investments already in a place worthy of encouragement and support.

                                   VI-CONCLUSION

The study attempt an examination of the relationship tat exists between the concept and realities of Democratization, human Rights Observance and foreign policy. Indeed, Nigeria’s human Rights observance or non-observance records, coupled with her truncated democratization process subjected her to foreign policies of the U.S and the Europeans Union  countries.

U.S and the E.U’s policies became inflexible over democratic and human rights observance by their allies and participants in the post cold war international system and relations. Nigeria’s regional subordinate power role in the new dispensation was unfulfilled as expected by the dominant actors in the system. She was therefore made an object of ridicule in the comity of nations whose vision of a “new world order” rests on twin concepts of democracy and human rights. As these two concepts aid the realization of a strong market economy. Explaining the relationship further, a U.S official observes that “a free market economy decentralizes power, putting it in thousands and million of place” (Rudick. M.R. No 201:4). This study analyses the motivations of these economic partners of Nigeria as well as the objective ground factors that facilitated their foreign policy actions. These objective factors we discussed under Nigeria’s violation of the democratic and human rights of her citizens.

Finally, the period covering 1986   to 1993   is significant in the history of Nigeria as a ‘nation’ (Soyinka Wole, The Guardian (Lagos), 1994:13, The Guardian (Lagos), 1994:25, The Guardian (Lagos) 1994:31) and the world. It marked the tail end of the ‘ cold war’ international system and relations. The continued role which primitive accumulation occupies in the minds of the visionary-less ‘leadership’ that Nigeria is saddled with, has denied her the  respect of other nation to the extent that united states and Europeans other nations to the extent that united states and Europeans union countries put it on themselves to contribute to setting Nigerian’s ‘free’ of their imposed  rulers and power usurpers  usually and often in military uniforms supported by mercenary-without-uniforms politicians.

                                                  REFERENCES

Mahhud, S.S.  (1993), “The state and human Rights in Africa in the 1990’s: perspectives and prospects” from human Rights Quarterly. (The Johns Hopkins University press, 1993; reprinted in Special Features Service 116, U.S.I.S. Washington.

Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition), (1992), pp. 223 & 224, as cited in  Akinrinsola, FOA “problem of human Rights protection by Non-Governmetal Organizations “Text of a Lecture, in the Buardian (Lagos), 119 March, 192.  P28 and 23 March 1992, p.49.

HAUSERMAN J. (1989), “The Nature of Economic social   and cultural Rights”  in Rights and Humanity. Vol.1. No1, June as cited in C.L.O, Human Rights in Retreat: A Report on the Human Right Violation of the military Regime og General I.Babangia. p.128

COHEN H. J. (1997), “Reflection on Democracy” in Topic U.S.I.S Publication: Washington. No P.23.

YOVBAIRE, S.E. (1987), Democratic Experiment in Nigeria : interpretive Essays. Omega Publishers. Ltd. Benin 1987. P.I

PATEMAN, C. (1970), Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge University Press. .pps. 3-4

OLAGUNJU, I. “Transition to the second Experiment; some political issues” in OYOVBAIRE, S.E Democratic Experiment op.cit.

SORENSEN, G (1991). Democracy, Dictatorship and development: Economic Development in selected Regimes of the third world Macmillan:  London. p. 18.

SCHUMITTER P.and  LYNNKARL, T “What Democracy is. And not? “in TOPIC. U.S.I.A. publication Washington. NO 199. See also, Journal of Democracy. National Endowment for Democracy.Washington.

U.N.E.C.A, (1989), African Alternative Framework to structural Adjustment programmers for socio-economic Recovery and Transformation. April. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (U.N.E.C.A), Addis Abeba.P.J p.l l

Okigbo, (1993) “ There’s a lot of loose talk in S.A.P Criticism “see Text of Obafemi Awolowo Foundation   Dialogue Chairman’s Opening remarks in The Guardian (Lagos), 8  January. p.21.

OJO, M.O. (1989), “An Appraisal of the Socia-Economic impact of Structural Adjustment policies in Nigerian”, C.B.N, CBN Economic and Financial Review (Lagos), Vol.27. No1 March 1989 p.38.

FALAE, O. (1989), “ The genesis of structural Adjustment programme “See Text of Address by secretary to Federal Military Government at the international symposium on Development Strategies for the Third World in Beijing. China, The Guardian (Lagos), p.12.

AIDOO.A.(1993), “Africa; Democracy without Human Rights? “in Human Rights Quarterly. The John Hopkins University Press,. Reprinted in special features service 116. U.S.I.S Washington. P.2

ARAT.Z.F (1991), Democracy and human Rights in Developing Countries. London; Lynne Reiner Publishers in p. l. see also A.AIDUO, “Democracy; Africa without Human Rights?” op.cit. p. 1.

MALONE, R.A. (1983), JFK ordeal in Africa, New York, O.U.P.

GANN, L.H, (1975) “Portugal, Africa and the future” Journal of Modern African Studies.vol. 13 March. For Details of super power competition in mozambiqu,

NDER, T.J. (1985), Cold war and Black Liberation: University of Missouri Press, Columbia, For Details of U.S’s support to U.N.I.T.A,  

WHITAKER, P.M. (1973), “The Revolution of Protuguese Africa” Journal of Modern African Studiess. Vol. 8, No 1.pp.33-37

CHRISTOPHER.W.1993 “Democracy and Human Rights, Where the U.S. stands? “Text of Address  by U.S Secretary of state, at the World conference on Human Rights Vienna. 14 June 1993, pp.441.

PILGER.J (1994), ““BRITAIN’ Dirty Secrets in Indoesia” New stateman and Society. 22 February p.14.

Clinton (1992), “The United states and Africa” in TOPIC. U.S.J.A Washington. No 200.

BABANGIDA, IBRAHIM (1992), Address to the U.N and also the opening address to the O.A.U.

UKEJE, U. (1994), “The Anguish of Adjustment and Human Rights” paper presented at the sxith Annual Conference of the Nigerian Society of International Affairs. Ile-ife. 22-3 March.

According  to DAHL, R. among the seven rights which are prerequisites to modern political democracy are, the right to form relatively  independent associations or organizations, the right to run for elective offices in government and the right to express oneself  on political matters, without the danger of severe punishment .see p. schemata and T.LYNNKAIF 1991, as reproduced in TOPIC: U.S.I.A Washington. Issue No 1994. Pp.2-4.

The African Charter was adopted in June 1981 but implemented only in 1986. For details, see  Osita EZE, Human Rights N.I.I.A Lagos, 1984. Pps. 244-253.

MADUNAGU, E. “Limitation of the Budget” African Guadian 19 January 1986.

Workers under Decrees 17 and 19,1982 and 1988 were preventd from appealing against retrenchment and the automatic receipt of retrenchment benefits. Between 1982 and 1988, there was an over 60% reduction in the workforce with the electrical pharmaceutical,  construction and automobile industries being hardest  hit.

Decree 37    of 1986 empowered     the state Governors to impose and deduct development levies from salaries of civil servants to compensate for the fiscal crisis in the country .

THE punch (Lagos), Lagos News (Lagos), The Guardian (Lagos), champion Newspapers(Lagos), concord New papers(Lagos) and Vanguard (Lagos), were all closed down during the period under review. See O.AYENI. “Journalists in Distress; press Freedom and Nigeria’s third Republic” in west Africa (London). 6-11 July 1992.p.1123. NEWSWATCH (Lagos) was proscribed for 6 months in 1987, while the entire concord Group of companies were closed down

AYENI O.  “Nigeria’s search for Democracy” West Africa (London). 30 November to 6     December 1992.p.2048.

AYENI O.1992 Transition credibility crisis “West Africa (London), 23-29 November .p.2012.

NIGERIAN Elections Monitiring Group’s (NENG) 1993,Report on the presidential Election in Nigerian Tribune (Ibadan), 28 June 1993.p.20, see also “African Monitors endorse June  Election “in The Guardian (Lagos), 16 July 1993.p.4. see” British Monitors speak on Nigeria’s presidential Elections” in Sunday concord (Lagos), 27 June 1993.pps. 1to93.

The Text of statement issued by chief M.K.O.ABIOLA in the Guardian (Lagos), 26 June 1993.p.2

THE transcribed text of B.B.C interview of Mr Douglas HURD, British foreign secretary in the Guardian (Lagos), 26 June 1993.p.4.

see statement by Department spokesman Michael Mccurry, washington D.C. 23 June 1993 in U.S. Department of state Dispatch (Washington) 28 June.Vol.4,No26.p.472

THE text of statement by U.S. State Department Spokesman, Michael Mccurry,  

           Washington.D.C.22 July 1993 in U.S. Department of state Dispatch (Washington) 9    

                 August 

           1993, Vol. 4. No 32. see also, the Guardian (Lagos), 12 September 1993.p.A2.

THE text of the proclamation issued on Tuesday 14 December 1993 by U.S.I.(Lagos), 13 May 1994.p.27.

THE cross news (Kaduna), 22 July 1993.p.1; also the Guardian (Lagos), 4 December 1993.p.2.

THE Guardian (Lagos), 13 April 1994. p. p2

THE Guardian (Lagos), 6 December 1993, p.1.

THE Guardian (Lagos), 4 December 1993 p.2

THE Guardian (Lagos),  December 1993.

RUDICK. M.R. “sowing the seeds “In TOPIC. U.S.I.S information Agency Washington. No 201 .p.4

WOLE SOYINKA, “When is a Nation? “Text of professor WOLE SOYINKA’S lecture at the oxford and Cambridge club of Nigeria, delivered at N.I.I.A (Lagos) on June 7, 1994 as printed by the Guardian (Lagos), 9 June 1994, p. 13 and THE GUARDIAN (Lagos), 10 June 1994, p.25 and THE GUARDIAN (Lagos) 14, June 1994,p.31.